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.
This is the Great Debates forum - you're supposed to explain WHY, and not just do a "drive-by" opinion.
OK, let me unpack it a little bit.
The whole point of SNAP is that we, as a society, decided that no one regardless of their situation or what they did should go hungry. Pet food, soda, chips, fast food, etc. do not fall into this category. You wouldn't die if you stop drinking soda, or even ice cream. There are plenty of people who are working poor, who can't afford the food people who receive SNAP benefits are getting (this is coming from someone who was on SNAP as a kid btw). If a pet improves your mood or whatever... great. Cruises improve my mood, and if all of the poor could go on a cruise once a year, their mood would improve. Should SNAP cover cruises now?
Here are my views, as someone who has actually been on SNAP benefits:
1. SNAP should only cover foods that are needed for survival. No "recreational" junk foods, no expensive steak or lobster, ice cream, soda, chips, etc. If you want these things, buy it with your own money. For some people it might actually serve as a stimulus to get a job/get a better paying job.
2. I think its simply morally wrong for the government to take money from working people who can't afford the foods that SNAP people are getting and giving it to people who are dependent on other people to feed themselves. I am not even poor anymore, and even I think twice before getting an expensive steak... and I certainly can't afford a pet living in NYC. Why should I fund someone else's steak? This is not even a question of money for me, but of fairness and justice.
No Social Security is the largest welfare system on earth.One working man or woman can marry multiple times and their spouses and ex spouses, draw $$ off of their SS. One person pays into the system while multiple are getting free money off of that person who never paid nearly enough into it.
These are the worst kinds. Those folks who cannot stay married and burn thru spouses like changing underwear. They are our WORST OFFENDERS, the WORKER WHO cannot keep a relationship so shares his social security with multiple people charging us taxpayers.
These ex and current spouse are entitled to half of THE WORKERs Full Retirement Age Benefit which is on average, around $1350 a month.
Only if they live like 100+ years, since you have to be married (IIRC) for at least 20 years to collect SS from an ex. My mother gets half of my father's SS benefits, because they were married for 29 years - and btw, she didn't pay into it during most of those years while RAISING their three children. She has a Master's Degree, and gave up working to care for us, since my father's job kept him traveling almost every week. So it was either that, or paying for a full-time nanny/babysitter while she worked. But yeah, she's a real mooch; especially now that she's working full-time @ age 69, as those measly benefits won't even cover the rent here.
The whole point of SNAP is that we, as a society, decided that no one regardless of their situation or what they did should go hungry. Pet food, soda, chips, fast food, etc. do not fall into this category. You wouldn't die if you stop drinking soda, or even ice cream. There are plenty of people who are working poor, who can't afford the food people who receive SNAP benefits are getting (this is coming from someone who was on SNAP as a kid btw). If a pet improves your mood or whatever... great. Cruises improve my mood, and if all of the poor could go on a cruise once a year, their mood would improve. Should SNAP cover cruises now?
And you plan on paying for those cruises? I am not sure anyone has mentioned mood. I mentioned mental health which isn't limited to a passing mood.
Quote:
Here are my views, as someone who has actually been on SNAP benefits:
1. SNAP should only cover foods that are needed for survival. No "recreational" junk foods, no expensive steak or lobster, ice cream, soda, chips, etc. If you want these things, buy it with your own money. For some people it might actually serve as a stimulus to get a job/get a better paying job.
Can't argue with that
Quote:
2. I think its simply morally wrong for the government to take money from working people who can't afford the foods that SNAP people are getting and giving it to people who are dependent on other people to feed themselves. I am not even poor anymore, and even I think twice before getting an expensive steak... and I certainly can't afford a pet living in NYC. Why should I fund someone else's steak? This is not even a question of money for me, but of fairness and justice.
Ha ha SNAP people are not getting LOBSTER unless they have un- addressed mental health issues. They're only alloted a max of $200 per month so that would only amount to less than 20 meals in a 30 day month. They'd starve. Sure it happens but its gotta be so rare it isn't worth even discussing the silliness of it.
Anyone with any common sense at all can do the math realizing this isn't sustainable thus again, only those with un-addressed mental health issues would do.
It's probably good to visit those folks to have their mental issues taken care of. Suggest a comfort dog, that's cheap. Otherwise they may steal food for the remaining days of the month. Thus taxpayers will REALLY Have to pay up if they are incarcerated. Cognitive inability to budget needs addressing. This is where a comfort dog comes in replacing food that would otherwise possibly be, their comfort. Plus maybe they'll budge in fear they'll run out of food not able to feed their dog. That's a huge motivator.
There can also be community gardens. Volunteers driving to the recipients home assisting them with a one time $300 donation to start their vegetable garden. Then they'll heal ailments, feel better due to the dirt in the ground (natural anti-depressant, google it) and more likely to pull out of their rut. At least they can afford to grow their own food. SNAP covers seeds but not dirt or fencing.
The whole point of SNAP is that we, as a society, decided that no one regardless of their situation or what they did should go hungry. Pet food, soda, chips, fast food, etc. do not fall into this category. You wouldn't die if you stop drinking soda, or even ice cream. There are plenty of people who are working poor, who can't afford the food people who receive SNAP benefits are getting (this is coming from someone who was on SNAP as a kid btw). If a pet improves your mood or whatever... great. Cruises improve my mood, and if all of the poor could go on a cruise once a year, their mood would improve. Should SNAP cover cruises now?
Here are my views, as someone who has actually been on SNAP benefits:
1. SNAP should only cover foods that are needed for survival. No "recreational" junk foods, no expensive steak or lobster, ice cream, soda, chips, etc. If you want these things, buy it with your own money. For some people it might actually serve as a stimulus to get a job/get a better paying job.
2. I think its simply morally wrong for the government to take money from working people who can't afford the foods that SNAP people are getting and giving it to people who are dependent on other people to feed themselves. I am not even poor anymore, and even I think twice before getting an expensive steak... and I certainly can't afford a pet living in NYC. Why should I fund someone else's steak? This is not even a question of money for me, but of fairness and justice.
And to me, fairness and justice = treating all Americans (even the poor ones) like human beings, who can make their own decisions on how to spend their benefits. Give everyone the same amount, and let the recipients figure out how to budget that money. If they spend it all on "junk food," that should be their choice; and if they blow half on a lobster dinner, they'll have to manage on less money until the next check. Maybe that would be good for teaching fiscal responsibility and budgeting, to those who struggle with these concepts?
Also, SNAP is for people with children - and letting them have the occasional bowl of ice cream, or bag of potato chips, helps them to feel "normal" like other kids. My father grew up very poor, but said his parents never made them feel poor, because they still ate decent foods most nights. My grandparents would often skip dinner themselves, just so the kids could have dessert or another treat to feel normal. That is important for children, especially when they might have other challenges to deal with (like crime, absent parent, etc). Why should you fund someone else's steak? You shouldn't even know they're buying steak, and the amount we each pay towards SNAP/welfare is barely anything. So I don't personally care how it's spent, as long as it's an equal amount to each family/child.
I don't think most SNAP recipients are any less responsible than the rest of us, it's more complex than that. I've worked with the poor and a large percentage don't have cooking facilities or a place to store food. Many of them sofa surf or live in weekly motels. It's hard to prepare healthy meals when all you have is a microwave and a mini fridge. The other issue is that junk food fills your belly faster than fruits and vegetables. Every time I go into a Walmart and they have a display of potato chips directly adjacent to the produce section it makes me wonder if that wasn't intentional.
As far as pet food with SNAP, well I'm a contrarian on this issue, I don't think the poor should be treated like children and handed out benefits that can only be used in a specific way - give them a check for the cash equivalent of what they now receive through all this hodgepodge of welfare programs and let them do the best they can with it.
While it is true that there are some on SNAP that absolutely do not have a stove or any other kitchen tools like a mixer, a blender, there is a way to still eat healthy with a microwave and a mini fridge. It is far from ideal and everything they eat may not be 100% "healthy", they could make the effort if they would like to. With a mini fridge I would imagine that would mean more walks to the grocery store, but it would be for small amounts of things at a time.
It may take some time, creativity, and a bit of planning but there are plenty of healthy meals that one could make with a microwave/mini fridge available: yogurt and berries or other fruit, tuna salad stuffed cucumbers or zucchini's, salads, chia seed pudding, cheap seafood rolls (nori paper, canned fish/imitation crab, cream cheese, and avocado), chopped zucchini/tomatoes/carrots sprinkled with a vinagrette or dressing, chia seed energy bars (mashed dates, peanut butter or alternative, chia seeds - mix them all together and allow to chill), microwave paleo bread (almond flour, egg, baking powder, salt - mix and microwave for 90 sec on high in a greased microwave safe mug), chocolate avocado pudding (avocados, cocoa powder, honey or cane sugar all mixed together then chill), and the list goes on. There's healthier alternative snacks to chips and soda that will fill you up like popped popcorn, dark chocolate, fruit (bananas, oranges, grapes), beef jerkey/turkey jerky (a low sugar variety), nuts (cashews, almonds, walnuts, peanuts), celery and cream cheese, cheese, roasted seaweed/nori paper, pickles, etc.
While junk food might seem more filling, there are many myths to this. While the foods may often be high carb, they are literally designed to get you to crave more so you may run through a bag of chips or a 2 liter of soda faster than you would of a healthier alternative snack like fruit and cheese or celery with peanut butter or cream cheese. If fruits or vegetables or not filling then that's when one should add a type of protein source to them like meat, peanut butter, cream cheese, avocado, hummus/beans, etc. If they are first withdrawing from junk foods then they will be hungry because their body is craving high amounts of sugar. It takes time before you can feel fulfilled off of fruits and vegetables.
Of course Walmart would have a display of potato chips or a 12 pack of soda upon entrance to the store near the produce. This makes sense, though, because this is big food marketing - designed to get you to buy their unhealthy products for dollars in their pockets. Adults should be able to say, "No." whether they are poor or not and if they have SNAP, they should be using it to use foods that help their bodies as much as possible instead of do harm. The thing about SNAP is it isn't a food pantry that gives you whatever foods (whether healthy or not) and you have to eat it. Instead, you actually get to choose the foods and have the option to make an educated decision on the ones you buy.
Only if they live like 100+ years, since you have to be married (IIRC) for at least 20 years to collect SS from an ex. My mother gets half of my father's SS benefits, because they were married for 29 years - and btw, she didn't pay into it during most of those years while RAISING their three children. She has a Master's Degree, and gave up working to care for us, since my father's job kept him traveling almost every week. So it was either that, or paying for a full-time nanny/babysitter while she worked. But yeah, she's a real mooch; especially now that she's working full-time @ age 69, as those measly benefits won't even cover the rent here.
That's not accurate. If you are married for just nine months, your new spouse can qualify for survivor benefits. And you only need to be married for one year to permit your new spouse to qualify for spousal benefits. If you get divorced after 10 years, your spouse will qualify for both.
No, unemployment insurance is insurance. The workers who are receiving those benefits have paid into a specific program and are now receiving the promised benefits. Let me know if you need me to explain how insurance works. You can use the money to buy food, fix he car, or even buy lottery tickets. There are no strings attached.
Social Security is a benefit that workers have paid into. So again, people drawing Social Security are drawing on money that they have paid into the system. Again, let me know if you need me to explain how Social Security works. The money belongs to the workers who are drawing it.
Well, if you give people cash instead of SNAP then why wouldn't they "be able to buy lottery tickets" even though you never said it?
The purpose of SNAP is not to encourage responsible behavior. It's to keep children from going hungry.
I think YOU should learn how Social Security and Unemployment Insurance works before you lecture others. Right now you don't have a clue.
I have no problem with pet food and SNAP. In the greater scheme of things it isn't much money and there are benefits to the pet owners that may lower their medical costs.
In case I didn't know? Saying I don't have a problem would indicate that I AM a hard working person that no one would have to pry the money out of my hands, in case YOU didn't know.
Every missile our government has been bombarding another country with cost us tax payers $1 million, in case you didn't know. Just holding back what? 10 little missiles? would feed every pet in America, and quite a few of their owners too.
People aren't entitled to a pet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
One that will cost you/me even more, since the shelters are usually city or county funded. Where do you think they get their money to care for the animals people surrender? It's not just from donations.
Then shelters need to start putting down more animals.
No, but we (as a society) should be encouraging responsible pet ownership - which means not dumping them off like an old sweater, as soon as things get a little tough. If there were more programs to help pet owners through difficult times, we'd be seeing fewer at the shelters; then maybe when their lives improved, they would pay it forward through donations or volunteer work. And as others have pointed out here, animals can be highly beneficial to one's mental and/or physical health.
What if a war veteran with PTSD had a service dog, and suddenly couldn't afford to feed them? Who is "winning" by telling them to surrender the animal instead? Open your mind a little, and try to think more long-term and "global" here. Would you rather that veteran be mentally stable or unstable? I'm guessing the former, especially if you were to encounter them on the streets.
Quote:
Then shelters need to start putting down more animals.
Dear lord, really? As if MILLIONS per year aren't enough? Sorry, but you have to be pretty cold-hearted to choose more euthanasia (particularly of perfectly healthy animals) over a few pennies per year to assist them with food. Seriously.
You should see when they purchase for birthday parties! Must be nice. This is why I think it should allow only healthy items and only certain a amount for the number of people in the family unit. I don't think it should be used to throw a party for holidays or other reasons.
Yikes! Remind me to go through the self checkout in November, when my son will have his 15th birthday.
I get EBT because he is a child with a permanent disability on SSI. He can’t ride a bike, play ball, climb playground equipment ... He wanders. Has to wear a GPS tracker, no concept of danger from traffic, animals, water ... He is 6 foot tall & weighs 200lbs, so I’m really struggling to take him roller-skating & the last time we went to a carnival, I couldn’t get him off the ride by myself & the workers had to help lift him out.
He has never had a birthday party with friends over. And except for the other kids in his severe-needs SPED class, he’s never had any friends. His birthday wish for this year was to have or get to go to a sleepover party.
And he wants to have a “Valentine”. I don’t even ...
So, yeah; I get him cake & ice cream every year, for a family party at home. I also take cupcakes to his class, as that’s as much of a “friends” party he’s going to get.
Given that between his dad & I, we have a combined 67 years of working & paying into those programs? I don’t think it’s asking too much for him to have cake & ice cream on his birthday.
Oh yeah. About the pet food thing. We have a dog & a cat. He loves them both & the dog is pretty much his “BF” & she is very tolerant & patient with him. He loves to bury his face in her fur when he wants to shut the world out.
She is not a trained service animal but she is instinctively protective of all women & children & very watchful of him. Twice now, she has alerted me to his wandering attempts by scratching the walls & barking & trying to “herd” (Aussie) me to the door. Since that is the leading cause of death for children with his disability; I consider that some pretty fine “service” myself.
Okay. I’ll confess. When she did that I bought her a bone-in steak. I can’t remember, though, if I used EBT for them. Probably not because it’s usually gone after one week. But, there you have it, whatever!
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.
