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.
Maybe you should read about the history of the French Revolution to get some insight into what happens when people don't have a viable safety net that allows them to continue being actual people and members of society.
So, you're going to start a revolution and guillotine taxpayers because we don't want to buy you cat food? Sounds brilliant.
No, I don't get what you are saying because I don't see this kind of obsession with how people spend their unemployment benefits, or Social Security and that's your money too.
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.
Quote:
And I never said you should be able to buy lottery tickets with SNAP, I said get rid of SNAP, TANF, WIC and all the other programs and give the poor the equivalent in cash. Treat them like adults, if they squander their money then they don't get to come back and get more to hold them over until next month- it's on them. You don't encourage responsible behaviour when you treat people like children.
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.
Read a story where there's a petition to allow SNAP benefits (Food Stamps) to be used to purchase pet food.
Thought it was an interesting question to pose as to whether it should.
I can come up with reasons both to allow it and not allow it. Pet food is not overly expensive, however, someone who can't afford to feed themselves shouldn't have pets that they need to take care of.. If they can't pay to feed the pets, how will they afford other things pets need, like vaccinations and the like?
But, I think one of the biggest concerns that i'd have.. If pet food is allowed.. Would you wind up having people eating pet food? I remember reading stories back in the day where some elderly people would do that because it was all that they could afford.
Sure. Why not. I agree that people that poor probably shouldn't have pets, but then again, if they picked up a rescued dog that no one wants, that's a good thing. And having a pet can be very beneficial for a child. They're part of the family.
But it doesn't matter, does it? Because one way or the other (whether they can spend SNAP $ on it, or the SNAP $ frees up other money so they can buy pet food), the SNAP money helps them buy pet food.
They probably buy those big bags of dry kibble at WalMart, which is cheap per meal.
Read a story where there's a petition to allow SNAP benefits (Food Stamps) to be used to purchase pet food.
Thought it was an interesting question to pose as to whether it should.
I can come up with reasons both to allow it and not allow it. Pet food is not overly expensive, however, someone who can't afford to feed themselves shouldn't have pets that they need to take care of.. If they can't pay to feed the pets, how will they afford other things pets need, like vaccinations and the like?
But, I think one of the biggest concerns that i'd have.. If pet food is allowed.. Would you wind up having people eating pet food? I remember reading stories back in the day where some elderly people would do that because it was all that they could afford.
Very poor people need pets for protection. Living on the street is dangerous. Many of these folks have a mental illness to boot so a comfort
dog would keep them at bay resulting in less needless incarcerations
SNAP benefits for pets is beneficial for society in general.
Most butcher shops, even those inside the big chain grocery stores, will still sell or almost give away, the scraps of meat they cant sell, those that no one wants. Its just not as convenient as packaged dog food.
The affluent tend to buy those choice meats for their pets. They are not cheap
Money is fungible so I honestly don't think it matters all that much - if someone gets SNAP to use for their own food, then they have a little bit of extra money that can go towards pet food. So I don't think it has to be specifically allowed.
But at least from what I see with the families I work with in the food bank I volunteer at, SNAP benefits are quite low anyway, and are just a very small dent in the monthly food budget. As an example, I'm talking about an elderly disabled person living in subsidized low income housing, and they get $12 or $16 per month in SNAP. So sure, that's a little extra and every little bit helps, but it's not like that's enough to buy their food and cover pet food too.
We do offer pet food whenever we can get it - although it's the same premise as the regular food, we ask people to take what they need for themselves and their household for a week, and that includes a week's worth of pet food when we have it. Unfortunately we don't get enough of it to allow people to stock up on it.
I see the same at the food shelf where I volunteer. People are happy to get pet food and some come in to ask for it specifically.
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.
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 $$ off of their SS. One person pays into the system while multiple are getting free money off of that person who never paid nearly enough into it.
These are the worst kinds. Those folks who cannot stay married and burn thru spouses like changing underwear. They are our WORST OFFENDERS, the WORKER WHO cannot keep a relationship so shares his social security with multiple people charging us taxpayers.
These ex and current spouse are entitled to half of THE WORKERs Full Retirement Age Benefit which is on average, around $1350 a month
$675 a month for EACH person who never paid into the system.
SNAP has never offered ANYONE, little lone MULTIPLE people affiliated with just one income paying into the system that amount of money. We need to put those folks who are getting free $$ off of another persons record to work very part time. If they are able. I realize many raised children so don't expect much from them but working one day a week would go far into paying back some of what they are getting for free, out of the taxpayers pocket. Hence why SS is estimated to go bust in 2030 or was it 2032. Unsure of the exact date predicted by the former head of SS.
SNAP encourages responsible behavior because the doll is minimal. A person CANNOT eat decently for one month on the max $200
This is the incentive to work.
$200 per person VERSUS $675 month SS at the taxpayer expense.
3.5 more SNAP beneficiaries versus 1 Social Security. beneficiary
Another example- Medicaid. It costs $50 each month to be on the rolls whether medical services are rendered or not.
Most months cost is $50 a month. No billing except WHEN SERVICES are rendered saving taxpayers a ton $$ versus
these "subsidies". Exception: Medicaid is very expensive to the taxpayer when NOT utilizing the traditional fee for service Medicaid.
Demonize some programs unnecessarily while drawing hundreds of dollars a month off of subsidies yourself which cost 3-5x more makes no sense. It displays ignorance. Grumbling about freeloaders when you yourself, are more expensive to taxpayers is a form of deceit. This is in general a statement to the entire forum, not one specific post.
Last edited by DaddyLongLeg; 01-30-2018 at 01:48 PM..
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.
"Social Security for years brought in more revenue through payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits, lessening the federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more money in other areas. But that changed in 2010, when benefits paid outpaced revenues generated.
That year, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Social Security had a $37 billion primary deficit and projected a $30 billion deficit in 2014. The deficit actually was $73 billion in 2014, says CBO, which now estimates that the yearly deficit will rise to $177 billion in 2020 and $361 billion in 2025. (The “primary deficit” is the total budget deficit excluding interest payments.) CBO expects outlays to continue to rise, compared with the size of the economy, as baby boomers retire and retirees live longer, but tax revenues “will remain at an almost constant share of the economy.” https://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/sa...cial-security/
Regarding unemployment insurance that is paid by employers, not employees and when a lot of people receive benefits the rates employers pay goes up and increases the price of goods and services, hence it is funded with my money. Additionally, during the recession many states spent more in unemployment benefits than they received from FUTA and as a result had to petition FUTA to waive repayment - again making me pay for someone else's unemployment.
So, why can't I keep those wastrels from buying iphones and lottery tickets and pet food since it's my money
I don't think pet food should be allowed on snap. I agree if they can't afford to feed themselves, they can't afford to have a pet. I'm for people who need snap, but I do think it should only allow so certain things and amount per week. It shouldn't allow all the junk food such as chips, soda or at least limit the amount of that stuff they can get.
I worked for a big box store as a cashier. Thanksgiving, alot of people on snap were buying turkey with all the fixings plus lobster, steak, desserts,ice cream all kinds of good stuff and they where having a bunch of people over for that day! I couldn't afford to have a thanksgiving like that, but I get to pay for theirs! 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.
I think it's okay to allow SNAP to cover pet food.
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.
