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.
If you exempt children, elderly, disabled and working adults from the list of recipients who deserve humiliation, you're close to running out of people to humiliate, which circles us back to the "what is the point of this humiliation?" question.
Nope, not buying this at all.
Able bodied working age adults should be humiliated to take food off other people's table. If they choose to sire kids which they are unable to support, it's not the business of government to fix the responsibilities that come with that choice. How about they work extra to feed their kids. Take some responsibility.
But I'll ask you this question. Let's create a new dedicated tax on individuals to pay for food stamps. How much of your household income are you willing to give up to support this tax. And when you answer that question will you please also indicate if you have ever received foodstamps and if you actually work a job.
In my neighborhood there is a food co-op with a twist and a food bank, three blocks from each other. The food bank is free and offers a standardized set of staples which neighborhood residents can access once every 30 days; with about one week supply of food.
At the food co-op, members pay a $30 monthly membership fee and can access free food twice a week. The food consists largely of food past its prime which has been pulled from supermarket shelves (and donated) but still edible. (Leftover food too far gone for human consumption is then donated to local pig farmers for their pigs to eat.) Lots of bread and lots of produce with a little bit of canned and other food, infrequently eggs, tuna or meat (one per member per week). Some items (sliced bread, pastries, frozen vegetables) have quantity limits, while others do not.
The catch is that members are required to work on site at least 2 hours a month or 15 minutes per visit. The lazy people go to the food bank and the others go to the food co-op.
Able bodied working age adults should be humiliated to take food off other people's table. If they choose to sire kids which they are unable to support, it's not the business of government to fix the responsibilities that come with that choice. How about they work extra to feed their kids. Take some responsibility.
But I'll ask you this question. Let's create a new dedicated tax on individuals to pay for food stamps. How much of your household income are you willing to give up to support this tax. And when you answer that question will you please also indicate if you have ever received foodstamps and if you actually work a job.
You're ignoring that most of the working-age people on welfare are working, and that oftentimes people have kids before they lose their good jobs. The conservative strawman "lazy poor" is a very small portion of the people being provided with food stamps.
Essentially this bill in Wisconsin limits the amount of junk food that people on food stamps can buy as well as administering some drug tests.
What do you all think?
The amount of attention conservatives pay to the food stamp program is way out of proportion to its actual cost and its efficiency.
Look, the foodstamp program is 1.89% of the federal budget. The people who receive food stamps get about on average $3.00 per meal per person and that's it.
The main beneficiaries of foodstamps are children in households with one working adult. This is a fact. There is an extremely low rate of fraud within the foodstamp program. This is also a fact.
At least once a month some conservatives tells a lie, I mean a story of how they were in line behind someone using foodstamps and blah, blah, blah. And how that experience now causes them to want to punish these welfare cheats on foodstamps.
We are not supposed to use the power of the government in this vengeful irrational manner.
We don't make other people jump through hoops to get government benefits.
We say here are the qualifications to participate, do you meet those qualifications, ok here is your government benefit.
Except conservatives want certain Americans who get certain government benefits to not only qualify for the benefit, but perform a kind of do they deserve it test that wastes a ton of money, is punitive, and embarrassing.
All this over a program that is less than 2% of the federal budget, and where the participants in the program receive on average $3.00 worth of food per meal per person.
It is hate that drives this kind of irrationality on the part of conservatives.
Maybe if "everybody" were a childless teenager living with their parents. But not "everybody" has that luxury.
"Everybody" (every able-bodied person) has the opportunity to improve their situation if they choose to do so. If you live in Detroit and all you've ever done is work at a stamping factory and you can't get a job, you need to move to another city and/or acquire skills to do something else. If all you do is sit around and gripe that nobody is hiring a press operator in Detroit, you're hosing yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Except that that $10 million needs to be made up by other taxpayers. You can argue the semantics, the reality is...yes they're getting 10 million.
I never knew that when I go to the store to purchase something for $7 and I hand the cashier $10 and he gives me back $3 that the store is actually paying me $3.
As far as "other taxpayers" making it up, the taxpayers already pay that $10 million when that $10 million is added to the final cost the consumer pays. Add $1 trillion dollar tax to the oil companies, and guess what, gas is now going to cost you $10 a gallon. YOU pay that tax bill being sent to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Roosevelt defined a living wage like this:
Roosevelt's good intentions gone awry that has maintained and expanded a low class dependent upon government doesn't say much about his insight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
I prefer they go to the farm and pick the crops and milk the cows themselves for the milk and vegetables. That will cut down on the potential of obesity.
Maybe we should pay to have their groceries delivered to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Sooo...my employer should dictate m spending then by your logic.
By your logic, we should just provide a government credit card without a limit that they can use to purchase anything.
By your logic, your employer shouldn't be allowed to dictate when you come to the office or what you do while you're there. If you choose to come in once a month and play Tetris, that should be up to you.
Last edited by PedroMartinez; 06-08-2015 at 09:11 AM..
For those wanting drug testing for food stamps, it sounds great in theory. Florida tried it. They found so few on drugs, they lost money. It cost a lot more for the testing than what they saved from the few positive results.
And wanting to stop obesity? Potatoes are cheap but fattening (Kansas bars the purchase of potatoes with food stamps.) Fish is healthy (Kansas bars the purchase of fish with food stamps). I mention Kansas, because the Republican led legislature and governor has put new restrictions on food purchases, some of which make no sense at all.
"Everybody" (every able-bodied person) has the opportunity to improve their situation if they choose to do so. If you live in Detroit and all you've ever done is work at a stamping factory and you can't get a job, you need to move to another city and/or acquire skills to do something else. If all you do is sit around and gripe that nobody is hiring a press operator in Detroit, you're hosing yourself.
There aren't enough jobs for everyone. No matter what, there will be people on the bottom. If they hustle hard enough, they might be able to take a job away from somebody else. And then that person will be on food stamps and you'll complain about how lazy they are.
I never knew that when I go to the store to purchase something for $7 and I hand the cashier $10 and he gives me back $3 that the store is actually paying me $3.
It is if you have a discount card. Again, you want to argue semantics while the rest of us discuss REALITY.
Quote:
As far as "other taxpayers" making it up, the taxpayers already pay that $10 million when that $10 million is added to the final cost the consumer pays. Add $1 trillion dollar tax to the oil companies, and guess what, gas is now going to cost you $10 a gallon. YOU pay that tax bill being sent to them.
Shrug, so companies should not have to pay any taxes? LOL. Oddly enough I can see your argument on this. But either way the bill has to get paid.
Quote:
Roosevelt's good intentions gone awry that has maintained and expanded a low class dependent upon government doesn't say much about his insight.
Again, reality-the alternative is starving people.
Quote:
By your logic, we should just provide a government credit card without a limit that they can use to purchase anything.
Oh look, you just make up stuff "by your logic" and attribute something I did not say, nor that matches my logic at all. Classy
Quote:
By your logic, your employer shouldn't be allowed to dictate when you come to the office or what you do while you're there. If you choose to come in once a month and play Tetris, that should be up to you.
Again, a completely unrelated analogy. Anyone see a pattern?
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.
