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.
Those who do not work shall not eat. Nor should their kids. That is the breaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.Thomas
I think everyone should stop working and start living on food stamps.
More than half of all homes receiving SNAP benefits contain at least one working adult. And a higher percentage of SNAP recipients are children, the elderly and the disabled.
The idea that most people on food stamps are just lazy meth heads is nonsense.
As has been mentioned, the national average of food benefits received amounts to $1.41 per person per meal per day.
The burden to the taxpayer for SNAP, TANF and day care assistance is orders of magnitude smaller than what is paid in taxes for corporate welfare including subsidies and incentives, tax loopholes and bailouts.
It's pretty simple to figure out. Those who are income eligible to get food stamps, and get them, will go out and buy food. The food stamps don't go THAT far, so they tend to buy potatoes, and rice, and beans, and all kinds of starches to make that food stamp money last the entire month. Yes, some people do buy crap on it that they shouldn't be buying, (slurpies, candy, chips, Capn' Crunch cereal, etc), but they have been given the money TO buy all of that crap.
The income eligible who do NOT get food stamps don't have the extra money to spend, THEY EAT LESS. What they do eat is not good for them, they are buying the starches, too, but they eat less of it because they don't have the money to buy more.
So... explain to us all why a poor diet plusa 33% higher obesity rate is preferable to just a poor diet.
Guess I don't see how requiring single people with no children to work a minimum of 20 hours a week as asking too much in order for them to receive benefits.
Of course there may be exceptions, and hopefully they can appeal a decision.
So... explain to us all why a poor diet plusa 33% higher obesity rate is preferable to just a poor diet.
Why ruin 33% more poor adults' health?
You act as if being thin because you don't have enough to eat is not a major problem, either. Because someone is not "obese" doesn't mean that they won't have dire health issues. When you are poor, you don't get to eat all of the good healthy foods, even if you get food stamps. The poor person who doesn't get food stamps means that they still have a poor diet, and their health is just as bad as anyone who is obese.
You act as if being thin because you don't have enough to eat is not a major problem, either.
A 33% obesity rate among income-eligible adults who DON'T receive food stamps (which is in line with higher-income earners' 32% obesity rate) is hardly an indication of the non-receivers not having enough to eat.
Quote:
Because someone is not "obese" doesn't mean that they won't have dire health issues. When you are poor, you don't get to eat all of the good healthy foods, even if you get food stamps. The poor person who doesn't get food stamps means that they still have a poor diet, and their health is just as bad as anyone who is obese.
BS. You aren't seriously trying to claim that there aren't obesity-related illnesses, the rate of which increases as the obesity rate increases, are you?
To recap: Food stamps = ruining 33% (increase from 33% to 44%) more poor adults' health. That results in additional increased costs to society due to their significantly higher likelihood of suffering obesity-related illnesses and incapacities.
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.