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.
I stand corrected. I got the impression that the person who made that comment was making it about a single person they believed had this huge surplus of EBT funds stashed away. It's so hard for me to imagine having such a large family that I sometimes forget they are out there.
It's an increase in the value of one's holdings that hasn't been sold, or "realized." It's why people aren't taxed on the increasing value of their 401Ks, etc., until they start withdrawing the money after retirement. And then, they're only taxed on the withdrawn, or realized, gains, not on the whole thing at once.
All of Trump's income is from retirement savings accounts? Thats absurd!
My mother died when I was 2,father when I was 5,leaving my brother at 18,having just graduated, with the burden of 4 children,legal guardian applied for aid,state said hand over 2 youngest,of course did not happen.
Family lived on hand to mouth and growing own food.This was 1939,brother served in world war 2,he graduated with aid from GI Bill, college.no handouts here.
He also in life provided college education for many.
Today the younger generation looks at entitlement greed and freeby.
1. Diapers do not qualify. No personal hygiene item does.
2. Bottled water is not a necessity for most people. Unless you live in a place like Flint, tap water is perfectly good. As a matter of fact, a lot of the big name bottled waters *are* tap water. Google it.
Around here the water smells and tastes disgusting. The bottled water comes from areas where the tap water is better quality. I gag on the tap water here. Nothing makes it taste better. You can even taste it in tea and koolaid. The government insists it is perfectly fine though. I don't know many people around here who tolerate the taste of the tap water. It's really gross.
I don't think anyone objects to the concept of healthy lunches. The two main problems I have seen discussed were that kids were not eating the food and it ended up in the trash and for some kids who were very active, such as athletes, the calorie restriction was unrealistic.
I'm not really sure what the answer is.
I do know that kids have always thrown out food they disliked in a school cafeteria. Things I threw in the trash included soggy pizza, overcooked vegetables, and greasy pigs-in-a-blanket that were distinctly on the greenish side. I have to wonder if the problem isn't what it always has been: poorly prepared food that sits too long on a steam table to be even remotely fresh-tasting.
Portions are another issue. If you make all the meals to meet the needs of athletes, the less active kids get more calories than they need or should have, but if you tailor them to smaller kids, the athletes go hungry. Honestly, I don't remember seeing the athletes at my school getting extra portions unless they paid for a second lunch, so I'm not sure this is anything new.
I guess the thing I find really striking is that the people who are complaining most loudly about SNAP benefits being spent on junk are, in many cases, the very same ones who think it's a lousy idea to try to make school lunches (which are funded, in part, by tax dollars) a little healthier. It's inconsistent, to say the least.
Around here the water smells and tastes disgusting. The bottled water comes from areas where the tap water is better quality. I gag on the tap water here. Nothing makes it taste better. You can even taste it in tea and koolaid. The government insists it is perfectly fine though. I don't know many people around here who tolerate the taste of the tap water. It's really gross.
I said for most people, not all. I used to live in Chicago, where literally everyone I knew had a Brita filter or pitcher, so I know about nasty tap water. Most places aren't like that.
I don't think anyone objects to the concept of healthy lunches. The two main problems I have seen discussed were that kids were not eating the food and it ended up in the trash and for some kids who were very active, such as athletes, the calorie restriction was unrealistic.
If the food was not eaten, the kids were not hungry.
If the food was not eaten, the kids were not hungry.
I think children should be encouraged to try new foods, but the fact is, they have likes and dislikes just as deserving of consideration as those of adults. I would eat almost any vegetable as a child, but refused peanut butter and jelly. And to this day, while I love fresh spinach, I would have to be damn near fainting before I would touch it out of a can. I still won't eat peanut butter and jelly, either.
I think children should be encouraged to try new foods, but the fact is, they have likes and dislikes just as deserving of consideration as those of adults. I would eat almost any vegetable as a child, but refused peanut butter and jelly. And to this day, while I love fresh spinach, I would have to be damn near fainting before I would touch it out of a can. I still won't eat peanut butter and jelly, either.
While growing up, if I didn't like what was served at dinner, my mother told me that I wasn't really hungry.
The report, which you can download here, doesn’t attempt to explain the rising use. Some will say it’s because the number of “takers” has risen with the federal government enabling their sloth. The trouble with that theory is that SNAP use was rising under conservative President George W. Bush and times when Republicans controlled Congress.
More plausible theories include long-term unemployment; poorly paid jobs replacing better-paid ones, especially in manufacturing sectors hollowed out after 2000; major employers whose profits are improved by driving pay so low that employees are forced onto what meager public assistance that exists, such as SNAP and Medicaid; the loss of household wealth among the working poor in the 2000 and 2008 downturns, as well as the shock to the larger population in the Great Recession.
With its dependency on highly cyclical manufacturing and ailing timber sectors, Oregon was among the state’s hardest hit.
Blames the loss of manufacturing, the great recession, and employers essentially exploiting the system.
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.
