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 very much appreciate the desire on your part toward what might be "helpful to the discussion."
Why can't charity replace SNAP?
Most of these "important facts" are pretty easy to find if you really want to know and reviewing them requires more than what most people can tolerate reading in the space of one comment. Just start with what the SNAP program does all over the country and you begin to see what I mean. Then you tell me how you see any charitable organization doing the same, or any group of charitable organizations doing the same...
"SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. SNAP is the largest program in the domestic hunger safety net. The Food and Nutrition Service works with State agencies, nutrition educators, and neighborhood and faith-based organizations to ensure that those eligible for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions about applying for the program and can access benefits. FNS also works with State partners and the retail community to improve program administration and ensure program integrity."
The problem with SNAP and other free food programs for the poor in the US is that they are SUBSTANTIALLY enabling a highly disproportionate obesity rate among SNAP recipients. The US demographic with the highest obesity rate is those who receive food stamps. So now, taxpayers have to pay for their overeating, twice or more, while simultaneously enabling the pernicious destruction of their health and paying the costs for that.
Here's the damage Food Stamps and other means-tested government-provided free food/meal programs are doing...
Even the USDA has noticed there's a correlation between receiving Food Stamps and obesity. And the USDA OIG has recommended halting the overlapping of government free food services for the exact same daily meals.
The obesity rates of the poor on food stamps compared to the poor who aren't on food stamps, and compared to the rest of the population:
Income-eligible children on food stamps: 24%
Income-eligible children NOT on food stamps: 20%
Non-poor children who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 13%
Kids who get Food Stamps (and free school meals, and who knows how many additional Nutrition Service benefits) have an 85% higher obesity rate than kids who don't qualify for those benefits.
Income-eligible adults on food stamps: 44% obese
Income-eligible adults NOT on food stamps: 33% obese
Non-poor adults who of course don't even qualify for food stamps: 32% obese
Adults who get Food Stamps (and who knows how many additional Nutrition Service benefits) have a 33.3% higher obesity rate than adults who qualify for those benefits but choose to not receive them.
Do the math, and recognize that this is a SIGNIFICANT problem.
Also, it certainly does appear that the children of poor and low-income families who receive free school breakfast, lunch, etc., program meals, regardless of whether they get food stamps, are being overfed.
And to confirm, the USDA OIG (Office of the Inspector General) has found that a full 59% of families on Food Stamps also double-dip and triple-dip, or more, free food benefits from major Federal means-tested free food programs for the exact same daily meals:
Let that sink in... A full 59% of families on Food Stamps also double-dip and triple-dip, or more, free food benefits from major Federal means-tested free food programs for the exact same daily meals.
Are we really doing the poor any favors by causing their obesity by letting them double-dip and sometimes even triple-dip or more government free food program benefits, thereby enabling their overeating and ruining their health? They are disproportionately obese, and cost us a lot more tax money to pay for their obesity-related health problems, such as heart disease and diabetes.
Simply not true and actually the notion is backwards
I completely disagree. Whether charities are funded via voluntary donations to adequately financially support the poor or not EXACTLY reflects society's values. If there is a supposed "social contract" to which most agree, which the left often alleges, that will be reflected in whether such charities are adequately voluntarily funded or not.
Actually, it is. US citizens are taxed on their worldwide income regardless of wherever in the world they live. The same is NOT true of European countries and their citizens. Also, US corporations are taxed on global income. The same is NOT true of corporations in European countries. That's exactly how Ingvar Kamprad, the Swedish citizen billionaire founder of IKEA, was able to avoid paying both individual income tax and corporate tax to Sweden for 40 years while he amassed his multi-billion dollar fortune. He simply used the plentiful European tax havens. US citizens and corporations can't do the same. There are laws such as FATCA, etc., which prevent that.
That's why even average income Europeans are paying a 45% effective national tax rate. I'm telling you... The average US income earner will NOT agree to that.
You may believe so. But, again, I'm telling you... There's NO way the average US income earner ($59,000 per household) will agree to pay a 45% effective federal tax rate.
I completely disagree. Whether charities are funded via voluntary donations to adequately financially support the poor or not EXACTLY reflects society's values. If there is a supposed "social contract" to which most agree, which the left often alleges, that will be reflected in whether such charities are adequately voluntarily funded or not.
It's not a contract somebody has to sign just in order for it to apply to everyone. One is born into it, so to speak.
When I was young I also didn't quite get the idea behind the social contract, but now that I no longer think the world revolves around me I do.
Actually, I am. I can choose to pay the toll for a N/S west of Chicago expressway, or I can take the old route which has many stoplights and takes much longer to get from point A to point B. It's MY choice. I can opt in or out, as I wish.
- less stuff will be available because you have declared that profit should be punished, which is not exactly motivating for people who produce excess in order to profit. Make profit painful, and they will cease producing excess. When that happens, shortages will happen, and the gap will be the least of your worries, as starvation drives the poor to all new heights of "activism."
What rubbish.
Time and again i see weak thinkers make this argument. I also see dishonest Republicans and libertarians making this argument.
It is balls.
And i can prove it beyond debate in one sentence.
Interest rates have remained historically low for a decade and yet banks managed to retain trillions of dollars with ease.....
Capital remained in banks so long so thoroughly that interest rates were forced to negative levels.
It literally took negative returns to force capital out of banks, and even that did not fully work...
But even more importantly we have historically low top TAX RATES , never in our lives have we seen such low taxation of the uber wealthy and of corporations. NEVER. There is absolutely no reason to believe restoring balance would drive capital away. It did not drive away capital before and would not now. It does not drive away investment in other nations it would not here
History shows us that capital does not flee, instead the risk premium decreases to reflect to lowered expectations
Our wealth comes not from low taxation, but from the protections of regulations, oversight, law.
Investment markets are strong through the oversights and regulations that are not only in place but are enforced.
Frankly i find the posters on this forum who attack a more balanced approach to taxation are grossly under informed and generally don't have a clue what drives investment. You guys runaround lashing out at anyone who dares to suggest we reduce our regressive taxation policies and increase our progressive ones. You pretend that any increase at all will result in mass unemployment and poverty for all but the wealthiest. Yet the data shows that to be completely false.
If you intend to sit at home and play video games all day, you'll never find a job.
People need to actively look for jobs, and as you pointed out, people relocated for work then, and they still need to do that today.
If you need to relocate to another part of your State, or another State in your region, or another region of the US entirely, and even if you have to leave the US and go to another country and work, then that's what you need to do.
Everyone gets 12 free years of education, and the poor get 4 years of college education, and if they refuse to take advantage of those opportunities, then there is nothing that can be done.
To rob and penalize people who make good choices to subsidize those who repeatedly make bad choices is economically unsound, manifestly unfair, poor public policy and worse than that, it will not solve the problem nor could it ever solve the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
The farmers themselves were early capitalists of sorts. That individual farmers today might comprise single digits - if that - of the total American population may make these observations appear completely irrelevant.
That's because of technology.
It took 95% of the population -- including children -- to feed 100% of the population and have the hope of having a surplus of crops for trade.
Thanks to the three-field crop rotation method, you only needed 90% of the population -- including children -- to feed 100% of the population and have a surplus for trade.
With the introduction of the tractor, you only needed 90% of the adult population -- no children -- to feed 100% of the population and have a surplus.
That's the 1940s.
With additional technology, you now only need 2% of your adult population, and they can feed about 10x your population.
But, contrary to what you might think, farmers ranged from dirt poor to very wealthy. It all depended on how much land they had, where they lived, and what crops they grew and the economic conditions at the time. Some small farmers were very wealthy, while some large farmers barely broke even.
There's an area of the Midwest with a large population of Mennonites who have an extreme hatred of Catholics.
That's because in that region, all the banks are owned by Catholics, and they would foreclose on the poor Mennonite farmers.
I'm not talking 100 years ago, I'm talking about the 1990s.
Just because people can farm doesn't make them successful.
I think outright abuse of welfare is not the rule at all. Most recipients simply get into situations where they need help, not because they are lazy or crooks. And it can hit anyone.
Welfare-dependence is multi-generational in the US. It's not a temporary hand up when one needs help. It's a way of life for FAR too many.
I disagree. How would we know WHAT society values unless welfare program benefits for the poor are voluntarily funded? You're assuming society agrees with your point of view. I'm saying that when asked to back that supposed belief by voluntarily paying for it with their own money, society may not necessarily agree.
If you intend to sit at home and play video games all day, you'll never find a job.
People need to actively look for jobs, and as you pointed out, people relocated for work then, and they still need to do that today.
If you need to relocate to another part of your State, or another State in your region, or another region of the US entirely, and even if you have to leave the US and go to another country and work, then that's what you need to do.
Everyone gets 12 free years of education, and the poor get 4 years of college education, and if they refuse to take advantage of those opportunities, then there is nothing that can be done.
To rob and penalize people who make good choices to subsidize those who repeatedly make bad choices is economically unsound, manifestly unfair, poor public policy and worse than that, it will not solve the problem nor could it ever solve the problem.
That's because of technology.
It took 95% of the population -- including children -- to feed 100% of the population and have the hope of having a surplus of crops for trade.
Thanks to the three-field crop rotation method, you only needed 90% of the population -- including children -- to feed 100% of the population and have a surplus for trade.
With the introduction of the tractor, you only needed 90% of the adult population -- no children -- to feed 100% of the population and have a surplus.
That's the 1940s.
With additional technology, you now only need 2% of your adult population, and they can feed about 10x your population.
But, contrary to what you might think, farmers ranged from dirt poor to very wealthy. It all depended on how much land they had, where they lived, and what crops they grew and the economic conditions at the time. Some small farmers were very wealthy, while some large farmers barely broke even.
There's an area of the Midwest with a large population of Mennonites who have an extreme hatred of Catholics.
That's because in that region, all the banks are owned by Catholics, and they would foreclose on the poor Mennonite farmers.
I'm not talking 100 years ago, I'm talking about the 1990s.
Just because people can farm doesn't make them successful.
That's an interesting point I have thought about as well. Back when most people worked in agriculture, education and intelligence did not matter, nobody was too dumb for agriculture, so to speak.
But today's and even more so tomorrow's world is run by overachievers and more and more people can't keep up and compete anymore. I wonder what will become of all those people for whom there is basically no need anymore.
Another aspect is our aging populations.
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.
