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 think we should go back to calling it "relief." It implies it's a temporary handout, and carries a slight amount of embarrassment for not being able to support oneself. It would help eliminate this haughty entitlement attitude liberals have.
Wait some of you are calling for the Government to Police what people buy because its SNAP benefits. You guys are playing with fire because that is more than a slippery slope, its a land slide. By that logic I could also demand:
1. Those receiving Social Security benefits should have food monitored as to ensure its not wasted on junk food, "unhealthy" food (who decides what is what, is beef good or bad? who's opinion do you take)
2. Medicare recipients should have their food purchases monitored and rejected if deems bad for the person's "health". No beer, steak, chips, sodas, white flour as those can cause high cholesterol therefore increasing the Tax payers bill to cover your healthcare
3. VA Veterans should also be monitored for poor food purchases. Veterans also have special consideration like higher rates of Mental Health issues, therefore items like beer, wine, and tobacco should be banned as they can alter mental judgement.
3. Woah there your Mom is on Medicaid to pay for her nursing home and you just bought a new car. You need to return it and use that money for the nursing home. Tax payers are not responsible for your family, you are.
Some of you are playing with fire and some of you are not being genuine. You cannot complain about government intrusion and think monitoring grocery purchases w/ government officials would be good policy.
I think we should go back to calling it "relief." It implies it's a temporary handout, and carries a slight amount of embarrassment for not being able to support oneself. It would help eliminate this haughty entitlement attitude liberals have.
Rachel, I have given you many rep points, but I think it only fair to point out that many conservatives have "entitlement attitudes", too.
Rachel, I have given you many rep points, but I think it only fair to point out that many conservatives have "entitlement attitudes", too.
First, thank you for the rep points. I've been impressed with your posts, too, as you come across and quite reasonable and thoughtful.
What "entitlement attitudes" do you speak of? I often hear liberals try to draw a parallel between Medicare/SS and the subsidized programs for the poor, when in truth responsible working adults pay into these "old-age" programs for 45 years. They are very different from a young woman with children, who never worked, and gets food, subsidizing housing, health care, etc., etc.
Welfare recipients don't fund their food purchases entirely with SNAP. They supplement with their "own" money. So if they are paying $8 or whatever to have the food delivered, that's $8 less they have for food itself. Sorry, but able-bodied adults within a reasonable reach of a grocery store need to get their butts over there.
You don't know that. Only about a quarter of the poor receive subsidized housing and welfare cash benefits are quite low and are time limited. In Arizona a family of three receives $278 a month for a maximum of 12 months. How do you buy "extra food" with $278 a month? If you're lucky you can rent someone's garage to sleep in for that.
Wait some of you are calling for the Government to Police what people buy because its SNAP benefits. You guys are playing with fire because that is more than a slippery slope, its a land slide. By that logic I could also demand:
1. Those receiving Social Security benefits should have food monitored as to ensure its not wasted on junk food
2. Medicare recipients should have their food purchases monitored and rejected if deems bad for the person's "health". No beer, steak, chips, sodas, white flour as those can cause high cholesterol therefore increasing the Tax payers bill to cover your healthcare
3. Woah there your Mom is on Medicaid to pay for her nursing home and you just bought a new car. You need to return it and use that money for the nursing home. Tax payers are not responsible for your family, you are.
Some of you are playing with fire and some of you are not being genuine. You cannot complain about government intrusion and think monitoring grocery purchases w/ government officials would be good policy.
I repped you, but I want to point out that some people are already somewhat advocating what you stated in posts #1 and #2 when it comes to health insurance. Some people think that those who are very overweight and/or who smoke should have MUCH higher insurance premiums than those with very healthy lifestyles. (I can't say that I disagree with this.)
However, I don't think that anyone will have to worry about Post #3 until it is accepted that adult children are much more responsible for their parents than they are now. (And I hope that it will never get to that point. It is enough that middle-aged people are responsible for the actions of their minor children without having to worry about being personally responsible for the bills of their elderly parents as well.)
Wait some of you are calling for the Government to Police what people buy because its SNAP benefits. You guys are playing with fire because that is more than a slippery slope, its a land slide. By that logic I could also demand:
1. Those receiving Social Security benefits should have food monitored as to ensure its not wasted on junk food, "unhealthy" food (who decides what is what, is beef good or bad? who's opinion do you take)
2. Medicare recipients should have their food purchases monitored and rejected if deems bad for the person's "health". No beer, steak, chips, sodas, white flour as those can cause high cholesterol therefore increasing the Tax payers bill to cover your healthcare
3. VA Veterans should also be monitored for poor food purchases. Veterans also have special consideration like higher rates of Mental Health issues, therefore items like beer, wine, and tobacco should be banned as they can alter mental judgement.
3. Woah there your Mom is on Medicaid to pay for her nursing home and you just bought a new car. You need to return it and use that money for the nursing home. Tax payers are not responsible for your family, you are.
Some of you are playing with fire and some of you are not being genuine. You cannot complain about government intrusion and think monitoring grocery purchases w/ government officials would be good policy.
Social security is not the same as SNAP benefits. Tax-paying adults paid into the SS program for decades so they would have an income in old age, and recipients of SNAP just "receive." it is reasonable to put restrictions on the latter, and in fact, we already do. They can't buy booze with it. I just think it should be restricted further, especially since we also are paying for their health care which in turn becomes more expensive when one is overweight and eating a poor diet. Diabetes is rampant.
The entire industry s going online therefore it makes since to allow all buyers to shop online.
Amazon plans to remove all actual "Humans" from their stores. They want to deliver everything via driverless vehicles and drones. And Walmart have to follow suit to stay competitive.
This is where the WORLD is going guys, its not about being lazy, its about companies savings billions in Payroll.And expect more SNAP recipients as lower skill jobs start disappearing.
Also delivery fees will disappear as delivery becomes the preferred way to shop (or rolled into the grocery prices). I know I cant stand to grocery shop so I am all in on delivery for me and my family. Wife can go if she wants, leave me out.
With work requirements coupled with the loss of low wage jobs more people who cannot find paid employment will have to work volunteer jobs in order to receive food stamps. Companies will have slave labor again as former minimum wage jobs become volunteer positions. The lower class will be pretty much powerless.
Around here you have to pay for your own background check to volunteer and even if you pass the background check you might still be turned down for a volunteer spot. $20 for a background check is a lot when you have no monetary income.
If someone who is not on disability (it does not matter how physically ill you are, if you do not receive SSI or SSDI then you are considered to be "able bodied" even though employers don't want you) receives food stamps and cannot find paid employment he/she has to work for free in order to have food to eat. Otherwise, you can only get three months of food stamps every three years. And volunteer positions will be in such demand that many will be turned down for those. You cannot volunteer just anywhere. It has to be an approved location. So, if the recipient cannot even be chosen for a volunteer position in those three months he/she will be cut off and left with nothing.
Just like with paid employment the recipient will be left to depend on the decisions of the employer on whether or not the recipient will be chosen to work for free. Food banks vary, but around here you have to show you receive food stamps to get help more than once at a food bank. So, some food banks will refuse to help the unchosen as well.
Minimum/low wage jobs going away is going to hurt a lot of people.
A couple of reasons. It's bizarre to treat adults like children and dole out food to them based on what someone "thinks" they should have, and the cost to grocery stores of tagging thousands of items in their registers to make sure they can't be rung up with EBT would be so costly and time consuming that most stores would quit accepting SNAP.
Actually, it is quite easy. WalMart, etc. just code it in to their computers like they do all the other ineligible items. When the UPC code is scanned, it tells what is eligible for payment by SNAP.
For example, pet foods, beer, wine, cigarettes, vitamins, soap, paper products, grooming supplies, cosmetics, ... all will ring up as ineligible for payment with a SNAP card.
Personally, I think soda pop should be added to the list. Food Stamps are supposed to provide nutritional support. Soda pop does not fit that definition.
Neither do cookies or candy, however I understand the difficulty in drawing the line between healthy and unhealthy foods.
As to treating them like children, not sure I agree with you there. The goal is to provide nutritional assistance. If having groceries delivered helps with that, I think that is fine.
However, I don't think it is fine for Food Stamps to pay for items that do not provide any nutritional value.
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.
