Food Stamps

[Ingledsva]

you really think that a diet wholly consisting of potatoes, corn and beef is healthy?

More than enough? I am not so sure I agree with that sentiment. I do agree that it is enough. I do agree that people on food stamps do not need more food stamps. However, I would like to see more outreach, more education, and more counseling which would cost more money. And that I think we should pay for. I do not think we should cut the money, or complain about candy bars.

Good grief! That isn't what I said!

*

 

[Curious George]

Good grief! That isn't what I said!

*

Then show me the balanced diet that one should have. Let us calculate the costs. Let us figure out how much a person needs- and then let us ask ourselves if the parent should be able to substitute in a day of Top Ramen or go without a meal in order to buy their kid a candy bar.

My position is that people are not living in luxury, so who really cares if they buy a candy bar. Preventing them from buying a candy bar will not help stymie abuse. Any claims that someone can adequately provide for a family for way less than what the SNAP program grants is neglecting to acknowledge individual benefits or advantages that they have that allow for them to do so, or they are lying. In either situation, there argument misrepresents the reality many Americans face. Moreover, it belittles and derides a whole class of people- leading to the inference: something is wrong with them.

Furthermore, the assertion that poor people should not get higher value foods or that poor people should not be allowed to splurge and buy a candy bar-with resources provided by taxes-only serves punitive value. If encouraging people to eat better is your goal I suggest that we pay more and offer nutritional counseling and education to those receiving aid.

 

[Ingledsva]

Then show me the balanced diet that one should have. Let us calculate the costs. Let us figure out how much a person needs- and then let us ask ourselves if the parent should be able to substitute in a day of Top Ramen or go without a meal in order to buy their kid a candy bar.

My position is that people are not living in luxury, so who really cares if they buy a candy bar. Preventing them from buying a candy bar will not help stymie abuse. Any claims that someone can adequately provide for a family for way less than what the SNAP program grants is neglecting to acknowledge individual benefits or advantages that they have that allow for them to do so, or they are lying. In either situation, there argument misrepresents the reality many Americans face. Moreover, it belittles and derides a whole class of people- leading to the inference: something is wrong with them.

Furthermore, the assertion that poor people should not get higher value foods or that poor people should not be allowed to splurge and buy a candy bar-with resources provided by taxes-only serves punitive value. If encouraging people to eat better is your goal I suggest that we pay more and offer nutritional counseling and education to those receiving aid.

Drop the junk food and they will automatically be eating better.

*

 

[Curious George]

Drop the junk food and they will automatically be eating better.

*

and what qualifies as junk food? Anything with empty calories or does a snickers bar qualify despite it's protein?

Corn and potatoes are largely starches and not very healthy for you. They do have nutritional value but this is eclipsed by many other foods. Moreover, most of the potatoes nutritional value is in the skin. Then we have the beef. In the U.S. people often eat much more meat than is nutritionally sound or environmentally sustainable. Many would consider beef itself a junk food- especially when that beef is corn-fed low quality beef. But you are not proposing we exclude unhealthy foods- your gripe is foods that are sweet and typically considered a treat such as candy or ice cream. Moreover, your other gripe is high quality foods and cuts of meats such as steak. I am sorry, but if you want someone to eat healthier- education is the way to go- not just the arbitrary cutting of foods you decide are unhealthy while expecting people to fill their mouths with other foods which cause just as much harm to health and the environment.

 

[metis]

I believe that the best form of welfare is through volunteer organizations rather than federal aid - That those in need should first go to their friends and family for help, then to local church groups and volunteer organizations, and then as a last resort to the government (first local, then fed).

I agree with helping people out who need it - I disagree that the government is the best organization ... if you have extra cash, would you donate it to the government? or to a different charity organization?



imo, "minimal bureaucracy" = leave welfare to volunteer groups, instead of the gov. I think most people are mostly good - if the gov stops providing welfare, communities will step up to the challenge and take care of one another.

No modern democracy has been able to take care of the poor on charity alone as we saw during the Great Depression ourselves. No doubt charities help, but in bad times even they tend to dry up. If you think I'm exaggerating, come to the city of Detroit and ask some of those who run the charities there is they can keep up with the demand.

Sorry, but history simply tells us that charities can not handle the load by themselves. I certainly wish they could, though.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Moreover, it belittles and derides a whole class of people- leading to the inference: something is wrong with them.

There is something wrong with them. They cannot feed themselves! If they are sick, something is wrong with them. If they made poor choices in life, once again something is wrong with them.

We need to solve the reason they cannot feed themselves, not make them comfortable with assistance.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There is something wrong with them. They cannot feed themselves! If they are sick, something is wrong with them. If they made poor choices in life, once again something is wrong with them.

We need to solve the reason they cannot feed themselves, not make them comfortable with assistance.

I think the idea is that it completely becomes a one sided blame. Not saying that you need to remove a persons choices from the issue, but the implication seems to be that if they made poor life choices for instance, it was all their faults. It has nothing to do with their societal/environmental pressures.

But people don't live in a vacuum, so the need for assistance doesn't just come from the persons choices but our societal choices as well.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I certainly do not think eating off of food stamps is impossible. I think that surviving off way less than what food stamps offers is an unreasonable expectation of greedy, selfless people who like to delude themselves into thinking the problem is poor people rather than our system.

You obviously do not know how to shop. Look up the prices on 50lbs of potatoes, bananas, oatmeal, flour, sugar, milk, whole chicken, pork combo packages, white bread, frozen vegetables, 10lbs of rice. Calculate what your family needs for a month and let me know what it comes out to. Also shop around for a month and buy things on sale and at the store that sells each item the cheapest. Buy in bulk, especially frozen items, meats that can be frozen, and canned goods. Also let me know who in the family is overweight.

Once you change your parameters of thinking then living cheaply is easily obtainable. Also the system does suck. How about the government subsidizing purchases, through the stores, of those things which are affordable and nutritious through the SNAP program?


By the way, I'm neither greedy, selfless or delusional. Tell me how many other people than your family you personally helped to feed this year. I'm up to about 6 this year.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

When my kiddos were really young and we as a family of 6 were living close to or below the poverty line, I was feeding our entire family on roughly $120 a month.

It takes a lot of discretion and a lot of planning, but I'd be able to go to Aldi's down the street and stock up.

Of course, everything was cheap. And I'd look in other carts where families would be purchasing their food with the SNAP cards (we never went on public assistance), and the choices were all frozen convenience meals that were single-serving. We were able to stretch a whole roast chicken for a week. Still do many times (though now it's the roast chicken from the local farm).

Bags of rice, cheap eggs, limit the cereals to only toasted o's, grate your own cheese, learn to bake from scratch (that's how we got our treats from flour, sugar, and blocks of unsalted butter we'd get on sale and freeze). And of course, frozen veggies, salad veggies, and heavy cream....the last ingredient helps to make ice cream and thickens creamy soups and stews for end-of-the-week meals. We never bought cheap sodas or soft drinks there, either, or packaged chips or cookies.

If husband was adamant about not going onto public assistance for whatever reason, and if he trusted me to make a miracle out of very little, I found a way to do that. I baked all of our breads, made our sauces and salad dressings from scratch, and whipped our own butter and added herbs from our growing garden (I was still a newbie back then).

Heck, I even found a way to dehydrate beef jerky in our oven for snacks.

It's entirely possible to live on that kind of food budget. The only problem I have with that kind of eating is that we wind up spending our money toward food companies with ethically questionable or objectionable behavior with their commodities, with the animals they raise and how they are killed and processed, and their staffing of undocumented migrant workers. Plus, long-term eating habits that include very cheap carbs and meats that are cheaply corn-fed tend to result in various health risk factors when cheap carbs and meats aren't tempered with quality fresh fruits and vegetables.

If we had to go that route again, our family would be able to adapt. If we needed public assistance ever in our lives, I would have little doubt to our ability to feed ourselves adequately.

My only concern is the sustainability of the various farming practices in order to provide the bulk of all these cheap foods.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

There is something wrong with them. They cannot feed themselves! If they are sick, something is wrong with them. If they made poor choices in life, once again something is wrong with them.

We need to solve the reason they cannot feed themselves, not make them comfortable with assistance.

Your arms must be tired from punching down. Give it a break!

 

[Cephus]

I certainly do not think eating off of food stamps is impossible. I think that surviving off way less than what food stamps offers is an unreasonable expectation of greedy, selfless people who like to delude themselves into thinking the problem is poor people rather than our system.

Who is telling them to survive off less than food stamps? If you're given $X in food stamps, spend the X. Nobody is saying to spend 1/2 X. Just don't spend X and come back with your hand out for more. It's the same as an job. You work, you get X salary. You have to budget X salary to last until your next paycheck. If you do not, you cannot go back to your employer and ask for more money because you cannot live within your means. This is basic economics 101.

No one is saying the system can't be improved, but neither can we say that the poor are not at fault for the position they are in. there are a lot of really, really bad decisions that went into the mix before people found themselves destitute. If they hadn't made those bad decisions, if they worked hard, they'd be able to dig themselves out of that pit of poverty. However, the government rewards them for not working hard, it tells them that working hard is a bad idea because they get penalized for actually getting a job, even a low paying job, so they can develop their skills. This is where the system has problems, it takes the poor and keeps them poor. It doesn't create the poor, it just doesn't help them very well.

 

[Cephus]

Average food stamps for a family of four in 2011= $489

This amounts to 4.08 cents per person per day. So lets hear the meal plan that costs 4.08 per person that provides for 3 meals a day. Yes, that is luxury alright. That is fancy-pants dining! We should cut that down. People don't need that much. They can make 3 meals off of 2.00 instead of 4.00 or better yet, they shouldn't get 3 meals. they should be forced to eat less- and they should have to make everything from scratch- real scratch (make their own bread etc.) those people that live without stoves or refrigerators- well they shouldn't eat at all. Let them starve. And then when crime spikes, when theft increases, when jails fill, when health costs escalate, we should complain even more because it is not our fault- sure we could have prevented this, but the blame rests solely on the poor. Yep. Great attitude.

No, not 4 cents per day, 4 dollars per day. Get a calculator. And you know something? I spend less than that, on average, per month for a family of 4. I go to the store once a week and spend approximately $100 per trip. I do that, in 2013, when the average food stamp outlay has gone up.

So please, try again.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Who is telling them to survive off less than food stamps? If you're given $X in food stamps, spend the X. Nobody is saying to spend 1/2 X. Just don't spend X and come back with your hand out for more. It's the same as an job. You work, you get X salary. You have to budget X salary to last until your next paycheck. If you do not, you cannot go back to your employer and ask for more money because you cannot live within your means. This is basic economics 101.

No one is saying the system can't be improved, but neither can we say that the poor are not at fault for the position they are in. there are a lot of really, really bad decisions that went into the mix before people found themselves destitute. If they hadn't made those bad decisions, if they worked hard, they'd be able to dig themselves out of that pit of poverty. However, the government rewards them for not working hard, it tells them that working hard is a bad idea because they get penalized for actually getting a job, even a low paying job, so they can develop their skills. This is where the system has problems, it takes the poor and keeps them poor. It doesn't create the poor, it just doesn't help them very well.

Yeah...no. I can never understand that argument of if you work hard enough, if you do X, as if there are not other factors that play into it. The playing field isn't leveled, no one is starting on the same level, no one is given near the same options and choices. So to just say "it's your fault, work harder" is to me a very ignorant statement that ignores all the other factors that play a role in what leads a person to that situation.

I find usually too when people are talking about the poor, they ignore the racial, gender, and age related issues that are involved in them as well....

Some people can escape and they do, some people try and they don't, some don't try at all.

I think we need to sit back and look at where on societies side can we fix the issues that lead to poverty, that lead to these "bad choices." In my opinion once we can find a way to make the playing field level then we can start pointing fingers at peoples "bad decisions"

 

[Cephus]

I think the idea is that it completely becomes a one sided blame. Not saying that you need to remove a persons choices from the issue, but the implication seems to be that if they made poor life choices for instance, it was all their faults. It has nothing to do with their societal/environmental pressures.

But people don't live in a vacuum, so the need for assistance doesn't just come from the persons choices but our societal choices as well.

So who held a gun to their heads and forced them to make these bad decisions? Anyone? Anyone? Of course, they screwed up on their own and they ought to bear the consequences of their own failures. It is society that comes to their rescue and provides them with a stipend to keep eating and having a place to stay, which is a lot more than most other countries on the planet do, and people still complain about it. Talk about first world problems.

 

[Cephus]

Yeah...no. I can never understand that argument of if you work hard enough, if you do X, as if there are not other factors that play into it. The playing field isn't leveled, no one is starting on the same level, no one is given near the same options and choices. So to just say "it's your fault, work harder" is to me a very ignorant statement that ignores all the other factors that play a role in what leads a person to that situation.

I find usually too when people are talking about the poor, they ignore the racial, gender, and age related issues that are involved in them as well....

Some people can escape and they do, some people try and they don't, some don't try at all.

I think we need to sit back and look at where on societies side can we fix the issues that lead to poverty, that lead to these "bad choices." In my opinion once we can find a way to make the playing field level then we can start pointing fingers at peoples "bad decisions"

Fine, let's look at people's "bad decisions". Every single child in this country is provided with the opportunity to get an education at no cost whatsoever. Most schools will even feed the poor children breakfast and lunch for free, thus cutting costs to the family on food stamps. The children's job is to get an education. It's to learn things. If they don't, whose fault is that? Most poor do not graduate from high school. Whose fault is that? Lots of poor get involved in gangs. Whose fault is that? Lots of poor get involved in drugs. Whose fault is that? Lots of poor girls get pregnant out of wedlock, often multiple times before they're 18. Whose fault is that? Lots of poor commit crimes and go to jail. Whose fault is that? So by the time they get to 18, they're uneducated, drug-addicted gang-bangers with 6 kids and a felony criminal record and they have their hands out. And you tell me it's not their fault.

Tell me another one.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So who held a gun to their heads and forced them to make these bad decisions? Anyone? Anyone? Of course, they screwed up on their own and they ought to bear the consequences of their own failures. It is society that comes to their rescue and provides them with a stipend to keep eating and having a place to stay, which is a lot more than most other countries on the planet do, and people still complain about it. Talk about first world problems.

Right, so children who live in poverty, end up in screwed up schools, living in less desirable areas of the country, who end up making bad decisions, did so not because they had limited choices, but because they are just innately idiotic, stupid creatures, who should have just known better Correct? Because that is your implication.

You made good choices so you are not in poverty, they made bad choices so they are. Poverty is their punishment for those bad choices, and the deserve to wallow in it because of that. Sounds a lot like hell to me. :candle::candle::candle:

What I've noticed is that people who make it out of poverty tend to forget how hard it was to make it out of there, and how difficult and how much work it is. Is it possible, yes...but unfortunately not everyone is the same.

Which is again where the idea of the leveled playing field comes in. Things are not leveled. We are not equal or equitable on many levels. So to assume that simply because I made it, that anyone else can, is to me ignorant.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Fine, let's look at people's "bad decisions". Every single child in this country is provided with the opportunity to get an education at no cost whatsoever. Most schools will even feed the poor children breakfast and lunch for free, thus cutting costs to the family on food stamps. The children's job is to get an education. It's to learn things. If they don't, whose fault is that? Most poor do not graduate from high school. Whose fault is that? Lots of poor get involved in gangs. Whose fault is that? Lots of poor get involved in drugs. Whose fault is that? Lots of poor girls get pregnant out of wedlock, often multiple times before they're 18. Whose fault is that? Lots of poor commit crimes and go to jail. Whose fault is that? So by the time they get to 18, they're uneducated, drug-addicted gang-bangers with 6 kids and a felony criminal record and they have their hands out. And you tell me it's not their fault.

Tell me another one.

I'm sorry, are you saying that the educations in all schools are equal?

Are you saying that all those girls who get pregnant had nothing to do with the broken homes that they may come from? Or even better yet, how about those girls who do get pregnant and can afford to have an abortion where do they fit in? Because I've met quite a few rich girls who were able to get that problem solved ASAP cause they had the funds, compared to the not as rich girls who don't.

Is it correct that the so called "Drug-addicted gangbanger with 6 kids" and yes I know you are referring to a black person, will get more time in prison for a crime compared to their white counter part?

So tell me is the system actually fair and balanced?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in personal choice, but I'm not going to be a fool and think that everyones actions are their own complete independent, non-influenced choice.

I worked in a prison for a year studying mental trauma and PTSD, one thing I've learned is that some people, not all, but some, from the very beginning were set up for failure. The psychological affects that poverty can have on a child should be looked at, how it impacts their behavior, their decision making, and as such you get pushed into this circle of failure that you can't escape. When you grow up your whole life around garbage it's very hard to imagine a way out of it, and sometimes the way that you take to try to escape just ends up pushing you deeper in.

Also do you remember being a teen? How rationale and logical thinking where you? So you never messed up and someone had to bail you out of trouble? Ever? Damn you must have been quite a good child.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I'm sorry, are you saying that the educations in all schools are equal?

Are you saying that all those girls who get pregnant had nothing to do with the broken homes that they may come from? Or even better yet, how about those girls who do get pregnant and can afford to have an abortion where do they fit in? Because I've met quite a few rich girls who were able to get that problem solved ASAP cause they had the funds, compared to the not as rich girls who don't.

Is it correct that the so called "Drug-addicted gangbanger with 6 kids" and yes I know you are referring to a black person, will get more time in prison for a crime compared to their white counter part?

So tell me is the system actually fair and balanced?

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in personal choice, but I'm not going to be a fool and think that everyones actions are their own complete independent, non-influenced choice.

I worked in a prison for a year studying mental trauma and PTSD, one thing I've learned is that some people, not all, but some, from the very beginning were set up for failure. The psychological affects that poverty can have on a child should be looked at, how it impacts their behavior, their decision making, and as such you get pushed into this circle of failure that you can't escape. When you grow up your whole life around garbage it's very hard to imagine a way out of it, and sometimes the way that you take to try to escape just ends up pushing you deeper in.

Also do you remember being a teen? How rationale and logical thinking where you? So you never messed up and someone had to bail you out of trouble? Ever? Damn you must have been quite a good child.

Frubals :clap:clap:clap

 

[Jeremy Mason]

SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

 

[Cephus]

I'm sorry, are you saying that the educations in all schools are equal?

No, but the schools exist. You have to make the best of what you have. This is typical liberal idiocy where they demand equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. You're certainly not going to be learning anything if your butt isn't in a seat and you're not paying attention. Any education is better than no education. You act like if you're trying to dig yourself out of a pit, you shouldn't bother to try because someone, somewhere has a bigger shovel than you do. That's downright stupid.

Are you saying that all those girls who get pregnant had nothing to do with the broken homes that they may come from? Or even better yet, how about those girls who do get pregnant and can afford to have an abortion where do they fit in? Because I've met quite a few rich girls who were able to get that problem solved ASAP cause they had the funds, compared to the not as rich girls who don't.

Maybe they should try being responsible and keeping their legs together. And don't think I'm not blaming the men, I think they need to keep their pants on. Nobody should have a kid until they are financially prepared to do so and responsible enough for the consequences.

Is it correct that the so called "Drug-addicted gangbanger with 6 kids" and yes I know you are referring to a black person, will get more time in prison for a crime compared to their white counter part?

Of course you're going to try to turn this into something racist, it's the liberal way.

So tell me is the system actually fair and balanced?

I don't care if it is. Everyone has to be responsible for their own decisions, for their own actions and for their own lives. Stop being such a liberal.

Don't get me wrong, I do believe in personal choice, but I'm not going to be a fool and think that everyones actions are their own complete independent, non-influenced choice.

But what you don't believe in is personal responsibility. That much is painfully clear.

Also do you remember being a teen? How rationale and logical thinking where you? So you never messed up and someone had to bail you out of trouble? Ever? Damn you must have been quite a good child.

Actually, I was. I never got anyone pregnant, I never broke the law, I never went to jail, I never joined a gang and I graduated as class valedictorian. I'm sure you'll find something snide to say about that.