Food Stamps

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But nobody ought to "need it" unless they are demonstrably physically and/or mentally disabled. There is no reason why any able-bodied individual shouldn't be able to get an education, make decent decisions, get a job, learn a trade, acquire a work ethic and earn a living. It happens all the time in the same communities so there are already some people who can and do exactly this.

What's wrong with the people who don't?

Different family structures, different economic backgrounds, different genes, different mental facilities. There are differences among people. Honestly unless you've lived it, it's hard to really understand. I feel that way a lot when I drive through certain cities and I see people and I look at myself and think "hey I was able to get out"

but I also remember I had parents who went out of their way to make sure I stayed on the straight and narrow, I had a family support system (I also have some rather anti-social issues), I'm naturally "intelligent" and there were people who took interest in me and of course there was my own "not wanting to disappoint" them either. But there are people who don't have those things, people who don't have families who care or are around. So Yeah they'll make bad decisions because they are stuck in a vicious cycle with seemingly no way out.

Again this isn't to take away these peoples personal responsibility, but it's just acknowledging that the weight on our shoulders isn't uniform for everyone.

 

[s2a]

You folks are being ridiculous and blowing this out of proportion.

It is common sense to control where your money is being spent.

We are not suggesting stopping people from having as many children as they want, or eating junk food, etc.

Just not while living on my dime.

When they are back on their feet they can eat as much junk as they want to, and pump out as many babies as they want.

*

Cool then. Please inform us all when your time upon "your dime" has expired. At current infaltion rates, I'd say that "ding" has already come and gone... any serious contributors out there?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

But nobody ought to "need it" unless they are demonstrably physically and/or mentally disabled. There is no reason why any able-bodied individual shouldn't be able to get an education, make decent decisions, get a job, learn a trade, acquire a work ethic and earn a living. It happens all the time in the same communities so there are already some people who can and do exactly this.

What's wrong with the people who don't?

I actually work with plenty of families across three counties here in VA and what I've found over the years during the recession and up to now is that many families have done exactly what you advocate above but because of circumstances beyond their control find themselves in the "need it" category. I've talked to plenty of hard working families with good educations who were saving and living decent lives before their bubble burst and now find themselves broke and trying to compete for jobs in an increased pool of job hunters. Many of the families I deal with don't want to be on public assistance but have reached their rock bottom.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But you bring me to my larger worry- How exactly does one even shop in for deals like frozen veggies, bulk products, or scratch materials when they have no stove to cook on, or no home to store their purchase.

And you are describing what percentage of SNAP recipients?

 

[Assad91]

Seems some have such big condescending heads.

 

[Cephus]

I actually work with plenty of families across three counties here in VA and what I've found over the years during the recession and up to now is that many families have done exactly what you advocate above but because of circumstances beyond their control find themselves in the "need it" category. I've talked to plenty of hard working families with good educations who were saving and living decent lives before their bubble burst and now find themselves broke and trying to compete for jobs in an increased pool of job hunters. Many of the families I deal with don't want to be on public assistance but have reached their rock bottom.

But this isn't a problem caused only by the recent recession, it's a problem that existed long before it, it's a cultural thing, not an economy thing. The housing bubble was caused, at least partially, by people who were irresponsible, taking loans they should have known they could never repay. Had they not done so, the economy wouldn't have tanked.

 

[Curious George]

But this isn't a problem caused only by the recent recession, it's a problem that existed long before it, it's a cultural thing, not an economy thing. The housing bubble was caused, at least partially, by people who were irresponsible, taking loans they should have known they could never repay. Had they not done so, the economy wouldn't have tanked.

Bad decisions are not always apparent. It is easy for you to look back over someones decision after you have seen the outcome and say "that was a bad decision." Contracts can often be confusing to people. Your suggestion that they "should have known" it not necessarily applicable to all people.

 

[Curious George]

And you are describing what percentage of SNAP recipients?

I don't know. But I do know that they exist. And your neat and tidy "buy 50lb bags of potatoes" doesn't fit the reality of all recipients of food stamps.

 

[Cephus]

Bad decisions are not always apparent. It is easy for you to look back over someones decision after you have seen the outcome and say "that was a bad decision." Contracts can often be confusing to people. Your suggestion that they "should have known" it not necessarily applicable to all people.

There are plenty of decisions that people *OUGHT* to know better because they see people around them making that decision and ruining their lives. Stop trying to make excuses for bad decisions.

 

[Curious George]

There are plenty of decisions that people *OUGHT* to know better because they see people around them making that decision and ruining their lives. Stop trying to make excuses for bad decisions.

i actually agree that there are plenty of decisions where someone ought to know better, but that does not change the fact that there are plenty of decisions where the better choice was not apparent; It does not change the fact that plenty of decisions have UNFORESEEN consequences. Stop trying to lump all decisions into a neat and tidy box. If your worldview doesn't fit reality, no amount of forcing or lumping will rectify this.

 

[s2a]

There are plenty of decisions that people *OUGHT* to know better because they see people around them making that decision and ruining their lives. Stop trying to make excuses for bad decisions.

Maybe the questions are misapplied?

Shall we better poll the majority of children affected? Shall we not shame their parents instead, so that they understand why they as (predominantly) working parents seek some (readily affordable) aid in "feeding" their own hungry kids?

It would be easier just to blame those kids directly, Yeah, I know, but the "optics" would seem somewhat harsh, eh?

"Why blame the children of parents that "ought" to know better?"

I don't know, because you retain no shame in doing so?

IF ONLY, one day, we can sufficiently punish the lazy and wicked parents of children that go to bed hungry regularly... maybe then their shame and guilt as inadequate parents will make them see the reformative light afforded by the "true love (because you need it)"... "conservatives"....

*sigh*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But nobody ought to "need it" unless they are demonstrably physically and/or mentally disabled. There is no reason why any able-bodied individual shouldn't be able to get an education, make decent decisions, get a job, learn a trade, acquire a work ethic and earn a living. It happens all the time in the same communities so there are already some people who can and do exactly this.

What's wrong with the people who don't?

But the reality is is that alot of people do "need it." Ideally, everyone who wants to work would have a job they are physically and/or mentally capable of doing for no less than a living wage and benefits that would keep them off public assistance. But this ideal world is not the one we live in.Try having work restrictions, not being labeled as disabled by a doctor, and finding work that you can actually do.

 

[Cephus]

i actually agree that there are plenty of decisions where someone ought to know better, but that does not change the fact that there are plenty of decisions where the better choice was not apparent; It does not change the fact that plenty of decisions have UNFORESEEN consequences. Stop trying to lump all decisions into a neat and tidy box. If your worldview doesn't fit reality, no amount of forcing or lumping will rectify this.

It does fit reason, the fact that so many people refuse to behave reasonably isn't a weakness of my position, it's a weakness of behavior and, let's be honest, it's the people who aren't acting reasonably who are failing, not the ones that think before they act and consider consequences. You're essentially arguing what I call the "stupid people are stupid" argument, which says that because there are stupid people in the world, we should allow them to act stupidly because they are, after all, stupid. Unfortunately, that's circular and it falls apart under any scrutiny. Murderers are murderers and therefore we should let them murder, right? Of course not. We identify that behavior as anti-social and bad for society, thus we do not allow it and we punish those who engage in it. I think that, over time, we ought to do the same with people who act in a manner which is not good for society and that includes people who act irresponsibly and have to come crying to the rest of society for help.

 

[Cephus]

Maybe the questions are misapplied?

Shall we better poll the majority of children affected? Shall we not shame their parents instead, so that they understand why they as (predominantly) working parents seek some (readily affordable) aid in "feeding" their own hungry kids?

It would be easier just to blame those kids directly, Yeah, I know, but the "optics" would seem somewhat harsh, eh?

"Why blame the children of parents that "ought" to know better?"

I don't know, because you retain no shame in doing so?

IF ONLY, one day, we can sufficiently punish the lazy and wicked parents of children that go to bed hungry regularly... maybe then their shame and guilt as inadequate parents will make them see the reformative light afforded by the "true love (because you need it)"... "conservatives"....

*sigh*

You're right, parents ought to be blamed when they fail their children, we unfortunately live in a society where many parents don't want to parent, their children are the unintended consequence of living an irresponsible lifestyle. They didn't want the children in the first place, therefore they don't care what happens to them. There are a lot who purposely pop out a unit every 9 months so they get a bigger government check. That's where we have to stop these people.

As far as I'm concerned, when you go on welfare, they take into account all of the children that you already have, plus the possibility that the woman might be pregnant at the time she files, then cap the welfare. No more. She will receive no more money, no matter how many children she has thereafter. She is still held to a particular standard of care and CPS can show up at her door any time they want and evaluate how well she is caring for her children, otherwise they can be taken away.

I also think that her welfare check should be tied to her children's performance in school. If her kids drop out, she loses 50% of what she made for them every month. Care standards still apply. If they do not bring home at least a C average, she can lose up to 25% of her income for the child. That's an impetus to push them for excellence in school, it directly affects her pocketbook.

We can do similar things for other negative behaviors. If they engage in bad behavior, their monthly check is affected. We have to change the behavior of the poor so that this is not a multi-generational issue, where bad behavior in one directly causes bad behavior in the next.

 

[Curious George]

It does fit reason, the fact that so many people refuse to behave reasonably isn't a weakness of my position, it's a weakness of behavior and, let's be honest, it's the people who aren't acting reasonably who are failing, not the ones that think before they act and consider consequences. You're essentially arguing what I call the "stupid people are stupid" argument, which says that because there are stupid people in the world, we should allow them to act stupidly because they are, after all, stupid. Unfortunately, that's circular and it falls apart under any scrutiny. Murderers are murderers and therefore we should let them murder, right? Of course not. We identify that behavior as anti-social and bad for society, thus we do not allow it and we punish those who engage in it. I think that, over time, we ought to do the same with people who act in a manner which is not good for society and that includes people who act irresponsibly and have to come crying to the rest of society for help.

Wrong. I am saying that just because many people could have avoided the situation does not mean that many people could not. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that. You essentially said that many people should have seen the writing on the wall. I am saying while that is true it does not mean that for ALL people there was a writing to see. Many is a qualifier which does not indicate majority. Thus, many people can suffer from unforeseen consequences that they could and should not have foreseen, while many people can suffer from foreseen consequences or consequences that they should have foreseen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You're right, parents ought to be blamed when they fail their children, we unfortunately live in a society where many parents don't want to parent, their children are the unintended consequence of living an irresponsible lifestyle. They didn't want the children in the first place, therefore they don't care what happens to them. There are a lot who purposely pop out a unit every 9 months so they get a bigger government check. That's where we have to stop these people.

Evidence? Everything I have ever read only says there really isn't a problem with an abuse, and the few stories there are of abuse have been falsely reported. And I have to say out of the people I have known that have abused welfare, I've not known any who intentionally have kids just for a bigger check. They're probably out there, but I suspect they are a very slim minority.

As far as I'm concerned, when you go on welfare, they take into account all of the children that you already have, plus the possibility that the woman might be pregnant at the time she files, then cap the welfare. No more. She will receive no more money, no matter how many children she has thereafter. She is still held to a particular standard of care and CPS can show up at her door any time they want and evaluate how well she is caring for her children, otherwise they can be taken away.

And if she has none when she applies, and is simply unable to get ahead? Should having a family be a privilege reserved for financially secure?

I also think that her welfare check should be tied to her children's performance in school. If her kids drop out, she loses 50% of what she made for them every month. Care standards still apply. If they do not bring home at least a C average, she can lose up to 25% of her income for the child. That's an impetus to push them for excellence in school, it directly affects her pocketbook.

That is one of the most unaware and uninformed things I have read in awhile. You are going to have to completely overhaul the public education from the ground up if you wanted something like that. Not too mention that would be punishing families who live in poverty, as poverty is closely tied to school performance. And it's not just "personal choices" on the students part, it's the noisy environment, an unstable home-life, drugs and violence being a part of daily living, lack of proper nutrition (which the schools could use alot of improvement in themselves), parental involvement, and more all tie into how well a student will do in school, or if the student even graduates from high school. Such an approach would also not take into account that many gifted students do not make good grades because they are bored with school.
And of course there is the very big, very real, and sometimes very problematic factor that is that you can't actually make a child do anything.

We can do similar things for other negative behaviors. If they engage in bad behavior, their monthly check is affected. We have to change the behavior of the poor so that this is not a multi-generational issue, where bad behavior in one directly causes bad behavior in the next.

That reminds me of some argument I heard many years ago where someone went babbling on about how these "multi-generationals" teach their children what to say and how to act so they can live for free off the 'gubment. If you look at the issue from an objective standpoint though, you will notice that poverty is something that few people escape. If you were born into poverty, it is very likely you will die in poverty as will your children and their children. If you knew of the struggles many of these people face, you would not be so quickly to coldly judge.

 

[metis]

I would think my position on that would have been obvious, yes, I'm opposed to any form of grossly over-inflated government.

I am as well, but I do believe we need the size of government necessary to do what needs to be done. To gut government just to gut government is suicidal, and to fail to help the needy is grossly immoral, imo.

Switching topics?

No, I was merely giving examples to refute your distortion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am as well, but I do believe we need the size of government necessary to do what needs to be done. To gut government just to gut government is suicidal, and to fail to help the needy is grossly immoral, imo.

I love how welfare is almost always one way the government is overstepping it's boundaries, but the very costly American hegemony isn't. It's big government when the government tries to help it's people while amidst a financial crisis and economic slump, but not that many are willing to even discuss how financially wasteful and excessive the military budget is (such as, why do we STILL have bases in Germany and Japan?).

 

[metis]

I love how welfare is almost always one way the government is overstepping it's boundaries, but the very costly American hegemony isn't. It's big government when the government tries to help it's people while amidst a financial crisis and economic slump, but not that many are willing to even discuss how financially wasteful and excessive the military budget is (such as, why do we STILL have bases in Germany and Japan?).

I hear and completely agree with you. What we have seen over and over again from many on the right is this picking-and-choosing when it comes to their supposed outrage over spending, being very willing to pay for their pet projects, and yet also being so unwilling to help fellow Americans in need in areas whereas only the government is in a position to handle it.

I simply do not understand how any person of conscience can literally not be willing to pay a bit more to help those in need, and which religion would tell their followers to do as such? Would Jesus say "Ignore the poor because your money is far more important"?

I just have a real hard time trying to figure out how so many in the political right has literally been subverting Jewish and Christian teachings, and then doing so in the name of "God". Haven't they ever read Torah, or the Sermon on the Mount or the Parable of the Sheep & Goats in Matthew 25 in the Christian scriptures?

Anyhow, what you say above is spot on, imo.

 

[Cephus]

Wrong. I am saying that just because many people could have avoided the situation does not mean that many people could not. It doesn't take rocket science to understand that. You essentially said that many people should have seen the writing on the wall. I am saying while that is true it does not mean that for ALL people there was a writing to see. Many is a qualifier which does not indicate majority. Thus, many people can suffer from unforeseen consequences that they could and should not have foreseen, while many people can suffer from foreseen consequences or consequences that they should have foreseen.

Just because all people can't, for the sake of argument, doesn't mean that the ones that could shouldn't be held accountable for doing so. What you're essentially arguing is that because absolutely everyone couldn't do it, let's throw the requirements entirely out the window so we don't make the people who are too screwed up feel bad.

That makes no sense whatsoever.