SNAP benefits ( gentally)

[A2SG]

Clearly there needs to be a requirement that people using an EBT card have to grovel and beg at the point of sale.

Maybe do a little song and dance too, just to prove their worthiness.

-- A2SG, boy the way Glenn Miller played.....

 

[rambot]

People only become chattel when they fall so far that they have nothing left of value except their labor.

Oh,. To be clear I'm not saying they ARE chattel.
I am saying your post reads like they should be TREATED as chattel.

Big difference.

We don't call it being a 'wage slave' for nothing. The treatment is far better than historical slavery, but let's not pretend it's any less of an exchange of effort for existence to those people. You know the kind, the ones with debt or mortgages, who are terrified to say no to anything because they 'need the money'.

The grocery stores near me to give some things to food banks, but much of it goes into dumpsters. I know because I've seen it with my own eyes.

Sounds like you live in a crappy system and (or) a really crappy place; Maybe you should try to advocate change. In the meantime, don't expect other places are the dystopian experience you seem to have when it comes to poverty. IF you actually cared, fight for change.

And you're right, I phrased my argument poorly. In the time of Roman oppression, when the people were being taxed, the church *should* have stepped in to feed the poor and shelter the homeless. Instead, they wanted to keep their fine robes, cushy buildings, and important status. They couldn't give up their boons to those with less because it made them feel 'less'. I have no issue with people grouping together to provide, I have issue with an individual not knowing *how* they personally are providing for the poor beyond some hand-wave of 'food banks exist' or 'the government has programs'. Have you ever used those programs? Have you ever gotten food from a food bank? It is important to know how these things work.

Only once in my life did I ever claim unemployment. Less because I needed it and more because I qualified for it. To sit in the office and have a worker tell me "You're actually trying to follow the rules and read instructions, and the system punishes you for that. It's literally setup for people who cheat." was very telling. But I would have never learned that if I hadn't tested the very system I spent decades paying into.

1) I have been poor; sleeping in someone's shoe closet and working personel staffing jobs. I have received "Free food" from a person but I have not accessed official "Food Banks" as my needs (when they were that great) were for a brief time and I could handle the hunger for a while)

2) I have not accessed food banks myself but I have worked with many clients who have. I am very aware of how the system works and the dire need for it. I saw the lineup of 40 people with one person bragging about tricking the system.
But you know what? I didn't use that ONE person as an example of why the system can't be trusted, or that it's broken or that we shouldn't be supporting the poor because ther were 38 other people in line who clearly and humbly took that food and were just trying to keep some dignity.
3) I have been on unemployment. For a government worker to say that to you (I'm VERY skeptical that exchange even took place) is terribly unprofessional and far from the truth in the system that I went through (in Canada).

See, Here's the ABSOLUTELY wonderous thing about our two positions:
1) No where and not EVER have I abdicated my responsibility from helping the poor directly. You presume all I'm doing is "handwaving" and not actively supporting as an individual. You assumed the "socialist" abdicated personal responsibility when in fact I ADDED to it.

I ALSO think tax dollars should go toward helping the poor; even though some will take advantage of it.

YOU seem to suggest that ONLY individuals should be taking care of the poor and that tax dollars should not be going to the poor (this is what I assume when you wrote "the only viable solution is to get rid of SNAP altogether".)

I would argue that my position is the far more compassionate of the two positions. I would CERTAINLY rather my tax dollars went to help the poor and not to yet ANOTHER tomahawk missile.

That's the point I'm trying to make. The burden an individual has is to not just assume someone else will take care of a problem for them. Inspect, check, question, investigate, learn. Be curious. Care.

I feel like you have some odd sense or characterizing the problem of an individuals poverty.

Some other individuals poverty is not my...."problem". But our current capitalist system requires poverty to exist. Because of that, its citizenry have an obligation to help those fulfill the requirement of poverty.

I also worked for family services in nonprofit groups. I am very aware of how systems work...at least in canada.

"The point you're trying to make" in the FIRST post is that SNAP should be defunded. That has now changed to having an obligation to understand the mechanisms of social welfare programs?

 

[asquirrel]

Oh,. To be clear I'm not saying they ARE chattel.
I am saying your post reads like they should be TREATED as chattel.

Big difference.




Sounds like you live in a crappy system and (or) a really crappy place; Maybe you should try to advocate change. In the meantime, don't expect other places are the dystopian experience you seem to have when it comes to poverty. IF you actually cared, fight for change.


1) I have been poor; sleeping in someone's shoe closet and working personel staffing jobs. I have received "Free food" from a person but I have not accessed official "Food Banks" as my needs (when they were that great) were for a brief time and I could handle the hunger for a while)

2) I have not accessed food banks myself but I have worked with many clients who have. I am very aware of how the system works and the dire need for it. I saw the lineup of 40 people with one person bragging about tricking the system.
But you know what? I didn't use that ONE person as an example of why the system can't be trusted, or that it's broken or that we shouldn't be supporting the poor because ther were 38 other people in line who clearly and humbly took that food and were just trying to keep some dignity.
3) I have been on unemployment. For a government worker to say that to you (I'm VERY skeptical that exchange even took place) is terribly unprofessional and far from the truth in the system that I went through (in Canada).

See, Here's the ABSOLUTELY wonderous thing about our two positions:
1) No where and not EVER have I abdicated my responsibility from helping the poor directly. You presume all I'm doing is "handwaving" and not actively supporting as an individual. You assumed the "socialist" abdicated personal responsibility when in fact I ADDED to it.

I ALSO think tax dollars should go toward helping the poor; even though some will take advantage of it.

YOU seem to suggest that ONLY individuals should be taking care of the poor and that tax dollars should not be going to the poor (this is what I assume when you wrote "the only viable solution is to get rid of SNAP altogether".)

I would argue that my position is the far more compassionate of the two positions. I would CERTAINLY rather my tax dollars went to help the poor and not to yet ANOTHER tomahawk missile.




I feel like you have some odd sense or characterizing the problem of an individuals poverty.

Some other individuals poverty is not my...."problem". But our current capitalist system requires poverty to exist. Because of that, its citizenry have an obligation to help those fulfill the requirement of poverty.

I also worked for family services in nonprofit groups. I am very aware of how systems work...at least in canada.

"The point you're trying to make" in the FIRST post is that SNAP should be defunded. That has now changed to having an obligation to understand the mechanisms of social welfare programs?

Your entire debate structure is putting words in my mouth and sockpuppeting view points I don't have. I'm not going to interact with you further. Grow up.

 

[rambot]

Your entire debate structure is putting words in my mouth and sockpuppeting view points I don't have. I'm not going to interact with you further. Grow up.

Really?
My "entire debate structure"?

All you gave to support your arguments were spurious anecdotes. And you didn't like when dismissed your concerns as solely your experience?

Tough.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Maybe do a little song and dance too, just to prove their worthiness.

-- A2SG, boy the way Glenn Miller played.....

Sure. Otherwise, why else should they get an actual job to feed their families? It would be in everyone's best interest if they actually wanted to divorce themselves from the government and actually try to sustain themselves.

 

[Servus]

with the whole mess with SNAP benefits should there be anything food wise that cannot be purchased? How strict should it be?

I feel that no soft drinks nor pure junk food cookies, snack cakes ECT should be able to be purchased I do not believe, as I have seen at least one person say that everything boxed and certainly not everything canned should be off limits which if we really wanted to get super strict about junk food they would be.

Commercial food should be classified based on nutritional value. There's already USDA and recommended by the American Heart Association etc classifications and endorsements. Some foods are already clearly labeled as snack and novelty items.

 

[Servus]

Wow sweetened beverages.

They should tax them like cigarettes if they really want to MAHA..

The blue city of Seattle has had a sugar tax for beverages since 2018.

 

[A2SG]

Sure. Otherwise, why else should they get an actual job to feed their families? It would be in everyone's best interest if they actually wanted to divorce themselves from the government and actually try to sustain themselves.

Do you just assume everyone on SNAP is unemployed?

-- A2SG, you do know what happens when you assume, right?

 

[Servus]

Do you just assume everyone on SNAP is unemployed?

The issue is those who don't work because they get so much free stuff. Not those who can't work nor those who genuinely need assistance. But rather those who are purposely freeloading.

 

[A2SG]

The issue is those who don't work because they get so much free stuff. Not those who can't work nor those who genuinely need assistance. But rather those who are purposely freeloading.

If that's the issue, then I'm a bit unclear on how one's need for assistance necessitates specific requirements on which types of food are allowed under the SNAP benefit. Would these restrictions be only imposed on those determined to be purposely freeloading, or would those who genuinely need assistance also be subject to these restrictions? How do you suggest we determine who does or doesn't genuinely need assistance? Will there be additional funding to hire teams of investigators to make that determination?

-- A2SG, are you sure you've thought this all the way through?

 

[Servus]

If that's the issue, then I'm a bit unclear on how one's need for assistance necessitates specific requirements on which types of food are allowed under the SNAP benefit. Would these restrictions be only imposed on those determined to be purposely freeloading, or would those who genuinely need assistance also be subject to these restrictions? How do you suggest we determine who does or doesn't genuinely need assistance? Will there be additional funding to hire teams of investigators to make that determination?

People already have to apply, and their application is evaluated. But apparently the qualifications are too broad. Why welfare shouldn't cover unhealthy non-nutritional junk food is self explanitory.

 

[A2SG]

People already have to apply, and their application is evaluated. But apparently the qualifications are too broad.

Oh? How would you tighten up those qualifications?

Why welfare shouldn't cover unhealthy non-nutritional junk food is self explanitory.

What isn't self explanatory is why it should be the government's responsibility to oversee the nutritional intake of those who genuinely need assistance like SNAP benefits. Do you disagree with the conservative goal of a small, limited government, or are you of the mind that the government needs to play a role in policing how people eat?

And further, why limit this role only to those on SNAP benefits? If the government is to protect those who have a genuine need for SNAP benefits from their own non-nutritional choices, why should the rest of the populace be denied this beneficial service?

-- A2SG, there is a provision for equal protection in the Constitution, ya know....

 

[Servus]

Oh? How would you tighten up those qualifications?


What isn't self explanatory is why it should be the government's responsibility to oversee the nutritional intake of those who genuinely need assistance like SNAP benefits. Do you disagree with the conservative goal of a small, limited government, or are you of the mind that the government needs to play a role in policing how people eat?

And further, why limit this role only to those on SNAP benefits? If the government is to protect those who have a genuine need for SNAP benefits from their own non-nutritional choices, why should the rest of the populace be denied this beneficial service?

-- A2SG, there is a provision for equal protection in the Constitution, ya know....

Qualifications should be less broad. There's already items that can't be bought with SNAP, WIC and EBT. Items have barcodes which identify what they are. It's all pretty simple really and a system that's been in place for decades. I'm not going to explain it as if you just fell off the turnip truck.

 

[A2SG]

Qualifications should be less broad.

Yeah, that's what you said before. I asked how you'd tighten those qualifications. Care to answer?

There's already items that can't be bought with SNAP, WIC and EBT. Items have barcodes which identify what they are. It's all pretty simple really and a system that's been in place for decades. I'm not going to explain it as if you just fell off the turnip truck.

Which also doesn't answer what I asked. Do I need to repeat the question?

What isn't self explanatory is why it should be the government's responsibility to oversee the nutritional intake of those who genuinely need assistance like SNAP benefits. Do you disagree with the conservative goal of a small, limited government, or are you of the mind that the government needs to play a role in policing how people eat?​

​

And further, why limit this role only to those on SNAP benefits? If the government is to protect those who have a genuine need for SNAP benefits from their own non-nutritional choices, why should the rest of the populace be denied this beneficial service?​

-- A2SG, noticing a trend here....

 

[Servus]

Yeah, that's what you said before. I asked how you'd tighten those qualifications. Care to answer?


Which also doesn't answer what I asked. Do I need to repeat the question?

What isn't self explanatory is why it should be the government's responsibility to oversee the nutritional intake of those who genuinely need assistance like SNAP benefits. Do you disagree with the conservative goal of a small, limited government, or are you of the mind that the government needs to play a role in policing how people eat?​

​

And further, why limit this role only to those on SNAP benefits? If the government is to protect those who have a genuine need for SNAP benefits from their own non-nutritional choices, why should the rest of the populace be denied this beneficial service?​

I'm not going along with the deluge of questions from someone pretending they don't understand routine. If you want to discuss then do so in good faith as an informed person.

 

[A2SG]

I'm not going along with the deluge of questions from someone pretending they don't understand routine. If you want to discuss then do so in good faith as an informed person.

I never pretended anything. I'm trying to discuss this, but you aren't answering my questions. Whether because you're unable to, or unwilling to, I can't say for sure.

-- A2SG, but you're still welcome to try answering at any time....

 

[rjs330]

Why are you so desperate to micromanage other peoples lives?

Because they are asking us to be involved in their lives and paying for their stuff. If they just paid for their own stuff they could buy what they want. But if you are saying you cant afford to eat, then take our money and buy junk with it, apparently you dont really need the food that badly.

They can buy nutritious food with our money and if they really want junk food then buy it with their own.

 

[rjs330]

Ug. I find the whole conversation pretty distasteful. We hear and judge the eating habits of the poor but never consider the spending habits, and tax deductions of the rich.

Because its their money. Often its the habits of the poor that are keeping them poor. If you are poor you dont fo out and buy a yacht. If you are taking other people's money then those people should have a say in how its spent. Cause its not your money.

Lastly, the number of poor people who do not have consistent access to cooking tools (be it pots and pans or a working oven), is probably higher than you'd guess.

Pots and pans are cheap. You can buy them at thrift stores. Thats just an excuse for being lazy. You can buy a brand new 12 inch frying pan for less than $20. I bet you can fet one at thrift store for less than that. 1 McDonalds quarter pounder meal around here is $12. If you really want to save money, buy a drying pan and a pot.

 

[rjs330]

So? Why does that mean you think you should have power over what poor people eat and don't have the same expectation for any other tax dollar?

Becauae you are literally taking someone's property and giving it to someone else. How can you not understand that. Try that with your kids at school. Take their A and give it to another kid who got a D and then Give them both a C. See what they and their parents have to say about it.

 

[Nithavela]

I wanted to respond that people who get government assistance for food should have enough time to use basic ingredients to cook, including creating "treats" of their own.

Then I remembered that in the USA, you can work two jobs and still earn so little that you have to rely on government assistance, which of course means that the government is subsidising wage slavery.