Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Indeed absolutely. This isn't one person though, it's many. It's like a society. And it's mostly younger working age people. They seem to have a whole interactive system in place. Many times there's at least a dozen congregating in and around the store.
Seems the USDA is ahead of you here - they apparently call them "low access" areas now. Personally, I don't care what you call them - I call them food deserts because that's the terminology I'm familiar with, not out of any desire to influence anyone.
So there's a stand for how far every poor person should live from a supermarket? Who came up with this standard that says a supermarket should be from a poor person?
So? Whats so special about them? Again, are they supposed to get a supermarket on every block? How is that supposed to be enforced?
Umm... no. I like everyone had to make my own time and space. We have a tendency to do that if we find it important.
Pretty much everyone does. You aren't going to make a claim using the extreme to try and disprove the rule are you?
Poor people used to buy their groceries from little Mom and Pop stores in their communities. They paid higher prices but the stores were close by and most gave them credit and let them have charge accounts.
Once upon a time and still in most countries there would be little fruit and vegetable stands popping up in what we now call "food deserts." When I was a kid ('40s and '50s) we bought our vegetables from a man who came around with a horse and wagon selling vegetables he grew himself. That kind of enterprise used to be called a "free market capitalism." Nowadays the only street business with enough cash flow to justify the risk of arrest is drugs. On the other hand, my son lives in the Fruitvale neighborhood of Oakland which is controlled by the Sureños so street businesses flourish under their protection. The street food is fantastic, you can pick up a dinner for four for about ten bucks.
Yes. It is funny. But I also remember how much the liberals were supporting her dictating what children should be eating. Funny how that changes once it's conservatives who want to tell people what to eat.
The school lunch has always had a limited menu - you don't get a choice. That's a practical consideration; ingredients need to be purchased in bulk to keep costs down and be prepared in large quantities for serving a large number of students quickly. So, if we're already dictating what kids are eating at school, it might as well be healthier than, say, lunchroom pizza. That's distinct from the idea of policing what people are allowed to buy using the money that we give them to purchase food (beyond the limitation that it be food).
Walmart is the reason why many of their employees are on food stamps, Obama care and medical. Maybe people should boycott Walmart. I know some liberals won't go there, because of their labor abuse and they buy clothes from other countries, that have children making the clothes.
Sure they do. Their choice was to throw it in the trash and buy junk from a vending machine.
Somehow it’s Michelle’s fault these terrible parents never taught their kids to not waste food and make better choices for themselves.
No. They are learning by example from their parents who use their tax payer funded benefits to purchase junk and waste food. Honestly, in all seriousness, a selfish sense of entitlement is driving up the SNAP costs. Many people receiving SNAP do not need it; they feel entitled to it. They buy junk because they can, and they wast food because they can. I think if the country stripped away EBT altogether and replaced it with actual physical food rations, miraculously, SNAP recipients would drop by more than half because the entitled leaches would find it too inconvenient.
The logistics of that would only increase costs for the program. The current system is the most cost effective way to provide food assistance to those in need. Go after those taking advantage instead of punishing the rest who are in need.
As it always was.
I have a bigger problem, that they used to have all this America logos in their store. But they didn't buy a lot of their stuff in America. It's deceitful.
Sure. If I just quit my job
Yeah. Like I said previously. My household can be "at or below the poverty level" if I were to legally divorce my wife and continue living with her. She would be legally left as a single, unemployed mother of four and just raking in all the benefits and subsidies while I just kept working my same home and bringing home the same income. This is the game that so many people are playing. This is the political incentivisation of the single mother. Heck, why should a woman not get herself knocked up by multiple men and rake in thousands of dollars in entitlements and child support? Would it not be foolish to get married and lose the additional income and subsidies? I will tell you that I personally have family members who are single mothers with multiple baby-daddies who refuse to get a job and live better than I do, who consider people like me a "sucker and loser" because they have manipulated the system more than I.
