TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives


You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
Noctis Offline
Scary Sharp
Average Joe
***
 
Noctis's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: At work.

Posts: 103
Join Date: January 11th 2009

The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 29th 2010, 07:38 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg0pDPK56Ys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIkksi344cM

Yes, it IS a pandemic. Yes, it IS spreading.

The program is ironically named the "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program". Which certainly IS an irony because: A) It does not "supplement" anyone's nutrition funds, it completely replaces it. B) Junk food makes up the majority of said "needy" person's purchases.

Blanket statements to be certain, but I believe those statements would accurately describe over half the participants of the program. I try to avoid stereotyping, but the sad fact is that a fat woman talking on her iPhone with a shopping cart full of chips, soda, and TV dinners would describe a large portion of your typical EBT(Eat Better Today, EveryBody's Taxes) card holder(or at least the ones you see the most). In fact, based on the type of items purchased alone, I have a 50/50 chance of guessing the payment type. It's when the entitlement attitude follows that I have a 99.9% chance of being right when I guess that this is an EBT card holder.

There ARE people who genuinely need and use the assistance in a productive manner(i.e. feeding their kids food that WON'T end up killing them before they reach the age of 50), but the sad fact is that these people number are in the minority. Why? Because there doesn't seem to be any limit on how long someone can receive the benefits, the benefits increase based on how many kids you have to feed, and there are little if any restrictions on the type of food that can be bought with the card. So it would really just be in one's favor to give up their job and live on welfare forever while having as much unprotected sex as possible.

This much is happening, but you really can't see it unless you work at a grocery store or supermarket, mainly as a cashier(which I happen to be). I see on a daily basis, a family with 4+ kids running around, ALL of them FAT. I honestly can't imagine a FAT family as a needy family.

The biggest issue is that the problem has an exponential growth. On average these "families" have about 3-5 children each. Those kids are going to be uneducated. And like mommy and daddy did, they will also live their lives on welfare. In 20 years, the 40 million on foodstamps will grow to over 100 million(actually with the estimated growth rate of 20,000 participants per day, there will be 146,000,000 new participants in the program in 20 years).


Yes people, this is how your tax dollars are being spent. The most galling part is(if you watched the video) that these people are CLUELESS as to who pays for their welfare.

In 20 years, half the population of the United States(currently estimated at 310,570,000) will be on welfare. Be afraid, be very afraid.


"I am the shadow cast by the light of science."

Last edited by Casey.; October 30th 2010 at 12:59 AM. Reason: Removing trigger tag to fit with the guidelines.
   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 29th 2010, 08:13 PM

My boyfriend and I had a conversation about this some time ago, because on the site "FailBook" (which has Facebook statuses worthy of facepalming at), one of them had this woman posting to her friend about how shes been accepted for the food stamps program, so now she can use the child support she gets to buy an iPhone.

I think if anybody is that "needy" that they have to be on welfare and food stamps, they shouldn't be buying an iPhone! Especially since with iPhone, Blackberry, and Android devices, you have to pay for special plans due to them being "Smart Phones". If they were to get a cellphone, it should be a basic phone that does basic things, instead of something with Mobile Browser, Applications, and other features that will give these people an excuse to throw their money everywhere.

In Canada, we don't have food stamps, but I find the welfare system is poorly maintained here. Like, lets put it this way. I have 2 examples from people I know personally, who have been on Welfare, and were abusing the system.

Example A: Two girls I went to high school with had dropped out of high school. After sitting at home on their asses for awhile, they decided to go back to school. BUT, they didn't choose to go back THROUGH the high school. No, they didn't want to live with their Mommies and Daddies anymore, so they got on welfare and moved to the one city about 20 minutes away to attend an Adult Education Centre. Less than a month after they move into an apartment together, the one posts on her MSN status "Got my money today, going to buy a laptop! ", or something very similar (this was over a year ago, so I forget the precise wording). Yeah, the government bought you a laptop, isn't that nice?

Example B
: One of my sister's friends is on Welfare, and has a young daughter (turning 4 in December). She got pregnant as a teenager, no surprise in this town. She gets Welfare, Baby Bonus, AND Child Support. She gets $800 from Welfare, I think about $200-$300 from Baby Bonus, and about $300-$400 in Child Support. So, she gets paid more than most honest, hard-working people do (INCLUDING a woman I knew who had TWO JOBS!). With the additional $600 or so she is getting, she uses a lot of it for booze, cigarettes, pot, fake nails, fake tans, and she likes updating her cellphone a lot. Every time I see her she never has the same phone twice. I would THINK it'd be logical for the government to deduct part of her Welfare cheque, so that money can go towards other people, but they don't. So, this teenaged mom can go do drugs, get drunk, and whatever else, paid for by hard-working people. Nice.

Now, why am I so annoyed at blatant abuse of these systems? Well, besides the obvious moral issues, my current financial struggles make me hate these people who coast through life even more.

I shall explain. After I finished high school, I wanted to go to college. I tried to get a loan through OSAP (Which is like, Ontario's student loan program), but they told me that my dad makes too much (they don't account for the fact that he has more dependents than the books say, since after 18 they're no longer a "dependent", and at this time my sister was the ONLY one under 18, AND half his paycheques go to THE GOVERNMENT!), so they wouldn't help me. My parents said they simply could not afford it, and wouldn't pay for me to go to college. So, I spent a year trying to find a job. Anywhere. Any hours. I didn't care. I couldn't get employed. After this year of searching, my parents finally decided they'd pay for me to go to college, so I wouldn't have to struggle with my job hunt any more. They managed to find the money, because well, its not like they COULDN'T afford it, they just needed to set it aside for awhile more than anything.

Now, I've finished college. Over a year ago I finished. I can't find a job in Welding in my small town. I've tried every kind of job possible, even crappy fast food jobs, despite being a college graduate. I want to get out of this town and move to a city where I can actually try to get a welding job, and use my certificates I got in college. And you'll probably ask "Why don't you get a car and drive to the city?". Well, I have a horrible fear of driving. I cannot get behind the wheel without having a panic attack. So that is out of the question.

I called up the Welfare office to try and see what they could do for me, since everyone else I have known to go on Welfare has been able to afford a decent place, in one of the cities outskirting my small town. I got told that the MAXIMUM amount I could qualify for, as far as rent goes, is $540 a month. There are NO APARTMENTS, not even BACHELOR APARTMENTS that cheap! Only thing that cheap is Student Housing, and I am NOT A STUDENT. Yeah, I try to get on Welfare to get a leg-up, to try and GET A JOB, and I can't get enough to even get a place to live in. It feels like the only way they'll help me is if I spread my legs or drop out of high school. And my friend who wanted to move to the city to try and find work as well, he was told he could get only $200/month for rent, because he was a student!

Okay, I've totally gone on a rant here. Point is, lets face it, the government's idea of "Needy" is usually some scumbag who has fucked up their own lives, usually some dropout or some teenager with a kid, when half the time they don't know WHO their baby's daddy is (from what I've seen, anyways). People who REALLY need help are pretty much told to fuck off.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Casey. Offline
Dance with me
I can't get enough
*********
 
Casey.'s Avatar
 
Name: Casey
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Somewhere in my mind

Posts: 2,343
Blog Entries: 337
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 12:58 AM

First off, those videos are not accurate to reality. They are a few really stupid people how got interviewed, and they always do that so that things appear skewed.

Secondly, it's not a pandemic. A lot of people who need assistance can't get it. Just because someone is a certain size, doesn't mean they don't need help. And I don't know about where you live, but here there are only certain things you can get with an EBT card. Plus, a lot of people who get EBT have jobs. Generalized assumptions are bad for a strong argument.

Julz, I can understand some of your frustration, and I'm guessing where you live housing is costly. 540 is a lot of money here. Apartments run as love as 300 USDs. My family can't get assistance because of my scholarship money, which does nothing but pay for my university and books, and we really need assistance.

So no, my point is I don't believe it's a pandemic.


She whispered to her own reflection "I will be strong."

"I am not what has happened to me.I am what I have chosen to become."- Carl Jung

"If ye harm none, do as ye wish."

Sometimes things just happen.


Smile through the tears.


PM me

  Send a message via Yahoo to Casey.  
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
LucyLouWho Offline
In that order...
I've been here a while
********
 
LucyLouWho's Avatar
 
Name: Chelsey
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Location: West Virginia, US

Posts: 1,968
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 01:44 AM

So because you're on welfare, your children are going to be uneducated, fat, and doomed to be on welfare as well? Wow, that's the most educational statement I've heard all day... I guess my son is doomed. We get food stamps... My husband has a pretty low paying job at the moment because the economical crisis hit pretty hard in the area that we live. There weren't many jobs to begin with and now there are even fewer. And I am a full time college student.

I totally agree that people buy things that they shouldn't be wasting their benefits on, but I also feel like it's not really anyone's business other than the DHHR to judge that. You're going to have to pay taxes whether or not these people get their benefits... there will always be something that we're paying for, but don't agree with.


Previously Mommy.Wife.Student
   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Anduriel Offline
srsly, wtf.
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Anduriel's Avatar
 
Gender: Male

Posts: 571
Join Date: January 10th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 02:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
In 20 years, half the population of the United States(currently estimated at 310,570,000) will be on welfare. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Source?

10char
  Send a message via AIM to Anduriel Send a message via MSN to Anduriel Send a message via Skype™ to Anduriel 
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
Member
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
MisplacedDreamer's Avatar
 
Name: Annie
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 735
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: June 12th 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 02:21 AM

I don't think my family was ever on food stamps but my mom was on the very old WIC, which was a pain because we wouldn't eat the food. She used my father's social security to be able to keep the house and used grants and loans to go back to school. Because of that, we didn't move into a bad neighborhood and she could feed us.

One thing that amuses me is the idea of poor. I sometimes sit and scratch my head when I look at people who are in debt. Why are people who are in debt having expensive cellphone plans? Yes, I do have the more expensive cellphone but I cut out other means to have it. I don't have cable TV or highspeed Internet. I do not play video games anymore.
  Send a message via AIM to MisplacedDreamer  
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Marguerite Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marguerite's Avatar
 
Name: Marguerite
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Australia

Posts: 1,064
Blog Entries: 2
Join Date: June 1st 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 06:35 AM

It's not a pandemic. People don't choose to be poor. Nobody says, "Well, I could go to college and get a high paying job, but I think I'd prefer to live off foodstamps".

We don't have foodstamps here, but i'm on welfare payments and so is my mother. I'm not sure if you have anything similar in America but here a full time student whose parents earn under a certain amount get this thing called Youth Allowence. I get $200 a fortnight.

I'll be the first to admit that's a bit excessive, because Uni students only get marginally more and I, as a high school student, don't need that much when others desperately do. However to contradict what I just said, I do need it in my case because (most weeks) I spend all of it on food and electricity (we have pay as you go power).

When I have a bit left over, yeah, sometimes I'll buy clothes or go to the movies. It's rare that I get the oppurtunity too but it's great when I have the change. So what? Because of my mothers career choices I must never be able to have fun or nice things? Last year when everyone got the stimulus (my country gave about $1000 in a few payments to everyone on welfare as to stimulate the economy. It worked pretty well). Before I had it I was at the library after school each day, a 20 minute bus trip back and forth, and I was STILL always behind with my work. How in this day and age can someone be expected to do schoolwork without a computer when almost all work is expected to be typed and researched?

My mum is far from a lazy slob who gets benefits because it's easier than working. She's a disability carer and she works hard at all hours. It's just not enough for the two of us to live on though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Okay, I've totally gone on a rant here. Point is, lets face it, the government's idea of "Needy" is usually some scumbag who has fucked up their own lives, usually some dropout or some teenager with a kid, when half the time they don't know WHO their baby's daddy is (from what I've seen, anyways). People who REALLY need help are pretty much told to fuck off.
Wow! Classy.

First, I sympathise with the situation you're in. I pretty much think the system is f*cked in that regard (it's the same here too). I had a friend who was planning on doing nursing this year but she can't anymore because her mother and step father earn too much. The thing is that the only nursing degree in our state is at a university three hours away from where she lives currently and she will have no way, even if she gets a job, of paying for accomodation. So she has to take a year of school and get a job to prove she's 'independent'. It's ridiculous and unfair.

That said, though she is in a horrible situation for a dumb reason, I don't really consider than 'needy'. In fact I don't know why you've said that you are REALLY needy compared to people like teen mothers. I'm pretty sure they're A LOT more needy than you (and me). 'Needy' = Has no food, no clothes, struggling to pay rent, have a place to live etc not 'has to pay for university themselves'.

And what about the kid in your little scenario? Should they pay for it because they're mother is a teen, they don't know their father and their mother has a shitty job?

Being poor and in need doesn't make you a 'scum bag', and saying so makes you sound like an elitist snob.

A hell of a lot of people, including myself, would love to hear the words 'your parents earn to much'.


To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget

~Arundhati Roy
   
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
mommy to be <3
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
off to a new life's Avatar
 
Age: 29
Gender: Female

Posts: 288
Join Date: July 12th 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 06:41 AM

There are definitely a lot of chronic abusers of the welfare system, but the problem is how do we deal with it? If it were easy to keep people off of welfare who didn't need it then I'm sure the government would be doing it already. We cannot get rid of welfare because there are many good people who genuinely need the assistance.


From your head down to your toes,
You're not much, goodness knows.
But you're so precious to me,
Sweet as can be,
Baby of mine.
   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 07:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
That said, though she is in a horrible situation for a dumb reason, I don't really consider than 'needy'. In fact I don't know why you've said that you are REALLY needy compared to people like teen mothers. I'm pretty sure they're A LOT more needy than you (and me). 'Needy' = Has no food, no clothes, struggling to pay rent, have a place to live etc not 'has to pay for university themselves'.
I'm glad we're on the same page (mostly), but to be fair, I didn't say I was "Needy". I could definitely use a leg-up in this economy though, but instead people who don't want to work are getting money to party. Half of my dad's paycheque goes to these programs, and well, if he wasn't charged so much in tax, he'd have enough to pay for me to rent a place, pay bills and groceries easily, technically speaking.

I just think it's ridiculously unfair that when so much of my dad's money goes to these programs, I can't get anything because I haven't dropped out of high school or gotten pregnant at a drunken party. Ya know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
And what about the kid in your little scenario? Should they pay for it because they're mother is a teen, they don't know their father and their mother has a shitty job?
Pay for what? Sorry, I don't know if you're referring to the kid paying with the consequences of their mother's actions, or saying "Should the government have to pay for the kid?" type deal. Maybe I'm lost in translation here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Being poor and in need doesn't make you a 'scum bag', and saying so makes you sound like an elitist snob.
Not saying that at all. I know some people who are "poor" and yet, not scummy either. I knew a girl whose mother worked 2 full-time jobs, and still barely stayed afloat. Honestly, SHE could've used the assistance. I just think the welfare should be monitored MUCH better. Why should the government give two people the same amount of money (say, $800/month) when one girl is getting $400/month from her baby's dad, and the other girl isn't getting a cent from her baby's dad? Why should the one girl have extra money to go drink, party, fake tan, fake nails, and pot?

Think of it this way. And this is hypothetical since I don't know the actual statistics.

If 100 000 people are on assistance, have the same budget ($800/month), and yet, 10 000 of these people are getting $300/month child support.

Now, if the government even deducted $150/month off their welfare cheques, which is HALF of the extra they get (and don't really need!) to compensate for that, thats $1.5 Million extra dollars A MONTH to go towards helping more people, whether its through welfare, or going towards education, health, etc., doesn't that seem more beneficial than letting someone, like a teenaged mother party or have a fancy cellphone?

Sorry if it seems I'm aiming at teenaged mothers, they're just the ones I see partying, buying fancy gadgets and stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
A hell of a lot of people, including myself, would love to hear the words 'your parents earn to much'.
Yeah. However, here, you also get taxed more based on your income. I really wish they would consider these things when they figure out how much one can REALLY afford out-of-pocket.

I'm not complaining about my dad making too much on the books though, I'm upset about the blatant abuse of the system. I understand not everybody abuses it, but if they kept better tabs on these things, (i.e. asking for receipts for expenses every so often, or inspections to see if someone is actually trying to do something about their situation *like, seeing if someone capable of working is even trying, in the end I think it'd be more efficient, and better for the taxpayers and for people receiving benefits.

Essentially, welfare the way it is, it gives some people a pass to do absolutely nothing except drink and party their lives away. I mean, the one girl I mentioned, her kid is in school full days, so why shouldn't she be looking for a part-time job? She doesn't have any issues stopping her, except the sheer fact she doesn't want to.

I have a friend who is a young mother (not teenaged, but young nonetheless) and she doesn't get child support (her son's father is unemployed), she dedicates her time to her son, and shes in school for her PSW (Personal Service Worker) certification. She's using Welfare as a leg-up, so she can house, feed, and clothe herself and her son, and go to school to better herself. She doesn't go out and party, except the rare occasion her and I have a bit of extra money, which hasn't happened for a few months.

So I mean, I'm not making assumptions, I've seen these two different scenarios personally. And well, my parents have even blatantly said to me "I really don't mind if my tax money is helping other people. Annette (my friend) is a dedicated mother, and she's working on getting a career. However, when people like K (my sister's friend, not inserting full name) are leaving her kid to be babysat by anyone who'll take her to go out and party with her friends on my dollar, I have a problem with that!"

My dad is a very generous person, like, if he saw someone we knew in a financial jam, he'd try to help them. Hell, when I've had friends over and they run out of smokes, my dad will hand them a pack of his. In fact, one time my friend's family was in a financial jam, and they couldn't afford groceries, so my dad sent me over with some food we had in the freezer, like some ground beef, some chicken, some bacon (he buys meat in bulk from the butcher shop), and didn't expect a cent from them. And another time, he sent me to my friend Annette's place with some extra food we picked up grocery shopping (like some canned ravioli), even though she wasn't in dire need, just because he knows she doesn't have a lot of money.

Point I was getting at here is, my family is perfectly fine with helping people, but doesn't think they should be able to get more luxuries than the average working joe does. Most people who work can't afford to grab a drink, or update their cellphones, or many things the same way some of these people on Welfare can. And THAT is where he and my mother, as well as myself, and many others, think that it's gone too far, and just enables people to be lazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey. View Post
Julz, I can understand some of your frustration, and I'm guessing where you live housing is costly. 540 is a lot of money here. Apartments run as love as 300 USDs.
Well I live in Canada. And well, it is kind of costly. Especially since we're not far from places like Niagara Falls and Toronto. Living in Toronto costs anywhere between $900-$2000 for a bachelor apartment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer View Post
One thing that amuses me is the idea of poor. I sometimes sit and scratch my head when I look at people who are in debt. Why are people who are in debt having expensive cellphone plans? Yes, I do have the more expensive cellphone but I cut out other means to have it. I don't have cable TV or highspeed Internet. I do not play video games anymore.
Agreed 100%! I see a lot of this! I mean, if you're so hard-up for cash that you need money/food stamps/whatever from the government, how are you affording luxuries that some people who WORK FULL-TIME can't even afford?

As I have already mentioned, I knew a woman who worked 2 full-time jobs and had 2 teenagers. She could afford rent, food, and a dirt-cheap cellphone plan (Like, 100 daytime minutes, unlimited evenings/weekends, and unlimited text) for herself, and her oldest daughter, so she could keep in touch with her daughter when she was out.

This woman didn't have internet, no computer, didn't have cable, didn't drink much, didn't go out, didn't have a car. She worked 2 jobs, and didn't have anything fancy to show for it. She had her necessities, and that was about it.

Why should someone who is "poor" and on Welfare be able to have more luxuries than someone who works their ass off at 2 jobs? THAT is not fair at all!


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
Marguerite Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marguerite's Avatar
 
Name: Marguerite
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Australia

Posts: 1,064
Blog Entries: 2
Join Date: June 1st 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 08:25 AM

By the way, I don't want to come off as rude but my last post was pretty snappy, sorry. I enter this board in battlemode. I can't help it. Bitch is my default setting online.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
I'm glad we're on the same page (mostly), but to be fair, I didn't say I was "Needy". I could definitely use a leg-up in this economy though, but instead people who don't want to work are getting money to party. Half of my dad's paycheque goes to these programs, and well, if he wasn't charged so much in tax, he'd have enough to pay for me to rent a place, pay bills and groceries easily, technically speaking.

I just think it's ridiculously unfair that when so much of my dad's money goes to these programs, I can't get anything because I haven't dropped out of high school or gotten pregnant at a drunken party. Ya know?
Yeah, I see your point. Funny story: The day before yesterday I was in court. Nothing suss, I was with my legal class to watch. Anyway, the trial was of this woman who got caught selling weed. It turns out she was on Newstart Allowence, Child support payment, and two other things. They're all different types of benefits. Anyway, she was getting up $1200 a forknight from the government! Without having a job (unless you count drug dealer as a job?). There definitely are people who just are lazy and have no ambition. I think your problem is that you find yourself in the middle of the spectrum. Obviously if your parents had been rich they could just pay for everything, but had you been poor there would have been all kinds of benefits and scholarships avalible. You're right, it sucks to work hard and see idiots getting money to go out every pension day to buy crap they don't need.



Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Pay for what? Sorry, I don't know if you're referring to the kid paying with the consequences of their mother's actions, or saying "Should the government have to pay for the kid?" type deal. Maybe I'm lost in translation here?
Well I think I misunderstood what you meant so it doesn't matter anymore. I meant consequences. All I was saying was that even though some people we might consider... drop kicks... are getting benefits, we just have to remember that some of them have children and it's a good enough reason in my opinion for them to get what money they get. Kids shouldn't be penalized for their parents mistakes. I realise that's not what you were saying.


Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Not saying that at all. I know some people who are "poor" and yet, not scummy either. I knew a girl whose mother worked 2 full-time jobs, and still barely stayed afloat. Honestly, SHE could've used the assistance. I just think the welfare should be monitored MUCH better. Why should the government give two people the same amount of money (say, $800/month) when one girl is getting $400/month from her baby's dad, and the other girl isn't getting a cent from her baby's dad? Why should the one girl have extra money to go drink, party, fake tan, fake nails, and pot?
Again I see your point, but I suppose the system is a bit different here as for 1)If you're getting child support your welfare payment goes down (and vice versa if you aren't) and 2) $400 per month? The average is at least half of that here.

but I can definitely see why that would be annoying! That's kind of dumb, I would be frustrated too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Sorry if it seems I'm aiming at teenaged mothers, they're just the ones I see partying, buying fancy gadgets and stuff.
No, that's fine. I don't know any single mothers if that's what you're thinking. I do think they seem like the ones who do that (not to stereotype)

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
I'm not complaining about my dad making too much on the books though, I'm upset about the blatant abuse of the system. I understand not everybody abuses it, but if they kept better tabs on these things, (i.e. asking for receipts for expenses every so often, or inspections to see if someone is actually trying to do something about their situation *like, seeing if someone capable of working is even trying, in the end I think it'd be more efficient, and better for the taxpayers and for people receiving benefits.
I see that, but again I think this is where our systems differ. Here if you don't have a child under a certain age (about six I think) and no medical difficulties and you aren't looking for a job, employed, undergoing training or study you get your welfare payments cut off. Believe me. Last year I was having a really rough time of it so I dropped out of school and got my payments cut off. They told me I had to start looking for a job so they gave me this little booklet. You have to hand out your resumes to at least EIGHT different places and get people that work at those places to sign it (as to prove you really applied). If you don't hand it in in a fortnight (and can't provide a good reason why) you don't get paid.

The recipts things though is a little harsh in my opinion. If people are going to sacrafice food and power for shoes and alcohol, let them. They're the ones that end up suffering in the end.


Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Essentially, welfare the way it is, it gives some people a pass to do absolutely nothing except drink and party their lives away. I mean, the one girl I mentioned, her kid is in school full days, so why shouldn't she be looking for a part-time job? She doesn't have any issues stopping her, except the sheer fact she doesn't want to.
Funny you mentioned that, because I think here in my country a lot of stupid young teenagers having kids to avoid working and to get the baby bonus when your kid is born (one off payment of $1000). I don't know how someone could be as dumb to think that they're making money by having a baby or that they'll have more free time, but they do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
So I mean, I'm not making assumptions, I've seen these two different scenarios personally. And well, my parents have even blatantly said to me "I really don't mind if my tax money is helping other people. Annette (my friend) is a dedicated mother, and she's working on getting a career. However, when people like K (my sister's friend, not inserting full name) are leaving her kid to be babysat by anyone who'll take her to go out and party with her friends on my dollar, I have a problem with that!"

My dad is a very generous person, like, if he saw someone we knew in a financial jam, he'd try to help them. Hell, when I've had friends over and they run out of smokes, my dad will hand them a pack of his. In fact, one time my friend's family was in a financial jam, and they couldn't afford groceries, so my dad sent me over with some food we had in the freezer, like some ground beef, some chicken, some bacon (he buys meat in bulk from the butcher shop), and didn't expect a cent from them. And another time, he sent me to my friend Annette's place with some extra food we picked up grocery shopping (like some canned ravioli), even though she wasn't in dire need, just because he knows she doesn't have a lot of money.

Point I was getting at here is, my family is perfectly fine with helping people, but doesn't think they should be able to get more luxuries than the average working joe does. Most people who work can't afford to grab a drink, or update their cellphones, or many things the same way some of these people on Welfare can. And THAT is where he and my mother, as well as myself, and many others, think that it's gone too far, and just enables people to be lazy.
Sure, I absolutely agree. Your parents sound like good people.


To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget

~Arundhati Roy
   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
Noctis Offline
Scary Sharp
Average Joe
***
 
Noctis's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: At work.

Posts: 103
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anduriel View Post


Source?

10char
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us...amps.html?_r=2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kismet View Post
There are definitely a lot of chronic abusers of the welfare system, but the problem is how do we deal with it? If it were easy to keep people off of welfare who didn't need it then I'm sure the government would be doing it already. We cannot get rid of welfare because there are many good people who genuinely need the assistance.
Oh but it IS easy, at least to mitigate some of the problems. New York is already on the right track(for once) by banning sodas and sugared beverages off the list of eligible foodstamp items.

You see, it's not that hard to see who ultimately gets the money here. The junk food industry.

This video is probably overdramatic, but you see the point I'm getting at here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMnIY7NADvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzGskf8mLC

There's really no legitimate reason NOT to ban junk food off of the food stamp eligible items. The stupid ones will insist that their rights are violated, which is complete and utter BS given that the WIC program already limits items available for purchase, and I don't hear anyone crying about that(much).

People buy junk food and microwavable TV dinners because they're too lazy and stupid to learn how to cook a proper meal. It's just easier to be spoon fed things from a bag.

Drug tests would also be a step in the right direction. Sure, some say it's a violation of a person's rights. Again, I call BS on that one. In the 5 job applications I filled out, ALL of them require a drug test as a condition of employment. If a simple drug test is a violation of one's rights, then I suppose I would be well within my rights to sue every employer in the nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casey. View Post
First off, those videos are not accurate to reality. They are a few really stupid people how got interviewed, and they always do that so that things appear skewed.

Secondly, it's not a pandemic. A lot of people who need assistance can't get it. Just because someone is a certain size, doesn't mean they don't need help. And I don't know about where you live, but here there are only certain things you can get with an EBT card. Plus, a lot of people who get EBT have jobs. Generalized assumptions are bad for a strong argument.

So no, my point is I don't believe it's a pandemic.
I'm not psychic, so I can't say for sure that they don't have jobs, but I DO know people who are also just barely pulling through and making ends meet, but they don't qualify for foodstamps because "their income is too high". If my coworker who regularly breaks down in tears from the effort to pay the bills on time can't qualify for foodstamps on her salary, I think the safe assumption would be that anyone on foodstamps either don't have a job, or they're flipping burgers at minimum wage at McDonalds.

"Just because they're a certain size" doesn't come anywhere NEAR the mark. These people are 100% genuinely MORBIDLY OBESE.

Perhaps it's just an unavoidable fact that fat people happen to show up on camera more because their bodies occupy more space on our little planet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3vmiXZJ0uo

Damned if that first lady wasn't lying through her teeth when she said she wasn't eating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6n-ia1hh44

See that neck fat? The nice shades? The big earrings? The rings around her fingers? And I don't think these news crews are deliberately targeting people who fit the stereotypes unless their report was specifically AGAINST food stamps in some way.

Some say "don't stereotype people", I say "try not to fit the stereotype".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OcbEeq74TA

A nice informative video about the link between obesity and foodstamps.

I'll be honest with you here. At 5'5" and [Edit], I'm overweight myself with quite a beer belly. But I don't look "chubby"(i.e. the only part of my body that shows any obvious fat is my belly, which you might not even notice when I have my shirt untucked). I get ZERO exercise whatsoever, and my doctor notes that I've been steadily losing weight ever since I've been staying away from sugary foods, chips, and soda.

To be in worse shape than me is something that would require genuine effort in my opinion, as you can't really go below zero in terms of exercise. So you would really need to be shoveling down junk food 24/7 to get so fat.

I know the lady in the last video said that the main reason is because processed foods are cheaper than raw produce, but isn't that just a fake solution to the problem? If you're obese, you'll end up eating more anyways, which means you'll need more food purchases, meaning more money spent. I for one would rather make the choice that lets me live longer for the same price(in the end).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsCVBerg View Post
So because you're on welfare, your children are going to be uneducated, fat, and doomed to be on welfare as well? Wow, that's the most educational statement I've heard all day... I guess my son is doomed. We get food stamps... My husband has a pretty low paying job at the moment because the economical crisis hit pretty hard in the area that we live. There weren't many jobs to begin with and now there are even fewer. And I am a full time college student.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
There ARE people who genuinely need and use the assistance in a productive manner(i.e. feeding their kids food that WON'T end up killing them before they reach the age of 50), but the sad fact is that these people number are in the minority.
Again, it's nice to see that you are one of those that genuinely need and receive the assistance.

However, from my observations, you only make up 30% of the EBT users. It might simply be because of the simple fact that bad news attracts more attention, but at the beginning of the month, what I end up looking at from the order in front of me to the next several orders stretching straight into the aisles are shopping baskets full of candy, chips, shrimp, steak, beer, soda, and TV dinners(beer of course can't be paid for with food stamps, but you DO get a cash portion on the card in lieu of welfare checks for "other" needs).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsCVBerg View Post
I totally agree that people buy things that they shouldn't be wasting their benefits on, but I also feel like it's not really anyone's business other than the DHHR to judge that. You're going to have to pay taxes whether or not these people get their benefits... there will always be something that we're paying for, but don't agree with.
Not trying to be rude, but the casual brushing off of taxes to me sounds like something I would only expect to hear from someone who isn't used to paying taxes. People could be paying LESS taxes, or taxes wouldn't keep increasing, or taxes could be used to improve our society as it was meant to be used.

If the tax cuts off MY paycheck are used to help people destroy themselves and their children as well, "don't agree with" doesn't quite describe it. I want someone's head on a pike. I want someone to be crucified for this unacceptable BS.


"I am the shadow cast by the light of science."

Last edited by Casey.; October 31st 2010 at 12:45 AM. Reason: Please don't post weight numbers, they are against the COC
   
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 09:06 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Again I see your point, but I suppose the system is a bit different here as for 1)If you're getting child support your welfare payment goes down (and vice versa if you aren't) and 2) $400 per month? The average is at least half of that here.
1) Here, I wish they'd do that!, and 2) It depends on the income of the baby's parents, as well as if they have special needs and such. This girl, who gets about $400 a month, her child doesn't have special needs, just to clarify (since I did bring up special needs being a factor)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
I see that, but again I think this is where our systems differ. Here if you don't have a child under a certain age (about six I think) and no medical difficulties and you aren't looking for a job, employed, undergoing training or study you get your welfare payments cut off. Believe me. Last year I was having a really rough time of it so I dropped out of school and got my payments cut off. They told me I had to start looking for a job so they gave me this little booklet. You have to hand out your resumes to at least EIGHT different places and get people that work at those places to sign it (as to prove you really applied). If you don't hand it in in a fortnight (and can't provide a good reason why) you don't get paid.
Well here they don't do that, when they should. Sounds like your system takes care of many things my system probably SHOULD. Though, here, kids start school full-time at 4 years old now. If a kid is in school full-time, I don't see why the parent can't get a part-time job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
The recipts things though is a little harsh in my opinion. If people are going to sacrafice food and power for shoes and alcohol, let them. They're the ones that end up suffering in the end.
Well first of all, I think receipts of what is purchased would give a better idea of if someone needs more or less money. Like, for example, if a mother with one kid is getting $1000/month total, but their apartment is $700/month (including power), then the groceries, getting the kid new clothes, having a phone, and public transit comes up to $400/month, seeing receipts of all this would help the person get more money.
Yet if another person, getting the same amount ($1000/month), gets a basement apartment (say, with a family friend) for $200/month, and spends $400/month for the food, clothes, phone, etc., would it really be necessary for that person to have an extra $400/month? I mean, hell, even leave them an extra $200/month, the $200 deducted could help the person who needs the extra $200 because they can't find cheaper housing (for whatever reason, whether transportation, or if they're going to school, or whatnot).

Though that scenario kind of sucked, its the best way I can think to explain it with no real-life examples.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 09:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
Drug tests would also be a step in the right direction. Sure, some say it's a violation of a person's rights. Again, I call BS on that one. In the 5 job applications I filled out, ALL of them require a drug test as a condition of employment. If a simple drug test is a violation of one's rights, then I suppose I would be well within my rights to sue every employer in the nation.
Agreed, absolutely! Actually, there is a group on Facebook called "If my job requires a drug test, so should your Welfare cheques", or something like that. And I completely agree.

If anything, people who work hard for their money should have more of a right to spark up a joint or grab a drink occasionally, as long as it doesn't interfere with their everyday lives.

But someone on Welfare should not be allowed to use money that taxpayers were drug tested to make, in order to do drugs! In fact, doesn't the government limit, or ban (depends on where you are) drugs? Then WHY are they distributing your money for some lazy fuck to do the drugs they work so hard to eliminate?


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
Marguerite Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marguerite's Avatar
 
Name: Marguerite
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Australia

Posts: 1,064
Blog Entries: 2
Join Date: June 1st 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Agreed, absolutely! Actually, there is a group on Facebook called "If my job requires a drug test, so should your Welfare cheques", or something like that. And I completely agree.

If anything, people who work hard for their money should have more of a right to spark up a joint or grab a drink occasionally, as long as it doesn't interfere with their everyday lives.

But someone on Welfare should not be allowed to use money that taxpayers were drug tested to make, in order to do drugs! In fact, doesn't the government limit, or ban (depends on where you are) drugs? Then WHY are they distributing your money for some lazy fuck to do the drugs they work so hard to eliminate?
This is the same reason I am against recipt checking. The government would not save money by doing these things (especially drug testing). It would cost millions. You've got to manufacture everything, provide a space for people to get drug tested (are we talking urine sample or...) pay for transport for the test, hire thousands of people and pay those already working over time... It just seems like a bit of a pointless endeavour if the goal is to save money.

Besides, it seems a bit like a band-aid on a bullet wound. The problem is that their are drugs readily available, not that people on welfare are doing them. Might as well kill two birds with one stone and focus more on getting drugs off the street.


To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget

~Arundhati Roy
   
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
This is the same reason I am against recipt checking. The government would not save money by doing these things (especially drug testing). It would cost millions. You've got to manufacture everything, provide a space for people to get drug tested (are we talking urine sample or...) pay for transport for the test, hire thousands of people and pay those already working over time... It just seems like a bit of a pointless endeavour if the goal is to save money.
Actually, they already check receipts for rent, and make sure the landlords file income tax for it to be legal. I don't see how some grocery receipts (usually people grocery shop once a week), a public transit receipt (one a month), and maybe a phone/cable/internet receipt. And plus, its the welfare workers, not the government itself, that deals with cases. Why not add a few receipts to their cases? Its not a whole lot extra. Maybe an extra few minutes tops?


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
paradox665 Offline
Member
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
paradox665's Avatar
 
Age: 29

Posts: 5
Join Date: May 30th 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 11:26 AM

Hi, Arc's boyfriend here, and I just wanted to give some input as somebody who's family has been on EBT for pretty much our entire existence as a family unit, but first of all, I want to point out ONE thing:

You posting videos from Glenn Beck and Michael Savage doesn't do a single thing to help and/or prove your argument. I dare you to try and use those videos as "proof" in any actual debate regarding welfare and government assistance, you'd get completely laughed off your high-horse. Unless, of course, your audience were xenophobic, paranoid Tea-Baggers.

Now that that's out of the way, let me explain the predicament my family is in:

Before I was born, my dad fell off a ladder and broke the lower parts of his neck (he's worked construction ever since he dropped out of school when he was 17, he's 55 now), but he made a damn-near 100% recovery over the time he was in the hospital thanks to all the great doctors and specialists that the government-funded medical care system he was on allowed him to see. During this period, I was born and while my dad was in the hospital, my mom was at home taking care of me, which she wouldn't have had any money to do if it weren't for government assistance programs for people with new-born children.

As I said before, my dad almost completely recovered, (he still has chronic pain in his chest and neck area from the accident, which he takes medication and sees a specialist for, once again, with help from the government) but now there was the me situation. They couldn't afford to hire a sitter (my dad's a one-man operation and barely makes enough to keep a roof over our head), so my mom made the decision to be a stay-at-home mom and raise me, without EBT this wouldn't be possible and they would have had to give me up for adoption.

Now, fast-forward to just a couple years ago, I'm no longer a minor and can take care of myself, so my mom goes out to find a job, but can't due to the fact that she hasn't worked in 10+ years because she was staying home raising me, thus we have to stay on EBT.

There isn't a single thing I wouldn't give for our family to have a stable income, so your insinuation that people are on welfare because they want to be pisses me off to no end. Have you ever waited in an unemployment line? Have you ever suffered the indignity of having to send in your tax forms to the EBT agency (showing every bit of taxable money you've made that year) just to try and convince them that you need food-stamps just to live? Something tells me you haven't.

So, before you go using wingnuts like Beck and Savage to prove a point, you may want to actually sit down and think; "You know what, these people are right-wing sensationalists, they make money off of controversy. It makes total sense that they would make the welfare system out to be completely broken because it furthers their agenda." It's just like the people who show the ultra-flamboyant parts of gay pride parades and say things like "OMG, THEY WANT THESE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO ADOPT?!"I highly suggest you change your news sources, Fox News is nowhere near being remotely credible. Hell, just browsing the news section on Reddit for 30 minutes each day would provide a more "fair and balanced" rhetoric than Fox's.

I wouldn't mind a real debate on the issue, but the fact that you linked to two videos featuring those two completely negates your argument as a whole.
   
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
Marguerite Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marguerite's Avatar
 
Name: Marguerite
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Australia

Posts: 1,064
Blog Entries: 2
Join Date: June 1st 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Actually, they already check receipts for rent, and make sure the landlords file income tax for it to be legal. I don't see how some grocery receipts (usually people grocery shop once a week), a public transit receipt (one a month), and maybe a phone/cable/internet receipt. And plus, its the welfare workers, not the government itself, that deals with cases. Why not add a few receipts to their cases? Its not a whole lot extra. Maybe an extra few minutes tops?
I know it's the welfare workers, but the welfare workers work for the government.

It would take A LOT more than a few minutes. Just think about it practically for a second. For it to actually work, you would need receipts for pretty much everything you've spent your money on. Then the welfare workers would have to go through everything and make sure everything is 'in order' which would take a long time to do it properly (that is, for everyone on welfare). Or would it just be a few receipts here and there, because that wouldn't make any sense. I could spend $200 on groceries and then go and buy alcohol and cigarettes.

Most people only go into the welfare offices when they need to fill out a form or when circumstances change, but instead they would have to go in every week/forknight/month, which would mean that the government would have to pay a hell of a lot more people to work there (not to mention bigger places).

And then what would they do, tell you which items on your grocery receipt that you can't have and then make you give the money back? Or do they cut you off? What happens if you forget or lose your receipt?


To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget

~Arundhati Roy
   
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 07:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
*snip*
Or would it just be a few receipts here and there, because that wouldn't make any sense. I could spend $200 on groceries and then go and buy alcohol and cigarettes.

Most people only go into the welfare offices when they need to fill out a form or when circumstances change, but instead they would have to go in every week/forknight/month, which would mean that the government would have to pay a hell of a lot more people to work there (not to mention bigger places).

And then what would they do, tell you which items on your grocery receipt that you can't have and then make you give the money back? Or do they cut you off? What happens if you forget or lose your receipt?
Actually, I would think that if they checked the first month or two of receipts, it'd give them an idea of how the money is effectively used, with receipts for the necessities, and maybe some basic luxuries (like phone, cable, internet), to figure out if someone is getting way too much extra or not. In the scenario I already mentioned, with the girl getting $400 extra, having receipts for the first month or two of what she's bought thats practical would give the worker an idea "Hey, *insert name here* is getting an extra $400 they don't need. Lets deduct $200-$300/month from their cheque".

Sorry if I lost you in translation, making it seem like a mandatory every single month forever and ever.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
Noctis Offline
Scary Sharp
Average Joe
***
 
Noctis's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: At work.

Posts: 103
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 07:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradox665 View Post
Hi, Arc's boyfriend here, and I just wanted to give some input as somebody who's family has been on EBT for pretty much our entire existence as a family unit, but first of all, I want to point out ONE thing:

You posting videos from Glenn Beck and Michael Savage doesn't do a single thing to help and/or prove your argument. I dare you to try and use those videos as "proof" in any actual debate regarding welfare and government assistance, you'd get completely laughed off your high-horse. Unless, of course, your audience were xenophobic, paranoid Tea-Baggers.

Now that that's out of the way, let me explain the predicament my family is in:

Before I was born, my dad fell off a ladder and broke the lower parts of his neck (he's worked construction ever since he dropped out of school when he was 17, he's 55 now), but he made a damn-near 100% recovery over the time he was in the hospital thanks to all the great doctors and specialists that the government-funded medical care system he was on allowed him to see. During this period, I was born and while my dad was in the hospital, my mom was at home taking care of me, which she wouldn't have had any money to do if it weren't for government assistance programs for people with new-born children.

As I said before, my dad almost completely recovered, (he still has chronic pain in his chest and neck area from the accident, which he takes medication and sees a specialist for, once again, with help from the government) but now there was the me situation. They couldn't afford to hire a sitter (my dad's a one-man operation and barely makes enough to keep a roof over our head), so my mom made the decision to be a stay-at-home mom and raise me, without EBT this wouldn't be possible and they would have had to give me up for adoption.

Now, fast-forward to just a couple years ago, I'm no longer a minor and can take care of myself, so my mom goes out to find a job, but can't due to the fact that she hasn't worked in 10+ years because she was staying home raising me, thus we have to stay on EBT.

There isn't a single thing I wouldn't give for our family to have a stable income, so your insinuation that people are on welfare because they want to be pisses me off to no end. Have you ever waited in an unemployment line? Have you ever suffered the indignity of having to send in your tax forms to the EBT agency (showing every bit of taxable money you've made that year) just to try and convince them that you need food-stamps just to live? Something tells me you haven't.

So, before you go using wingnuts like Beck and Savage to prove a point, you may want to actually sit down and think; "You know what, these people are right-wing sensationalists, they make money off of controversy. It makes total sense that they would make the welfare system out to be completely broken because it furthers their agenda." It's just like the people who show the ultra-flamboyant parts of gay pride parades and say things like "OMG, THEY WANT THESE PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO ADOPT?!"I highly suggest you change your news sources, Fox News is nowhere near being remotely credible. Hell, just browsing the news section on Reddit for 30 minutes each day would provide a more "fair and balanced" rhetoric than Fox's.

I wouldn't mind a real debate on the issue, but the fact that you linked to two videos featuring those two completely negates your argument as a whole.
Truly Glenn Beck and Michael Savage seem more the type to stir up controversy for the sake of TV ratings, but FOX? I suppose CNN, CBS, NY Times, and all other news sources are invalid as well because they're "news"?

I can vouch for the video of Michael Savage when an EBT "customer" comes through my line and has the nerve to tell ME that I have a job thanks to her. They actually believe that it's Obama who pays for their welfare benefits.

As for your situation, I'm getting tired of repeating myself when I say that my insinuations do not absolutely apply to ALL(it's stupid to be 100% on anything). But for every person like you who genuinely needs and uses welfare in the way it was meant to be used, there are 4 other people who CONTINUE TO HAVE SEX AND HAVE MORE CHILDREN "AFTER" GOING ON WELFARE. Do you plan to defend those people? If so, I hope you have an inspiring speech on their behalf.

As for "proof", the real proof are the cashiers standing in front of a cash register. Reading comments on YouTube as well as Facebook and other forums, I notice that nearly all of them mention that they are cashiers. Which of course would make sense, seeing as nobody really "knows" that these customers are on welfare until they pull that card out. And when my coworkers bitch about their customers, it's really inevitable that it's always someone on foodstamps. The first week of the month is the most dreaded and also when complaints about customers and tempers are running high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
This is the same reason I am against recipt checking. The government would not save money by doing these things (especially drug testing). It would cost millions. You've got to manufacture everything, provide a space for people to get drug tested (are we talking urine sample or...) pay for transport for the test, hire thousands of people and pay those already working over time... It just seems like a bit of a pointless endeavour if the goal is to save money.

Besides, it seems a bit like a band-aid on a bullet wound. The problem is that their are drugs readily available, not that people on welfare are doing them. Might as well kill two birds with one stone and focus more on getting drugs off the street.
The goal is to make sure that the people who get welfare actually NEED it. Getting drugs off the streets is hard, as you have to go and LOOK for the people selling and buying the drugs. Getting drugs away from welfare abusers is EASY, as THEY come to YOU(or the government office).

Perhaps you're looking at this the wrong way. You are PAYING for these people to do drugs. I for one would have a problem with that.


"I am the shadow cast by the light of science."
   
  (#20 (permalink)) Old
Member
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
MisplacedDreamer's Avatar
 
Name: Annie
Gender: Female
Location: USA

Posts: 735
Blog Entries: 3
Join Date: June 12th 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 08:17 PM

I am not sure if this is a practical plan, but I think that maybe the food stamps should become more like WIC. WIC in Ohio was recently changed to be more open. I don't run lane very often and I haven't done WIC in over nine months so I may be a little bit wrong here (whenever I have a WIC order, I call a manager over due to not knowing.)

Basically, I think that people should have to show their IDs and have their name printed on the cards. In Ohio, WIC users have to show a booklet and sign the checks in front of the cashier to match the authorized users. Then there are more options now such as they can pick bread, cereal, fresh produce, frozen produce, rice, peanut butter, cheese, milk, and the like. No more forcing the women to get jars of peanut butter, they have more variety and I think it goes off of points now. Like a family of X gets Y points and each food is assigned a point system plus five or six dollars for fruits and veggies.

Too often someone comes up and buys a candy bar and a pop for their break with a food stamps card.
  Send a message via AIM to MisplacedDreamer  
  (#21 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 30th 2010, 10:53 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
Truly Glenn Beck and Michael Savage seem more the type to stir up controversy for the sake of TV ratings, but FOX? I suppose CNN, CBS, NY Times, and all other news sources are invalid as well because they're "news"?
To be fair, I know what my boyfriend was saying when he referred to your sources being unreliable, seeing as they're politically biased. They have a Republican agenda, when refutable news sources are supposed to be UNBIASED.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
As for "proof", the real proof are the cashiers standing in front of a cash register. Reading comments on YouTube as well as Facebook and other forums, I notice that nearly all of them mention that they are cashiers. Which of course would make sense, seeing as nobody really "knows" that these customers are on welfare until they pull that card out. And when my coworkers bitch about their customers, it's really inevitable that it's always someone on foodstamps. The first week of the month is the most dreaded and also when complaints about customers and tempers are running high.
My boyfriend actually works as a cashier now. And we actually discussed this topic in a chat to ourselves last night (well technically this morning), and in the end, we agreed that the people who abuse the system shouldn't ruin it for everyone else, but the government should also manage these things better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
The goal is to make sure that the people who get welfare actually NEED it. Getting drugs off the streets is hard, as you have to go and LOOK for the people selling and buying the drugs. Getting drugs away from welfare abusers is EASY, as THEY come to YOU(or the government office).
I agree with you 100% here. I mean, the war on drugs is ongoing, but funding some of these people who don't work, the Welfare crowd that DO use drugs, is just going to counteract all the work they've tried to do, because they're further contributing to the distribution of drugs by paying for someone to buy them.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#22 (permalink)) Old
Casey. Offline
Dance with me
I can't get enough
*********
 
Casey.'s Avatar
 
Name: Casey
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Location: Somewhere in my mind

Posts: 2,343
Blog Entries: 337
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 12:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
I'm not psychic, so I can't say for sure that they don't have jobs, but I DO know people who are also just barely pulling through and making ends meet, but they don't qualify for foodstamps because "their income is too high". If my coworker who regularly breaks down in tears from the effort to pay the bills on time can't qualify for foodstamps on her salary, I think the safe assumption would be that anyone on foodstamps either don't have a job, or they're flipping burgers at minimum wage at McDonalds.

"Just because they're a certain size" doesn't come anywhere NEAR the mark. These people are 100% genuinely MORBIDLY OBESE.
It also depends on what part of the Country you live it. I know someone who was working full time, couldn't afford her bills, and ended up getting assistance and food stamps. She is also medically underweight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
I know the lady in the last video said that the main reason is because processed foods are cheaper than raw produce, but isn't that just a fake solution to the problem? If you're obese, you'll end up eating more anyways, which means you'll need more food purchases, meaning more money spent. I for one would rather make the choice that lets me live longer for the same price(in the end).
Not always. I'm technically overweight. And I eat less than the majority of my friends, and I work out several times a week. But I can't lose weight. (I also rarely eat junk food or meat. ) So yeah, that argument isn't working for me. Canned food is so much cheaper than produce, and if you are trying to watch your budget, it is sometimes the only choice you have.


She whispered to her own reflection "I will be strong."

"I am not what has happened to me.I am what I have chosen to become."- Carl Jung

"If ye harm none, do as ye wish."

Sometimes things just happen.


Smile through the tears.


PM me

  Send a message via Yahoo to Casey.  
  (#23 (permalink)) Old
paradox665 Offline
Member
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
paradox665's Avatar
 
Age: 29

Posts: 5
Join Date: May 30th 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 04:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
Truly Glenn Beck and Michael Savage seem more the type to stir up controversy for the sake of TV ratings, but FOX? I suppose CNN, CBS, NY Times, and all other news sources are invalid as well because they're "news"?

I can vouch for the video of Michael Savage when an EBT "customer" comes through my line and has the nerve to tell ME that I have a job thanks to her. They actually believe that it's Obama who pays for their welfare benefits.

As for your situation, I'm getting tired of repeating myself when I say that my insinuations do not absolutely apply to ALL(it's stupid to be 100% on anything). But for every person like you who genuinely needs and uses welfare in the way it was meant to be used, there are 4 other people who CONTINUE TO HAVE SEX AND HAVE MORE CHILDREN "AFTER" GOING ON WELFARE. Do you plan to defend those people? If so, I hope you have an inspiring speech on their behalf.

As for "proof", the real proof are the cashiers standing in front of a cash register. Reading comments on YouTube as well as Facebook and other forums, I notice that nearly all of them mention that they are cashiers. Which of course would make sense, seeing as nobody really "knows" that these customers are on welfare until they pull that card out. And when my coworkers bitch about their customers, it's really inevitable that it's always someone on foodstamps. The first week of the month is the most dreaded and also when complaints about customers and tempers are running high.


The goal is to make sure that the people who get welfare actually NEED it. Getting drugs off the streets is hard, as you have to go and LOOK for the people selling and buying the drugs. Getting drugs away from welfare abusers is EASY, as THEY come to YOU(or the government office).

Perhaps you're looking at this the wrong way. You are PAYING for these people to do drugs. I for one would have a problem with that.

No, those other outlets qualify as news because none of them have ever financially endorsed a certain party for office, (unlike what Fox News did with the Republicans). Nor have any of those other outlets ever directly fund and promote an opposition group (Tea-Baggers) to an elected administration and party.

Like Arc said, I actually work as a cashier (in a pretty impoverished area in the South, I may add) and I've got to say, that eight out of every ten people that is on the EBT program truly NEEDS to be on it, so you're crying over a negligible statistic.

Furthermore, do you have any objective PROOF that these people buy drugs with the money they save from the EBT program? Not as in "I know somebody..." or "A friend of a friend told me," but 100% verifiable, objective facts and statistics?

And yeah, I will defend those who get pregnant while on welfare, you wanna know why? Because it's not any of my business what people choose to do with their bodies. I don't give a damn if it is coming out of my taxes, I live in the USA, not China where the government can restrict the number of kids you choose to have. Also, just because somebody may happen to be on government assistance doesn't make them slaves to society's or the government's will toward them. They don't owe you, nor anybody else, a goddamn thing.

Your entire argument is absolutely ridiculous. YouTube and Facebook comments as "proof?" Grow up.
   
  (#24 (permalink)) Old
Marguerite Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marguerite's Avatar
 
Name: Marguerite
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Australia

Posts: 1,064
Blog Entries: 2
Join Date: June 1st 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 04:36 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Actually, I would think that if they checked the first month or two of receipts, it'd give them an idea of how the money is effectively used, with receipts for the necessities, and maybe some basic luxuries (like phone, cable, internet), to figure out if someone is getting way too much extra or not. In the scenario I already mentioned, with the girl getting $400 extra, having receipts for the first month or two of what she's bought thats practical would give the worker an idea "Hey, *insert name here* is getting an extra $400 they don't need. Lets deduct $200-$300/month from their cheque".

Sorry if I lost you in translation, making it seem like a mandatory every single month forever and ever.
Again, I just don't find that practical. For one, are you saying that people on welfare shouldn't have the right to buy things like clothes or toys for their children? Are the only allowed to buy food? I think that's too harsh to say anyone on welfare must prove what they do with the money because a few idiots spend it on trivial or harmful things. People on welfare aren't criminals, so I don't know why we would treat them like that.

Needs change. Maybe someone will spend $200 on groceries one week and the next they'll buy $100 worth or $300 worth. The next it might be their child's birthday and they need money for that. The week after perhaps they'll find a new job which requires extra travel to and from work, resulting in more gas money spent. After that maybe their parent will give them $500 to help with bills and they wont need as much. I don't know how you could possibly calculate how much someone will spend based on a month worth of groceries and phone bills.

It would be also very easy to beat (just spend the extra $400 on groceries for a few weeks).

Also, people buy different things. Should a vegan for example be penalized for not buying as much food as an obese person who gets things they really don't need?

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
I agree with you 100% here. I mean, the war on drugs is ongoing, but funding some of these people who don't work, the Welfare crowd that DO use drugs, is just going to counteract all the work they've tried to do, because they're further contributing to the distribution of drugs by paying for someone to buy them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
The goal is to make sure that the people who get welfare actually NEED it. Getting drugs off the streets is hard, as you have to go and LOOK for the people selling and buying the drugs. Getting drugs away from welfare abusers is EASY, as THEY come to YOU(or the government office).

Perhaps you're looking at this the wrong way. You are PAYING for these people to do drugs. I for one would have a problem with that.
The thing is you guys are acting like all welfare users and drug users which of course is not true. The fact is nobody should be doing drugs- What kind of society do we live in if we think middle and upper class people have more right to shoot up than the poor? That's pretty ridiculous.

Again, you'd spend so much more money on drug testing than you would save. So it makes me think that you are suggesting this only out of principle, which is a bit backward if you ask me.

I just don't see the problem. If two people get $200 and one spends it on baby formula and food, and the other spends most of it on drugs, does it really matter? Provided of course that the latter person does not have a child to care for.

You're still going to be spending the money no matter what and if they have to go without food, that's gonna to cause harm to them, not you. You'll still be paying whether they're spending it on heroin or donating it to an orphanage.

And so what next if you find out someone is buying drugs with the money? Are you going to take the money away from them? If yes, what do we do with all the homeless people there will be as a result? Crack addicts and alcoholics have the right to food and shelter too.


To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget

~Arundhati Roy
   
  (#25 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 05:36 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Again, I just don't find that practical. For one, are you saying that people on welfare shouldn't have the right to buy things like clothes or toys for their children? Are the only allowed to buy food? I think that's too harsh to say anyone on welfare must prove what they do with the money because a few idiots spend it on trivial or harmful things. People on welfare aren't criminals, so I don't know why we would treat them like that.
I didn't say they couldn't buy clothing or anything. And I also said that IF THEY HAVE EXTRA, NOT HAVE THE WHOLE EXTRA TAKEN AWAY. Like my lovely example of how if someone had $400 extra each month, take away HALF of that, not ALL of that, to accommodate for extra costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Needs change. Maybe someone will spend $200 on groceries one week and the next they'll buy $100 worth or $300 worth. The next it might be their child's birthday and they need money for that. The week after perhaps they'll find a new job which requires extra travel to and from work, resulting in more gas money spent. After that maybe their parent will give them $500 to help with bills and they wont need as much. I don't know how you could possibly calculate how much someone will spend based on a month worth of groceries and phone bills.
Once again, note that I said NOT ALL EXTRA TAKEN AWAY. Please, read everything I say before responding. I've already accounted for that when I replied.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
It would be also very easy to beat (just spend the extra $400 on groceries for a few weeks).
I'm sure they'd have a good idea as to whether somebody REALLY needs $400 worth of extra groceries or not. Either $400 would get them a lot, or a few luxury items most people making average (or even ABOVE average) income can't afford, such as, lets say, lobsters. Those are expensive buggers. Don't you think they'd figure it's silly for someone who is poor and needy to insist on buying the most expensive food when they cry about barely surviving..?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Also, people buy different things. Should a vegan for example be penalized for not buying as much food as an obese person who gets things they really don't need?
Well actually, that scenario would even out. Vegan foods are more expensive. Nonetheless, someone mentioned food stamps going towards certain items, and limiting junk items that can be bought. I'm sure logically they'd limit junk items in a budget too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
The thing is you guys are acting like all welfare users and drug users which of course is not true. The fact is nobody should be doing drugs- What kind of society do we live in if we think middle and upper class people have more right to shoot up than the poor? That's pretty ridiculous.
First of all, I personally didn't imply that all welfare cases are drug users, I said OF THE CROWD THAT DO.

Second, I'd never endorse the use of illegal narcotics. But keep in mind, someone who works hard for their money has more right to spend it on alcohol and cigarettes than someone who sits around to collect it. I mean, the biggest excuse for people to drink or smoke is that it helps them unwind after a stressful day. Someone who, for example, ISN'T looking for work, DOESN'T do anything all day, and doesn't have to worry about whether they'll lose their house or not, because the Government pays for their house, I doubt they'd have stress. If everything is handed to you on a silver platter, and you don't have to do anything for yourself, I don't think you have any excuse to need to unwind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Again, you'd spend so much more money on drug testing than you would save. So it makes me think that you are suggesting this only out of principle, which is a bit backward if you ask me.
Well by that theory, companies also shouldn't drug test employees. People always talk about equal treatment as a nice concept, but when it comes to being practical about it, suddenly they have something to complain about.

This kind of thing also happens with gender, religion, and race. If you try to treat them equal, they scream HATE CRIME. Like, if a woman left a man a black eye, and the man pushed the woman away after, the woman would probably play the GENDER card to get out of trouble. I've seen girls do this before when in fights with their partners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
I just don't see the problem. If two people get $200 and one spends it on baby formula and food, and the other spends most of it on drugs, does it really matter? Provided of course that the latter person does not have a child to care for.
Uhm, yes, it does matter! The idea of Welfare is, by principle, to help people out. Now, if they can't help themselves (like, spending their money on drugs instead of, say, buying new clothes, groceries, etc.), then they should have the help enforced on them.

In fact, isn't that what Rehab is for? Helping those who won't help themselves? Who need a push? Sure it costs money initially, but in the end it's much more effective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
And so what next if you find out someone is buying drugs with the money? Are you going to take the money away from them? If yes, what do we do with all the homeless people there will be as a result? Crack addicts and alcoholics have the right to food and shelter too.
Uhm, they'd have shelter and electricity no matter what, at least here. Things like rent and electricity are automatically redirected to the landlord, the welfare recipient never touches that money, so they wouldn't be left homeless. And if they have a drug problem, well, thats where food stamps would come in handy. So they can EAT.


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#26 (permalink)) Old
mommy to be <3
Junior TeenHelper
****
 
off to a new life's Avatar
 
Age: 29
Gender: Female

Posts: 288
Join Date: July 12th 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 06:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis View Post
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us...amps.html?_r=2


Oh but it IS easy, at least to mitigate some of the problems. New York is already on the right track(for once) by banning sodas and sugared beverages off the list of eligible foodstamp items.

You see, it's not that hard to see who ultimately gets the money here. The junk food industry.

This video is probably overdramatic, but you see the point I'm getting at here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMnIY7NADvk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzGskf8mLC

There's really no legitimate reason NOT to ban junk food off of the food stamp eligible items. The stupid ones will insist that their rights are violated, which is complete and utter BS given that the WIC program already limits items available for purchase, and I don't hear anyone crying about that(much).

People buy junk food and microwavable TV dinners because they're too lazy and stupid to learn how to cook a proper meal. It's just easier to be spoon fed things from a bag.

Drug tests would also be a step in the right direction. Sure, some say it's a violation of a person's rights. Again, I call BS on that one. In the 5 job applications I filled out, ALL of them require a drug test as a condition of employment. If a simple drug test is a violation of one's rights, then I suppose I would be well within my rights to sue every employer in the nation.
Well I don't really see why you would ban junk food. If people want to be unhealthy that really is their choice. It only becomes a problem if eating too much junk food gets in the way of them finding a job. If you really care about these people's health then perhaps you should advocate government funded nutrition classes for them or giving them more money to buy healthier food (which is more expensive).

Drug testing, I totally agree with on the condition that the government ensures there are good rehab facilities available and paid for.


From your head down to your toes,
You're not much, goodness knows.
But you're so precious to me,
Sweet as can be,
Baby of mine.
   
  (#27 (permalink)) Old
Noctis Offline
Scary Sharp
Average Joe
***
 
Noctis's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: At work.

Posts: 103
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradox665 View Post
No, those other outlets qualify as news because none of them have ever financially endorsed a certain party for office, (unlike what Fox News did with the Republicans). Nor have any of those other outlets ever directly fund and promote an opposition group (Tea-Baggers) to an elected administration and party.
I don't watch TV nor do I find enough free time to keep track of the political winds, so you'll excuse me if I'm not as up-to-date with our current conspiracies.

Quote:
Like Arc said, I actually work as a cashier (in a pretty impoverished area in the South, I may add) and I've got to say, that eight out of every ten people that is on the EBT program truly NEEDS to be on it, so you're crying over a negligible statistic.
"Want" and "need" are two separate things which take most people YEARS to distinguish. It's been said that you need near poverty incomes to qualify for foodstamps, and that's what I'm looking for, signs of poverty. If nearly every member of the family is overweight, has iPods/iPhones, and the mom has designer cloths, an expensive purse, a nice car, and has heavy gold earrings/rings/necklaces/bracelets...I sincerely doubt they NEED much of anything.

Quote:
Furthermore, do you have any objective PROOF that these people buy drugs with the money they save from the EBT program? Not as in "I know somebody..." or "A friend of a friend told me," but 100% verifiable, objective facts and statistics?
Proof? No proof, and you should know better than to ask the impossible, as the only 100% verifiable proof would be from a blood test(i.e. drug test), which they do not force the welfare recipients to take. The only way to get the objective proof you seek would be to detain the person and forcibly take blood from them to be tested. But if you're volunteering to do that to someone, be my guest.

It's just that when a customer comes through your line with her hands shaking uncontrollably, blackened teeth, and demonstrates zero common sense(demanding the manager come down "right now" and then walking out the door seconds later), it's hard to imagine her as anything other than a drug addict on methamphetamine.

After YEARS of facing religious fanatics demanding PROOF from me that God does not exist, I know when I'm staring at an impossible demand.

Quote:
And yeah, I will defend those who get pregnant while on welfare, you wanna know why? Because it's not any of my business what people choose to do with their bodies. I don't give a damn if it is coming out of my taxes, I live in the USA, not China where the government can restrict the number of kids you choose to have. Also, just because somebody may happen to be on government assistance doesn't make them slaves to society's or the government's will toward them. They don't owe you, nor anybody else, a goddamn thing.
Interesting. Perhaps you would also make the same argument about parents who abuse their children, sexually or otherwise. After all, it's not your business what they choose to do with their children right? The indifference you display on this topic is unbelievable. You're saying that someone who gets their food, housing, medical, car, electric, water, gas, clothing, and other daily needs and luxuries(TV, phone, cable, beer, cigarettes) 100% paid for them from the taxpayers from the cradle to the grave doesn't owe anybody anything? Even basic common courtesy?

It's interesting you bring up slavery. I always thought of slaves as someone who works themselves to death for the master, while receiving little if anything in return. Given that description, wouldn't it be more accurate to call the taxpayers the slaves and the welfare recipients the masters?

We provide for them food and all the other "needs", but what do they give US? More mouths for US to feed? Not only do they TAKE from us, but they TAKE more as time passes.

Quote:
Your entire argument is absolutely ridiculous. YouTube and Facebook comments as "proof?" Grow up.
It would be fruitful to practice what you preach.

I'm not sure why you disregard YouTube and Facebook as legitimate sources of information. I've found YouTube to be quite a library of knowledge, as it taught me how to play the piano, the guitar, how to sharpen a knife, how to make a lanyard out of paracord, how to solder electronic circuits and wires, how to cook a certain dish, how to refill my Zippo lighter, as well as providing information about a product before I buy it.

Facebook is almost scary in how much it ties into daily life. I trust you've read the story of the highschool cheerleader who got suspended from school because of a picture she posted on Facebook. Nowadays you can even get real time locations of certain individuals who use Facebook with their iPhones. You can get any and all current events of an individual should they choose to share it.


"I am the shadow cast by the light of science."
   
  (#28 (permalink)) Old
Brandon Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
Brandon's Avatar
 
Name: Brandon
Age: 30
Gender: Male

Posts: 2,542
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 07:25 AM

I'm going to have to agree with the OP. Food stamps shouldn't cover junk food. It is ultimately your choice on which foods you want to buy, but if you really want to eat something that is harmful to your body, that should be your choice, and therefore your money. But if you choose healthier options and eat the stuff that keep you alive longer and better, than I'd be more okay with that.
   
  (#29 (permalink)) Old
Marguerite Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Marguerite's Avatar
 
Name: Marguerite
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Location: Australia

Posts: 1,064
Blog Entries: 2
Join Date: June 1st 2010

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 07:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
I didn't say they couldn't buy clothing or anything. And I also said that IF THEY HAVE EXTRA, NOT HAVE THE WHOLE EXTRA TAKEN AWAY. Like my lovely example of how if someone had $400 extra each month, take away HALF of that, not ALL of that, to accommodate for extra costs.

Once again, note that I said NOT ALL EXTRA TAKEN AWAY. Please, read everything I say before responding. I've already accounted for that when I replied.
None of that changes the fact that needs change. Please, read everything I say before responding. Just because someone has a couple of hundred dollars extra one week they may have not even have enough to buy groceries the next.


Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
I'm sure they'd have a good idea as to whether somebody REALLY needs $400 worth of extra groceries or not. Either $400 would get them a lot, or a few luxury items most people making average (or even ABOVE average) income can't afford, such as, lets say, lobsters. Those are expensive buggers. Don't you think they'd figure it's silly for someone who is poor and needy to insist on buying the most expensive food when they cry about barely surviving..?
Right, but who is going to define what someone needs? You mentioned cable. Personally, I'm fine with people spending their welfare on cable but it's obviously not some kind of neccecity. Atleast with things like the internet someone might need it for school or work.

I'm not saying someone would have to spend $400 extra on groceries, but it would be easy enough to say you had to spend it on things like school books for you or your children, clothes for work, heating costs, etc etc... for a few weeks and then spend it on alcohol and the like after the time that you're being checked is over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Well actually, that scenario would even out. Vegan foods are more expensive. Nonetheless, someone mentioned food stamps going towards certain items, and limiting junk items that can be bought. I'm sure logically they'd limit junk items in a budget too.
Seriously? You're going to make sure people aren't allowed to buy certain junk food items? That's pretty crazy. These are just people who are having a rough go of it, not people who did something horribly bad, so I don't know why you continue to act like they're criminals.

The truth is, it doesn't matter what you think it should be spent on because it's their money. Sure you can vote, you can even run for office, but in the end it's silly to get angry because you get benefits of taxes too. I don't know why people only act this way over welfare. Nobody walks into a hospital and says "Hmm... Lung cancer you say? And you're a smoker? I have a problem with my tax dollars being spent on this."

If anything we should be focusing on trying to IMPROVE THE SITUATION so that so many people don't have to be on welfare, rather than shaming them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
First of all, I personally didn't imply that all welfare cases are drug users, I said OF THE CROWD THAT DO.

Second, I'd never endorse the use of illegal narcotics. But keep in mind, someone who works hard for their money has more right to spend it on alcohol and cigarettes than someone who sits around to collect it. I mean, the biggest excuse for people to drink or smoke is that it helps them unwind after a stressful day. Someone who, for example, ISN'T looking for work, DOESN'T do anything all day, and doesn't have to worry about whether they'll lose their house or not, because the Government pays for their house, I doubt they'd have stress. If everything is handed to you on a silver platter, and you don't have to do anything for yourself, I don't think you have any excuse to need to unwind.
Well first, you're whole argument is that everyone on welfare needs to be tested for drugs and have their receipts rifled through, so I think it's a very fair assumption to say that you are acting as if everyone on welfare is a drug user.

Second, I don't know what kind of welfare system they have in Canada but I'm pretty sure that no country just says "Hey, don't worry about looking for work, just sit back, relax, and we'll pay you". Again, I don't want to speak about what I don't know about, but I can only assume that to be unenployed on welfare over there you have to have a young child, be looking for a job or have some kind of disability.

The rest of your argument here astounds me. I don't know why you think poor people are sitting around in there mansions, doing whatever they want, snorting crack, getting their butler to go grab them a plate of lobster... I know that's not what you're saying, but it sounds like it. It's obviously a HELL of a lot more stressful to be poor than not to be.

So your problem isn't that people are doing drugs, just that poor people are? Wow.


Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Well by that theory, companies also shouldn't drug test employees. People always talk about equal treatment as a nice concept, but when it comes to being practical about it, suddenly they have something to complain about.
What are you talking about?? That scenario doesn't even make sense and isn't remotely similar! People aren't drug tested at work to see if they 'deserve to get any money', they are drug tested to see if they can do their work efficiently. I can't believe after everything you've wrote you have the nerve to talk about equal treatment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -ArcAngel- View Post
Uhm, they'd have shelter and electricity no matter what, at least here. Things like rent and electricity are automatically redirected to the landlord, the welfare recipient never touches that money, so they wouldn't be left homeless. And if they have a drug problem, well, thats where food stamps would come in handy. So they can EAT.
Uhm, If they aren't getting any money there is nothing to take. Didn't really think that one through, did you?


To love. To be loved. To never forget your own insignificance. To never get used to the unspeakable violence and the vulgar disparity of life around you. To seek joy in the saddest places. To pursue beauty to its lair. To never simplify what is complicated or complicate what is simple. To respect strength, never power. Above all, to watch. To try and understand. To never look away. And never, never, to forget

~Arundhati Roy
   
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#30 (permalink)) Old
Noctis Offline
Scary Sharp
Average Joe
***
 
Noctis's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: At work.

Posts: 103
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
The thing is you guys are acting like all welfare users and drug users which of course is not true. The fact is nobody should be doing drugs- What kind of society do we live in if we think middle and upper class people have more right to shoot up than the poor? That's pretty ridiculous.

Again, you'd spend so much more money on drug testing than you would save. So it makes me think that you are suggesting this only out of principle, which is a bit backward if you ask me.
You're missing the point here. Do you WANT these people to be on welfare for the rest of their lives? To me, the reasonable first step would be to get a job, and I don't see how they plan to do that when they're not going to be able to pass the drug test then. If nothing else, we'd be giving them a head start.

Quote:
I just don't see the problem. If two people get $200 and one spends it on baby formula and food, and the other spends most of it on drugs, does it really matter? Provided of course that the latter person does not have a child to care for.
Yes it does matter, that $200 could be taken from them and given to someone who really needs it for christ sake.

It's like asking if it's okay for me to torch the entire stock of the food bank. Does it matter whether it's feeding starving children or feeding my fire?

Quote:
You're still going to be spending the money no matter what and if they have to go without food, that's gonna to cause harm to them, not you. You'll still be paying whether they're spending it on heroin or donating it to an orphanage.
Thing is, they stay alive for years despite that. To me, that goes to show that the money from food benefits is more than sufficient to keep one alive and healthy enough to walk to the drug dealer, buy the drugs, and walk back home.

Why don't you withdraw all the funds in your bank and burn it up? It shouldn't matter whether the money feeds the fire or feeds YOU right?

Quote:
And so what next if you find out someone is buying drugs with the money? Are you going to take the money away from them? If yes, what do we do with all the homeless people there will be as a result? Crack addicts and alcoholics have the right to food and shelter too.
I find this world to be too lenient with people who might as well have been born leeches. It's an ultimatum really. Give up your drugs, or die from starvation. A lot of these drugs are powerful, it's not easy to quit. Once death comes knocking on their door and rearranges their priorities, my hope is that they place food before drugs.

Throwing these "rights" around is precisely what leads to an entitlement attitude. "I am entitled to booze and drugs. I am entitled to free food and housing. I am entitled to a nice car. I am entitled to expensive jewelry and designer clothing."

"Why?"

"Because I am."


Some people need to learn that some "rights" must be earned.

If we end up living in a society where nobody works, everyone lives off of welfare, and the entire nation collapses because there was no one left to pay the taxes, I just want you all to know that I called it.


"I am the shadow cast by the light of science."
   
  (#31 (permalink)) Old
Batman. Offline
Protector of Gotham
I can't get enough
*********
 
Batman.'s Avatar
 
Name: Julz
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 2,724
Blog Entries: 5
Join Date: December 14th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - October 31st 2010, 10:00 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
None of that changes the fact that needs change. Please, read everything I say before responding. Just because someone has a couple of hundred dollars extra one week they may have not even have enough to buy groceries the next.
Well actually, grocery needs are pretty consistent. And here, welfare is MONTHLY, actually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Right, but who is going to define what someone needs? You mentioned cable. Personally, I'm fine with people spending their welfare on cable but it's obviously not some kind of neccecity. Atleast with things like the internet someone might need it for school or work.
Well cable isn't a need, no, but basic cable is useful nonetheless. Kid can watch the History channel for a school project, you can see the weather, and hell, even be entertained a little too. Cable TV and Libraries were how people found information BEFORE the internet.
Technically, neither cable or internet are NEEDS, but you keep arguing how people on welfare shouldn't just have the basics and thats it, and be able to get a bit extra. And I accounted for that. And now you're bitching that I accounted for some extras when you initially wanted me to? Jesus H Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
I'm not saying someone would have to spend $400 extra on groceries, but it would be easy enough to say you had to spend it on things like school books for you or your children, clothes for work, heating costs, etc etc... for a few weeks and then spend it on alcohol and the like after the time that you're being checked is over.
I mentioned how heating is automatically paid for, first of all, by the government. Second, another thing we have here, is the welfare system will give out one-time payments for things like that, as far as school books and buying proper interview attire goes. And as far as children, thats why we have a Baby Bonus. To help with expenses of a child's food and clothes.

I keep forgetting that its not the same everywhere, so sorry for not specifying how our system works. Any points you bring up though, I'm fine with answering.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Seriously? You're going to make sure people aren't allowed to buy certain junk food items? That's pretty crazy.
Hold on, I think you got lost in translation here. Food stamps limit the AMOUNT of junk food you can purchase, not tell you WHAT you can and can't buy.

And well, if it weren't for that, some people may malnourish their kids by assuming Mac and Cheese with Hot Dogs is a sufficient meal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
The truth is, it doesn't matter what you think it should be spent on because it's their money. Sure you can vote, you can even run for office, but in the end it's silly to get angry because you get benefits of taxes too.
Oh really? You know how much I get from taxes? $62 every 3 months. $248 a year. My dad pays more than that EVERY WEEK to the government for these programs. Yeah, benefit my ass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
I don't know why people only act this way over welfare. Nobody walks into a hospital and says "Hmm... Lung cancer you say? And you're a smoker? I have a problem with my tax dollars being spent on this."
Actually, my grandfather had brain cancer and never smoked, drank, or anything else. Hell, the people I've known WITH cancer have been non-smokers, non-smoker families. The co-relation between the two is sparse.
And plus, people's paycheques go towards their own medical treatment, part of their pay goes to extended health coverage. They're paying into their own treatment as well. Someone who spends their life on welfare and doesn't try to fix their situation doesn't contribute at all.

Poor comparison.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
If anything we should be focusing on trying to IMPROVE THE SITUATION so that so many people don't have to be on welfare, rather than shaming them.
Hrm, maybe MANAGING THEIR MONEY IF THEY CAN'T DO IT THEMSELVES would help. If they can (which, many people on welfare CAN do), and they're looking for work, they are trying to improve things themselves.

I don't get how you can advocate people getting help, but then not advocate it when you don't like the help.

OH NO, RULES? SERIOUSLY?! SHIT!

You know why many rules in existence are in place? Because they're meant to help. Like, laws... those are crazy rules. But, they're there for a purpose. Laws actually technically violate people's rights, but it helps them, and others, out in the end. Like, laws against drunk driving. "I have booze, I have a car, why can't I have a drink and then drive?" Uhm, because you'll KILL somebody.

So putting rules in place to help manage money, FOR THE BETTER OF EVERYBODY INVOLVED, seems crazy, but in the end it'll be beneficial. Seriously, WHO would suffer if someone on welfare couldn't get high? Maybe the person in question during withdrawl. But they'd be better in the end.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Well first, you're whole argument is that everyone on welfare needs to be tested for drugs and have their receipts rifled through, so I think it's a very fair assumption to say that you are acting as if everyone on welfare is a drug user.
And when they MAKE people take drug tests at a job, they're treating all of them like drug users. Equal rights, right? Why shouldn't people on Welfare get drug-tested JUST LIKE THE COMMON WORKING MAN/WOMAN?

Oh, right, because Equality is good in theory, but when put into effect, its PROFILING, its a HATE CRIME, its whatever else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Second, I don't know what kind of welfare system they have in Canada but I'm pretty sure that no country just says "Hey, don't worry about looking for work, just sit back, relax, and we'll pay you". Again, I don't want to speak about what I don't know about, but I can only assume that to be unenployed on welfare over there you have to have a young child, be looking for a job or have some kind of disability.
Actually, they don't enforce making people find work. No matter what, even if they're mentally healthy and don't have kids at home all day.
True story, my one friend's mom is on welfare. Her youngest kid is 8, the other one is 12, my friend is 21.

Her mom hasn't been made to work, and her mom is mentally healthy. Her mom makes a bit of cash under-the-table babysitting someone else's baby, and stays on welfare, instead of finding a job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
The rest of your argument here astounds me. I don't know why you think poor people are sitting around in there mansions, doing whatever they want, snorting crack, getting their butler to go grab them a plate of lobster... I know that's not what you're saying, but it sounds like it. It's obviously a HELL of a lot more stressful to be poor than not to be.
Depends. Some people are content with sitting around getting everything handed to them. There are some genuinely scum people out there, you know.

And you know whats more stressful than having the government hand you money? Trying to make that money yourself!

Oh, before you assume that last statement was implying "HURR DURR EVERYONE ON WELFARE IS LAZY", no. But I've seen more people content with getting cash handed to them than I have seen people trying to improve themselves. I've seen these "poor" people have more luxuries than I have. I've seen someone who was on welfare go to the cinema pretty much EVERY WEEK, when I have gone once in the past SIX MONTHS. Oh, and I told this same girl about a place near her where I have a friend who could put in a good word for her, and her excuse? "I'd have to take the bus". YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE BUS TO SCHOOL TOO, AND WELFARE PAYS FOR YOUR TRANSIT PASS!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
So your problem isn't that people are doing drugs, just that poor people are? Wow.
No. I said that I DO NOT ENDORSE drugs, first of all.

Second, I said that if someone works hard and wants to use the disposable income THEY'VE EARNED to wind down with a couple drinks or a couple smokes, I don't see the problem with that. But when someone who is supposedly NEEDY goes and buys booze and smokes, obviously they're not THAT hard-up and desperate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
What are you talking about?? That scenario doesn't even make sense and isn't remotely similar! People aren't drug tested at work to see if they 'deserve to get any money', they are drug tested to see if they can do their work efficiently. I can't believe after everything you've wrote you have the nerve to talk about equal treatment.
Hahah, how does it not make sense?

And actually, an employee can be fired if they even smoke a bit of pot ON THEIR OWN TIME. What someone does on their own time shouldn't affect their job stability, or else drug use should affect someone's right to have disposable income, i.e. welfare.

You're the one being hypocritical about Equal Rights. I mean, you think its justifiable for people who work hard to just barely scrape by, or for them to not be able to partake in a bit of pot smoking. Marijuana is decriminalized here, so somebody CAN legally have a joint on them. But if you're employed, you can't smoke it. But your tax dollars pay for someone else to smoke it? Someone else to get whatever they want (new cellphones, laptops, and other things that really, aren't necessary? Whats wrong with a standard flip phone even? Why does it have to be Blackberry or iPhone?!) and overall, somebody else to reap the benefits while you work your ass off?

Pffft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marguerite View Post
Uhm, If they aren't getting any money there is nothing to take. Didn't really think that one through, did you?
OH REALLY?! Not like I SAID THAT or anything!

Let me try to simplify this, since you totally missed the point...

IF RENT IS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT, SO THE WELFARE RECIPIENT DOESN'T TOUCH IT, AS IT IS IN CANADA, NOT ONLY WILL THAT MONEY NOT BE SPENT ON BAAAAAAAAAD THING (LIKE DRUGS), BUT THEY WILL ALSO HAVE THEIR HOME ALWAYS PAID FOR.

Now, was that easier to understand, or do I have to keep the words less than 5 letters long?


Dare to be Different, to be Weird, to be a Freak.
Overall, Dare to be yourself.

Stamp Out Prejudice Hatred and Intolerance Everywhere
The Sophie Lancaster Foundation



   
  (#32 (permalink)) Old
iHEAVENn Offline
.:Try Forever:.
I've been here a while
********
 
iHEAVENn's Avatar
 
Name: Amy
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Location: Portland, Oregon

Posts: 1,306
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - November 1st 2010, 05:21 PM

You know what the simple solution is to all of this?
They need to restrict the things that can be bought on food stamps. No soda, no candy, no junk. (I know someone that used their food stamps to buy halloween candy )

If the people have to buy good food and no junk then maybe they'll get up off their butts and start working to help out the people who actually need food stamps and use it the right way.


.:6:21 a.m.:.
.:12-01-2007:.
.:Logan Jacob:.

Baby HunterComing 7/12/14
My Everything

I support Project Linus!
Let Go Laughing
"It took a pair of soft blue eyes, and a smile so sweet.. to make me reach up high, and really dig down deep.."




   
  (#33 (permalink)) Old
Noctis Offline
Scary Sharp
Average Joe
***
 
Noctis's Avatar
 
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Location: At work.

Posts: 103
Join Date: January 11th 2009

Re: The Foodstamp Pandemic - November 4th 2010, 09:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by iHEAVENn View Post
You know what the simple solution is to all of this?
They need to restrict the things that can be bought on food stamps. No soda, no candy, no junk. (I know someone that used their food stamps to buy halloween candy )

If the people have to buy good food and no junk then maybe they'll get up off their butts and start working to help out the people who actually need food stamps and use it the right way.
Agreed. If foodstamps is primarily to feed children(a reasonable assumption given that the more kids you have, the more it pays you), it's only natural that it should be limited to foods that every growing boy and girl needs. As it is now, it mostly feeds people who have their food pyramid upside down with fatty foods, sugar, and grease on the bottom.

Hell, I might even go so far as to say that the apparent laziness of these moochers might even be related to the foods they eat. With foods that only give "empty calories" that make you fat and give you little to no energy, it wouldn't be surprising if a lot of them end up too tired to do much more than sleep for most of the day, or too fat to even think about breaking a sweat at work.

The progress has been agonizingly slow on this note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9hBChsb_YI

Another solution I think would be to raise the eligible income so that minimal or low wage workers would be able to apply for the benefits, after taking into account general food and living costs for the specific area of course. As I said before, a coworker of mine has to support her two sons, but because they're both over 18 and she "makes too much", she isn't eligible for the benefits. One son is trying to make it big in the UFC(I personally think he has a better chance of winning the lottery), the other has mental health issues. If she could get SOME kind of help, even $100 a month, I'd imagine a lot of stress would be taken off. She might even be able to save up money to go back to school to earn a degree.

I feel the program should do what the name says, to SUPPLEMENT your inadequate food budget, not replace it entirely.


"I am the shadow cast by the light of science."
   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
foodstamp, pandemic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright 1998-2019, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.