poor people don't need fucking soda and iPhones.

poor people need transportation and child care. I'm not saying that we should be giving out welfare cars, but that's one thing that keeps poor people from working. there is no defensible case for robbing peter to buy soda for paul.

6/7/2014 9:01:38 PM

Quote :

"But everyone else just thinks poor people shouldn't have "fancy" things"

No, I just think that the public dime shouldn't pay for "fancy" things, either explicitly, or by virtue of being generous enough that people on assistance can afford such things (although I'd be open to keeping or maybe even increasing assistance levels, but with more strings attached, and with the higher rates being short term and only available maybe for a few months every five years or something.)

Quote :

" "You (and others in this thread; the general 'you') don't like soda and wish to prevent others from purchasing it with SNAP.""

No, it has nothing to do with I or others like. I like soda; I don't like liver. I like eggs. I don't like coconut pie. I think that SNAP should cover eggs and liver, but not soda and coconut pie. It should be like WIC, where there is a list of things that are SNAP approved, rather than by exception, where it spends like cash on anything that isn't blacklisted from the program (tobacco, alcohol, energy drinks, etc).

For that matter, for those of you who think it's OK for SNAP to cover Coca-Cola, do you think it's wrong that it doesn't cover Red Bull?

Quote :

"I don't get a say either. If I did, my federal tax dollars certainly wouldn't go to pay for pork projects I don't approve of."

That's true, but that isn't analogous here. We are saying that there are some aspects of public assistance that are bullshit and shouldn't be funded with federal tax dollars. Do you not argue that bullshit pork barrel projects shouldn't be funded with federal tax dollars?

[Edited on June 7, 2014 at 9:08 PM. Reason : all of that said, while it's bullshit and wrong, it's a low priority to me]

6/7/2014 9:07:46 PM

i'd like for SNAP to cover alcohol and cigarettes. it'll thin out the idiots faster.

6/7/2014 9:22:57 PM

haha,

SNAP Approved Items:

-Liquor
-Malt liquor
-Lucky Strikes
-methamphetamine
-Twinkies*
-Ho-Hos*
-Pork rinds


(all the leftists who were so damned supportive of the loony-bin bakers' unions as Hostess bit the dust ought to love subsidizing consumption of their product with a government program )

[Edited on June 7, 2014 at 9:30 PM. Reason : would probably help the fiscal balance of Obamacare and the solvency of Social Security, too!]

6/7/2014 9:27:38 PM

Hasn't it been shown that it's actually cheaper for society in the long term for people to smoke because the drastic reduction in SS payouts actually outweighs the associated medical costs?

I doubt it's the case with obesity since damage to your body is much less drastic and more reparable.

6/7/2014 9:35:06 PM

sounds good to me

6/7/2014 9:48:15 PM

Quote :

"poor people don't need fucking soda and iPhones."

NOBODY needs soda or iPhones. Not even Bullet

[Edited on June 7, 2014 at 10:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2014 9:59:44 PM

right, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

6/7/2014 10:46:55 PM

Well, then if nobody actually needs these things, why are the poor being the targets here?

6/7/2014 10:57:07 PM

I've worked in food stamps.

Most people who have food stamps don't have iphones.

Most people who have iphones and get food stamps were probably not expecting to need food stamps when they signed their mobile contract.

6/7/2014 11:37:01 PM

Maybe if they cut back on their gallon of soda a day habit, they could afford their other bills and get off food stamps! amirite??

6/7/2014 11:56:07 PM

We all need to understand that there are not enough decent paying jobs/hours to go around. There are going to be poor people. They are going to have children. I wish that they wouldn't have children, that they could find a way to experience fulfillment without having to procreate. But I understand that people typically want to have families.

The wealthier, more powerful people in this country have boldly taken an enormous slice of the pie for themselves. They're basically robbing us while we stand around fingerpointing at some fat poor people who, not surprisingly, aren't motivated to slave away at three jobs just to make ends meet in a system we all know is total bullshit anyway.

Some of the stereotypes are rooted in truth. That's what makes them so appealing. But the woman with three kids, food stamps, and some fresh ass $50 nails is a symptom, not the disease. Even when she's in line at Target, spewing total ignorance on her cell phone, rubbing it all in real good...she's still not the one you should be mad at.

6/8/2014 1:06:44 AM

agreed with pretty much everything except this:

Quote :

"some fat poor people who, not surprisingly, aren't motivated to slave away at three jobs just to make ends meet in a system we all know is total bullshit anyway."

there are plenty of people that are slaving away, working three jobs and have a fire lit under their feet. they come to work, don't complain, work hard, and smile. these people aren't any more or less deserving of our help than those burned out and frustrated. why does there have to be a caste system for the poor, where we have those we respect and then those we deem 'untouchable'?

6/8/2014 1:25:20 AM

Quote :

"you the only one paying that bill? do you have a say on every other thing your tax money is spent on? I know I don't."

You're right, we should just give people money via the gov't, no strings attached whatsoever. What you aren't getting here is that these people are receiving money from the gov't to use for the purchasing of food; to say there should be no no oversight over how that money is spent is absolutely ludicrous! I'm not saying I should be telling people exactly how to spend their money; what I'm saying is it isn't exactly unheard of or unreasonable to expect that the gov't might have some reason to determine how food stamp money is spent, given that, well, it already does it. If a person has a job where he pays for all his bills and food, then fine, he can buy whatever the hell he wants. And, given that sodas are high-calorie, low nutrient, jugs of "fat juice," and regular consumption of them is known to lead to conditions such as diabetes, which the gov't will inevitably be paying to treat, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to have the gov't say "no, we aren't going to pay for that shit," in the same way that it would be reasonable for the gov't to say "no, we aren't going to pay for beer or cigarettes."

Or was that statement just pure sophistry and word-smithing, in a pathetic attempt to evade the point? "Why should burro, and burro alone, get to decide what they can purchase?" Is that what you were going for? Is something that incredibly stupid and asinine really the "argument" you were putting out there or claiming to be responding to? Really? People are talking about a gov't program, established by input from many voters and legislators, and how to tweak it for better results, yet you're gonna come out and try to say that HUR is (or I am) saying to let one person decide the whole thing? If it will make you feel better, allow me to rephrase it: "WE are the ones PAYING THE FUCKING BILL." Is that better? Are you happy now?

6/8/2014 1:32:38 AM

you are equivocating cigarettes/booze with soda. they aren't even close to being the same thing. keep trying

[Edited on June 8, 2014 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .]

6/8/2014 1:37:10 AM

Quote :

"there are plenty of people that are slaving away, working three jobs and have a fire lit under their feet. they come to work, don't complain, work hard, and smile. these people aren't any more or less deserving of our help than those burned out and frustrated. why does there have to be a caste system for the poor, where we have those we respect and then those we deem 'untouchable'?"

Most people who are working three jobs earn too much to qualify for assistance. Depending on how many children they have, they can maybe get food stamps.

And, even though we all know the dice are loaded, there is still something disdainful about folks who seem to actively avoid "bettering" themselves and their condition. I have empathy for them, but I don't really "respect" them, and if they're not particularly funny or wise or something, I'd rather not be around them.

I watched a documentary about some program to rehabilitate prostitutes. It was the first and only of its kind, and you definitely find out why after watching this thing. Most of the girls were teenagers and had been working as hookers since they were like 10 and 11. It was very sad and whatnot, and I felt bad for them. But, holy shit, they were obnoxious; really, they were disgusting. They were extremely materialistic--the program provided them with hair/nail maintenance and would bring in "designer" clothing donations for them to wear because that was the only way they registered affection or caring. Obviously, they were brutally uneducated...unable to express themselves or their feelings without cursing a lot and eventually repeating some tired line about "you don't know me" like a tic. And they fought all the time over the pettiest things, shrieking like they were actually still on the corner competing with one another for johns. I'm getting tired of writing...but, yeah, they were also ungrateful, untrusting, and completely brainwashed by their pimps who they obviously still admired. Their main arguments, which they had continuously, were about whose pimp really loved them the most and whether or not they had attained status as his main bitch. This debate was carried on by rattling off all the things their pimps had bought them--it usually involved hair, nails, clothes, and eating out at restaurants.

Anyway, my point is that I feel awful bad for some people, but I'll pass on trying to respect them.

[Edited on June 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM. Reason : ]

6/8/2014 2:34:57 AM

damn, well when you put it that way, it doesn't sound judgmental at all!

6/8/2014 2:37:20 AM

What do you mean? It's late, and the sarcasm is genuinely confusing me right now.

6/8/2014 2:39:30 AM

you basically just said you're perfectly willing to pity people, but you don't want to bother giving them any respect since you don't feel like they are worthy of it.

I kinda think it should be the other way around, don't you? treat people fairly and like humans first? try (although it ain't easy) to reserve judgment and all that? pity doesn't do shit. in fact, for most people it probably just makes things that much worse. pity and shame are two peas in the same down trodden pod.

[Edited on June 8, 2014 at 2:46 AM. Reason : .]

6/8/2014 2:43:27 AM

Quote :

"No, it has nothing to do with I or others like. I like soda; I don't like liver. I like eggs. I don't like coconut pie. I think that SNAP should cover eggs and liver, but not soda and coconut pie. It should be like WIC, where there is a list of things that are SNAP approved, rather than by exception, where it spends like cash on anything that isn't blacklisted from the program (tobacco, alcohol, energy drinks, etc)."

I suppose I was confused by 'fat juice', 'shitty foods', etc. Those aren't terms of endearment. I'm actually surprised you like soda, but--I'm assuming you're fit and healthy--it does illustrate the point that it's possible to drink soda and be reasonably healthy.

You consider soda unacceptable for SNAP, even though you yourself apparently enjoy it, and would like to use "It's my money" to justify soda-related strings attached to benefits. I'd maintain that "But, that's my money..." is a wide-open justification for pretty much any change you'd care to make (and if I pay more in taxes, does that mean I get more of a say?), but that should probably be saved for a different discussion of money in government.

How would transitioning to a SNAP approved list be any less prone to abuse than the current all-inclusive program? You're just trading potential program abusers from SNAP recipients buying junk food to special-interest groups securing market advantages by lobbying to ensure their product makes the list.

Quote :

"For that matter, for those of you who think it's OK for SNAP to cover Coca-Cola, do you think it's wrong that it doesn't cover Red Bull?"

It would seem Red Bull isn't SNAP eligible because Red Bull doesn't want to be eligible:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

Red Bull hasn't been exempted. There's a statutory definition of food that Red Bull doesn't meet.

6/8/2014 2:54:28 AM

Quote :

"We all need to understand that there are not enough decent paying jobs/hours to go around. There are going to be poor people."

There is no such rule or law or requirement in economics. Poverty is a cultural and political product, nothing more.

6/8/2014 7:33:26 AM

Quote :

"I kinda think it should be the other way around, don't you? treat people fairly and like humans first? try (although it ain't easy) to reserve judgment and all that? pity doesn't do shit. in fact, for most people it probably just makes things that much worse. pity and shame are two peas in the same down trodden pod."

Obviously, I treat people fairly, like humans, reserve judgement, etc... And openly demonstrating pity for someone is a really weird and creepy thing to do. For the most part, I'm kind/polite to all people and capable of having empathy for folks from all walks of life. So I don't even know who these "untouchables" are that you mentioned. But, internally, I usually don't go around experiencing loads of respect for people who've made and continue to make bad decisions that hurt children.

Quote :

"There is no such rule or law or requirement in economics. Poverty is a cultural and political product, nothing more."

We're not really debating why or if poverty exists. You think it's a cultural/political product, and that's cool. But, until we're all fortunate enough to live in one of your deregulated utopias, we're gonna have some poor people. And I guess the question is whether or not they should be using food stamps to buy soda. I noted the lack of decent-paying jobs because, when considering how less affluent people should be treated, it's important to recognize that they really can't get a better paying job at this time.

[Edited on June 8, 2014 at 12:49 PM. Reason : ]

6/8/2014 12:26:32 PM

I'll argue that Kool-Aid is worse than soda.

6/8/2014 3:05:14 PM

Quote :

"you are equivocating cigarettes/booze with soda. they aren't even close to being the same thing. keep trying"

So you're saying that soda has absolutely zero negative health consequences?

6/8/2014 3:20:47 PM

I just need to make three observations here:

1) EightyFour, SNAP is the new Federal name for the "Food Stamp Program"; the name changed in 2008, although some states still call it "Food Stamps." Meanwhile, EBT isn't a benefit program but rather a system for delivering benefits (Electronic Benefit Transfer); a single EBT card can be used for SNAP, TANF (a time-limited cash-assistance program for families), and similar programs.

2) GrumpyGOP, buying soda with SNAP vs. cash isn't exactly equivalent (at least in 45 states and DC), because SNAP purchases are not subject to sales tax even if the items normally would be taxed, while soda is subject to sales tax even if groceries generally aren't; potentially a study of the categories of foodstuffs subject to state sales tax could be performed and used as a basis for restrictions on SNAP purchases at the federal level (something like "if most states charge sales taxes, you can't buy it with SNAP").

3) EightyFour, you've probably already lost the academic game; you should get off the adjunct game of musical chairs and get into industry already. This isn't relevant to the thread but if you'd like to make enough to no longer be eligible for SNAP you should get out of academia before you fall further behind.

6/8/2014 3:24:33 PM

^^what's the name of the logical fallacy you just used called, I can't remember since the last time you accused someone else of doing it

6/8/2014 4:40:08 PM

Quote :

" you've probably already lost the academic game; you should get off the adjunct game of musical chairs and get into industry already. This isn't relevant to the thread but if you'd like to make enough to no longer be eligible for SNAP you should get out of academia before you fall further behind."

You make a lot of assumptions about adjuncts. They're paid pretty poorly in most places, but I've got a decent gig going right now, so I wouldn't feel too sorry for me if I were you

6/8/2014 5:26:26 PM

^^strawman

6/8/2014 5:30:43 PM

I'm probably in the minority here, and I'm coming from a different angle... but I have another idea.

Before I go on, I have to say that I voiced my opinion to some religious right wing friends who thought I was insane.

A few years ago I started asking why our gov't doesn't offer to pay high risk females/males for hysterectomies/vasectomies. Why can't the gov't offer convicted prostitutes, drug dealers, habitual felons, and dead beat parents a lump sum of tax-free cash to snip/clip???

If we could reduce the amount of out of wedlock kids who are doomed before birth, we'd help everyone involved.

My brother has become a religious nut... they adopted a black kid last year, but part of the agreement was that the birth mother had to get a hysterectomy. She was in her late 30s and already had 6 kids... and already a grandmother (as much as I thought the adoption wrong- he's too old and already has 3 kids- I applaud he and his wife's efforts on trying to stop the birth mother's need to have her pussy be a clown car).

6/8/2014 11:12:43 PM

^ they'd have to offer it to everyone, and you could easily reach a situation where our population isn't growing at an economically sustainable rate.

6/9/2014 1:26:22 AM

no see you only offer it to the "undesirables" and within about 50 years we will enter a brave new world full of only good and decent folk amirite

6/9/2014 6:33:03 AM

Quote :

"A few years ago I started asking why our gov't doesn't offer to pay high risk females/males for hysterectomies/vasectomies. Why can't the gov't offer convicted prostitutes, drug dealers, habitual felons, and dead beat parents a lump sum of tax-free cash to snip/clip??? If we could reduce the amount of out of wedlock kids who are doomed before birth, we'd help everyone involved. "

Sounds like a great idea!

BTW back on topic i'd argue a single beer is better for someone than a can of soda.

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 8:36 AM. Reason : a]

6/9/2014 8:36:22 AM

ITT people who have never used SNAP discuss how it should be used.

6/9/2014 9:29:12 AM

Wow. This thread went from soda=bad to state sponsord sterilization (of which this state is still trying to figure out how to compensate for a similar program back in the fiddies, sixties and seventies).

And I think that is pretty extreme.

Just like in the abortion thread. I think anybody should have as many kids as they want, as long as they have the responsibility to take care of them. Sorry back on topic.

6/9/2014 10:58:45 AM

Quote :

"Most people who have iphones and get food stamps were probably not expecting to need food stamps when they signed their mobile contract."

Pssh, they should just cancel their contract and sell back their phone with no penalty. It's not like poverty is a trap or anything.

Quote :

"Just like in the abortion thread. I think anybody should have as many kids as they want, as long as they have the responsibility to take care of them."

In other words, you're in favor of forced sterilization.

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 11:03 AM. Reason : ]

6/9/2014 11:02:35 AM

Did you not just read my post and comprehend what it said?

I'm most certainly aganist forced sterilization. I'm just saying..have 7 kids? Take care of 7 kids.

But how bout some planning in there somewhere? Prior to getting knocked up btw.

I have 1 kid, and I think I make a pretty decent salary. But we are questioning whethor or not to have more, because of how expensive they are. I think others should do the same kind of analysis.

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 11:10 AM. Reason : asdfa]

6/9/2014 11:09:31 AM

So if you think you should have to take care of the kids you produce, that means you support force sterilization? Well, that fits with some of the other logic presented in this thread.

Quote :

"ITT people who have never used SNAP discuss how it should be used."

you can have opinions about things that you haven't personally experienced.

6/9/2014 11:16:08 AM

Quote :

"I'm most certainly aganist forced sterilization. I'm just saying..have 7 kids? Take care of 7 kids."

They can't take care of 7 kids. Now what? Some people will responsibly take care of a large family, but some people will will have 7 kids, while still having no means to take care of them. What do you do?

CPS? Kids inside of the CPS system often wind up neglected. Is it fair to say that the CPS assures that the "means" to raise those children are available? Maybe. In a completely unsatisfactory sense, I'll agree a little.

So how do you force a single mother to take care of 7 kids? Force this person to work more low wage jobs? Or perhaps the problem is absenteeism at home. We'll force her to spend less time working and more time at home. Now there's not enough money to pay the bills!

Policy has nothing to do with telling people to be responsible. It's about what to do with irresponsible people. Assuming that your nonsense self-contradictory statements imply forced sterilization is generous.

6/9/2014 12:20:21 PM

The problem is after a point there is no longer a financial disincentive to having additional children. Hence the welfare moms with 5, 6, and 7 kids.

6/9/2014 1:57:48 PM

And I"m still left scratching my head on how to responsibly raise 2

6/9/2014 2:22:11 PM

^^ And if we don't provide assistance for those kids, you'll have a generation of people with stunted development who did nothing to deserve it, and are even less likely to contribute positively.

So round and around we go...

[Edited on June 9, 2014 at 2:26 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2014 2:25:48 PM

Work camps and debtors prisons.

Another nod to the good ol' days.

That was sarcasm btw, you people might think I'm serious.

6/9/2014 2:43:26 PM

Quote :

"you can have opinions about things that you haven't personally experienced."

No you cannot have a meaningful opinion about something you haven't experienced. You are all just spewing your ignorance on a topic that you don't understand.

Opinions are like assholes, we all have one and they all stink. Continue.

6/9/2014 4:00:25 PM

Quote :

" you can have poorly informed opinions about things that you haven't personally experienced."

ftfy

6/9/2014 11:48:12 PM

This is exactly what we ask our politicians to do. Make decisions on things that, more than likely, they have never experienced. So if Harry Reid can opine about what its like to live on minimum wages, or why food stamps are such a great thing, then I can opine about the negatives of the program.

Arguing for something that you've never experienced is no different that arguing against something you've never experienced.

6/10/2014 7:38:34 AM

Quote :

"No you cannot have a meaningful opinion about something you haven't experienced. You are all just spewing your ignorance on a topic that you don't understand."

As if simply experiencing something makes you an expert. Human experience is bullshit. Our senses and memory are ludicrously flawed and horribly biased.

Reasoned arguments are much more compelling than experience in my opinion.

6/10/2014 8:33:01 AM

bringing it back a couple pages to address 1337 b4k4's post here:

Quote :

"Not at all. But if I'm going to give my money in support of something, then I want my money going to that. I have a relative who's a single mother with 2 kids after divorcing her husband. She made a crap ton of bad choices over the course of her life and continues to make them (like shacking up with a boyfriend who doesn't work, has difficulty finding work as an ex felon and doesn't take care of the house or kids even without the job). Every once in a while she calls around asking for money for this issue or that issue so that the kids could have new clothes or supplies for school or what have you. We used to give her the money unrestricted because you take care of family and you take care of people. And when we noticed that the money wasn't going towards the things she was telling us she needed the money for (and in some cases was going to drugs and alcohol, to the point of having CPS take her kids temporarily), we stopped giving her money directly. Now we buy the kids the clothes or supplies directly if we contribute. It isn't that I think my relative is "less" of a person, it's that I want my money to go to the things I'm giving my money for."

You say you don't think less of these people, but then you chose your deadbeat relative as a representation. Is everyone on welfare a deadbeat? What about the guy with no legs, the guy with an IQ of 65, the lady with 3 kids whose husband left them, the 70 year old grandma who can't get a job?

Yes, food stamps are meant for food. But is it a huge deal if they choose to spend some of it on sweets? I'm in pretty damn good shape and I enjoy a soda every couple days.

I understand, you want your tax money to indirectly support you. Unfortunately, that's not always how it works. Welfare is meant to give poor people a decent standard of living. To me, that includes a little bit of "luxury".

6/10/2014 8:36:51 AM

Quote :

"I'm in pretty damn good shape and I enjoy a soda every couple days."

On a infrequent occasion I enjoy soda too. But it with your own damn money though.

6/10/2014 8:40:40 AM

I understand, you want your tax money to indirectly support you. Unfortunately, that's not always how it works. Welfare is meant to give poor people a decent standard of living. To me, that includes a little bit of "luxury".

6/10/2014 9:41:55 AM

Quote :

"Welfare is meant to give poor people a decent standard of living. To me, that includes a little bit of "luxury". "

Welfare and "standard of living" should never be included in the same sentence, and it doesn't surprise me that you think this way. Welfare should be a stop-gap to get people back on their feet. Not provide a standard of living. Standard of living to me implies something long term.

6/10/2014 10:06:08 AM