Box of Food in Lieu of SNAP

Mommyg8

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:28 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Hashem made a real miracle on 9-11. Nobody ever expected that would happen either!

That's right! So many frum people were spared! Including my dh, who worked right there! There were TONS of miracles on 9/11!

Jeanette

Wed, Feb 14 2018, 11:30 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

That's right! So many frum people were spared! Including my dh, who worked right there! There were TONS of miracles on 9/11!

Baruch Hashem Yom yom.

marina

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:50 am

Squishy wrote:

I read the articles accompanying this pic when it
came out a few months ago. Family members said the pic was a sham, and there was no documents like a bill of sale to say it was not.

It's a powerful pic, but it is probably fake.

I read abt it before posting the pic. The kids were actually sold.

https://nypost.com/2013/07/14/.....or-2/

marina

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 2:58 am

Fox wrote:

It's not that we want necessarily want people to get married; it's that we want them not to have children when they're single. So the question is, how do we disincentivize childbearing outside of marriage?

This is where the safety net versus the safety hammock becomes murky. None of us wants children to go hungry just because their mothers were stupid or their birth control failed. That said, a 40 percent illegitimacy rate is not the result of inadequate access to birth control.

I don't follow the research closely, but I know that a number of years ago, there were a number of programs that actually paid low-income women not to become pregnant. What was crazy was that the amounts were actually pretty small, too. Of course, there was a moral outcry that women were being manipulated, and the money eventually dried up.

All of this just brings us back to the fact that we rarely want to do the things that actually reduce poverty or other social problems. We would prefer to manage problems rather than solve them, particularly if they involve unpleasant realities.

First, the numbers you are citing don't tell the whole story, as it seems that unwed is confused with single sometimes.

Second, you don't actually need to pay anyone to go on birth control. Data reliably shows over and over that making birth control easily available is what causes birth rates to drop. It would seem that is the best way to go, but for some reason it is so controversial.

marina

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 3:28 am

Mommyg8 wrote:

That's right! So many frum people were spared! Including my dh, who worked right there! There were TONS of miracles on 9/11!

~~Well, you know, except for 2996 non-miracles.~~ That's so nice.

Fox

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:05 pm

marina wrote:

First, the numbers you are citing don't tell the whole story, as it seems that unwed is confused with single sometimes.

So if we follow that logic, a large number of those birth to unmarried mothers are actually occurring to women who are in committed non-marital relationships. But if that's the case, why are 37 percent of single-parent families headed by women living in poverty? And why would going after child support help? Supposedly all those dads are living at home, doing their fair share -- "marital" in every sense except a marriage license.

marina wrote:

Second, you don't actually need to pay anyone to go on birth control. Data reliably shows over and over that making birth control easily available is what causes birth rates to drop. It would seem that is the best way to go, but for some reason it is so controversial.

I have no idea what data you're relying on, but I've never seen any data that supported such a simplistic approach. Easy access to birth control has been shown to reduce teen pregnancies, and that's not a small thing, since 50 percent of single mothers have their first child while still in their teens.

But 70 percent of unmarried births are to women in their 20s, and having 40 percent of births to unmarried women suggests that the problem is more pervasive than lack of birth control or reproductive education.

I think this is something that people struggle with individually as well as at the social policy level. None of us wants to go back to an era in which unwed mothers were "ruined" and children from non-marital relationships were shunned.

At the same time, pretending that having a child outside of marriage is a legitimate lifestyle choice is indefensible.

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:16 pm

Mommyg8 wrote:

That's right! So many frum people were spared! Including my dh, who worked right there! There were TONS of miracles on 9/11!

Yeah. I guess Gd just wanted the rest of those folks dead. No real loss. Please be sure to tell their families that.

Fox

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:19 pm

marina wrote:

I read abt it before posting the pic. The kids were actually sold.

https://nypost.com/2013/07/14/.....or-2/

Again, a little oversimplified. A little digging shows that, in fact, the mother was receiving "general assistance" and that family members accused her at the time of staging the photo.''

An incredibly tragic story, but not a straightforward story of poverty with lack of a safety net. It is clear from subsequent events that there was a great deal of dysfunction that even a reasonable safety net couldn't address.

Optimystic

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 12:21 pm

marina wrote:

Why do these conversations always revolve around benefits exclusively for poor people? Why doesn't anyone go off about government benefits that everyone gets?

* Taxpayers should never have to pay for school computers and smartboards and music and gym! If you're getting free education, be happy with math and English on a chalkboard!

* Taxpayers should never have to pay for fancy library programs and computers and internet and DVD collections! Just be happy there are some books!

* Taxpayers should never have to pay for landscaping in national parks! You're getting the park for free, just make sure the grass is not overgrown!

* Taxpayers should never have to pay for higher education government scholarships for college and graduate schools! Just be happy you have a high school diploma!

Oddly, I don't really hear these conversations. Why are there gazillions of threads on what SNAP recipients are entitled to but none on what library patrons are entitled to?

Is that because we can all use the library? Is that because using the library does not reflect on your work ethic?

Imagine if libraries were exclusively for people who couldn't afford to buy books or go online at home. I think we'd immediately start debating whether the library *really* needs that new carpet or if the unwashed masses can do just as well with the old one.

So, bold italics indicate what I agree with completely. (It so happens, I also completely agree with the question you bolded in the original.)

Whenever we ask the government to do something, we abdicate our responsibilities to our communities. Unfortunately, this abdication has been going on for so long that the government (and the super rich corporate board members who choose who sits there) have all the power. So, if they want to keep it, they have to give something to the rest of us to stave off a revolution.

And they are obligated to give everyone a living to the standards we see fit because for most of us, they have taken away the means to do it ourselves. This is not sustainable, and the fundamental problem has to be addressed before the government runs out of credit.

The fundamental problem with government benefits is that they exist primarily to raise cash flow for the wealthy friends of politicians, whether that be for pharmaceutical companies or the auto industry or the airlines or Amtrak (well, maybe not Amtrak), the oil industry or the insurance companies. Student loans raise tuition for everyone so that student loans become necessary for almost everyone.

The proper purpose of government is to ensure a reasonably level playing field. That means no monopolies, national, global, or otherwise. It means seeing the difference between rewarding entrepreneurs for their success and allowing a few of them to crowd out or buy up all possible competitors and tie up obscene amounts of wealth. It means term limits. The retirement benefits for a legislator should be $0.00. If they want to have retirement income, they can work in the real world.

I don't know how to get there. TBH, I venture onto a politics thread when I am feeling bitter and want to avoid biting anyone's head off IRL. I hope I didn't step on too many toes :(

33055

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:15 pm

marina wrote:

I read abt it before posting the pic. The kids were actually sold.

https://nypost.com/2013/07/14/.....or-2/

I read that article also.

”Some family members claim the mother was paid to stage the photo.”

There is no documentation to show it is real like a bill of sale.

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:17 pm

Squishy wrote:

I read that article also.

”Some family members claim the mother was paid to stage the photo.”

There is no documentation to show it is real like a bill of sale.

Except that none of the kids, including the one she was pregnant with in that photo, were raised by her.

33055

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 1:18 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Except that none of the kids, including the one she was pregnant with in that photo, were raised by her.

That doesn't prove she sold them.

marina

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 10:33 pm

Fox wrote:

http://www.choiceproject.wustl.edu/
Write up of same: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.....0282/

marina

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 10:41 pm

Squishy wrote:

That doesn't prove she sold them.

Are you doubting that people sell their kids when times get tough and there's no social net?

Isn't that literally the story of Elisha and the almanah? They were going to come take her kids to repay her deceased husband's debts?

33055

Thu, Feb 15 2018, 10:46 pm

marina wrote:

That's a different question than whether that picture was staged.

southernbubby

Fri, Feb 16 2018, 12:53 am

I did hear of a combination approach where part of the SNAP funds could be spent at the discretion of the recipient but part of their allotment would be government purchased staples to be saved for the end of the month when many are out of FS money and then at least have those boring but nutritious staples, rather than go hungry. Some SNAP recipients need help budgeting this benefit.