 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> In the News
LittleDucky
|
 Wed, Feb 14 2018, 5:05 pm
| SixOfWands wrote: | I'm not saying that anyone deserves to eat anything in particular.
But a person who elects to treat himself to lobster once a month doesn't receive any more SNAP benefits that the one who eats whatever you think that poor folk should eat.
Maybe Jimmy eats rice and beans for lunch and dinner 4 days a week, and switches off to vegetarian split pea soup the other days, just so he can afford steak once or twice a month. Why should that bother you? He's not getting any more money than Matilda, who buys chicken legs on sale three times a week, and ground meat another couple of days. They just choose to spend it differently. (This, btw, is the exact argument I make in terms of school scholarships. You make X, you pay Y. You choose to live frugally and go on exotic vacations? Enjoy. You bought a house with a huge mortgage and can't afford Y? Too bad for you.)
Given that the funds provided by the government are the same, its really just perception. You think that poor people should appear properly poor and downtrodden in order to merit assistance. Even if it doesn't cost a dime for them to appear otherwise. |
I don’t think the poor have to look and act poor. I never said that. So long as they legally qualify they can dress nicely etc (second hand stores, leftover from better days, handmedowns... having stylish clothing doesn’t mean they are violating the law). But what I am saying is that if they eat extravagantly one night a month then they are nutritionally deficient the rest of the month. (Or they eat that way and the kids starve. Known cases of that). Then people complain they don’t get enough to eat, have health issues because of it etc. I am not saying they must only eat rice and beans. I am saying there needs to be limits so they can have balanced meals the entire month. I want a PORTION of the government money to be spent in certain food groups so they have balanced meals.
And it’s harder to sell a bag of dry beans for drugs. Not saying all people on FS are addicts. Let me be clear. But I have worked in that population and many addicts do get FS and often poor life decisions contribute to their poverty, illness and hunger. And their kids suffer. So by requiring some staples to be bought, the kids get something. (The cash portion often goes towards items they can barter...)
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 2
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 5:59 pm
| marina wrote: | | Quote: | | My opposition to government programs is primarily because of how they destructive they are to the people on them and general society. Not the costs. |
Here's something destructive that happens when there's no social welfare net to help families facing poverty.
Just so we all remember what the word "destructive" actually means. |
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.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 6:27 pm
| SixOfWands wrote: | I'm not saying that anyone deserves to eat anything in particular.
But a person who elects to treat himself to lobster once a month doesn't receive any more SNAP benefits that the one who eats whatever you think that poor folk should eat.
Maybe Jimmy eats rice and beans for lunch and dinner 4 days a week, and switches off to vegetarian split pea soup the other days, just so he can afford steak once or twice a month. Why should that bother you? He's not getting any more money than Matilda, who buys chicken legs on sale three times a week, and ground meat another couple of days. They just choose to spend it differently. (This, btw, is the exact argument I make in terms of school scholarships. You make X, you pay Y. You choose to live frugally and go on exotic vacations? Enjoy. You bought a house with a huge mortgage and can't afford Y? Too bad for you.)
Given that the funds provided by the government are the same, its really just perception. You think that poor people should appear properly poor and downtrodden in order to merit assistance. Even if it doesn't cost a dime for them to appear otherwise. |
There are already limits on food that can be purchased. You can't purchase from a bakery, or buy hot food, or buy food to be eaten in the store.
It is interesting that bakeries have a section in supermarkets. I am sure part of it is impulse buying and part to capture snap recipients.
If the rules say someone can have lobster or steak, I am fine anyone who follows the rules. It is when the food is collected and shipped or the benefits otherwise fruadulently misused, that I would love to see controls put on this.
When there is a large cash economy, and people have deep wallets and receive food stamps, that I find troubling.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
Jeanette
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 6:54 pm
| Squishy wrote: | I live in NYS. My last house in a different county also had separate library taxes. The taxes are not collected separately, but tax payers vote on a budget and the cost of the public library is broken down.
The Monsey library opted out of the Regional library system; although, courtesies are still extended. Sometimes the courtesies at other libraries are minimal.
There are many abuses and waste at the library IMO. But no one is asking my opinion.
No one is asking me if I want to pay for other families to go to attractions. There are multiple passes to get into the different attractions for free. One could argue that it is cultural, but what isn't? |
You should lobby for reduced library benefits. I'm sure that will be a winning campaign message!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:04 pm
| Jeanette wrote: | | You should lobby for reduced library benefits. I'm sure that will be a winning campaign message! |
No reduced property taxes and fiscal responsibility would be a winning campaign message. We have the second highest tax rate in the nation!
We need brakes on the out of control spending.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Jeanette
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:06 pm
| Squishy wrote: | No reduced property taxes and fiscal responsibility would be a winning campaign message. We have the second highest tax rate in the nation!
We need brakes on the out of control spending. |
Great idea! Let the voters decide.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Mommyg8
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:07 pm
| Squishy wrote: | There are already limits on food that can be purchased. You can't purchase from a bakery, or buy hot food, or buy food to be eaten in the store.
It is interesting that bakeries have a section in supermarkets. I am sure part of it is impulse buying and part to capture snap recipients.
If the rules say someone can have lobster or steak, I am fine anyone who follows the rules. It is when the food is collected and shipped or the benefits otherwise fruadulently misused, that I would love to see controls put on this.
When there is a large cash economy, and people have deep wallets and receive food stamps, that I find troubling. |
I don't have any problem if people on SNAP budget themselves so that they can eat something more expensive once in a while, but I do have a problem if people are on SNAP but are not really eligible, and I don't care what nationality they are.
The two real problems with SNAP, IMHO, is that it is often gotten by people who really shouldn't be eligible, and second, that it is often used to buy drugs. Or other stuff for the parents while the children are starving.
I don't see a realistic way to separate the truly needy from the frauds, however, so I guess I'd rather some people end up with benefits they don't deserve, rather than run the risk of the truly needy not having enough food to eat. So I'm pro leaving the program the way it is. But that's just MY opinion.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
Mommyg8
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:08 pm
| Squishy wrote: | No reduced property taxes and fiscal responsibility would be a winning campaign message. We have the second highest tax rate in the nation!
We need brakes on the out of control spending. |
So why did everyone in New York and New Jersey vote for Hilary? When she actually said straight out that she wanted to INCREASE government spending (with obviously higher taxes)?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:16 pm
| Mommyg8 wrote: | | So why did everyone in New York and New Jersey vote for Hilary? When she actually said straight out that she wanted to INCREASE government spending (with obviously higher taxes)? |
I never voted for her. She is crooked as they come.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
7
|
Jeanette
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:19 pm
| Mommyg8 wrote: | | So why did everyone in New York and New Jersey vote for Hilary? When she actually said straight out that she wanted to INCREASE government spending (with obviously higher taxes)? |
I guess they found her preferable to a shady businessman with mob ties who stiffs his workers and declares serial bankruptcies.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
5
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:27 pm
| Jeanette wrote: | | I guess they found her preferable to a shady businessman with mob ties who stiffs his workers and declares serial bankruptcies. |
She is a loser who can't accept responsibility for her own defeat.
She belongs in jail for all her fruad.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
6
|
Jeanette
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:31 pm
| Squishy wrote: | She is a loser who can't accept responsibility for her own defeat.
She belongs in jail for all her fruad. |
Getting defeated in an election isn't a crime in this country, at least not yet.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:48 pm
| Jeanette wrote: | | Getting defeated in an election isn't a crime in this country, at least not yet. |
Committing fraud is a crime.
Anyway, she is a loser who is irrelevant. Because she lost, much of her dirty tricks are being coming out. She is washed up and over.
https://www.google.com/amp/www......html
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
Jeanette
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 7:53 pm
| Squishy wrote: | Committing fraud is a crime.
Anyway, she is a loser who is irrelevant. Because she lost, much of her dirty tricks are being coming out. She is washed up and over.
https://www.google.com/amp/www......html |
Yet you keep trotting out her ghost to deflect from all the fraud in this administration.
Anyway, weak attorney general Jeff Sessions said there wasn't enough evidence to charge her with a crime. Sad! It made Donald Trump super ☹☹☹ that he doesn't have the power to just order her jailed anyway but that's the kind of weak, sad country we live in. We need to do something about it to give DJT more bigly powers to prosecute people he doesn't like and to stop meddlesome prosecutors from investigating his affairs!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
8
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 8:01 pm
| Jeanette wrote: | Yet you keep trotting out her ghost to deflect from all the fraud in this administration.
Anyway, weak attorney general Jeff Sessions said there wasn't enough evidence to charge her with a crime. Sad! It made Donald Trump super ☹☹☹ that he doesn't have the power to just order her jailed anyway but that's the kind of weak, sad country we live in. We need to do something about it to give DJT more bigly powers to prosecute people he doesn't like and to stop meddlesome prosecutors from investigating his affairs! |
Go scream at the sky or move to a foreign country or march with a bunch of other people who can't get over that Hillary lost. The normal thing is to get over it.
She is gone and irrelevant and has nothing to do with current policies.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
alis_al_kulana
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 8:07 pm
|
Every time I think about the night hillary lost, I realize we saw an open miracle. Trump has everything against him.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
7
|
Jeanette
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 8:09 pm
| Squishy wrote: | Go scream at the sky or move to a foreign country or march with a bunch of other people who can't get over that Hillary lost. The normal thing is to get over it.
She is gone and irrelevant and has nothing to do with current policies. |
We're agreeing, I think?
Hillary is no longer relevant. Why are we talking about her?
Or do we have to pull out the magic Hillary spray whenever Trump's corruption comes up?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
11
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 8:13 pm
| Jeanette wrote: | We're agreeing, I think?
Hillary is no longer relevant. Why are we talking about her?
Or do we have to pull out the magic Hillary spray whenever Trump's corruption comes up? |
I don't even understand why she is part of this thread.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
4
|
33055
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 8:21 pm
| alis_al_kulana wrote: | | Every time I think about the night hillary lost, I realize we saw an open miracle. Trump has everything against him. |
Wow! Even Hillary didn't come up with Hashem created a miracle that everyone witnessed, or otherwise she would have won.
Now we have the Divine Right of Trump to be President.
Regardless, she is an irrelevant loser.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
Jeanette
|
Wed, Feb 14 2018, 8:25 pm
| alis_al_kulana wrote: | | Every time I think about the night hillary lost, I realize we saw an open miracle. Trump has everything against him. |
Hashem made a real miracle on 9-11. Nobody ever expected that would happen either!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
