What Happened When a State Made Food Stamps Harder to Get

[Yadryonych]

Because it's actually prohibited to use SNAP funds for non-food items?

That's why they're called food stamps.

I meant abolish food stamps and provide people with actual jobs instead. The giving poor man a fish preach, if that rings a bell

[Elegiac]

I meant abolish food stamps and provide people with actual jobs instead. The giving poor man a fish preach, if that rings a bell

The majority of people on food stamps are already employed, comrade. Try again.

Got any other bullshit myths? How about the welfare queen who owns a Cadillac?

- - - Updated - - -

I feel people truly don’t understand how these things work

A better question is why do they feel people need to "earn" the right to...you know. Be alive.

Because that's really all this is. An exercise in cruelty just so people who have probably never actually experienced economic hardship can make sure people they don't like don't get free stuff.

[Yadryonych]

A better question is why do they feel people need to "earn" the right to...you know. Be alive.

What else people don't need to earn, comrade? A house, a car, a private jet maybe? Where the red line lies?

[Elegiac]

What else people don't need to earn, comrade? A house, a car, a private jet maybe? Where the red line lies?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_wage

Quantifiable basic standards of living have been a concept for more than a century now. Try to keep up.

There are a handful of men who individually have enough money to solve world hunger but, sure. The selfish people are the homeless who have the audacity to ask for somewhere to live. /s

[JohnBrown1917]

I meant abolish food stamps and provide people with actual jobs instead. The giving poor man a fish preach, if that rings a bell

The problem is that the pay for jobs has not been keeping up production, and most people on food stamps have jobs.

[Yadryonych]

There are a handful of men who individually have enough money to solve world hunger but, sure.

Oh yeah, should we have, let's say, Bezos to equally distribute his 100 billion (which are not in cash but let's suppose it's cash) to 8 billion people, the whopping 12.50 will instantly solve the world's hunger for sure

And yeah being employed means they already have living wage so why food stamps? And if they don't, why not provide people with jobs rather than plainly give them money

[Elegiac]

Oh yeah, should we have, let's say, Bezos to equally distribute his 100 billion (which are not in cash but let's suppose it's cash) to 8 billion people, the whopping 12.50 will instantly solve the world's hunger for sure

1) 8 billion people aren't starving, so that math is BS on the face of it.
2) Nobody talked about dividing up Bezos' assets between everyone else, that's your strawman.
3) Bezos certainly has enough on hand to enact the systemic changes necessary to improve food security.

[Yetanothernewbie]

Oh yeah, should we have, let's say, Bezos to equally distribute his 100 billion (which are not in cash but let's suppose it's cash) to 8 billion people, the whopping 12.50 will instantly solve the world's hunger for sure

And yeah being employed means they already have living wage so why food stamps? And if they don't, why not provide people with jobs rather than plainly give them money

How's about Amazon simply pays actual taxes on its multi billion business instead of handing their tax burden to others. Why don't we start there.

[Zan15]

Wrong. Instead of giving them what is essentially cash that only works for food so they can buy whatever they want (usually not spent wisely either or used in conjunction with specials or coupons), The government could and SHOULD issue vouchers for specific foods. IE:

1 32 ounce bottle of store brand ketchup
2 Heads of Romaine Lettuce
3 Cans of store brand kidney beans
5 pounds of 75% lean ground Beef
5 Pounds of Chicken Thighs
6 Gallons water
2 Dozen Eggs
1 Pound Store Brand butter
2 loaves of store brand whole wheat bread
etc...

This is how WIC is run and SNAP should be same way!!!!

Right. They can't buy anything they want. There are quite a few limitations. People do abuse the system, but its a tiny percentage where the whole population should not be punished. They should spend the money on enforcement and enhancements.

oh, Good thing you are not a nutritionist.

And what is with the wasted money on water? Better off giving them a filter in the long run unless they are in a specific area that the water is deemed not safe.

- - - Updated - - -

\

And yeah being employed means they already have living wage so why food stamps? And if they don't, why not provide people with jobs rather than plainly give them money

100% false.
There is a huge number of people fully employed whom do not make a living wage

[Stormspellz]

I meant abolish food stamps and provide people with actual jobs instead. The giving poor man a fish preach, if that rings a bell

because republicans only care about enriching their donors, and shoot down any thing that would uplift the common person (that they can't spin for sole political benifit)

[Zan15]

I meant abolish food stamps and provide people with actual jobs instead. The giving poor man a fish preach, if that rings a bell

my father would love a job.
You ready to hire someone who has had 3 strokes, 2 heart attacks, has diabetes since birth, deformed feet, rod in one leg, pacemaker and is 70 years old?? He has about 11 other things wrong with him too if you want the full list.

He worked for over 40 years as a truck driver, bus driver and mover and Social Security in his expensive state is not a livable wage thanks to the cost of living.

So he gets 51 dollars a month for food stamps (for which he never spends cause he refuses to even though he qualifies)

ABOLISH FOOD STAMPS!!!


All this because wages and social security have not kept up with REAL inflation.

[eschatological]

Oh yeah, should we have, let's say, Bezos to equally distribute his 100 billion (which are not in cash but let's suppose it's cash) to 8 billion people, the whopping 12.50 will instantly solve the world's hunger for sure

And yeah being employed means they already have living wage so why food stamps? And if they don't, why not provide people with jobs rather than plainly give them money

This isn't even the issue. There is enough food produced in the world for EVERYONE IN THE WORLD to have a 2k calorie diet a day. The problem is, most of it is on store shelves, rotting in warehouses, thrown out when it hits its expiry date, etc. This is before any effort to further tax the ultra-rich.

If we produce enough food to feed the world - why is a lot of the world starving?


Also, the idea that rampant fraud exists in the Food Stamp program is, again, a myth made up by conservatives to rail against it. Fraud in the program runs at less than 5%, which is probably less than the fraud that exists in the banking industry, imo.

[Endus]

This isn't even the issue. There is enough food produced in the world for EVERYONE IN THE WORLD to have a 2k calorie diet a day. The problem is, most of it is on store shelves, rotting in warehouses, thrown out when it hits its expiry date, etc. This is before any effort to further tax the ultra-rich.

If we produce enough food to feed the world - why is a lot of the world starving?


Also, the idea that rampant fraud exists in the Food Stamp program is, again, a myth made up by conservatives to rail against it. Fraud in the program runs at less than 5%, which is probably less than the fraud that exists in the banking industry, imo.

Let's be clear; every time people like you and I suggest that;

A> people be paid what they're worth, at a minimum, meaning a 40-hour workweek should provide a living wage for a family of 4, and
B> we should let the market determine labor force participation, by allowing citizens to bow out of the labor force if they choose to, ensuring that those entering the labor force actively desire to work, rather than being forced into it by hardship,

we get called "commies" and the like, even though what we're talking about is nothing more than ensuring that the labor market is a free market. We're arguing to reduce required legislation, by giving citizens greater freedom of choice.

The current system, as pushed by "capitalists" (really, mercantilists) is to use human suffering to penalize non-workers into entering an already-glutted labor force, pushing unemployment up and ensuring that labor cannot effectively negotiate its own value. They don't like it when you say that, because it's horrendous, but it's the simple economic reality of the modern "capitalist" system; it's inherently exploitative of the desperation and suffering of the working class, for the benefit of the wealthy and no one else.

[Elegiac]

Let's be clear; every time people like you and I suggest that;

A> people be paid what they're worth, at a minimum, meaning a 40-hour workweek should provide a living wage for a family of 4, and
B> we should let the market determine labor force participation, by allowing citizens to bow out of the labor force if they choose to, ensuring that those entering the labor force actively desire to work, rather than being forced into it by hardship,

we get called "commies" and the like, even though what we're talking about is nothing more than ensuring that the labor market is a free market. We're arguing to reduce required legislation, by giving citizens greater freedom of choice.

The current system, as pushed by "capitalists" (really, mercantilists) is to use human suffering to penalize non-workers into entering an already-glutted labor force, pushing unemployment up and ensuring that labor cannot effectively negotiate its own value. They don't like it when you say that, because it's horrendous, but it's the simple economic reality of the modern "capitalist" system; it's inherently exploitative of the desperation and suffering of the working class, for the benefit of the wealthy and no one else.

A lot of it has to do with issues of scale, as well as living in a bubble of privilege.

People fundamentally just don't grasp the numbers involved - that much is evident in the way that people still use "millionaire" as a synonym for 'rich', when in reality the difference between a millionaire and a multi-billionaire is several orders of magnitude. It all just diffuses together into "a lot of money" in their heads.

So it puts it into perspective when you say "if you had $1000 in your pocket and you could end homelessness in America for $65, what would you do?" Because after scaling that up into the realm of hundreds of millions of dollars - voila, you have the reason people think Jeff Bezos is a selfish scumbag.

If people are genuinely afraid of tyranny, they should support the elimination of billionaires as a class; because that level of wealth inequality creates tyrants.

[Shadowferal]

Orlong wants slavery to be a thing? This is my surprised face.
If he ever dumps his union he'll be welcomed warmly with the other slaves I'm sure.

[Captain N]

If people are genuinely afraid of tyranny, they should support the elimination of billionaires as a class; because that level of wealth inequality creates tyrants.

And this is something that will never happen until America manages to kick its foolish delusions that everyone can be rich if they work hard. People aren't afraid of tyranny -- they're afraid that someone will take away their ability to be a tyrant to those of lower social classes.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Also, the idea that rampant fraud exists in the Food Stamp program is, again, a myth made up by conservatives to rail against it. Fraud in the program runs at less than 5%, which is probably less than the fraud that exists in the banking industry, imo.

The other thing to consider is the impact of even trying to stamp out what fraud does exist.

For me, I treat the notion of benefits the same way I treat the notion of criminal justice. I'm prepared to accept bad guys getting away with stuff, because the alternative is tightening up the legal process to such an extent that you will increase the number of innocent people found guilty.

Benefits are much the same; the more you tighten things up to prevent fraud, the more you will drive out people that genuinely need the support. I'm prepared to accept that there will be a minority that abuse the system to ensure that EVERYONE that needs it gets access. And that's if we ignore the fact that any fraud prevention will likely cost more than it actually saves.

[JohnBrown1917]

And yeah being employed means they already have living wage so why food stamps? And if they don't, why not provide people with jobs rather than plainly give them money

Because a ton of jobs don't pay a living wage.

[Dontrike]

And yeah being employed means they already have living wage so why food stamps?

It's funny that you think every job gives a living wage.

[Orbitus]

Oh yeah, should we have, let's say, Bezos to equally distribute his 100 billion (which are not in cash but let's suppose it's cash) to 8 billion people, the whopping 12.50 will instantly solve the world's hunger for sure

And yeah being employed means they already have living wage so why food stamps? And if they don't, why not provide people with jobs rather than plainly give them money

Wait, let me guess, you think minimum wage, is a living wage or that people on food stamps don't work? Because the majority of people on food stamps do work. And minimum wage WAS designed as a living wage, that if it were where it was designed to be, it would be over $22 an hour for EVERYONE. Like when it was designed.