Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

My3Boys

No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?

Recommended Posts

Cuts like this are disasterous. A huge cut was suddenly made in our state's department of mental health. The department's reaction was to lay off many of it's social workers and automatically cut off social service workers for all clients who were no longer homeless no matter what their current condition was.

 

I knew one girl with Anorexia Nervosa, who was told about the cut, by her social worker, while in the hospital on full bed rest, with a feeding tube down her nose, and I think restrained so she wouldn't pull it out. So now the hospital had no outside worker to help them set up out patient care for this very sick young lady, who they had to keep longer. It ended out costing the tax payers a lot more in the long run.

 

And if we are cutting all programs at the same time, the hospital would be discharging young ladies like this to reduced food stamps too? Now there is a good plan.

 

Well it is a good plan if you believe genocide is okay and think the United Declaration of Human Rights is wrong/bad/unfair.

 

If we as a world or country believe that saving the lives of young ladies with Anorexia is important, then we cannot just cut all programs at once.

 

And if we cut WIC what do you think will happen then? WIC has been sucessful in lowering medical costs of pregnant moms and babies. So you want to cut the free medical care AND WIC at the same time. You do realize that infant mortality will climb, but maybe that is okay.

 

My exhusband and the other people from my old life before my divorce all believed genocide was acceptable and weeding out weaker families was good for the planet as a whole. I have almost no contact with anyone from my old life as many of them do not recogize my right to even be alive right now, never mind accept any services funded by tax payers. They think I am evil to steal THEIR money.

 

My MD and mental health team get so frustrated sometimes trying to convince me I have the right to be alive while disabled, never mind the right to a "good life". I'll often stop taking care of myself in an area and stop receiving a service, because I feel guilty. I've only stopped doing that mostly, because in the long run, I end out running up bigger bills. So unless I decide to commit suicide, I need to stop trying to save the tax payers a few pennies to just cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

 

And I take gifts without reporting them. Because again it ended out costing the tax payer more when I didn't do that :-0 My constant seizing scrambles my brain. I'm not very efficient with my money and time anymore and people just throw money and things at me when they see me getting disorganized, because stuff makes life easier sometimes. And watching me seize makes the people around me uncomfortable. It makes THEM feel better to buy me dinner and then take me into a book store to pick out a book to curl up in bed with, that doesn't need to be returned anywhere or special ordered beforehand. Instead of leaving me alone in my kitchen to try and assemble a meal from staples and then resort to only having access to the books available from the local library as my memory loss make it so hard for me to keep track of the interlibrary loans, and then I need help as I'm crying and trying to find the lost $150.00 book.

 

I struggle with whether I have the right to survive and especially whether I have the right to eat nice things and own nice books. I sleep on nothing but a piece of foam on the floor and my only furniture is a couple folding chairs and tables, but I have an iPad and a friend pays my for internet for me and she often buys me nice books and wants to take me out to dinner tonight. And I read things things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I hear what my doctor says and sometimes I parrot what they say, but deep down, I really still believe it's a shameful thing for me to enjoy anything. The word pleasure makes me literally tremble.

 

My friend knows she cannot bring me into certain restraunts, because I won't be able to eat the food there because I will be so filled with a deep black shame. That I will leave there unsure of even my right to exist.

 

I find all of this confusing, but I do know that regulating the food stamps will not save the tax payer any money. That I do know.

 

That's quite a leap: cuts across the board to genocide. We as a country don't have the money to fix every problem, every time. Now go ahead and tell me how we should increase taxes on the rich. Even if we took 100% of the assets of people making over $250,000 per year, we still wouldn't have enough money for this country's spending for one year. And what should we do about next year? The rich will have been tapped out.

 

Where do you want all the money to come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It seems responsible.

 

To choose a certain number and cut everything by that, regardless of need or consequence?

 

I think we see responsibility very differently.

 

Could you explain your reasoning a little more, please? Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So where should they all send the thank you notes?

 

 

I spent way to much time thinking about this thread last night.

 

Cheryl, when that man insulted you at the checkout line, I really think it was the universe trying to show you how such ignorant judgment felt. It offended us for you. But because you're so busy defending him, you couldn't see how horrible his actions were.

 

If the government wasn't in the way, and people could give directly to other people, the thank you notes would go directly to the giver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheryl,

You are not a bad person. I have agreed with nearly everything that you have posted in this rather long and cantankerous thread. The bottom line is this: personal responsibility. You clearly know what that means, and many others don't.

 

I don't care if someone buys soda with food stamps. My bigger issue is if they actually need the food stamps. You can't legislate that people purchase and consume healthy food, it is just common sense to eat nutrient rich food. But you can decide who receives the benefits. If I had my druthers all aid would stop and everyone would need to re-apply, and us tax paying citizens would get to decide who was able or not to benefit from government handouts of our tax money. But that's just me. A horrible, greedy, evil, judgmental, capitalist loving pig.

 

And, Wow! Just, wow!

 

See, I did it for you. ;)

 

I am right there with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Logic. Formal logic. It is a wonderful tool. I'm glad I've studied it. QUOTE]

 

Directness is a better tactic for argument than sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has been addressed over and over ad nauseum in this thread - it is NOT an abuse if it is legal. Right now it is legal and therefore, not an abuse.

 

My nostrils would flare if someone were paying that close of attention to what I was buying and how I paid for it!

 

Yes and think about this. Maybe that boy with the FS card had eaten dinner at each of his friends house every night that week because his mom works the third shift. So she didn't have to buy as much groceries for her family and so who cares if the boy treats his friends to a candy bar and soda? I mean really WHO CARES?

 

I don't begrudge a treat for those who have next to nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's see, right now someone who can't write an intelligible sentence is trying to defend a non-opinion with a bad joke. Other than that, I have no idea either. ;)

 

That was really helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya'll are jumping to a bunch of conclusions. I said "mimic" WIC, not expand the program to include the rest of the population. When I originally presented my idea I said it would be based on a WIC-like structure. I mean a WIC structure. Where only certain foods would be allowed but a large variety that would allow for allergies, disabled and elderly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya'll are jumping to a bunch of conclusions. I said "mimic" WIC, not expand the program to include the rest of the population. When I originally presented my idea I said it would be based on a WIC-like structure. I mean a WIC structure. Where only certain foods would be allowed but a large variety that would allow for allergies, disabled and elderly.

 

We disagree with it because it would cost twice as much to fund it that way. People who are in favor of cuts to these programs *are also* the ones saying we should spend twice as much on administration as we do now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sees pretty irresponsible to me to make blind cuts without any consideration of logistics.

 

 

All we need is a bunch of mental/elderly patients on the streets because people just make cuts without any consideration of consequences.

 

And what do you think the consequences are of spending money we do not have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To choose a certain number and cut everything by that, regardless of need or consequence?

 

I think we see responsibility very differently.

 

Could you explain your reasoning a little more, please? Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

 

Quite simply, every group says,"Cut-JUST NOT US (or my program!") The only fair way to do it is cut a consistent amount across the board. We have a habit in the country of making things harder than they need to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what do you think the consequences are of spending money we do not have?

 

Has anyone here said they were not in favor of any kind of cuts in government programs? No. What people have said is, this is a stupid place to start because it is a tiny amount of the federal budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what do you think the consequences are of spending money we do not have?

 

So you are ok with elderly and mental patients being thrown out on the streets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We disagree with it because it would cost twice as much to fund it that way. People who are in favor of cuts to these programs *are also* the ones saying we should spend twice as much on administration as we do now.

 

Not everyone is saying that. I would like to see administration reduced also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not everyone is saying that. I would like to see administration reduced also.

 

But, you have offered no ideas on how to make that happen without serious consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has anyone here said they were not in favor of any kind of cuts in government programs? No. What people have said is, this is a stupid place to start because it is a tiny amount of the federal budget.

 

Every group says cut-just go after someone else. That's how we got into this mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recipients ARE using my money, as well as many other people's money. We SHOULD have a say in what they buy.

 

But we don't live in a direct democracy. You can work to elect representatives whose values are in line with yours. You can write to your elected officials and give them your opinion. You can even run for office yourself if you meet the requirements. You can run on a food stamp reform platform. But you and I as private citizens don't get to make the decisions. We only get to vote for those who do make them. That's the way this great country is set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, you have offered no ideas on how to make that happen without serious consequences.

 

No one here has offered ideas on how to reduce spending to within what we take in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every group says cut-just go after someone else. That's how we got into this mess.

 

 

I don't see anyone treating FS as a sacred cow, or identifying it as their cause. What I do see is that posters are repeatedly calling for us to start with the programs where a cut would make a noticeable difference to the nation's bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But we don't live in a direct democracy. You can work to elect representatives whose values are in line with yours. You can write to your elected officials and give them your opinion. You can even run for office yourself if you meet the requirements. You can run on a food stamp reform platform. But you and I as private citizens don't get to make the decisions. We only get to vote for those who do make them. That's the way this great country is set up.

 

There aren't too many people who contact their reps as often as I do. And I am quite active in getting new people elected who do agree with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Private charity.

 

Sheesh. The private charity sector is taking on quite a burden. Where are all these private charity fairies going to come from?

 

A lot of charities are having a pretty difficult time lately. I know Catholic charities is turning a lot of people away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the government wasn't in the way, and people could give directly to other people, the thank you notes would go directly to the giver.

 

I cannot imagine a more humiliating system.

 

In my universe, we try to ensure that recipients and donors do *not* have that kind of connection.

 

I donate to our synagogue's "chesed fund" (chesed literally means kindness). Our Rabbi and the chair of the chesed fund are the only ones who know who receives that money - the *uses* are reported to the whole committee, as I understand it (ie $X for utility shut-off assistance, $Y for help traveling to an out of town funeral). Or to the special 'matzo' fund around Pesach time - anonymous gift cards/gift certificates are mailed out to folks who need them (names can be suggested to the person who coordinates this, and she includes anyone who has had a serious need during the rest of the year.)

 

...and we see "charity" so differently as well.

 

Some it is a language thing. In my universe we don't give "charity", we give "tzedaka" which comes from a root meaning justice. My giving isn't about how I feel or what I think merits it, it is an obligation.

 

I believe, passionately, that providing for the needs of the community is a communal responsibility, and that impersonal systems are the most effective, efficient, dignified way to meet those needs.

 

And so, yes, Barry (I kept meaning to respond to your question earlier), I believe the government, as an agent of the community, is responsible for providing safety nets for our citizens.

 

My community is an amazing one, and the help it provides folks in needs is incredible, but we don't have the resources to replace food stamps or state medical care or welfare or any other assistance program.

 

...and this a community with an *incredibly* high donation rate. ...and, remember, these donation are tax deductible, so lowering our taxes doesn't mean we have enough to handle having the safety nets dismantled.

 

When I look at the really lousy job private charity did at providing adequate safety nets before we had government established ones, I am completely unconvinced by arguments that removing what we have will inspire something even close to adequate let alone better than what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see anyone treating FS as a sacred cow, or identifying it as their cause. What I do see is that posters are repeatedly calling for us to start with the programs where a cut would make a noticeable difference to the nation's bottom line.

 

Everyone protect their own programs. I didn't say to start with FSs. I said to cut EVERYTHING all at once. No social program should feel picked on as they'd all be affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheesh. The private charity sector is taking on quite a burden. Where are all these private charity fairies going to come from?

 

A lot of charities are having a pretty difficult time lately. I know Catholic charities is turning a lot of people away.

 

People still have the mindset that the government should take care of it, so they don't have to.

 

America's private sector has a history of filling gaps when they arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been following this thread for days, reading with interest and following up on links, and I have a question. Since most seem to agree that the system has a lot of room for improvement, I'm curious if anyone can name a country that provides a good model for us to look at. Who does a better job of caring for those who need it but with less unnecessary waste? :bigear:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
America's private sector has a history of filling gaps when they arise.

 

I see. You would rather see another real great depression without the bank bailout and with private soup kitchen lines and all of that? It builds character, I suppose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Private charity.

 

 

Really?

 

Private charity wasn't doing it before we had government programs.

 

And, as I said a minute ago, the private charities I know of personally don't have those kinds of resources. They are already straining to meet the needs presented to them (and some aren't able to do that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really?

 

Private charity wasn't doing it before we had government programs.

 

And, as I said a minute ago, the private charities I know of personally don't have those kinds of resources. They are already straining to meet the needs presented to them (and some aren't able to do that).

 

Also, the food banks I worked at had a lot more questions about whether or not people actually needed them help. There was abuse in those private food banks because they don't have as many ways to verify need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot imagine a more humiliating system.

 

Giver to giver was Jesus' system.

 

I'm sure Eliana will have more to say on this than I can. There are a lot of ancient principles followed by Orthodox Jews that are completely ignored by modern society.

 

In the mean time, do you also suggest our society starts following principles such as, "lend money to My people…[and] exact no interest from them," (Exodus 22:24)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
Let's see, right now someone who can't write an intelligible sentence is trying to defend a non-opinion with a bad joke. Other than that, I have no idea either. ;)

 

 

Ouch! Very ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
I cannot imagine a more humiliating system.

 

In my universe, we try to ensure that recipients and donors do *not* have that kind of connection.

 

As usual, Eliana, you have posted a lovely and thoughtful post.

 

While I think it can work well to give directly to others, there is a potential for shame on the part of the recipients. And it is also an important moral tenet to me, that the givers don't hold it over the recipients. Reminding someone of your gift is a form of humiliation. They know already!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dulcimeramy

I would like to see dramatic spending cuts at a different level first. What if we stopped illegal wars and brought soldiers home? What if we stopped bailing out corporations? What if we stopped wasting money on frivolous corporate lawsuits and all the ways that Big Business and Wall Street play Monopoly with America's money? What if we made the fines and taxes for American businesses operating overseas so burdensome that they would return to our shores and get the factories up and running again? What if we changed our entire system of taxation? What if we gave states back the rights delineated in the constitution instead of having five layers of government for every little thing? I read somewhere that doing just that very thing would save enough to almost eliminate the national debt. Federal involvement with all things fiscal in a nation this size is unconstitutional and inefficient.

 

When Washington cleans up its own spending mess our politicians will have some respectability when they (rightfully) ask Americans to sacrificially tighten their belts. Our lawmakers should find ways to reward fiscal responsibility at every level instead of perpetuating the myth that the answer to every problem is more federal cash.

 

After all that, we should change the food stamps and welfare situation. I don't think cdrumm's ideas will work, though. Even if we must acknowledge that the system is broken, even if we must all agree that if things don't change these debates will end by default as the nation goes broke, we have to be sensible about our solutions!

 

If across-the-board cuts are made, people will get hurt. It is not overstating the case to say that babies will die. The reasons why so many Americans are unable to help themselves won't matter if they are all suddenly cut off from food stamps or welfare.

 

There is no force on earth more desperate than the mother of a hungry child who has never had to deny her child food before. She will steal, at the very least, if she has always received free food and the flow dries up suddenly without giving her time to find tools and resources to fill the gap. She will steal in the meantime. And I wouldn't blame her.

 

There is no force on earth more dangerous than a population that has been denied equal education and equal access to quality food. If the flow of benefits from the government that enslaved them dries up suddenly, the anger in our cities will be more than can be contained. And I wouldn't blame them.

 

If the entitlements are suddenly cut, there will be riots. There will be tax revolts. There may be civil war.

 

That's why we have to encourage each other in frugality and personal responsibility! The more we voluntarily wean ourselves off the free fizzy drinks and government comfort, even if it causes serious personal hardship, the more the limited resources can be used for the disabled and otherwise truly helpless. Everyone on aid should take the least they need to get by, not the most they are allowed.

 

If the educated folks with the ability to homeschool can't deny themselves these luxuries, the uneducated and uninspired will never do it. We have to go first.

 

Also, the people working on real solutions consisting of education, urban gardening, reducing entitlement spending in phases, and encouraging religious and civic groups to teach skills and offer aid...these people are right. You can't pull out the props and leave nothing! Something must be put in their place. That 'something' should be a combination of personal responsibility and community partnership.

 

If a better system can't be implemented for whatever reason, at the least the entitlements must be reduced very slowly. People must have some time to adjust. Rationing would be one way to do it. It worked in London during the Blitz. (Of course, the community aspect was absolutely critical. People shared the work, taught each other skills, etc. We are lacking that spirit in America 2011.)

 

However our lawmakers decide to do it, I hope we can make necessary changes before we all have to learn economy the hard way. The financial headlines are terrifying right now! We do not have unlimited time to pull this nation up by the bootstraps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giver to giver was Jesus' system.

 

I think sharing everything in common is more like it.

 

Acts 4 "32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot imagine a more humiliating system./QUOTE]

 

Giver to giver was Jesus' system.

 

I'm not sure how to respond to that.

 

 

That is a very broad, unsupported generalization.

 

...and since I keep being told that at least most of Protestant Xtianity doesn't have "Laws" the way we Orthodox Jews do, I am bewildered by your assertion of Divine framework for charitable giving.

 

Source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see dramatic spending cuts at a different level first. What if we stopped illegal wars and brought soldiers home? What if we stopped bailing out corporations? What if we stopped wasting money on frivolous corporate lawsuits and all the ways that Big Business and Wall Street play Monopoly with America's money? What if we made the fines and taxes for American businesses operating overseas so burdensome that they would return to our shores and get the factories up and running again? What if we changed our entire system of taxation? What if we gave states back the rights delineated in the constitution instead of having five layers of government for every little thing? I read somewhere that doing just that very thing would save enough to almost eliminate the national debt. Federal involvement with all things fiscal in a nation this size is unconstitutional and inefficient.

 

When Washington cleans up its own spending mess our politicians will have some respectability when they (rightfully) ask Americans to sacrificially tighten their belts. Our lawmakers should find ways to reward fiscal responsibility at every level instead of perpetuating the myth that the answer to every problem is more federal cash.

 

After all that, we should change the food stamps and welfare situation. I don't think cdrumm's ideas will work, though. Even if we must acknowledge that the system is broken, even if we must all agree that if things don't change these debates will end by default as the nation goes broke, we have to be sensible about our solutions!

 

If across-the-board cuts are made, people will get hurt. It is not overstating the case to say that babies will die. The reasons why so many Americans are unable to help themselves won't matter if they are all suddenly cut off from food stamps or welfare.

 

There is no force on earth more desperate than the mother of a hungry child who has never had to deny her child food before. She will steal, at the very least, if she has always received free food and the flow dries up suddenly without giving her time to find tools and resources to fill the gap. She will steal in the meantime. And I wouldn't blame her.

 

There is no force on earth more dangerous than a population that has been denied equal education and equal access to quality food. If the flow of benefits from the government that enslaved them dries up suddenly, the anger in our cities will be more than can be contained. And I wouldn't blame them.

 

If the entitlements are suddenly cut, there will be riots. There will be tax revolts. There may be civil war.

 

That's why we have to encourage each other in frugality and personal responsibility! The more we voluntarily wean ourselves off the free fizzy drinks and government comfort, even if it causes serious personal hardship, the more the limited resources can be used for the disabled and otherwise truly helpless. Everyone on aid should take the least they need to get by, not the most they are allowed.

 

If the educated folks with the ability to homeschool can't deny themselves these luxuries, the uneducated and uninspired will never do it. We have to go first.

 

Also, the people working on real solutions consisting of education, urban gardening, reducing entitlement spending in phases, and encouraging religious and civic groups to teach skills and offer aid...these people are right. You can't pull out the props and leave nothing! Something must be put in their place. That 'something' should be a combination of personal responsibility and community partnership.

 

If a better system can't be implemented for whatever reason, at the least the entitlements must be reduced very slowly. People must have some time to adjust. Rationing would be one way to do it. It worked in London during the Blitz. (Of course, the community aspect was absolutely critical. People shared the work, taught each other skills, etc. We are lacking that spirit in America 2011.)

 

However our lawmakers decide to do it, I hope we can make necessary changes before we all have to learn economy the hard way. The financial headlines are terrifying right now! We do not have unlimited time to pull this nation up by the bootstraps.

 

Wow. Totally AWESOME post!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We disagree with it because it would cost twice as much to fund it that way. People who are in favor of cuts to these programs *are also* the ones saying we should spend twice as much on administration as we do now.

 

I was told earlier that my WIC structure idea was insulting. Money was not mentioned in response to my idea until recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The money is coming from the government for food. Therefore the government can say what qualifies as food. Soda is not food. And you can't pull the 'there aren't a lot of other choices in those neighborhoods.' I've started making my own iced tea to save money. I'm sure you can buy tea bags and sugar at 7-11.

 

To the poster whose husband was in the military and receiving food stamps, I think it's despicable. Not that you received them, but that your dh's salary was so low that you actually qualified. Anyone who is putting their life on the line in the military should be receiving a high enough salary that they can afford food for their family, including soda and ice cream if they want it. I'm so sorry that you had to go through that. I know it's not uncommon. :grouphug:

 

We live in Pa but close to NY state. We've bought food from NY and actually we aren't able to get tea with the food stamps. They recently cut that.

 

As for soda( or pop we call it here in NW PA). I agree that its not a neccesity. We don't buy it very often. The only time we do is when we decide to make a pizza for dinner. Other than that its water , tea or milk. I don't even really do juice anymore.

 

The sad part is that 'junk' food is actually less expensive than the good for you foods. When the government starts lowering the prices of vegetables, fruits and organic foods. Then I'll all but stop buying 'junk'. Not that we eat lots of junk but I know what we do get rarely ever lasts us until the end of the month and that's with buying as inexpensively as we can. I'd much rather buy lots of fruits and veggies any day of the week versus processed food. We can't buy food from a farmers market with food stamps here.

Its been a while since I've been on WIC but we only had gotten farmers market vouchers once a year and was only able really to get lots of processed foods ( cheese allowed was processed, juice(sugar), processed cereals). I've heard its changed but that's a shame that it took so log for them to offer healthy foods.

 

I agree there are people who buy unhealthy foods on food stamps , then it lumps those who try to buy the healthiest they can without blowing their budget. Also I don't think its the governments right to tell people what they can and cannot eat either. Because if they do that then the government might as well start infringing on the rest of our rights as well ( homeschooling, how to worship etc.)

 

If they really want to do it right then just take all the junk off the shelves so no one eats it and rid of the HFCS, Bromine and other garbage they put on the shelves and go back to how people use to eat.

 

Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see dramatic spending cuts at a different level first.

 

:iagree: ...but how do we as a nation, and our elected leaders, develop the will to make the hard changes? To work through/past the intense lobbying, to change our patterns of behavior?

 

I don't see the situation as one of central government power-grabbing (though the federal government has ended up with more power in a number of areas) (and not that you suggested it was), but once we have so many centralized layers... with corresponding centralized funding and centralized standards, how to we, gradually, with the least disruption, begin our shift?

 

 

Our lawmakers should find ways to reward fiscal responsibility at every level instead of perpetuating the myth that the answer to every problem is more federal cash.

 

This is true in some areas... but sometimes spending more money *is* the fiscally responsible thing to do, if the payback is worth it.

 

The reasons why so many Americans are unable to help themselves won't matter if they are all suddenly cut off from food stamps or welfare.

 

:iagree::iagree:

 

 

There is no force on earth more dangerous than a population that has been denied equal education and equal access to quality food. If the flow of benefits from the government that enslaved them dries up suddenly, the anger in our cities will be more than can be contained. And I wouldn't blame them.

 

:iagree: ...and beautifully said.

 

 

 

Everyone on aid should take the least they need to get by, not the most they are allowed.

 

While there is some truth to this, again, sometimes *more* expenditure yields a better result... in this case yields someone better able to support themselves and pass on help to others.

 

 

Also, the people working on real solutions consisting of education, urban gardening, reducing entitlement spending in phases, and encouraging religious and civic groups to teach skills and offer aid...these people are right. You can't pull out the props and leave nothing! Something must be put in their place. That 'something' should be a combination of personal responsibility and community partnership.

 

:iagree: ...but I, personally, don't see that as incompatible with government programs to support such initiatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was told earlier that my WIC structure idea was insulting. Money was not mentioned in response to my idea until recently.

 

I'm sorry, I haven't seen all the post on this thread, so I probably missed the earliest expression of this idea. I'm fairly certain that I have mentioned cost every time I have seen and responded to a post about this model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was told earlier that my WIC structure idea was insulting. Money was not mentioned in response to my idea until recently.

 

I don't think I ever called it insulting. I can only be responsible for my actions. However, you phrased it much differently just now than y ou did before. Before, your statements *sounded* something more like, "wow, these people should not be drinking soda on my dime, they need some nutrition classes!!!" Saying, "maybe it would be a good idea to provide a structure, sort of like the one WIC has?" sounds completely different. Can you see what I mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When the government starts lowering the prices of vegetables, fruits and organic foods. Then I'll all but stop buying 'junk'.

 

??The government sets the prices on fruits, veggies and organic foods?

 

I have to say, I've never been so lost on so many fronts as I am in this thread!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
??The government sets the prices on fruits, veggies and organic foods?

 

I have to say, I've never been so lost on so many fronts as I am in this thread!

 

No, they don't. I *think* what is meant here is if the gov't would *stop* the subsidies, lobbies, and special interests when it comes to food, then the prices would naturally fall.

 

Growing up, "convenience foods" were expensive while whole, natural foods were cheap. We are seeing that really reverse now due to corn subsidies. Sales and coupons tend to center on the lousiest foods available. :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
??The government sets the prices on fruits, veggies and organic foods?

 

I have to say, I've never been so lost on so many fronts as I am in this thread!

 

 

I think she was saying the government subsidizes foods with HFCS, making them cheaper than quality foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see. You would rather see another real great depression without the bank bailout and with private soup kitchen lines and all of that? It builds character, I suppose?

 

Speaking for others is generally not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Protestant Xtianity doesn't have "Laws" the way we Orthodox Jews

 

With all due respect your choice of spelling Christianity is very offensive. How would you like it if I referred to you as "Orthodox X"? You chose to cut out the most important part of the most important word in "Protestant Christianity". Again, I don't mean to be rude, but I just couldn't let this pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure Eliana will have more to say on this than I can. There are a lot of ancient principles followed by Orthodox Jews that are completely ignored by modern society.

 

In the mean time, do you also suggest our society starts following principles such as, "lend money to My people…[and] exact no interest from them," (Exodus 22:24)?

 

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
Ouch! Very ugly.

 

Right. As was the poster to whom I was referring.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...