For Those Who Want to Impose Limits on the Use of Federal Benefits

[MobBoss]

There is no substance to this point: People are not eating unhealthy food because of the nutrition program, they are eating unhealthy food because they want to and it is cheap. Unless the nutrition program somehow bans buying healthy food, it is not the culprit.

You have completely missed his point.

I believe in personal freedom, so I reject paternalistic welfare programs on principle. In my opinion food stamps should not even exist.

I'm not against helping widows and orphans. My main complaint about such programs is the horrifying amount of fraud they experience.

See above: The unhealthy food culture is the problem, not the nutrition program. I do not see at all why people should select unhealthy food because they are is some program.

The point was, if they are on such a program, shouldn't they only select healthy foods?

 

[uppi]

The point was, if they are on such a program, shouldn't they only select healthy foods?

No. Why should they?

 

[Sonereal]

There is no substance to this point: People are not eating unhealthy food because of the nutrition program, they are eating unhealthy food because they want to and it is cheap. Unless the nutrition program somehow bans buying healthy food, it is not the culprit.

The ERS agrees with you.

The results of the analysis were somewhat mixed. While some signs point to an increase in whole fruit consumption by SNAP participants, that increase may be offset by a decrease in dark green and orange vegetable consumption. At the same time, the total difference in diets after accounting for the effects of SNAP shows that, as a whole, SNAP participants had slightly lower diet quality than eligible nonparticipants, although they fared better when it came to sodium and saturated fat consumption. Overall, the research finds that the effects of SNAP participation on diet quality are modest—a small positive effect is counterbalanced by a small negative effect.

I believe in personal freedom, so I reject paternalistic welfare programs on principle. In my opinion food stamps should not even exist.

A person does have the freedom to reject SNAP benefits I believe if they disagree with any of the limits on the program.

That sounds surprisingly communistic: [...] to each according to his need. Apparently freedom is just for the rich in America.

What?

See above: The unhealthy food culture is the problem, not the nutrition program. I do not see at all why people should select unhealthy food because they are is some program.

It goes slightly beyond a "culture" of unhealthy food. Many people lack the time or will to figure out what is and isn't healthy. It can even be cheaper to be healthy, but if a person doesn't know about that option, and that person is just trying to fill his or her stomach, then it is easier to go the high-salt, high-fat route because that's a known known.

 

[Sonereal]

I'm not against helping widows and orphans. My main complaint about such programs is the horrifying amount of fraud they experience.

In the case of SNAP, only 1.3% of benefits are illegally trafficked. While I can't find anything for WIC right now, I don't believe the amount of fraud in these programs are "horrifying" in the amount.

Source

 

[uppi]

A person does have the freedom to reject SNAP benefits I believe if they disagree with any of the limits on the program.

If they would otherwise starve, they do not.

What?

Karl Marx.

It goes slightly beyond a "culture" of unhealthy food. Many people lack the time or will to figure out what is and isn't healthy. It can even be cheaper to be healthy, but if a person doesn't know about that option, and that person is just trying to fill his or her stomach, then it is easier to go the high-salt, high-fat route because that's a known known.

And that is what needs to be addressed: Give people time and an education to figure it out.

 

[Sonereal]

If they would otherwise starve, they do not.

That doesn't seem too different from "if you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail." The choice still exists and when it comes to receiving benefits from the government, and therefore from your fellow taxpayers, you accept whatever limitations is placed on that money.

Karl Marx.

I mean, I don't understand how half of the quote corresponds with the other half of the quote, and how both those halves work with the quote they were replying to.

And that is what needs to be addressed: Give people time and an education to figure it out.

Yes, but the other part of the problem is that, no matter what, people just like unhealthy foods.

 

[Traitorfish]

Karl Marx.

Marx didn't actually distinguish between "want" and "need". The term he uses, "Bedürfnissen", can be translated as either "wants" or "needs", the latter is simply preferred as a matter of convention.

 

[uppi]

That doesn't seem too different from "if you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail." The choice still exists and when it comes to receiving benefits from the government, and therefore from your fellow taxpayers, you accept whatever limitations is placed on that money.

Of course you do. The question is whether these limitations should be there at all.

I mean, I don't understand how half of the quote corresponds with the other half of the quote, and how both those halves work with the quote they were replying to.

I was just struck how Marxist cav scout sounded in how the poor should be treated, contrasted with the rejection of state paternalism for anyone not poor.

Marx didn't actually distinguish between "want" and "need". The term he uses, "Bedürfnissen", can be translated as either "wants" or "needs", the latter is simply preferred as a matter of convention.

"Bedürfnis" is a subjective need. To translate it with "want" is not completely wrong, but I would not do it, because I think it might be understood as "everything they want", which is definitely not what is meant with "Bedürfnisse". If you want a single word translation, "need" is much better and not just a convention.

 

[Traitorfish]

Maybe, but the point is that Marx wasn't writing in twenty-first century English, so you can't really draw out any meaningful comparison because of a coincidence of wording.

 

[Sonereal]

Of course you do. The question is whether these limitations should be there at all.

The restrictions should be there because it keeps healthcare costs down for everybody if forty-five million people aren't using SNAP benefits to buy Luther burgers.

I was just struck how Marxist cav scout sounded in how the poor should be treated, contrasted with the rejection of state paternalism for anyone not poor.

I don't think throwing around phases such as "Marxist" really adds anything here. There's nothing "Marxist" about almost anything being said here, but I guess it depends on your political leanings.

 

[MobBoss]

In the case of SNAP, only 1.3% of benefits are illegally trafficked. While I can't find anything for WIC right now, I don't believe the amount of fraud in these programs are "horrifying" in the amount.

Source

Lets view your 1.3 % another way:

Trafficking diverted an estimated $858 million annually from SNAP benefits

Yeah. That.

Oh..and also this:

Approximately 10.5 percent of all authorized SNAP stores engaged in trafficking

And the trend (percent trafficked, cost and stores engaging in fraud) has been rising since 2002.

 

[Future PM]

So buy potatoes and make your own potato chips. Everyone wins.

That's actually surprisingly time-consuming. It also requires a butt-load of vegetable oil. But I have no problem with the basic concept. As others have said, food subsidies can make the pre-packaged chips cheaper than the potatoes, through the magic of lobbying.

I agree with you that the government has no right to limit what you can and cant spend with the money that you have earned. But welfare isn't earned money. Its not really 'your' money. It's someone else's tax dollars given to you. And as long as that is the case, then someone else can put limits on it.

I strongly disagree with this. In Australia, at least, you must meet minimum requirements - such as applying for a set number of jobs, undergoing educational courses, etc. - before you can apply for welfare. Either that, or have so many health problems that you can't function. In essence, you are earning that money, you're just earning it from the government instead of a private employer.

Here you can get 1kg of chips for $2. That is cheaper than buying them yourself. All you need to do is cook them in the oven.

Want to hear something strange? My new home has no oven. I've never before encountered this phenomenon.

I'd rather my tax dollars go towards making or keeping someone happy than forcing them to live in abject misery for the rest of their lives.

Bleeding heart.

 

[MobBoss]

That's actually surprisingly time-consuming. It also requires a butt-load of vegetable oil. But I have no problem with the basic concept. As others have said, food subsidies can make the pre-packaged chips cheaper than the potatoes, through the magic of lobbying.

Only if you deep fry them. There are recipes for them that only use a teaspoon of oil.

I strongly disagree with this. In Australia, at least, you must meet minimum requirements - such as applying for a set number of jobs, undergoing educational courses, etc. - before you can apply for welfare. Either that, or have so many health problems that you can't function. In essence, you are earning that money, you're just earning it from the government instead of a private employer.

Meeting the requirements to receive aid doesn't mean you earned it. It means you qualify for it. This is simply entitlement thinking....thinking that you have somehow earned something that you did nothing for.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is simply entitlement thinking....thinking that you have somehow earned something that you did nothing for.

The flip side here is that all avenues of subsistence have been effectively closed off. Hunt? Hardly. Grab a piece of unused land and grow stuff? No chance. Build your own shelter? Not without buying land and paying property tax. Our birthright is "participate in the system or die".

So, yeah, I think the organization that closed off these avenues does actually owe people the basics of minimal life support, whether they "do nothing for it" or not. Especially since the vast majority of them would be only too happy to participate in the system given the genuine lack of alternatives.

 

[MobBoss]

The flip side here is that all avenues of subsistence have been effectively closed off. Hunt? Hardly. Grab a piece of unused land and grow stuff? No chance. Build your own shelter? Not without buying land and paying property tax. Our birthright is "participate in the system or die".

So, yeah, I think the organization that closed off these avenues does actually owe people the basics of minimal life support, whether they "do nothing for it" or not. Especially since the vast majority of them would be only too happy to participate in the system given the genuine lack of alternatives.

This is the very definition of entitlement thinking.

I never got a college degree. And yet, somehow, I've never been without a job for more than 2 weeks my entire life. Ever. Why? Because I was more than willing to do whatever job I could find, or multiple jobs as the case may be.

But many of todays young job seekers often will turn their noses up at menial jobs as if they are too good to get their hands dirty. That they deserve that 50k starting salary with benefits at a minimum.

When I was out-processing of the military two years ago, I went to a lot of job fairs. At each and every event I went to there were manufacturers literally begging for people to take 20 to 30 dollar an hour starting jobs. The HR reps told us that they have a hard time filling positions that pay well for the simple reason that young people today hold a stigma to blue collar jobs. That people that work them are uneducated and filthy.

Eventually they might figure out why the biggest house on the street is owned by the garbage man.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is the very definition of entitlement thinking.

I never got a college degree. And yet, somehow, I've never been without a job for more than 2 weeks my entire life. Ever. Why? Because I was more than willing to do whatever job I could find, or multiple jobs as the case may be.

But many of todays young job seekers often will turn their noses up at menial jobs as if they are too good to get their hands dirty. That they deserve that 50k starting salary with benefits at a minimum.

When I was out-processing of the military two years ago, I went to a lot of job fairs. At each and every event I went to there were manufacturers literally begging for people to take 20 to 30 dollar an hour starting jobs. The HR reps told us that they have a hard time filling positions that pay well for the simple reason that young people today hold a stigma to blue collar jobs. That people that work them are uneducated and filthy.

Eventually they might figure out why the biggest house on the street is owned by the garbage man.

I was never without a job until I decided that I didn't want one, but that isn't really the point.

I refuse to participate in the system. I barter through life, own nothing I don't carry, and get along okay...but it takes a wide ranging skill set that is pretty unique and took me a long time to assemble. And I'd still likely wind up in jail for something if any authority ever took a particularly close look at me.

The reality is that if you are born in modern America you are given no choice but to get a job, or die, or deal with 'assistance' that you get through a process that is generally worse than the first choice and only marginally better than the second. Is that something you consider a 'good' civilization, really?

 

[Zkribbler]

Lets view your 1.3 % another way:

Trafficking diverted an estimated $858 million annually from SNAP benefits

Yeah. That.

Oh..and also this:

Approximately 10.5 percent of all authorized SNAP stores engaged in trafficking

And the trend (percent trafficked, cost and stores engaging in fraud) has been rising since 2002.

That was some interesting reading. F'instance: small groceries do only 2% of the redemption that supermarkets do, yet the amount of trafficking they do is 50% more. About 3/4 of all trafficking is done by small groceries and convenience stores. And I've always placed small businesses on somewhat of a pedestal.

 

[Zkribbler]

At each and every event I went to there were manufacturers literally begging for people to take 20 to 30 dollar an hour starting jobs. The HR reps told us that they have a hard time filling positions that pay well for the simple reason that young people today hold a stigma to blue collar jobs. That people that work them are uneducated and filthy.

I'm amazed that there wasn't a stampede of minimum-wage guys from fast-food joints and big boxes. When I was out of work for weeks, I'd have jumped at that; rather, I found myself scrounging for minimum-wage and/or part-time work.

I remember applying for one minimum-wage job picking up films and videos for an afternoon entertainment review show in Los Angeles. I would have been required to provide my own car and to pay for my own gas and insurance; however, some other lucky devil got the job.

 

[MobBoss]

I was never without a job until I decided that I didn't want one, but that isn't really the point.

I refuse to participate in the system. I barter through life, own nothing I don't carry, and get along okay...but it takes a wide ranging skill set that is pretty unique and took me a long time to assemble. And I'd still likely wind up in jail for something if any authority ever took a particularly close look at me.

The reality is that if you are born in modern America you are given no choice but to get a job, or die, or deal with 'assistance' that you get through a process that is generally worse than the first choice and only marginally better than the second. Is that something you consider a 'good' civilization, really?

As opposed to what? Some fairy tale civilization where no one works but everyone gets everything they ever wanted in life?

I'm not against all assistance benefits. Widows, orphans, the handicapped and disabled should have such assistance. But not if you are able bodied and simply don't want to work a job you think is beneath you.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As opposed to what? Some fairy tale civilization where no one works but everyone gets everything they ever wanted in life?

I'm not against all assistance benefits. Widows, orphans, the handicapped and disabled should have such assistance. But not if you are able bodied and simply don't want to work a job you think is beneath you.

Where does the "job you think is beneath you" bit come from? And what makes you think that when I say people should have basic subsistence provided that they would thus be getting "everything they ever wanted in life"?

My "fairy tale" civilization would have people work for what they want, not what they need.