I have no "holy war" against junk food or the people who eat them. I don't care what other people eat, as long as I can eat healthier. But since taxpayers are paying for SNAP, we don't feel we should be paying for junk food when healthier food is available.
No one says you can't eat junk, we just don't want to pay for it.
Agreed, if someone wants/needs sodas, energy drinks, etc, they need to pay themselves. Traditionally, until the current gimme, gimme years, these types of food choices like sodas, and energy drinks weren't EVER covered. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for these perks for others because many of us live frugally all the f'ing time and the thought of someone reaching into our pocket to pay for their fudge rounds just isn't proper. Work is good, and earning money is good for the soul, welfare was meant to be a hand up, not a permanent entitlement.
Junk food is fine if someone wants to buy it with their own EARNED money, SNAP is food stamps, and food stamps should be for qualified food items. Until now, all these gimme programs were something people would feel ashamed to be on, Nowadays, people seem proud to be on Medicaid, food stamps, energy assistance, free or assisted housing, WIC, when self-sufficiency should be the goal. Time limits need to be put on welfare programs, and government employment agencies should find welfare recipients jobs. Instead, we have government employment agency workers who sit around with their thumbs up their arses. They used to find jobs for people, they need to get back to doing just that.
Good point. While the rest of us struggle to put real food on our tables, paying attention to the nutrition labels and avoiding processed foods, sugar, sodium, and chemicals, why should we be paying for someone else's bad eating habits? Despite having a limited income, I don't mind helping and contributing to others who are even less fortunate than me, but I don't really care to contribute to someone's sugar addiction, heroin or meth addiction, and a 'need' for a luxury car or vacation.
All those things listed are in the same category, as far as I'm concerned.
Well said. Also IMO soda and candy are not foods. They have zero nutritional value so can not be considered a diet stable. Also since EBT benefits is a limited amount I don’t see how there is enough for both groceries AND treats especially in today’s inflation. Most taxpayers certainly can’t afford it. Families with kids especially will benefit from this whether they like it or not. So many Americans are addicted to sugar - I’m not surprised to see the uproar. It’s like addicts being told they are cut off from their favorite drug.
I don't want to subsidize diabetes. A lot of these poor people buy soda because it's cheaper than healthy alternatives. Then, they end up sick and dying because of the liquid sugar they didn't know was going to kill them. Remember, most people are uneducated when it comes to the cause of diabetes, and being raised on TV, seeing commercial after commercial glorifying the garbage didn't help.
This is where big Pharma comes in to "save the day" with $400 insulin shots. I fully believe they are behind the push to have sodas readily available, and it should be investigated how closely they are tied to say Coca Cola.
I am all for people drinking whatever they want, and they should have the right to do so. However, I am not for taxpayers paying for the consequences of their bad decisions. Bad decisions that are promoted by the government with their free liquid sugar.
As for churches, I 100% agree with you. Religion and spirituality should be a personal thing. So many churches, more than you'd want to believe, are tax shelters for the rich. Something has to give. They should cut the strings and become independent of the government.
Here is my conservative take on this issue: Our family was super poor when our kids were young. We could have gotten food stamps easily but chose not to. We were just very careful with our budgeting. Later we started a business that brought us out of poverty. We did well enough that within a few years we were paying in tens of thousands of dollars in income tax yearly. We still had a big family and had to be careful with our finances, though.
So, our family of nine would go shopping and we’d buy real food. No chips or sodas because we. were. on. a. budget. We had to be. We ate healthy food and got enough but it was no frills. (We also gardened and had chickens for eggs and goats for milk.) Every time we grocery shopped we’d see at least one family who arrived in a better and newer vehicle than us, in brand name clothes, hair and nails done, who loaded their carts down with “luxury” items (as in not essentials) like junk food that my kids would have loved to have, prepackaged meals, chips, soda, steaks, ribs, etc.
I’m not going to lie. This stung. Here we were- young people with a fledgling business that we were breaking our backs to make successful, paying in so much in income taxes, and doing without the things that our tax dollars were helping to buy for other people. If I can’t afford it for myself it seems unfair that I’m affording it for others. I have no problem with SNAP benefits helping people but it should go for real food to help people stay fed/healthy.
I have said this multiple times on GAW and other sites.
The SNAP (Food Stamp) program is not a social services program. It is a farming program covered under the Farm Bill which is under the Department of Agriculture. It has nothing to do with social services.
Congress sets prices on commodities such as beef, pork, eggs, milk, and, yes, even sugar.
In the old days if a farmer or rancher produced a certain amount of their commodities and it wasn't sold the US government agreed to buy it. Usually what happened is that the raw food staples would go rotten in a government warehouse. This was not a good option. So then the government came up with the "Free Cheese" program in which the government hired contractors to convert the raw material into products that the government handed out to those who qualified as "needy".
But the problem was so much of it was very low quality and over half of the finished product ended up rotting in government warehouses.
So then the government came up with the idea easing regulations on prices and allowing farmers to be competitive and they took the money and issued it to those American people in need and allowed them to decide what products they would buy.
Now we're at a crossroad of where neediness meets luxury.
The farmers selling meat, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat, and eggs are totally allowed to receive the benefit of this program while the farmers who work their asses of in the thankless job of producing corn and sugar to be used for candy and soda are not allowed to take part in the program? How does that make sense?
If the SNAP program was a social services program it would make sense to limit what food people buy. But it's not. It's a farming program and all farmers should be allowed to benefit from it equally.
But things are the way the are at this time. We can wax poetics all we want about how things should be but right now we need to focus on how things are right now. Not how they would be in a perfect world.
I agree. There are a few bills (mainly in Texas) that are just stupid rn. Conservitives are on a high and are getting a little too law happy... Anyway
This is one of them. I grew up poor and hood adjacent. I knew kids who's mom's were out whoring for weeks and all they could do is walk to the gasstation to buy food. (Ill be it with foodstamps not SNAP) Yes. That's horrible, and unhealthy. But it would be even more horrible if they couldn't get any food at all because it's restricted. Heck, hot foods should be okay because then they could have purchased the corn dogs or meat pies. Idk. Not all issues are black and white. Things like this really need a lot of thought. We have more important things to worry about.
I think it's concerning because I used to try to do wic going to the counter and hoping your food items are accepted sucks. Looking through a big store for the couple of things you can buy sucks. If they can make some simple way to tell if foods are allowed or not then it's fine. But what does no soda mean to sparking water and energy drinks? Am I going to have the check the website for every item? Is brand A going to be of but brand B is not? I don't trust the government to be able to make coherent reasonable rules.
Maybe the prices on the shell label could be colored to identify what is on the program to avoid embarrassment at the checkout line. Also, someone could buy the snacks knowing right away that cost is out of pocket. Another idea might be to allow, say, 5% or so to be used for soda/snacks/ non-colored label since all is on a card anyway.
I really take note when I see a big fat person with a lot of soda and sugar snacks in their basket and pay with the snap card. It makes me feel uncomfortable to see this. What I don’t notice is when the stuff is not in somebody’s basket I don’t even give it a second thought. I do not think it is unnatural to think that this should not be happening.
Social Security money isn't a government handout. It was money forcibly taken from the wage earner and the employer. The government shouldn't have any say in how the recipient spends it. Veteran's benefits are in essence a pension for service. SNAP is a government handout. I am sorry you have the circumstance to need it, but since it is taken directly from taxpayers, including SS recipients, there should rightly be dictates on what that money can be spent on. I would recommend you let go of the soda fix - there is nothing in sodas that are good for you :) I do wish you well, patriot.
There are legit considerations regarding the whole "SNAP/junk food" debate. It's not as black-and-white of an issue as many people assume.
Hypoglycemia requires people to eat quick sugar during flareups, and it is a fairly common condition. Patients commonly do this by ingesting soda pop, or candy bars- aka "junk food."
High sugar foods; while technically labeled as "junk" food do provide the body with quick energy. People who do physical work often snack on candy, and sugary drinks during the workday for energy.
In fact, the modern candy bar industry was largely built around supplying US soldiers with "energy food" (candy bars) to help them perform during world war 2.
Then, there are other, more nebulous considerations surrounding the costs of food preparation, and what poor people can afford to cook- IF they can even afford to cook.
Poverty often times makes simple things quite difficult or impossible for some people to do simple things that most people take for granted. Things like, turning on your gas stove to cook a "healthy" meal, when the utility company has cut their gas off for non-payment.
So what do they do? They use SNAP to buy a bag of chips, and some Hot Pockets (junk food) to cook in the microwave so they don't end up starving.
Then, some overly ambitious bureaucrats scrutinize their food receipts, and gets the bright idea that the govt. needs to control how people eat because tax dollars paid for the food- as if the SNAP recipient, and his family have never paid those tax dollars before.
Yeah, I get it. It would be better if more people ate healthier, and it would be better if SNAP could somehow sway people to do that. But, there is a fairly large gray area regarding what exactly is "junk food," and when should people not be allowed to purchase it.
Personally, I would ban Cheetos from SNAP purchases. That shit has no redeeming qualities as a food source, whatsoever. But, I think that the definition of "junk food" really needs to be very narrow regarding the SNAP thing, due to edge cases.
That's a great, nuanced comment. Almost like it was made in a physical room with real people who want to get along, and not some internet board. When you get into specific cases it can be blurry.
A lot of this boils down to whether we are entitled to our own tax money (as in "it's already mine so don't tell me what to do with it"), or whether it's an essentially charitable social program that the gov't needs to manage as a fiduciary.
My response to your comment about Christians wanting the government to fund their schools is that Christians are already paying for public schools through their property taxes. So if they also pay personally to send their students to Christian schools, they are paying twice. That doesn't seem fair. The answer, in my opinion, is to give all parents the same funds for their childrens' schooling, and the parents choose where they send them.
Stop eating the junk and making excuses why a 51 year old person needs help for their illnesses. Eat MEAT and only MEAT. You will get your life back and show your loved ones how to get healthy. See Dr Ken Berry and Shawn Baker in Your Tube for details. Good luck. BTW my mother went in the dole at 40 she is still on it at 87 that’s 47 years. She didn’t pay taxes. Poor don’t pay taxes. Blessedly the six kids she raised still do.
I do not condemn at all. The gov gives you the money. However there are huge swaths of people right now who must feed their children with no government assistance and are barely making it. Their choices are gas for getting to work or food. Soda, candy, baked sweets, potatoes chips are what one buys with disposable food budget. The price of a six pack can buy potatoes or a vegetable or fruit.
My family's income was way below the poverty level. We were never on the dole and we never went hungry. I have been stone cold broke in my lifetime, including a period with two children and my husband out of work for 3 months. No food stamps, but I made it by digging the Sunday paper inserts out of the garbage at a local store, cut coupons and spending a day spending coupons with store sales. My record was $300+ of groceries for 30 dollars.
And yet someone like myself who clipped coupons, shopped loss leaders, and garage sales. I had a garden, preserved every food I could get my hands on. We hunted and fished. Heck, I even made my own soap. I worked full time 110 miles one way from home. At one point I was paying $450 a check into “the system”.
Now somehow I’m supposed to watch people that never even try, get and be proud of getting “help”, waste my money on crap that helps no one.
I am now on disability after 45 years of working. Should I feel guilty or be denied a candy bar? Somehow we need to tie social programs to the effort the recipients have put into taking care of themselves. Less effort = less “help”.
You are not typical nor I suspect represented by many numbers at all. The reason I said not criticizing the writer.
The thing that irks me are that with food stamps, school lunch and breakfast programs and local food pantries, we are being told there are hungry children.
I have watched people with baskets full of expensive garbage and items I can't buy, pay with food stamps or government cards. Children are supposedly starving because the adults in their lives are spending money on junk. When I was a child, we got a can of soda for field days at school, at family reunions and some 7 up and oranges for Christmas. Period. Deserts were far and few between.
100% agree! I was raised the same way. Additionally, my brother and I split a 6oz pop on Sunday (Disney night). Mom popped popcorn and made fudge. We survived and learned valuable lessons.
Im just saying not every one deserves to be denied the candy bar and not everyone deserves a free ride. Our choices, past and present should gauge how much help and oversight we receive.
To me, the debate boils down to whether we are entitled to our own tax money (as in "it's already mine so don't tell me what to do with it"), or whether it's an essentially charitable social program that the gov't needs to manage as a fiduciary.
For schools, conservatives are annoyed their tax money goes to schools they consider worthless. Of course they'd prefer their money going someplace they consider valuable instead! I'm sure it could happen someday, but I don't see any religious schools seriously making an argument they should get more money than what the gov't already spends per student, only that they shouldn't be forced to pay for bad schools instead of good ones. And it's only a big issue because the public school system is demonstrably and massively screwed up, and a huge money pit.
On the SNAP program, my opinion is that it's a small issue (by comparison of course), but it's qualitatively different in that SNAP, rightly or wrongly, is seen as a program that is essentially charitable, and that it requires fiduciary oversight to make sure it isn't abused.
How is the "smartest animal" on the planet the only one dumb enough to believe he'd starve without taxpayer assistance? I'm from Newfoundland, where we had "denominational education" (publicly-funded education, run by the various religious denominations....it was over 97% Christian here at the time) until the early 90s. The Mount Cashel sex abuse scandal caused this system to fall out of favor and a constitutional amendment was passed (denominational education was protected under the terms of Union signed between Canada and Nfld in '49) to bring Nflds public education system in-line with what was going on in the rest of America. In the 30 years since test scores have bottomed out, and the costs of running the system, which should have been drastically reduced, have skyrocketed. As far as I'm concerned I shouldn't be forced to pay for the drag queen story hour at your kids school or your food stamps (a worm is born with no arms and legs and still feeds itself. Trust me you can too!). As long as there is taxpayer funded education I'm totally OK with the $ following the child to a school that's more in tune with the parents morals and away from these gender-obsessed State run godless indoctrination camps.
First, on schools. We lived in Long Beach and paid ridiculously high school taxes. We sent our son to Catholic high school. Not cheap. Yes, we got transportation and books, but nothing else. A tax credit would have been helpful.
On soda. I have no problem with a limited amount of cola or gingerale. Both are often useful to settle the stomach. Growing up we had soda on our birthdays. Otherwide we drank water, milk or small amounts of orange juice. I"m almost 73
I have no "holy war" against junk food or the people who eat them. I don't care what other people eat, as long as I can eat healthier. But since taxpayers are paying for SNAP, we don't feel we should be paying for junk food when healthier food is available.
No one says you can't eat junk, we just don't want to pay for it.
Agreed, if someone wants/needs sodas, energy drinks, etc, they need to pay themselves. Traditionally, until the current gimme, gimme years, these types of food choices like sodas, and energy drinks weren't EVER covered. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for these perks for others because many of us live frugally all the f'ing time and the thought of someone reaching into our pocket to pay for their fudge rounds just isn't proper. Work is good, and earning money is good for the soul, welfare was meant to be a hand up, not a permanent entitlement. Junk food is fine if someone wants to buy it with their own EARNED money, SNAP is food stamps, and food stamps should be for qualified food items. Until now, all these gimme programs were something people would feel ashamed to be on, Nowadays, people seem proud to be on Medicaid, food stamps, energy assistance, free or assisted housing, WIC, when self-sufficiency should be the goal. Time limits need to be put on welfare programs, and government employment agencies should find welfare recipients jobs. Instead, we have government employment agency workers who sit around with their thumbs up their arses. They used to find jobs for people, they need to get back to doing just that.
Good point. While the rest of us struggle to put real food on our tables, paying attention to the nutrition labels and avoiding processed foods, sugar, sodium, and chemicals, why should we be paying for someone else's bad eating habits? Despite having a limited income, I don't mind helping and contributing to others who are even less fortunate than me, but I don't really care to contribute to someone's sugar addiction, heroin or meth addiction, and a 'need' for a luxury car or vacation.
All those things listed are in the same category, as far as I'm concerned.
Well said. Also IMO soda and candy are not foods. They have zero nutritional value so can not be considered a diet stable. Also since EBT benefits is a limited amount I don’t see how there is enough for both groceries AND treats especially in today’s inflation. Most taxpayers certainly can’t afford it. Families with kids especially will benefit from this whether they like it or not. So many Americans are addicted to sugar - I’m not surprised to see the uproar. It’s like addicts being told they are cut off from their favorite drug.
I don't want to subsidize diabetes. A lot of these poor people buy soda because it's cheaper than healthy alternatives. Then, they end up sick and dying because of the liquid sugar they didn't know was going to kill them. Remember, most people are uneducated when it comes to the cause of diabetes, and being raised on TV, seeing commercial after commercial glorifying the garbage didn't help.
This is where big Pharma comes in to "save the day" with $400 insulin shots. I fully believe they are behind the push to have sodas readily available, and it should be investigated how closely they are tied to say Coca Cola.
I am all for people drinking whatever they want, and they should have the right to do so. However, I am not for taxpayers paying for the consequences of their bad decisions. Bad decisions that are promoted by the government with their free liquid sugar.
As for churches, I 100% agree with you. Religion and spirituality should be a personal thing. So many churches, more than you'd want to believe, are tax shelters for the rich. Something has to give. They should cut the strings and become independent of the government.
Here is my conservative take on this issue: Our family was super poor when our kids were young. We could have gotten food stamps easily but chose not to. We were just very careful with our budgeting. Later we started a business that brought us out of poverty. We did well enough that within a few years we were paying in tens of thousands of dollars in income tax yearly. We still had a big family and had to be careful with our finances, though.
So, our family of nine would go shopping and we’d buy real food. No chips or sodas because we. were. on. a. budget. We had to be. We ate healthy food and got enough but it was no frills. (We also gardened and had chickens for eggs and goats for milk.) Every time we grocery shopped we’d see at least one family who arrived in a better and newer vehicle than us, in brand name clothes, hair and nails done, who loaded their carts down with “luxury” items (as in not essentials) like junk food that my kids would have loved to have, prepackaged meals, chips, soda, steaks, ribs, etc.
I’m not going to lie. This stung. Here we were- young people with a fledgling business that we were breaking our backs to make successful, paying in so much in income taxes, and doing without the things that our tax dollars were helping to buy for other people. If I can’t afford it for myself it seems unfair that I’m affording it for others. I have no problem with SNAP benefits helping people but it should go for real food to help people stay fed/healthy.
I have said this multiple times on GAW and other sites.
The SNAP (Food Stamp) program is not a social services program. It is a farming program covered under the Farm Bill which is under the Department of Agriculture. It has nothing to do with social services.
Congress sets prices on commodities such as beef, pork, eggs, milk, and, yes, even sugar.
In the old days if a farmer or rancher produced a certain amount of their commodities and it wasn't sold the US government agreed to buy it. Usually what happened is that the raw food staples would go rotten in a government warehouse. This was not a good option. So then the government came up with the "Free Cheese" program in which the government hired contractors to convert the raw material into products that the government handed out to those who qualified as "needy". But the problem was so much of it was very low quality and over half of the finished product ended up rotting in government warehouses.
So then the government came up with the idea easing regulations on prices and allowing farmers to be competitive and they took the money and issued it to those American people in need and allowed them to decide what products they would buy.
Now we're at a crossroad of where neediness meets luxury. The farmers selling meat, tomatoes, potatoes, wheat, and eggs are totally allowed to receive the benefit of this program while the farmers who work their asses of in the thankless job of producing corn and sugar to be used for candy and soda are not allowed to take part in the program? How does that make sense?
If the SNAP program was a social services program it would make sense to limit what food people buy. But it's not. It's a farming program and all farmers should be allowed to benefit from it equally.
Free food is making people extremely fat in many cases.
We can give subsides to farmers another way, that doesn't harm the poor as much.
True.
But things are the way the are at this time. We can wax poetics all we want about how things should be but right now we need to focus on how things are right now. Not how they would be in a perfect world.
This is a discussion,we are not writing laws.
Using farmers as an excuse to harm people is not the way.
I agree. There are a few bills (mainly in Texas) that are just stupid rn. Conservitives are on a high and are getting a little too law happy... Anyway
This is one of them. I grew up poor and hood adjacent. I knew kids who's mom's were out whoring for weeks and all they could do is walk to the gasstation to buy food. (Ill be it with foodstamps not SNAP) Yes. That's horrible, and unhealthy. But it would be even more horrible if they couldn't get any food at all because it's restricted. Heck, hot foods should be okay because then they could have purchased the corn dogs or meat pies. Idk. Not all issues are black and white. Things like this really need a lot of thought. We have more important things to worry about.
Cause we have been in line at the store and seen a cart filled with soda and snacks bought by extremely over weight people paying with a snap card.
We just want to help them out.....
Don't get me started on the ones riding electric carts.
A hundred years ago poor people were thin and in good shape from all the hard work. Now the rich are thin and healthy and the poor are fat.
Cleary we are doing something wrong.
A lot of these people couldn't even work if they had a job, they are trapped......
I think it's concerning because I used to try to do wic going to the counter and hoping your food items are accepted sucks. Looking through a big store for the couple of things you can buy sucks. If they can make some simple way to tell if foods are allowed or not then it's fine. But what does no soda mean to sparking water and energy drinks? Am I going to have the check the website for every item? Is brand A going to be of but brand B is not? I don't trust the government to be able to make coherent reasonable rules.
Maybe the prices on the shell label could be colored to identify what is on the program to avoid embarrassment at the checkout line. Also, someone could buy the snacks knowing right away that cost is out of pocket. Another idea might be to allow, say, 5% or so to be used for soda/snacks/ non-colored label since all is on a card anyway.
I really take note when I see a big fat person with a lot of soda and sugar snacks in their basket and pay with the snap card. It makes me feel uncomfortable to see this. What I don’t notice is when the stuff is not in somebody’s basket I don’t even give it a second thought. I do not think it is unnatural to think that this should not be happening.
Social Security money isn't a government handout. It was money forcibly taken from the wage earner and the employer. The government shouldn't have any say in how the recipient spends it. Veteran's benefits are in essence a pension for service. SNAP is a government handout. I am sorry you have the circumstance to need it, but since it is taken directly from taxpayers, including SS recipients, there should rightly be dictates on what that money can be spent on. I would recommend you let go of the soda fix - there is nothing in sodas that are good for you :) I do wish you well, patriot.
There are legit considerations regarding the whole "SNAP/junk food" debate. It's not as black-and-white of an issue as many people assume.
Hypoglycemia requires people to eat quick sugar during flareups, and it is a fairly common condition. Patients commonly do this by ingesting soda pop, or candy bars- aka "junk food."
High sugar foods; while technically labeled as "junk" food do provide the body with quick energy. People who do physical work often snack on candy, and sugary drinks during the workday for energy.
In fact, the modern candy bar industry was largely built around supplying US soldiers with "energy food" (candy bars) to help them perform during world war 2.
Then, there are other, more nebulous considerations surrounding the costs of food preparation, and what poor people can afford to cook- IF they can even afford to cook.
Poverty often times makes simple things quite difficult or impossible for some people to do simple things that most people take for granted. Things like, turning on your gas stove to cook a "healthy" meal, when the utility company has cut their gas off for non-payment.
So what do they do? They use SNAP to buy a bag of chips, and some Hot Pockets (junk food) to cook in the microwave so they don't end up starving.
Then, some overly ambitious bureaucrats scrutinize their food receipts, and gets the bright idea that the govt. needs to control how people eat because tax dollars paid for the food- as if the SNAP recipient, and his family have never paid those tax dollars before.
Yeah, I get it. It would be better if more people ate healthier, and it would be better if SNAP could somehow sway people to do that. But, there is a fairly large gray area regarding what exactly is "junk food," and when should people not be allowed to purchase it.
Personally, I would ban Cheetos from SNAP purchases. That shit has no redeeming qualities as a food source, whatsoever. But, I think that the definition of "junk food" really needs to be very narrow regarding the SNAP thing, due to edge cases.
That's a great, nuanced comment. Almost like it was made in a physical room with real people who want to get along, and not some internet board. When you get into specific cases it can be blurry.
A lot of this boils down to whether we are entitled to our own tax money (as in "it's already mine so don't tell me what to do with it"), or whether it's an essentially charitable social program that the gov't needs to manage as a fiduciary.
My response to your comment about Christians wanting the government to fund their schools is that Christians are already paying for public schools through their property taxes. So if they also pay personally to send their students to Christian schools, they are paying twice. That doesn't seem fair. The answer, in my opinion, is to give all parents the same funds for their childrens' schooling, and the parents choose where they send them.
No nutrition in soda. The acronym has words behind it.
You say "alcohol, cigarettes, pot" as if you know there is a line between what SNAP is intended for.
Stop eating the junk and making excuses why a 51 year old person needs help for their illnesses. Eat MEAT and only MEAT. You will get your life back and show your loved ones how to get healthy. See Dr Ken Berry and Shawn Baker in Your Tube for details. Good luck. BTW my mother went in the dole at 40 she is still on it at 87 that’s 47 years. She didn’t pay taxes. Poor don’t pay taxes. Blessedly the six kids she raised still do.
I do not condemn at all. The gov gives you the money. However there are huge swaths of people right now who must feed their children with no government assistance and are barely making it. Their choices are gas for getting to work or food. Soda, candy, baked sweets, potatoes chips are what one buys with disposable food budget. The price of a six pack can buy potatoes or a vegetable or fruit.
My family's income was way below the poverty level. We were never on the dole and we never went hungry. I have been stone cold broke in my lifetime, including a period with two children and my husband out of work for 3 months. No food stamps, but I made it by digging the Sunday paper inserts out of the garbage at a local store, cut coupons and spending a day spending coupons with store sales. My record was $300+ of groceries for 30 dollars.
And yet someone like myself who clipped coupons, shopped loss leaders, and garage sales. I had a garden, preserved every food I could get my hands on. We hunted and fished. Heck, I even made my own soap. I worked full time 110 miles one way from home. At one point I was paying $450 a check into “the system”. Now somehow I’m supposed to watch people that never even try, get and be proud of getting “help”, waste my money on crap that helps no one. I am now on disability after 45 years of working. Should I feel guilty or be denied a candy bar? Somehow we need to tie social programs to the effort the recipients have put into taking care of themselves. Less effort = less “help”.
You are not typical nor I suspect represented by many numbers at all. The reason I said not criticizing the writer.
The thing that irks me are that with food stamps, school lunch and breakfast programs and local food pantries, we are being told there are hungry children.
I have watched people with baskets full of expensive garbage and items I can't buy, pay with food stamps or government cards. Children are supposedly starving because the adults in their lives are spending money on junk. When I was a child, we got a can of soda for field days at school, at family reunions and some 7 up and oranges for Christmas. Period. Deserts were far and few between.
100% agree! I was raised the same way. Additionally, my brother and I split a 6oz pop on Sunday (Disney night). Mom popped popcorn and made fudge. We survived and learned valuable lessons. Im just saying not every one deserves to be denied the candy bar and not everyone deserves a free ride. Our choices, past and present should gauge how much help and oversight we receive.
Pop? Utah or idaho?
Michigan
Very few places called it pop. Now, I can add Michigan.
Government should not be considered a charity using other people’s money. Private donations can be used through churches and other REAL charities.
Last i saw,they were just getting the same amount per student as commie shithole schools. And they all pay the same taxes to support these schools.
We do need some schools that actually educate kids.
But the parents of the kids at the Catholic schools probably don't want to have to pour their tax money into public education either.
It would be nice to actually own my little lot in the village instead of renting it from the local government.
To me, the debate boils down to whether we are entitled to our own tax money (as in "it's already mine so don't tell me what to do with it"), or whether it's an essentially charitable social program that the gov't needs to manage as a fiduciary.
For schools, conservatives are annoyed their tax money goes to schools they consider worthless. Of course they'd prefer their money going someplace they consider valuable instead! I'm sure it could happen someday, but I don't see any religious schools seriously making an argument they should get more money than what the gov't already spends per student, only that they shouldn't be forced to pay for bad schools instead of good ones. And it's only a big issue because the public school system is demonstrably and massively screwed up, and a huge money pit.
On the SNAP program, my opinion is that it's a small issue (by comparison of course), but it's qualitatively different in that SNAP, rightly or wrongly, is seen as a program that is essentially charitable, and that it requires fiduciary oversight to make sure it isn't abused.
How is the "smartest animal" on the planet the only one dumb enough to believe he'd starve without taxpayer assistance? I'm from Newfoundland, where we had "denominational education" (publicly-funded education, run by the various religious denominations....it was over 97% Christian here at the time) until the early 90s. The Mount Cashel sex abuse scandal caused this system to fall out of favor and a constitutional amendment was passed (denominational education was protected under the terms of Union signed between Canada and Nfld in '49) to bring Nflds public education system in-line with what was going on in the rest of America. In the 30 years since test scores have bottomed out, and the costs of running the system, which should have been drastically reduced, have skyrocketed. As far as I'm concerned I shouldn't be forced to pay for the drag queen story hour at your kids school or your food stamps (a worm is born with no arms and legs and still feeds itself. Trust me you can too!). As long as there is taxpayer funded education I'm totally OK with the $ following the child to a school that's more in tune with the parents morals and away from these gender-obsessed State run godless indoctrination camps.
First, on schools. We lived in Long Beach and paid ridiculously high school taxes. We sent our son to Catholic high school. Not cheap. Yes, we got transportation and books, but nothing else. A tax credit would have been helpful.
On soda. I have no problem with a limited amount of cola or gingerale. Both are often useful to settle the stomach. Growing up we had soda on our birthdays. Otherwide we drank water, milk or small amounts of orange juice. I"m almost 73
Supplements to keep be healthy not allow either
Sorry that your food is taxed, ridiculous.
Would u be able to apply for local food bank?
Social security - you get what you pay in. Well in theory. You're entitled to it because you paid it as a separate and specific thing.
Just because you've paid taxes doesn't mean you've paid towards snap. I've paid taxes and never used snap.