SNAP spending v. Non-SNAP Spending
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
Well, they got what they voted for.
Sent from my iPhone 7 Plus [emoji336] using Tapatalk
Good luck at removing soft drinks from the list,
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/the-history-of-snap/
In 1964, The Food Stamp Act (P.L. 88-525) was passed as a part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society Program
A U.S. House of Representatives provision to limit the purchase of soft drinks and “luxury” foods was eliminated from the final version of the bill.
Food producers and retailers love the idea of SNAP folks buying everything possible. I remember the pressure put on Congress to remove the limits on purchased and change the direction of the commodity food programs. Billions more in sales became available.
Who can drain that swamp?
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/the-history-of-snap/
In 1964, The Food Stamp Act (P.L. 88-525) was passed as a part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society Program
A U.S. House of Representatives provision to limit the purchase of soft drinks and “luxury” foods was eliminated from the final version of the bill.
Food producers and retailers love the idea of SNAP folks buying everything possible. I remember the pressure put on Congress to remove the limits on purchased and change the direction of the commodity food programs. Billions more in sales became available.
Who can drain that swamp?
the program your State implemented spent more in drug testing than it saved in welfare benefits they held back due to drugs
maybe you are ok throwing away money, i'm not
except, to my knowledge, that is always the case every time it has been tried. State spends millions on drug testing to hold back thousands in benefits and the kids of a few druggies suffer so at least that is a win right?
This family in my article is Catholic. They don't use artificial contraception for religious reasons. They were making it until her husband's hours got cut way back. They could afford their kids and they can afford them now. If you have any kids at all and you're just making ends meet, any reduction in hours or salary will cause such problem.
The struggles of the working poor are enormous and often very much overlooked. Additionally, the cycle of poverty is very hard to break. It's not just a matter of "working harder."
I really believe that we all have an obligation to try to give a helping hand. Sure, there will be some who take advantage, but I bet those are much fewer in number then you think.
Chances are what you witnessed was that lady buying groceries for someone well off with her EBT and giving them a big discount which they pay her in cash. I have had several hit me up to give them my grocery list and they would buy my groceries for me at a big discount, sometimes half what it really cost. Never did it but it was tempting as I am far from being well off. I suppose that is one reason why I am not well off!!
I remember eating commodities as a kid. Powdered milk, eggs, canned ham, peanut butter, cheese. Seems like what ended that was the big cut in profits for the name brand grocery producers with the government involved in feeding the poor. I always thought the food stamp, EBT programs should only work paying for generic brands when available but there again that would hurt the name brands profits. I know my health insurance would only pay for generic drugs unless there was no generic substitute. Don't have health insurance now, can't afford it, but I ain't on welfare either and I won't be as long as I am able to work!! I am a stone/brick mason so that may not be many more years from now!!
The system doesn't want the poor to become self dependent. In fact I believe it wants more to become poor and dependent on the government and the machine behind everything it does these days!! With this country so far in debt....what 20 trillion at this point or something....how much of our tax money really goes to the welfare programs? Seems to me it is mostly being financed by credit we will never be able to pay off!
I truly believe that we are slaves to the system and it is only going to get worse. I don't see this country escaping bankruptcy personally. Besides....kids love soft drinks!! The sugar addiction is as real as any other addiction in this country!!
Yeah sounds like they should have cut back on the baby making, until they were on more solid ground financially.
The independent yeoman farmer was Jefferson's ideal citizen. Living by the sweat of his brow, difficult to bribe, couldn't buy his vote.
The example before the Founders was that of the final years of the Roman republic, in which patrones (wealth and powerful citizens who granted favors to clientes in exchange for their votes when it mattered. Thus small farmers lost their independence and came to be dependents of the powerful.
Now, fast-forward to today, when millions of clientes are bought and paid for by Federal programs, living by the sweat of another's brow, in exchange for the recipients' support in the next election.
I realize that cutting people off to starve in the streets is not the way to go, but it always shocks me that advocates of ever-expanding social safety net spending do not seem to see the morally corrosive effects of millions of people knowing they are living at the expense of others. The old virtue of Jefferson's yeoman farmer is crushed out by such a system and we are spending money (money we don't have) to corrode citizen's ethics.
If anyone doubts me, in the Depression, recipient of public welfare demanded doing some form of work in exchange for the money and Jimmy Braddock (Cinderella Man), when he had earned enough money, paid NJ back for the welfare he had received. Today, if you don't take every "benefit" the law says you are entitled to, or God forbid, pay back money received, your fellow recipients would deem you an unbelievable chump. That illustrates the general ethical decline these programs have caused.
The example before the Founders was that of the final years of the Roman republic, in which patrones (wealth and powerful citizens who granted favors to clientes in exchange for their votes when it mattered. Thus small farmers lost their independence and came to be dependents of the powerful.
Now, fast-forward to today, when millions of clientes are bought and paid for by Federal programs, living by the sweat of another's brow, in exchange for the recipients' support in the next election.
I realize that cutting people off to starve in the streets is not the way to go, but it always shocks me that advocates of ever-expanding social safety net spending do not seem to see the morally corrosive effects of millions of people knowing they are living at the expense of others. The old virtue of Jefferson's yeoman farmer is crushed out by such a system and we are spending money (money we don't have) to corrode citizen's ethics.
If anyone doubts me, in the Depression, recipient of public welfare demanded doing some form of work in exchange for the money and Jimmy Braddock (Cinderella Man), when he had earned enough money, paid NJ back for the welfare he had received. Today, if you don't take every "benefit" the law says you are entitled to, or God forbid, pay back money received, your fellow recipients would deem you an unbelievable chump. That illustrates the general ethical decline these programs have caused.
Once human nature involved making a choice between self reliance or starvation. Now, more and more human nature involves a choice between stealing a little or stealing a lot.
Latest threads
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emporer has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 14
-
Home-and-Home Series Wraps Up as Alabama Welcomes UAB on Tuesday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 4