Using Food Stamps at Fast Food Places?
- Thread starter potentialeight
- Start date
Not even bums starve to death in this country! There's one bum in my neighborhood who has been there for at least 2 years! And he's still alive! That fat fuck! You can survive in this country from dumpster diving. Like BigWill said, knock on your neighbors' doors and offer work for food. Also, there's churches to turn to and food banks.
^Agreed. But I have to give a little leeway to Frank because he is one of the most level-headed folks on this board.
Hey Frank; I'd love for you to clarify where you draw the line on this one:
It really is a simple issue when you boil it all down... Both of the following simply cannot co-exist:
A. Freedom for the citizenry to spend their money how they wish.
B. A few Bad Apples living off of money that they didn't earn.
As a Nation, nay, as a SPECIES, we shouldn't have to endure option B any longer... It's gone on too far as it is, and now far too many are going to have to suffer through an economic collapse because of it.
It's not like the bums wouldn't have any charities out their to care for them anyway... Churches and all kinds of charities will line up to help them in the absence of the state's mandated help.
Hey Frank; I'd love for you to clarify where you draw the line on this one:
Does that mean you personally feel that it's less of a crime to take money from other people in order to feed these people who won't get motivated to feed themselves?
It really is a simple issue when you boil it all down... Both of the following simply cannot co-exist:
A. Freedom for the citizenry to spend their money how they wish.
B. A few Bad Apples living off of money that they didn't earn.
As a Nation, nay, as a SPECIES, we shouldn't have to endure option B any longer... It's gone on too far as it is, and now far too many are going to have to suffer through an economic collapse because of it.
It's not like the bums wouldn't have any charities out their to care for them anyway... Churches and all kinds of charities will line up to help them in the absence of the state's mandated help.
To clarify on what I was saying in #66, I feel this [irrational?] responsibility to take care of other human beings even if they aren't making an active effort to take care of themselves. However, I also see a logical argument for letting them die if they can't take care of themselves when they are clearly capable of doing so. That's what I meant by being hung up on the issue because I'm being pulled in two directions.
Ah. Luckily I harbor no internal problems letting them live the way they would and therefore die earlier when they are given all the advantages I am given.
In fact I feel exactly the same about it as I feel about trying to save someone who is Determined to kill themselves immediately. It's sad but if that's what they really want, what does it help to stop them?
These two situations are the same thing, but the former is even more evil than the latter (and therefore deserves even less sympathy) because they depend on other peoples' resources until they die. At least the people determined to off themselves now don't guilt the public into stealing your money.
In fact I feel exactly the same about it as I feel about trying to save someone who is Determined to kill themselves immediately. It's sad but if that's what they really want, what does it help to stop them?
These two situations are the same thing, but the former is even more evil than the latter (and therefore deserves even less sympathy) because they depend on other peoples' resources until they die. At least the people determined to off themselves now don't guilt the public into stealing your money.
posted by Big Will:
posted by lukep:
I think more is being read into my words than that which I'm trying to say. On a moral level, I do not think people should go hungry. This in particular includes people who for whatever reason are physically unable to provide for themselves, but does not preclude people who are simply going through a rough patch (say, a woman and kid in an abuse shelter) or even people who just don't give a fuck and refuse to try, assuming someone will bail them out just like mom always did.
On a reasonable level, I do not think that there's any harm in prioritising the time, effort and materiel that goes into helping people by order the severity of their problems (and whatever it is that is keeping them down.) And, perhaps most salient to the questions asked in response to my posts, I consider it both immoral and unreasonable to force people to take care of others.
Just like my pragmatic view of the SNAP program (I think it's absurd, but it's going to exist no matter what I think) I take a pragmatic view to saving the world: I can't. It's foolish and disingenuous to suppose we can eradicate poverty, or any specific aspect of it, by forcing people to foot the bill for ever-expanding programs co-ordinated by the state. But bearing that in mind, I can make a small difference, and try to set what I believe to be a good example for my kids.
Frank
posted by lukep:
I think more is being read into my words than that which I'm trying to say. On a moral level, I do not think people should go hungry. This in particular includes people who for whatever reason are physically unable to provide for themselves, but does not preclude people who are simply going through a rough patch (say, a woman and kid in an abuse shelter) or even people who just don't give a fuck and refuse to try, assuming someone will bail them out just like mom always did.
On a reasonable level, I do not think that there's any harm in prioritising the time, effort and materiel that goes into helping people by order the severity of their problems (and whatever it is that is keeping them down.) And, perhaps most salient to the questions asked in response to my posts, I consider it both immoral and unreasonable to force people to take care of others.
Just like my pragmatic view of the SNAP program (I think it's absurd, but it's going to exist no matter what I think) I take a pragmatic view to saving the world: I can't. It's foolish and disingenuous to suppose we can eradicate poverty, or any specific aspect of it, by forcing people to foot the bill for ever-expanding programs co-ordinated by the state. But bearing that in mind, I can make a small difference, and try to set what I believe to be a good example for my kids.
Frank
Yeah, personally I think they should only work in grocery stores and food items in retail stores.
What do you (and others here) think about narrowing down the products that can be used with it?
I really like how WIC works because of the way there are specific vouchers for specific items, etc., and you have to show an ID that matches what's on the voucher at the time of purchase to get it.
I could give a fuck if they want parsley and butter on their free chicken that I fucking paid for. Personally I think they should get a bag of rice a month and that's it. Well actually I think they should get a pamplet that teaches them how to plant seeds and can vegetables. But you know those fat fucks would just die of starvation before they learn anything or have to put work in to get food(not that would be a bad thing).
/rant
^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^
I've never understood the food stamps thing. Why not just give people the monetary equivalent (but not enough to go buying McDonalds every day) so they're forced to cook their own food, as cheaply as possible. That way your citizens aren't starving, but they're also not getting obese.
They're not necessarily gonna spend it all on crack, they need to eat. If not, then that's their own fault.
Here's how it works over here, which I think makes sense.
The local council own houses and apartments you can rent. Assuming you're unemployed, single, and not disabled, the government will pay your rent for you. The apartments aren't gonna be great, they're gonna definitely be at the cheaper end of the housing market. You're not gonna get a house unless you have a family with children. The government will also give you £67 a week (about $110), providing you go into the jobcentre (place where companies search for people to do shitty jobs) every so often. That money can be spent on whatever, food, electricity, crack.. but if you spend it all on crack, it's your own stupid fault.
Frank is close, but is fundamentally off base: on a moral level, I do not think people ON MY TEAM should go hungry. I define "my team" as the people I'm responsible for and I make sure they're taken care of. That doesn't include all the jabronies across the nation. They're no more my brother than starving kids in Uganda.
The only way nationwide (worldwide) hunger gets fixed is if a few passionate individuals from the free market take small responsibilities.
Where does that hunger stop? food? clothing? shelter? education? health? It's equally as sad to see a family living in a cardboard box in an alley ... or children dying from curable diseases. A bleeding heart is a dangerous thing once scale is considered. Is it really better to kill off productive sectors of society in order to keep non-productive ones on life support? Sure, everyone feels bad but taking forced action leads to only one saying actually fitting ... consequences will never be the same. Honestly, tell me we're better off with the socialistic direction the country has taken since FDR
This thread = the pussification of WF Volume 1
Stand by your fucking convictions people, as a community we've had this right all along. I'll feed dozens of people that knock on my door looking to work for food but I'll be damned if I'm forced to allow parasites to continue sucking me dry without speaking up.
The only way nationwide (worldwide) hunger gets fixed is if a few passionate individuals from the free market take small responsibilities.
Where does that hunger stop? food? clothing? shelter? education? health? It's equally as sad to see a family living in a cardboard box in an alley ... or children dying from curable diseases. A bleeding heart is a dangerous thing once scale is considered. Is it really better to kill off productive sectors of society in order to keep non-productive ones on life support? Sure, everyone feels bad but taking forced action leads to only one saying actually fitting ... consequences will never be the same. Honestly, tell me we're better off with the socialistic direction the country has taken since FDR
This thread = the pussification of WF Volume 1
Stand by your fucking convictions people, as a community we've had this right all along. I'll feed dozens of people that knock on my door looking to work for food but I'll be damned if I'm forced to allow parasites to continue sucking me dry without speaking up.
Aquaponics all the way! Basically get a free, unlimited supply of fresh fish and vegetables. Very minimal startup costs as well.
Got my little test system going outside my house. If that goes well, we'll expand into the better halfs' parent's house in the village to feed 6 - 8 people. If that goes well, we'll maybe go balls out, and expand it to feed the entire village of 300 - 400 people.
Got my little test system going outside my house. If that goes well, we'll expand into the better halfs' parent's house in the village to feed 6 - 8 people. If that goes well, we'll maybe go balls out, and expand it to feed the entire village of 300 - 400 people.
In regards to their children, though, admittedly you can't do much when they're just a baby, but I'd imagine if you were a crackhead, you'd send your children off to school as soon as possible, so you don't have to look after them and can suck some dick for some more crack. The moment they go to school though, isn't it pretty likely that someone's gonna notice how thin the kid is, and end up getting the child welfare people sent round, and the child sent to foster care.
Yeah, that newer system sounds like a slightly better system, but there's still some problems. It's basically money that can only be spent on food, so there's no incentive to eat more cheaply, because all you're gonna have left is some more foodstamps. Give people money, however, and if they eat cheaply, they're rewarded with money they can spend on things they want. That way you're teaching self-sufficiency, rather than teaching them to use the government as something to lean on.
I grew up in a poor neighborhood my family was NEVER on food stamps but many lazy mofo's parents around us were.
We used to take 10-15 kids into the gas station and everyone buy a $.10 stick of gum with a $20 food stamp and take the money and go ride go carts, buy 40's, cigs, clothes and other dumb shit.
We had a few days where we would pull 1k-2k in a single day. I was like 11 or 12 at the time. Those days were fun.
Anyways you can't just give them money. They will just spend it. They would go buy a flat screen, beer, cigs, drugs / whatever then go to a church's food bank and get free groceries.
We used to take 10-15 kids into the gas station and everyone buy a $.10 stick of gum with a $20 food stamp and take the money and go ride go carts, buy 40's, cigs, clothes and other dumb shit.
We had a few days where we would pull 1k-2k in a single day. I was like 11 or 12 at the time. Those days were fun.
Anyways you can't just give them money. They will just spend it. They would go buy a flat screen, beer, cigs, drugs / whatever then go to a church's food bank and get free groceries.
posted by erect:
That's absolutely true, and it can be difficult to know where a line can or should be drawn. Please note also my statements RE: the realistic chance of me saving the world (0%) and the degree to which people should be forced into my way of thinking (0%) both of which I think give me a little leeway to try to leave a positive imprint in my own way, since I'm not generally hurting anyone in the process of helping anyone else, as is usually the case with state welfare.
OK, but again, I am totally opposed to considering needs and wants to be rights, even potentially lifesaving needs and wants; and therefore am taking an antithetical approach to the FDR/LBJ kind of nonsensical model. The only welfare program any government has ever successfully one is the one that supports lawyers.
Nah; I'm a big swinging dick for not being afraid to say I'll buy a hungry guy in the street a sandwich off a cart, even if he reeks of Scotch and doesn't have his five-year plan handy for my approval. And I'm totally at ease with being considered foolish for this point of view by other people here; perhaps of equal importance to point out, I don't think anyone here is bad or morally compromised for not sharing my moral imperatives.
I do, and I respect yours.
Frank
That's absolutely true, and it can be difficult to know where a line can or should be drawn. Please note also my statements RE: the realistic chance of me saving the world (0%) and the degree to which people should be forced into my way of thinking (0%) both of which I think give me a little leeway to try to leave a positive imprint in my own way, since I'm not generally hurting anyone in the process of helping anyone else, as is usually the case with state welfare.
OK, but again, I am totally opposed to considering needs and wants to be rights, even potentially lifesaving needs and wants; and therefore am taking an antithetical approach to the FDR/LBJ kind of nonsensical model. The only welfare program any government has ever successfully one is the one that supports lawyers.
Nah; I'm a big swinging dick for not being afraid to say I'll buy a hungry guy in the street a sandwich off a cart, even if he reeks of Scotch and doesn't have his five-year plan handy for my approval. And I'm totally at ease with being considered foolish for this point of view by other people here; perhaps of equal importance to point out, I don't think anyone here is bad or morally compromised for not sharing my moral imperatives.
I do, and I respect yours.
Frank
Both of those assumptions are incorrect. And it's the exact same system we have here, and it works pretty well for the most part. And yes, if a new set of rims is what they want, then they're going to make an effort to spend the money they're given efficiently, so they can eat, but still have enough for the rims. You can teach self sufficiency by giving someone money if they know they'll starve if they waste it.