Some facts about food stamp recipients

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (87 posts)
  1. Don W profile image81
    Don Wposted 2 years ago

    I'm seeing lots of comments that seem to imply most recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as the food stamp process, are lazy, lack "responsibility" and are content to live off the government.

    As is often the case, available facts do not match a popular political narrative, which in this case seems outdated and inaccurate. Some facts about recipients of food stamps(1)(2)(3):

    32% of SNAP households had jobs in 2016.

    87% percent of working-age, able-bodied adults were employed in the year before or after SNAP receipt.

    55% of SNAP households with children had earnings in 2016.

    66% of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities.

    40% of SNAP households had an income on or below the poverty line.

    53% of SNAP households contained one person (average size was 2 people).

    The gross income of 10% of SNAP households was raised above the poverty line due to SNAP.

    This data highlights that most working age recipients of SNAP who can work, do work, but are still below the poverty line, partly due to low paid jobs.

    (1) https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/de … ummary.pdf
    (2) https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/de … cs2016.pdf
    (3) https://www.cbpp.org/snap-households-wi … rk-rates-6

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "32% of SNAP households had jobs in 2016."
      "66% of SNAP participants were children, elderly, or had disabilities."

      Between the two that's 98% of the recipients.  Sounds to me like there is a little more to this than the bare facts.  Working for a single day in a year, for instance, results in having a job during the year.  Similarly, when the poverty line increases every year, beyond inflation, well, it becomes obvious that "poverty" doesn't mean what we think it does.  Also, children do not qualify for SNAP; their parent(s) do because they don't earn enough to feed their children.

      "40% of SNAP households had an income on or below the poverty line."

      This, too, isn't telling the whole story: why are 60% of SNAP recipients NOT living in poverty but STILL feeding off the rest of the nation?

      And, of course, it says nothing about why people are working and still below the poverty line.  Because they only work part time?  Because they refuse to better themselves with improved skills?  Because they choose to work a low paying job?  Because they choose to live where jobs don't pay anything?  Because they choose to have more kids than they can feed?  At the end of the day I'm pretty sure that most (that means over half, not 99%) of SNAP recipients have chosen to put themselves in the position where they qualify for the program.

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Damn bud! I'm going to take a seat for this one. I am anxious to see how you support that closing statement.

        If you had said something like most SNAP recipients are such because the qualifying threshold is so low I could have seen that possibility, but it will be interesting to hear more about a realistic explanation of your perspective.

        GA

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Oh, it is absolute, unadulterated opinion.  "At the end of the day "I'm pretty sure...".  Based on my personal knowledge and experience with a variety of people.

          The gal that did drugs until she hurts all the time and is still a drunk much of the time.  She doesn't like to work, so stays home and hurts from laying on the couch all day.

          The 30 year old kid that works at the ski resort in winters and then draws unemployment and welfare the rest of the time so he can ski every day possible.  He can't get a job in his small town because of poor work history.

          The woman on disability who made plans and began the process of returning to her vocation...until she found out she would lose her benefits.

          The divorced woman with three kids who does not pursue the father for child support because she wants nothing to do with him, and stays home so she can "be with her children".

          The woman with 4 kids (and one on the way) whose husband works a menial job with no intention of doing anything else.

          The female vet who gets $800 per month disability (but no SNAP) after going to school on her GI bill and getting a job in her field.  She joined the active reserves...until they figured out they were paying her to do the same job she did as active military and stopped the disability.  So she quit the active reserves, got her disability back and joined the inactive reserves.

          Another vet who gets several hundred per month military disability (no SNAP)...while holding a G12 government job and running triathlons.  To his credit he and his wife are also caring for and supporting a minor child that they could get help for but refuse to even apply for.

          And then there is the man who suffered an accident and was brain damaged to the point that he can't hold a job - he will go to the bathroom and wander out the door, lost, until the police take him home. Multiple psych reports that he was incapable of working, but it took him two years to get the $100 per month he gets in SNAP...while his 80+ year old parents worked to support themselves and him.  Of all the people I know on welfare of one sort or another he is the ONLY one that is there through no fault of his own, and truly deserves and needs the help.  And he STILL gets nothing else (no housing, no disability, no nothing) because he DID find a job - a single job he shares with a physically disabled man delivering newspapers that can drive and keep it moving but cannot handle the bundles of papers.  They split the salary, so no entitlements.

          So yeah, my opinion is that over half the people on welfare programs (including SNAP) are there as a direct result of making poor decisions and continuing to make them.

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            A RESOUNDING AMEN.   To endlessly reiterate, people are poor in America for the most part(there are EXCEPTIONS) because of unintelligent, even stupid decisions.   I had witnessed this also from maternal extended family members, not my paternal extended family members who are mostly affluent w/the poorest member being solidly middle class.


            I stand by my premise that most people are poor in America because of either sheer illogicality or laziness.  There are myriad opportunities in America to improve oneself but it involves SACRIFICE which they won't do.  When I was a supervisory clerk, clerks below me complained-I told them that in order to get promoted, they must take a test.  They were aghast, telling me that they didn't want a promotion because it meant more responsibilities.  Well, yes.   Again, it is the fault of the poor that they are poor in America.  NEXT

      2. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        This is interesting. Of the posters here, the opinion on this issue seems to come down to those who are automatically suspicious of people who take food assistance and those who automatically give those who take food assistance the benefit of the doubt.

        We have one side who think these people are leeches and the other side who think these people are just down on their luck and need temporary assistance to get themselves on their feet.

        Undoubtedly, there are some who are gaming the system while there are some who intend to get off the assistance as soon as they can.

        Why do some of us lean the way we do?

      3. Don W profile image81
        Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Between the two that's 98% of the recipients.  Sounds to me like there is a little more to this than the bare facts."

        Perhaps this will clarify:

        "Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP. . . The number of SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP has been rising for more than a decade, and has more than tripled — from about 2 million in 2000 to about 6.4 million in 2011."(1)

        "Forty-four percent of [people in households receiving SNAP] were under age 18, 12 percent were age 60 or older, and 9 percent were disabled nonelderly adults".(2)

        "Similarly, when the poverty line increases every year, beyond inflation, well, it becomes obvious that "poverty" doesn't mean what we think it does"

        Being below the poverty threshold means being unable to support the cost of a food diet which would give someone "about 1 chance in 2 of getting a fair or better diet, but only 1 chance in 10 of getting a good diet"(3). So while I think the poverty threshold could do with an overhaul, the current poverty threshold is pretty close to what I think poverty means.

        "This, too, isn't telling the whole story: why are 60% of SNAP recipients NOT living in poverty but STILL feeding off the rest of the nation?"

        To clarify, you are expressing disappointment because you think 40% of workers receiving SNAP and staying at or below half the poverty, isn't enough? If so, what % of working SNAP recipients would need to be in or near poverty to make you feel happier?

        "And, of course, it says nothing about why people are working and still below the poverty line. Because they only work part time?  Because they refuse to better themselves with improved skills? . . ."

        Or perhaps because . . .

        ". . . during the recovery, employment gains have been concentrated in lower wage occupations, which grew 2.7 times as fast as mid-wage and higher-wage occupations . . .

        We find that three low wage industries (food services, retail, and employment services) added 1.7 million jobs over the past two years, fully 43 percent of net employment growth. At the same time, better-paying industries (like construction; manufacturing; finance, insurance and real estate; and information) did not grow, or did not grow enough to make up for recession losses.
        "(4)

        Again, I find a political discussion boiling down to facts vs opinions. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, I'm saying it's unsupported by anything other than your personal experience. In contrast, there are available facts that indicate that more people might be doing low paid jobs because lower paid jobs have been replaced more quickly than medium paying jobs.

        If I had a choice between making policy decisions about the welfare system based on someone's personal experiences, or based on a reasoned argument supported by facts, I'd choose the latter. Isn't that just common sense?

        (1) https://www.cbpp.org/research/the-relat … households
        (2) https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/de … ummary.pdf (General Characteristics)
        (3) https://www.ssa.gov/history/fisheronpoverty.html
        (4) https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads … ry2012.pdf

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          You missed the point about the 60% of SNAP not being poor.  Why are we buying food for people that are not poor?

          Likewise, you say that the poverty line is around $6 for a full time job - 60% of recipients can't make that?  Why not if they are working?  And if they are working fast food jobs, why haven't they improved their skill set for a better job?

          "Reasoned" arguments are fine, but all I've seen yet amounts to "well, they don't make enough so we'll feed them".  That isn't "reasoned", it's an excuse for people to get SNAP.  For instance, you complain that construction jobs have not increased, but I know in my area they are begging for workers, and I hear the same (grapevine) that other areas are as well.  Big article in my local paper about a couple of companies suing each other for running over the time limit for a construction job - the defense is that workers were simply not available.  But that means gaining a skill, working in the cold and rain...something that is not particularly high on the list of desires.

          1. hard sun profile image83
            hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "And if they are working fast food jobs, why haven't they improved their skill set for a better job?"

            This is a poor and sad argument for not paying a living wage. It seems just a small skip from being in favor of slavery. Not everyone can or should be more than a fast food worker. But, they don't deserve to eat as they don't deserve a living wage or food stamps.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              No, it is the primary point.  One that you don't want to address, in favor of simply providing for those that don't want to learn a skill, move from a poverty stricken area, work a real job instead of fast food.

              1. hard sun profile image83
                hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Huh...the primary point to me is that everyone deserves a living wage, and, yes govt subsidies may have to account for some of that, just as they do for your health insurance..how would an economy even function if everyone thought they had to get a "real job?" Wouldn't inflation go through the roof?  It makes absolutely no sense. Don't work if you can't advance. That's what you are telling people. Seems like a recipe for welfare. Isn't the fact that some people have lower skilled jobs an inherent part of capitalism?

                Besides, I was taught to respect the fast-food worker as much as the CEO. That means everyone deserves to eat and pay the bills. Screw em though huh. They are lesser individuals, every one of them. Did you deserve your wage you got before retirement?? Do you deserve your subsidized health insurance...glass houses.

                Just adding one question. How do you move from a poverty stricken area when your in poverty? Also, poverty stricken areas are the only places people can afford to live on their low wages.

                1. Readmikenow profile image97
                  Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Economics is what rules wages.  What if a company can't pay what you believe to be a "living" wage? Should they be forced to go out of business and not longer provide goods and services to their customers because they need to spend money growing their business?  I'll say this again.  When people have a company and have to pay wages, they then learn about wages.  People need to know why someone doing menial work is payed a certain wage and someone who has invested significant amounts of money obtaining experience and knowledge to perform a job is paid differently.  This is called competition.

                  1. hard sun profile image83
                    hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yeah. I agree. That's why we have social safety net systems.But, menial labor is not worthless labor...and, if everyone were to get "high skilled" jobs, those high-skilled jobs would no longer be high paying jobs. We can't have it both ways.... State that all people should get high paying jobs but some people deserve to get higher pay than others. It makes no sense as there would be no higher paying jobs left. People deserve living wages no matter how that has to happen, and societies collapse when people don't get living wages.

                  2. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    THANK YOU, MIKE!!!!!  Wage levels = skill+ education levels.   Also wage levels are based upon demand.   There are people who fail to realize this.  They expect a less educated, menial worker to earn the same salary as an executive with an MBA...…….how ludicrous...……..how ludicrous...….

                2. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Then define "living wage".  A single person can live without undue problems on minimum wage, so what are you calling a living wage, and who does it apply to?  The man with a disabled wife, elderly mother and 5 kids in the house?

                  "How do you move from a poverty stricken area when your in poverty?"

                  My great-grandparents walked thousands of miles to homestead.  If you can't figure out any way to get from one place to another you have more problems than not wanting to work.

                  "Don't work if you can't advance. That's what you are telling people."

                  No, that's what you're telling them.  I'm telling them it takes work and training to advance and if they choose not to do that don't cry about it.

                  "Besides, I was taught to respect the fast-food worker as much as the CEO."

                  Good for your parents!  But did they also teach you that the job behind the fast food counter should pay the same as the CEO?  Not so good for them if they did.

                  1. hard sun profile image83
                    hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Parents? WTH? Who said because I was raised that I had parents? Anyway, I knew you'd come back with paying the same thing...no I never stated CEOs should be paid the same as fast food counter workers, and you know that.

                    Things are much different nowadays than your grandpappies days, and I think you know that as well. If someone walks to another land today, without a home to live in when they arrive, they just may be arrested for vagrancy..or even illegal entry?!?!? Are you willing to buy a home for anyone who wants to walk somewhere for a job?

                    Apologies, but your assertions make no logical sense in today's world.

                    Defining the living wage again? We had this discussion before, and that's not my job either way.

                    Are you saying everyone should be forced to get an education and paid a wage that you determine is appropriate for their skills or risk being shamed into starvation? Your philosophy seems close to some warped communism. Re-hasing all the same talking points is not getting America anywhere.

                3. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Many people settle for crumbs rather than to exert themselves to improve their life situation educationally & skill-wise.  They would rather complain about their abysmal lot in life, playing perpetual victims & whiners...…..C'mon now.    If one wants something, h/she can get it if EFFORT IS MADE.........

              2. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                A THOUSAND APPLAUSES, WILDERNESS...…...A THOUSAND APPLAUSES...….

            2. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              I agree with Wilderness here.   Low skilled/low wage jobs shouldn't be careers/lifestyle.  People should advance their skill & educational levels if they want a better lifestyle.   If one wants a decent lifestyle, acquire the prerequisite skills & education to obtain a commensurate job.  It is beyond ridiculous to expect a living wage from low skilled/ low wage jobs.  C'mon now...…..

          2. Don W profile image81
            Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "You missed the point about the 60% of SNAP not being poor.  Why are we buying food for people that are not poor?"

            The stated purpose of SNAP is to "permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet…by increasing their purchasing power"(1). A household can be above the poverty level and be low-income. In fact if a household is eligible for SNAP it is, by definition, low-income.

            As for why we are helping eligible, low-income households obtain a nutritious diet, what benefits do you think there might be in doing that wilderness, outside of the benefit for the individuals in that household?

            "Likewise, you say that the poverty line is around $6 for a full time job - 60% of recipients can't make that?  Why not if they are working? And if they are working fast food jobs, why haven't they improved their skill set for a better job?"

            There are two approaches to answering those questions. Generalize based on our own personal experiences and anecdotes, then pre-judge others based on our generalizations. Or see what available factual information suggests. Which do you think is the more sensible approach?

            "For instance, you complain that construction jobs have not increased, but I know in my area they are begging for workers, and I hear the same (grapevine) that other areas are as well."

            The report I cited didn't say construction jobs have not increased. It said:

            ". . . better-paying industries (like construction; manufacturing; finance, insurance and real estate; and information) did not grow, or did not grow enough to make up for recession losses." (my emphasis). It also said more low-paid jobs were created since the recession.

            But the wider point is that your view of SNAP recipients seems based solely on personal experience and anecdotes, not factual information. Do you (and others with the same view) know, for a fact, that the majority of people in low-paid jobs "don't want to learn a skill"?

            If so, how? What information do you have access to that the rest of us don't?

            Again it comes down to this: should public policy decisions about something that could affect millions of people, be based solely on personal experience and anecdotes, or should it be based on factual information? I think it should be based on factual information.

            (1) https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/de … isions.pdf (sec. 3)

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              " A household can be above the poverty level and be low-income. In fact if a household is eligible for SNAP it is, by definition, low-income."

              And there is the rub, for that artificial definition of "low income" has nothing to do with actually being in poverty, but in how much money can be spread without causing an uproar from the people footing the bill.

              "As for why we are helping eligible, low-income households obtain a nutritious diet, what benefits do you think there might be in doing that wilderness, outside of the benefit for the individuals in that household? "

              Increased power for politicians.  Building chains of poverty that are nearly impossible to break free of.  Building dependency on the largess of politicians.  Destroying incentive, if that is considered a benefit.  Gaining control over more of the people's money.  Increasing the size and power of the government. 

              The list is quite long, and none of it benefits the nation or the people paying the bill.  And that's assuming that the recipients are going to purchase a "nutritious diet" rather than junk food, cocaine or booze.  As the typical recipient has not been trained in what is nutritious that seems more than a little doubtful.

              "Or see what available factual information suggests."

              Factual information is always wonderful...if available.  But when the only information available is slanted (at 90 degrees) and only half the story, when the negative half is ignored or we pretend it isn't there at all, that kind of falls apart and leaves only personal experience.

              "better-paying industries (like construction; manufacturing; finance, insurance and real estate; and information) did not grow, or did not grow enough to make up for recession losses."

              I can only repeat that when construction jobs are falling behind schedule to the tune of months or years because workers are not available it gives the lie to the idea that such jobs did not increase.  It didn't happen before the recession, but it is happening now.

              "Do you (and others with the same view) know, for a fact, that the majority of people in low-paid jobs "don't want to learn a skill"

              Do you know, for a fact, that the majority DO want to learn a skill?  Do the elderly, wishing a little spending money, want to learn a new skill?  Do the fast food workers, working while going to school, want to learn a new skill outside of their schooling programs? 

              Don, I've worked for 50 years with a lot of people.  And few of them are willing to put out the effort, and take the risk, of learning a new skill and changing jobs.  Maybe they don't want the responsibility.  Maybe they are simply comfortable where they are - too comfortable to want change badly enough to do it.  There are a hundred reasons NOT to undertake the stress and effort of a new, more difficult job and most people (IMO from years of experience) do not like the idea.  The psych experts list a job change as one of the most stressful events of life; when you couple it with a completely new field, with training you don't know if you can handle, with the inevitable risk involved, it's scary.  Real scary.  And a great many people won't do it.

              Now, you can point to studies where people are asked if they want to do that - go back to school, learn something new and take on a totally different set of responsibilities - and you might get 90 "yes" responses from 100 people.  But when it comes down to brass tacks, to actually doing it, well, I'd want to see an honest report of people that were asked and then see how many "yes" responses went on to do it.  And THAT we never see - only the result of the poll.

              "Again it comes down to this: should public policy decisions about something that could affect millions of people, be based solely on personal experience and anecdotes, or should it be based on factual information?"

              What "factual information"?  I'd certainly be interested in a study of the WHOLE story, but all I ever see are claims that everyone wants to do better and are willing to sacrifice, risk, and work very, very hard to do so.  This is so at odds with 50 years of experience that I don't believe it.

              1. Don W profile image81
                Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "And there is the rub, for that artificial definition of "low income" has nothing to do with actually being in poverty . . ."

                "Low income" is defined by SNAP eligibility requirements as 130% of the federal poverty level(1). The federal poverty level is a measure of how well someone can maintain a minimum food diet. So SNAP eligibility is directly related to an objective measure of poverty used by the federal government.

                "Increased power for politicians. Building chains of poverty that are nearly impossible to break free of. Building dependency on the largess of politicians . . . none of it benefits the nation or the people paying the bill"

                To be clear, are you suggesting that assisting low-income households to obtain a nutritious diet does not benefit the nation in any way whatsoever?

                "Factual information is always wonderful...if available.  But when the only information available is slanted (at 90 degrees) and only half the story . . . that kind of falls apart and leaves only personal experience."

                Are generalizations based on personal experience the only way to address a lack of factual information? Is that really the best way to make policy decisions that can impact millions of people?

                Your personal experience is likely not the same as mine, and not the same as the next person's. How can we solve a problem collectively, when our understanding of that problem is based solely on our personal experiences?

                Surely when trying to agree solutions to complex problems, it makes sense to rely on objective measures. That allows different people to understand the problem, regardless of who they are, what they believe etc. Surely that's the most sensible approach.

                (1) https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibili … or%20SNAP?

    2. profile image0
      promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The federal poverty line for one individual works out to $5.83 per hour in a 40-hour job. Because of minimum wage, most of them actually work part time without benefits.

      Ignorant extremists seem to think that SNAP recipients not living in poverty are feeding off the rest of the nation.

      Maybe if they met enough of them, they would find out that many have disabilities, mental illness and other problems that prevent them from having stable jobs.

      Then again, based on a few random examples, maybe the ignorant extremists are right. All of these people are just lazy drunks and drug addicts who could get high-paying jobs but would rather watch TV all day.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Maybe if they met enough of them, they would find out that many have disabilities, mental illness and other problems that prevent them from having stable jobs."

        And, maybe, if the other ignorant extremists met enough of they they would find that many simply don't want to do better enough to actually DO it.

        As you point out, the federal poverty line is well under (well under) a full time job at minimum wage.  Meaning that minimum wage is enough to raise them out of poverty.

        Yet the assumption is, and remains, that the the 40 million people in this country that do not earn that, are simply incapable of doing so.  40 million people are incapable, in spite of their best efforts, of earning minimum wage.  One out of every 10 people.

        Maybe I'm dreaming, maybe I'm living in a faux utopia, but I refuse to think that badly of my neighbors.  I won't believe that one of 20 (half those in abject poverty) are incapable of earning minimum wage.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image60
          Randy Godwinposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Gee Dan, you must pay extremely high taxes to be so against programs which assist the poor. You always seem so bitter when these subjects are discussed here on the forums. Is there a particular instance when you suffered because your taxes was spent on their welfare?

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No, Wilderness is sick & tired of his hard earned money going towards useless social & welfare programs to assist people who WANT to be poor due to their bad life choices.   Wilderness can use the tax money to enrich his life & that of his family, children, & grandchildren.   Wilderness is sick of supporting lazy grown a## people who REFUSE to work & be self-sufficient.   Yes, Wilderness is against programs which assist the poor-so am I.  Let the poor help themselves-they REFUSE TO DO SO!  Wilderness is right in his premise.  Time to TRIM THE FAT!  Social & welfare programs are making it much easier on the poor- it also make them lose incentive to improve themselves.  Remove the social & welfare programs- presto, there is NOW incentive.  The only way that the poor will gain incentive & improve themselves is to remove inane social & welfare programs.  My mother & father who came from impoverished families had no welfare- THEY MADE THEIR WAY!

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Does someone with mental illness or developmental disabilities want to be poor?

              The truth is that some people take advantage of the system and some people truly need help.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                "The truth is that some people take advantage of the system and some people truly need help."

                Very, very true.  And we do a really shoddy job of helping those that truly need the help.  Mostly a result of massive fraud by others, but it's something we refuse to address.

                But same comment I've made before: I absolutely refuse to believe that half the people in this great country truly need help.  They want it, they demand it, but they don't need it.

                1. gmwilliams profile image85
                  gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  In total agreement...…...

              2. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Oh boy......OH BOY...…...everyone knews that there are EXCEPTIONS, I didn't have to SPELL IT OUT.  You know this, Promisem.  But there are those who see poverty as a normative lifestyle.  They want to be poor- they also want others to SUPPORT them into a better lifestyle!!!!!

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, there are poor people who see poverty as a normative lifestyle. There also are poor people who are poor because of mental illness, developmental disabilities and other problems outside of their control.

                  They are not exceptions. They are common.

                  The difference between you and me is that you see all poor people as choosing that way of life. I see some of them choosing it and others being forced into it.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image85
                    gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    What you mention are...……….EXCEPTIONS, it isn't COMMON among the poor.   In America(oh gawddd, I say THIS YET AGAIN), people are poor because they CHOOSE to be poor.   There are people who make unintelligent choices in life.  They also have NEGATIVE beliefs.  People are poor in America because they have developed & were inculcated w/a poverty consciousness, mentality, outlook, & philosophy.   They act in ways in which poverty is the inevitable result.
                    https://hubstatic.com/13411782.jpg

          2. hard sun profile image83
            hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            At the same time, he states he has a Medicare Advantage policy. Funds for MA come from taxes, not the Medicare that comes out of all our checks, and the premiums are subsidized. That's all fine with me...just you know, people wanna talk about others.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Why is this silly claim still being made?  I pay for my medicare advantage, not the federal govt. 

              My Medicare does not come from your check; it comes from me 40 years of paying into it as part of the retirement plan wherein I was required to give the govt. 15% of my earnings so I would have it later.

              1. hard sun profile image83
                hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I've provided you with numerous links about this. Why are you still refuting it? I know guys who were also required to pay into for their retirements and get Advantage as you, they udnerstand that not all that Medicare money comes from what they put in. Head in sand..or would your head explode if you acknowledged the truth? Why do lower income seniors pay less for Medicare Advantage than their higher-paying counterparts? Is that theft?

                https://q1medicare.com/q1group/Medicare … log_id=703

                Once again
                https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/06 … unded.aspx

                "Finally, Medicare has a source of funding that Social Security doesn't: the general fund of the U.S. federal budget. In 2014, fully 41% of Medicare's money needs came from general tax revenue, making it the most important source of funding on which retirees and other Medicare participants rely."

                This is why we have the Coalition for Medicare Choices fighting for seniors to get more tax dollars from the general fund each year. I used to be a proud part of that effort.

                " Unlike Social Security, a significant portion of Medicare already comes from general revenues.

                "Payroll taxes and premiums only funded 50% of Medicare in 2015, with 42% coming from the federal budget.  This means both of the meme’s claims are inaccurate.  Medicare is not even remotely funded 100% by FICA, and it’s directly adding to the debt already.|"

                http://memepoliceman.com/social-security-medicare/


                All that evil socialism the elderly are voting against...and using at the same time!!! Today's generation only dreams of the pension plans, etc. that the folks of days gone by had.

        2. gmwilliams profile image85
          gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Wilderness, totally agree w/you.  People love to make excuses-they REFUSE to take responsibility for their lives.

    3. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Well, these are good statistics. There is a lot of real world abuse for this program.  I've seen people get SNAP benefits, work under the table, get food from the food bank, and live quite well.  The other problem is once people get on the program, they don't think they should ever have to pay for their food again.  I have seen people with this attitude.  I've worked at food banks and seen people, who obviously needed help.  I've also seen others who view it as a way to not pay for their food.  It a perfect situation, people would only do this temporarily and then no longer need it.  Unfortunately, is doesn't work this way.  When you volunteer to help at certain places, you'll see things that stats can't tell you. Some people need it but there are MANY people who take advantage of it.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000, Mike.  When I was working, a co-worker informed me that while she went shopping, a person with SNAP brought non-essential food items.  Yes, people abuse SNAP, EBT, & WELFARE...…….That is what I have trying to tell the Leftists here!!!

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Yet, there are people who need it, use it and then get off of it.  So, I ask myself, should those who use it as intended be punished because of those who abuse it? I sold my business to a woman who was a single mother of three who had a burning desire to get off of welfare.  She worked with me from the beginning and was my best worker.  Since she took it over she has taken the business to levels I could not have imagined. In her case, she just needed an opportunity to use her God-given intelligence. I learned from her how some families have a history of being teachers, some in the military and more.  She said many families on welfare know the system, know what is necessary to get the maximum benefits and more.  She made me realize how difficult it is to break away from that mindset and those around you who are angry if you succeed.  It's a much bigger problem than I think we realize.  It goes deeper than money.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The shame has gone from taking welfare to not getting as much welfare as the neighbor or friend.  Yes, it has become almost a "job" in itself to figure out how to get more.

            At the same time the system is designed and set up to keep people on charity.  Not only in the mindset that becomes ingrained, but in the process of getting off of it.  When increased work and effort results in less total income, well, why bother?  It isn't worth it.  And that's exactly what we've done with the design of the system.

            1. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000, Wilderness.

          2. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            EXACTLY, Mike.  It is a culture.  There is the culture of the wealthy.  There is the culture of the middle class & there is the culture of poverty.  Each culture has a vastly different perspective on life.  Mike, you are succinct in your analysis.  Glad that your friend got off welfare & is highly successful.   Wish more people were like her.   

            Mike, I want to add that many extreme Liberals & Leftists need the poor to feel superior.  That is why they advocate for useless, inane, & even detrimental social & welfare programs.  They want to feel needed & even covertly superior to the people they are allegedly helping.  In their minds, they maintain look at this poor person I am helping him/her-I feel so morally superior.  They feel better than.   Extreme Liberals & Leftists oppress the poor through social/welfare programs but they REFUSE to acknowledge THIS...………..

  2. Randy Godwin profile image60
    Randy Godwinposted 2 years ago

    I really hope no one on this thread ever has to depend on the goodness of others.

  3. hard sun profile image83
    hard sunposted 16 months ago

    These days a great deal of those jobs that some claim people don't deserve enough to make a living on are considered essential. Grocery store workers, fast food employees, etc. So,  are some still going to tell them that they don't deserve to earn a living wage after relying on them to live through this crisis?

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      I have been wondering this same thing. A lot cal grocer in my town is giving all his workers an extra $2 per hour hazard pay. I hope he can continue that after the crisis subsides.

      But, yeah, Bernie is looking pretty darn good right now.

      1. hard sun profile image83
        hard sunposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        That's good to hear of someone doing something to show real appreciation of workers. And then, we have so many Americans who are convinced that these workers should be fighting for the rights of corporations. I think the corporations can fight for their rights just fine without the help. Some of the right wing BS is clearly being shown for what it is right now.

        Bernie certainly seems to understand just how much we really are reliant upon each other in modern society. At least Biden would listen to the experts who are part of what made America great. We have a long way to go now.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      LOL  In my state, the state liquor stores are "essential".  What that means is that they earn money for the state and that alcoholics will go into withdrawal without them (must we now provide meth, crack and opioids for addicts as "essential"?).

      My daughter in law owns a small T-shirt printing business, and it, too, is "essential" somehow.  Gotta have those pretty T-shirts!

      "Essential" does not mean what the word says, not in the Covid19 context.

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        One can always find exceptions, but the point remains that a considerable number of essential workers are risking illness and death to provide all of us with services we often take for granted.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          True.  But at the same time...is it more dangerous than being a cop?  A lineman, in a driving snowstorm working on high voltage lines?  A fireman?  There are lots of jobs far more dangerous than a grocery clerk in these times of Covid19.

          The only real difference is that the people in a grocery store did not sign up for such danger, while others did.  Of course, they now have a choice; either continue working with the new, changed, dangerous environment or leave for greener pastures.

          Let me toss a question into the fray: I see posts from a British friend taking price gougers to task - it seems rather common over there.  Is this really any different?  Demanding a higher price when the country is in trouble and their product (labor) is necessary?  If that raise is given, does it not give the store an equal (ethical) right to raise prices to cover their losses?  To me, anyway, it is a valid question and I'm not sure I have an answer.  I am unaware of any bonuses or raises being given to police, fire, ambulance crews, nurses, doctors, etc; why should a grocery clerk get one?  The plumber that comes to fix your broken pipe won't charge extra, and neither will your car mechanic.  Why should a grocery clerk get a raise?  Every worker out there is in more danger than if they stay at home, yet very few have demanded a raise (I heard  workers did at one Amazon warehouse) - are we not in this all together, or is it appropriate for some to make profit off of it?

          Finally, there are an awful lot of "essential" jobs.  I can't speak for the nation, but in my area any kind of construction is "essential".  From road construction to building a new house on speculation - it is all "essential".  Nor is that all - most of the businesses I saw driving down a main city street today were open.  Tobacco shops, vape stores, fast food, coffee sales, restaurants (take out only), home improvement stores, a tool store, gas stations not only had pumps running (we pump our own gas and pay at the pump) but the little convenience store as well.  A "farm supply" store in the middle of the city, pet stores.  Most of the strip malls had at least half the stores open.  Nor was it just retail; parking lots of office buildings were full.  All of these are "essential".

          Bottom line:  there are, and will be, far more people working than laid off over the virus.  Do we really want to add to the burden of those that are laid off in an effort to slow the virus and protect us all by raising prices because we now choose to work a "dangerous" job?  Or should we all dig in, do what is necessary, and work our way through this as a people rather than individuals trying to make hay off the problems of others?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)