jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (142 posts)

Fla. bill would ban buying sweets with food stamps

  1. Stacie L profile image91
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    Fla. bill would ban buying sweets with food stamps


    By KELLI KENNEDY
    updated 2/5/2012 8:51:18 AM ET

    FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. Florida's poor can use food stamps to buy staples like milk, vegetables, fruits and meat. But they can also use them to buy sweets like cakes, cookies and Jell-O and snack foods like chips, something a state senator wants stopped.

     
    Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, also wants to limit other welfare funds, known as Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, from being used at ATMs in casinos and strip clubs and anywhere out of state. The bill comes after reports that the debit cards welfare recipients now receive were used in those places, as well as locations in Las Vegas and the Virgin Islands in a small percentage of cases, but the state does not track what items were purchased.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46270895/ns/us_news-life/
    No sweets for those on food stamps...is this a good idea? Should the govt tell you what you can and cannot buy?I like the idea to a degree 

    1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      i don't believe gov't should tell you what to eat...some folks may not eat as healthy as others...but...what's wrong with some treats...this same issue is discussed in Canada...however, those looking inside from the outside are not walking in the recipient's shoes...each situation is different...generalizations are made and it's unfair...i bet that senator eats sweet stuff

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Normally I would disagree with the state being able to tell you what you can buy and what you cannot. In this case its not the buyers money but rather mine, so I would support a bill limiting the waste of MY money.

    3. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The government isn't telling anyone how to spend the proceeds of their own labor.  It is not telling them how to spend their own property.  They are being told how they can and cannot use the property taken by the state from those who produced it in the first place.  Seems to me that is one of government's responsibilities - to prudently employ the taxes they collect.

      That having been said, the government tells us all what we can and cannot buy all the time - with our own money.  Flush toilets, incandescent light bulbs, prescription drugs, automobiles and much, much, much more are proscribed as to when, where, why, how, how much, how often and what can be purchased.  So the government of Florida actually cracking down on people treating the funds transferred to them as a cushion against hardship as vacation money to blow is more than reasonable - it is high time.

    4. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      We have enough folks on food stamps as it is, and as obese as most "government funded individuals" are, I say:  "Yay!  No more free sweets...  (Like that will solve the freakin' problem...) Now, they will have even more free money to buy steaks and seafood while sitting on their lazy backsides while the low to low-middle class working stiffs will have to settle for bologna and hotdogs!"  Blah...  roll

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yep you got it.

        Hell I lived in an apartment complex where 3 out of 38 adults worked!! and that was just one complex.

        We moved and now at least the ratio has increased a little more, and their are less "gimme's" in the neighborhood,but its epidemic.

        Of course some people dont open their eyes ,because its not happening in their street or neighborhood-ostrich syndrome.

        The problem (as I see it) is why would they want to work,if someones handing out goodies.

        For example you stand a better chance of getting a subsidy (for housing) or FS if you just got out of prison or on a drug programme, well wtf?

        The people at the top making these decisions have degrees? oh lawdy..stupid does what stupid does.

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Exactly!  And the only intelligent response towards all of that, is: "WTF?"

    5. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Oh good grief!  Next thing ya know, there'll be laws telling people when they can and can't go potty.

    6. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      when they start legislating the amount of time on welfare, and making those folks go to job training and making a valid path for them to thrive and get in the work place, then they will have some real money turn around, instead of worrying what they eat! But alas those stats are never admitted I guess.

  2. Gypsy Willow profile image79
    Gypsy Willowposted 5 years ago

    I agree with Repairguy.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well I think that it is very wrong to eat animals - as it is my money they are spending they should not be allowed to buy meat with it.  Or dairy products.  Or non-nutritional "foods" like lettuce.  Or canned food as the canning process destroys nutrition and vitamins so they aren't getting full value for my money.

      Actually, I eat all these things (usually to excess) but you get the idea.  There will always be someone that will object to anything at all that they buy.

      At the same time, they are buying luxuries with charitable money provided for them to purchase the necessities.

      A tough question.

      1. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yep, the only difference is there is some nutritional value in eating meat and none at all in eating a snickers.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I agree. You can't buy cigarettes and alcohol for a reason. Non-nutritive foods should fall in the same category. It's so important to eat right.

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            That's my point.  We can use the charity payments (food stamps) to control the actions of those receiving them to do as we wish them to.  Always a high-desirability option for government as well as the do-gooders that know what is best for others and how they should live.  Or eat.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yes there is.  The human body was "designed" by the forces of evolution, acting over millenia, to eat meat; there is definitely nutritional value in it.

          Of course, before that it was nuts and berries.  You know, like the nuts in a snickers bar...

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            And lets not forget a Big Mac technically has salad in there tongue

  3. Nouveau Skeptic profile image75
    Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years ago

    I think when someone is only given enough money to subsist on, at the very least they should be guided to buy nutritional food with it. Because food stamps are a very basic income and spending them on other things cuts your chance of feeding yourself or your kids the basic nutrition they need.  That said--it would be good if it allowed for the occasional treat. I personally sometimes donate candy to foodbanks, because people should be able to have some little pleasures

  4. paradigmsearch profile image94
    paradigmsearchposted 5 years ago

    Food stamp payments to recipients are less than what the recipient needs to buy food. This was very easy to look up and confirm.

    So, if said recipient were to go out and buy poker chips for instance with their entire $150 food stamp allotment, it really makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Because now that person will have to use $150 of their own money to buy food. So it nets out to who cares?

    $150 food stamps for food and $150 cash for poker chips.

    or

    $150 cash for food and $150 food stamps for poker chips.

    Net result is no difference.

    And, yes, I know one can't buy poker chips with foodstamps.

    For this reason, the millions spent on food stamp enforcement as to what one is allowed to buy is a total waste of taxpayer money. The smart thing would be to just give the recipient unrestricted cash and be done with it.

    No matter what the recipient uses to buy what, the net outcome will always be that the recipient will spend more on food than whatever foodstamps they were given.

    1. Nouveau Skeptic profile image75
      Nouveau Skepticposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The difference is if they spend 150 on poker chips, or booze, or twinkies and leave the kids at home with no nutritional food in the fridge. There is a reason why some people are given food stamps and not cash.

      1. paradigmsearch profile image94
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        In other words, using food stamps to control citizen behaviour (and in your example, for good reason). That's a whole another kettle of civil rights worms and I'm not going there. big_smile

        Maybe 2 classes of food stamps? One for poor people. One for those people that get tangled up with Child Social Services because of their irresponsible behaviour.

        Life is too damn complicated...

    2. profile image67
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      They should be given food, not money or stamps.  If they wish to have sweets they should earn the money for the sweets as those who pay for food stamps have to.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yep.  Here is some flour... you can't have sugar with it because you might make a cookie.  That also means you can't make muffins, most bread recipes, pancakes or hell really anything that contains flour but here is your flour regardless.  Here's some peanut butter... we don't care if you're allergic, it's food and that's all that matters.  Here's some pasta and rice... Oh, you're a diabetic and it will spike your blood sugar to dangerous levels?  Not our problem.  Here's some grapefruit juice... Yes it will interact with your heart medicine and might kill you but hey! It's food right? 

        The point I'm not so subtly trying to make here is that no two people have the same dietary requirements.  But hey, spend millions of dollars to provide individualized food allowances or have supermarkets spend millions of dollars re-coding their bar codes and registers to make sure someone doesn't buy a gallon of ice cream.  Great plan.

        1. profile image67
          logic,commonsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Well, then you give them all your money and I'll keep mine.

  5. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 5 years ago

    ...i have a few more cents to add....

    ..i've worked around very poor folks for a long time...there are many people who do not necessarily cook what some would consider healthy...sometimes their lives are very chaotic and a pattern is being repeated by how they were raised and now they are feeding their children the same way they were raised.  The folks i see are better at cooking one pot dishes...could be canned foods that i personally don't eat...so if gov't says 'buy fresh fruit and veggies' - not everyone knows how to cook with fresh veggies for example, nor has an appetite for it...and rather they buy the processed stuff (canned, frozen)- which can be much more expensive...so i guess my point is that if gov't says what you can buy, be it sweets or fresh veggies and fresh fruit...next they could say no canned/frozen foods...then what....some folks have been eating a certain way for a very long time...McD's etc...fast food is another way some people eat...but, who am i to say how someone should eat...rather i'd want to help people eat in a way that is less expensive and more nutritious (would have to define nutritious however - cuz we all have our own definition of that)...and groups like the one i work with do just that...provide people with the knowledge...plant the seeds, but it is a long road to change habits that have been ingrained and especially in the lives of people that live in a constant chaotic state...

    1. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Big dif between canned peas and cheetos. So they don't limit the food to fresh, which is always more expensive, but they do limit the food to something that resembles real food.

  6. Shanna11 profile image94
    Shanna11posted 5 years ago

    I have mixed feelings about this. I have a really good friend whose family uses food stamps, and they just buy junk with them. My friend is making a real effort to eat healthy in between school and the two jobs she takes, but there is never anything healthy in her house. Her mother is obese and struggles to find work... it's a sad situation and I wish more than anything her family life could change for the better, so I think if they were told they could only buy healthier foods with their food stamps (and still be able to afford to survive on those food stamps) their lives would improve.

  7. livewithrichard profile image84
    livewithrichardposted 5 years ago

    Anytime the Govt says no to something, it just opens another avenue to the black-market for those goods or services. 

    Living in a city like mine (Chicago) I see all too often the abuses of the food stamps (which are not really stamps or paper currency any longer, they are funds credited to a card like a debit card; here it is called a Link card).  We hear in the news all the time about store operators allowing Link users to purchase alcohol, tobacco, and even lottery tickets. 

    To forbid sweets is ridiculous. Would you deny a parent to purchase a cake mix to make their child a birthday cake?  The answer is not in forbidding products, its in educating the poor so they can end the cycle of poverty.

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yep education is definately the key ,but lets start with the professionals wink

  8. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    I would say it is to educate the rich to end the cycle of thievery.

    1. paradigmsearch profile image94
      paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      They already know better.
      http://thyblackman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/JailCell.jpg
      The real solution.

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Sadly the mindset of some people actually plan this kinda lifestyle.

        Its called 'the 4 square plan'

        4 square meals and a free bed,best if ya can get the time over Winter ,no electric to pay wink

        Thats why they laugh and say get the people jobs, so they can assured of those taxes going to fund their vacation lol

    2. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      What have the rich stolen from the poor?

      1. paradigmsearch profile image94
        paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Their houses for starters.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          They steal their money (ie banks) higher profits in stores,loans,education.

          Ever notice why the big box stores set up shop in poorer areas? they know without a doubt that its better to get $50 per head  per family from a locality of 5,000 ,than $1,000 from a rich area off 10 people. Its targeted marketing.

          1. Repairguy47 profile image60
            Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            All of these things are people entering into contracts or deals, nothing is stolen.

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Exploitation is a form of theft.

              Example:

              I need a car to get a job,cant afford the payments, oh no wait turns out I can now, said company is going to cut me a deal....yayyyy...

              3mths later ,job closes,company aint doing any more deals ,bank takes car.

              Exploited.

              Example:

              Kids need food, too poor to get nutritional food,sick during Winter,welfare pays -your taxes increase, your health insurance increases...

              Exploited

              1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                And the bank is guilty of theft? That is not exploitation, who can see the future? You lose a job and can't pay your bills bad things will happen its nobodies fault. The bank would much rather you make the payments and keep your car than take it back and lose money.

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  The banks have been the worst kind of thief, because they have a corporate body called Government who will just print more money!

                  I cant do that ,can you?

                  P.S No ,they make more money taking the car back,because now you gotta take out another loan to pay the arrears. Yes we have always had bills,debts etc,and everyone has bills to pay ,but it is the method and mentality that is crippling already poor people.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Actually I can print my own money in a sense, I pay my bills on time and credit is given. No, the banks are not making money when you are not paying, not too many people give loans to pay back loans that are late. If you want a risk free society you were born way too early, I don't see that utopia on the horizon.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                You need a car to get to work, and find a company that will lend you the money.  You could walk to work or ride a bicycle, but no - you buy the car.

                Your own greed and laziness have exploited you, not the company offering a loan.

                You are poor and make poorer choices in buying food for the kids you cannot afford to raise.  Government (friends, neighbors and strangers) picks up the tab for more food (food stamps) and medical treatment.  You have no taxes to pay because income is too low (friends, neighbors and strangers pick up the cost of maintaining your country) and almost certainly no medical insurance to go up (friends, neighbors and strangers pick up the tab for your medical necessities).  Just who is exploiting whom?

                Believe it or not, you have no God given or Constitutional (In the US) right to a car, food, or medical treatment.  Just life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That means that when you apply for food stamps, WIC or housing help you are exploiting the system, not the other way around.

                1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                  Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You said it very well, and I did not say that meat didn't have nutritional value.

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
                    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    wildnerness

                    You know as well as anyone the job market right now is dreadful in the U.S. My hubby did walk and bus for 6mths til we could afford a used vechicle,paid for in cash.Crappy factory with many illegal immigrants,and a big FAT guy who gifted his 3 secretaries with hummers to avoid taxes. He could have increased wages a little ,but no,he was the man of the hour ,corrupt fat greedy exploiting boss!

                    (I hope I.C.E cleaned him out)

                    But getting a job that you can reach walking or bicycling are few and far between.
                    ( You tried walking in -6  temp,at 5am lately?)

                    Sadly that  ignorant attitude is usually expressed by the middle class and not the poor.

                    Life ,liberty and happiness ,ha! wonder how that's working for the homeless right now. Well actaully one does not even need to go that far down the chain to see its clearly a lost dream for many people right now in the USA.

                  2. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, I understood that and agree.  Some won't, thinking that meat will cause us to somehow shrivel and die from evil, but I agree.

            2. paradigmsearch profile image94
              paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Theft-by-contract is a time honored tradition of swaggers. Sooner or later it will happen to you. Just give it time. big_smile

              1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I am still lost as to what is being stolen. If I enter into a contract you can be rest assured I know exactly what is in the contract. I have had two houses foreclosed on in my life, I bought both when I was 21 and they were gone by the time I was 25. I didn't pay what I agreed on and they were taken, that's how it works, it is not theft.

                1. paradigmsearch profile image94
                  paradigmsearchposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  For the purposes of this thread, I believe the word "theft" is also meant to include fraud, distortion, bad faith, conned, etc. Especially bad faith and conned. So lets not nitpick here.

                  As to your foreclosures, maybe it is indeed your fault like you say. Maybe not.

                  1. Repairguy47 profile image60
                    Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    No, it was my fault, and I knew that then and still didn't care. I made the mistake and I am the one who payed the price. Nobody stole from me, nobody tricked me, and nobody was tricked into signing contracts with sub-prime mortgages. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew exactly what would happen if they defaulted.

                  2. Eaglekiwi profile image81
                    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Like Wall street
                    Like corrupt politicians
                    Like tariff increases that encourage companies to move offshore,therefore closing businesses in the U.S
                    Like Monsanto
                    Like major trading banks
                    Pharmaceutical compnaies
                    Like Oil companies
                    More..


                    Its not just the USA either ,its many countries that used to take pride in (insert countries name)...Made In ...now its Made in China, Made in Vietnam, Pakistan etc

        2. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          How did they steal their houses? Could it be that people defaulted on their mortgages? That is not at all theft.

      2. Healthy Pursuits profile image93
        Healthy Pursuitsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I was wondering when someone was going to focus on what the rich take away from all of us, especially the poor, instead of how awful all of those poor folks are who are on food stamps.

        Working to provide women's health to low-income women, what I saw of people on food stamps was women whose husbands either walked out and left the family high and dry, or had stopped paying child support. Some husbands had stopped paying because they could get away with it. Others stopped because they lost their jobs, thanks to Wall Street.

        These women usually have two jobs and still can't make ends meet due to poor wages by large corporations like Walmart. Corporations have learned that if they hire part-time workers,they don't have to pay ANY benefits. Most of those part-time workers are women. The corporations can then pay their usually male CEO's millions per year. That's the real theft.

        Many people on food stamps are also elderly. If they made a decent wage and had retirement, thanks again to Wall Street, it's now down the toilet.

        While so many people are busy stereotyping food stamp recipients as misfits and ne'er-do-wells, they are also stigmatizing the honest people who really need the help.

        The problem is not food stamps, the problem is how they are administered by the government and why more people than ever have had to apply for them.

        Which leads me back to corrupt corporations who are trying to control our government.

        If corporations are people, too, does that mean they will soon figure out how to get food stamps? Oh, no way! All they need are bailouts! Why isn't more said about that - the real theft?

        1. HattieMattieMae profile image70
          HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Hmm...thumbs up to you Healthy Pursuits! Isn't that the truth! smile

        2. lovemychris profile image63
          lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          +10

          My x mother-in-law stayed in an abusive marriage because she had 7 kids and there was no help.

          When did America get so heartless?

  9. Eaglekiwi profile image81
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    The USA food stamps programme is very generous compared to New Zealand and Australia...

    I know ,my hubby and I received them for 6mths when he was on unemployment. We had no children and the allocation was almost $200 a month ,which by the way didnt include me,because at the time I was not a resident (by the way totally agree) That part is the same in most other Western Countries.

    In New Zealand food is more expensive and there is never going to be candy,soda or ice-cream in that buggy, well maybe occassionally. The point is welfare provide enough for basics and I mean basics...

    On the positive side we can all bake ,and cook everything from scratch lol

    I noticed people shopping on food stamps in the states throwing all kinds of prepackaged junk in their shopping buggies ,I mean mum and 3 kids ,thats a lot of food stamps. Hell thats baby mama's career, her idea of a work promotion .

    Then theres the trade-off for money going on in the odd carpark here n there.
    (They pay for a strangers groceries,with their food debit card) then collect the cash outside( from the original shopper)...some welfare recipients even have their own deals going on ,like 2fer's..2 products for $1 deal..

    Capitalism in action lol but yea if ya down n out the U.S , is ya best bang for ya (welfare) buck.

    I dont know why with all the abandoned land ,they just dont offer people use of to grow vegeatbles ,raise a few chickens or whatever, instead of more food stamps to buy junk...just is breeding stuidty and advocating laziness in my opinion.

  10. habee profile image95
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I'm  going to weigh in here with something my mother told me. She worked with poor families for decades as a public health nurse. She said some of those kids needed some "empty calories" every day, in addition to protein, calcium, and vitamins. I think this law is too restrictive. Who decides what junk food is? GA sometimes gives families vouchers to use at farmers' markets for fresh produce, which I think is a wonderful idea. I also like the idea of helping educate parents in the area of nutrition. But to completely cut out all sweets? I'm against that. Some sweets do have nutritional benefits. For example, ice cream and puddings are high in calcium.

    1. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Also high in calories.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        High in calories isn't always bad.  When my third son was three, he weighed 19 lbs.  If he would have eaten a snickers bar, I damn sure would have bought one for him.  Obesity is complained about a lot, and I agree it is a problem, but there are also millions of kids that are chronically underweight.  At that point, nutrition is great but what the kid needs more than anything is calorie-dense food.

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          High carb foods are inexpensive smile pasta ,potatoes, breads

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            He ate pasta (mac and cheese) and potatoes (french fries).  There still weren't enough calories to help him gain weight.  When I was doing social work, I had families with kids that would only eat one food.  The only thing the poor parents could do is feed them that food.  What else do you do, watch the kid starve?  Even if that one food is M and M's, it's better than nothing.

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yea I hear ya there re picky kids.

              And I dont begrudge anyone the right to choose what food they buy (incidently FS can not be used to buy hot food,and they did that to block the takeouts) but its a bigger problem over all in my opinion.

              But I do think it should be used as a hand up ,and not a hand out. The problem is many welfare recipients are long term and the cycle of next generations coming through -welfare is a career for some people (Ive witessed conversations)...

              So with that mindset in mind ,hand out eligilbity tokens, you retrain for work, and you get to collect.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                I admit my perspectives are a bit skewed here because I worked exclusively with children with disabilities (I was employed by our state's birth to three program) but is was more than just being picky.  In most of the kids, there were medical reasons for the nutrition problems.

                My son had medical issues.  Lily has food issues too that are related to her Autism.  Luckily, the foods she eats are fairly nutritious, but if they weren't they would still be the foods she eats.  She would literally starve to death before she ate anything else. 

                I worry about stuff like this whenever any of the "control" laws come into place.  They sound good in theory, but there is always someone who gets hurt by them.  Black and white makes good politics, but it is really crappy when applied to a gray world.

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree.

                  But somehow the incentives for the ones who abuse the system (clearly not all do ) have to be structured in such a way ,that the trade off (for FS) has a two fold effect.


                  I mean way I see it ,when we work, we pay taxes,our boss gives us money. Thats the trade off.

                  When a person recieve FS's,what is the trade off?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    *nods* I get that too.

                    Most states have lifetime limits on the length of time one can receive food stamps (I believe its either 2 or 5 years in my state).  I also believe that someone in the house either has to be employed or prove they are actively seeking employment.
                    (although the permanently disabled get a by on that).

                    I know that most of my families were getting less than a couple hundred a month in benefits and for those benefits they had to give up most of a day ever month or so to attend classes/reviews.  Then there is the embarrassment of paying for the groceries with food stamps. (Although I'm pretty sure most places are moving towards plastic now)

                    But food stamps and welfare benefits really aren't a career choice unless one is wanting to live in abject poverty with not enough food, substandard housing and no money for the essentials. The benefits just don't cover the basics of living.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                +1

                That's the biggest (perhaps only) problem I see with welfare; it has become a handout for life instead of a hand up to supporting yourself.

    2. profile image0
      oldandwiseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with habee.  Politicians need to spend more time on a bill  that's geared towards the economy and job creation. Perhaps if they had more after school activities for children that didn't cost so much, the epidemic of overweight children would correct itself. When I was a kid, these after school activities were for ALL THE KIDS, not just the ones who's parents can afford it. And I'm not saying the teachers should do this for FREE either! Paying those teachers, to be there for the kids, would be beneficial for the teachers (many of which now need 2nd jobs) and priceless for the children.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Pay the teachers for babysitting?  What happened to the parents?  Too busy with that second job in order to buy the BMW and 5000 sq ft house to put some time into their own kids?

        As a young parent I coached T-ball, soccer and little league.  Was a den "mother".  Organized and operated many kids activities in the community we lived in - pool parties, bicycle races, easter egg hunts, etc.

        Yes it takes time, but can there be a better use for a parents time than to raise their children?

        1. profile image0
          oldandwiseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I dont consider it babysitting. Parents today wish the second job would pay for the bmw I'm sure. Two parents work, for the most part to make ends meet. In the last 30 years the prices of things has sky rocketed. You have grandkids as do I, my first brand new car was $2,000.00 not $15-20 plus thousand. Teachers should be paid enough to teach and not need a second job. There seems to be plenty of money for football or band, but not all kids can participate in those activities. After school activities should be available to all kids. If the schools can afford to pay the coaches, it seems to me they should be able to pay other teachers to be available for other after school activities. Or do you consider paid coaches for football and band leaders for the band kids, babysitters?

          1. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Teachers earning $35000 for 9 months of work do not need a second job, except perhaps during those other 3 months (depending or course on where they live).  I have seldom matched the earnings of a teacher in my area, and have never needed a second job to get by.

            The problem is, IMO, that we have decided that luxuries are necessities.  Everyone needs that big flat screen, two cars, a huge house (just take a look at what average house size has done in the past 20 years), an RV and restaurant meals half the time.  We used to consider a house phone a virtual necessity; now it is a cell phone, costing far more than a landline, for each member of the family!  Almost everyone nowdays has some form of paid TV programming to go with their 2 or 3 flatscreens; free broadcast used to be fine.  It is this kind of thing that has run the cost of living up so much; a desire for all the luxuries we can possibly get.  Wages have in general kept up with cost of living, but only if that cost of living is for similar things.  Add in the extra cost for all the luxuries we all want and have and a second income is often necessary to get them.

            Put that first brand new car in terms of income; how many years did it take to earn it?  While cars have improved enormously and have continually had luxury accessories added, they don't actually cost much more now than they did then.  Minimum wage when cars were $2000 was what?  Around a dollar?  So a year's work bought a car.  Now the minimum in Washington state is $10 and a years work will buy a $20,000 car, which is well over the minimum base car.

            And don't get me started on paying coaches for school sports programs that only a handful of students participate in.

  11. HattieMattieMae profile image70
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    I think that is going a little far telling people what they can and can't eat. lol

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No,its not, its retraining the mind set.

      They have a right to food,agreed. After that and hey the BIG people need to wise up,because the food stamp brigade have lol

  12. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    I bet some of you here stand behind fat people in the supermarket and judge what they buy.  I also bet that many of those now getting food stamps paid taxes for a long time. Make it that food stamps can only be used for what they were intened to rather than pick at what they eat. Everyone is entitled to a treat from time to time.

  13. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "The evidence to date suggests that “robo-signing” was not a mere technical default or sloppy business practice but was part and parcel of a much larger fraud, the fraud that brought down the whole economy in 2008.  It is not just distressed homeowners but the entire economy that has paid the price, resulting in massive unemployment and a shrunken tax base, throwing state and local governments into insolvency and forcing austerity measures and cutbacks in government services across the nation."
    "The mortgages were chopped into pieces and sold as “mortgage-backed securities” (MBS), which traded in a supposedly liquid market.  That meant the investors could sell them in the money market at any time on a day’s notice."
    "That is where the robo-signing came in.  Foreclosure defense attorneys armed with the tools of discovery have discovered that robo-signing -- involving falsified signatures assigning mortgages back to the trusts allegedly owning them -- occurred not just occasionally or randomly but in virtually every case.  Why?  Because the mortgages had to be left free to be bought and sold on a daily basis in the money market by investors.  The investors are not interested in making 30 year loans.  They want something short-term with immediate rights of withdrawal like a deposit account."

  14. secularist10 profile image87
    secularist10posted 5 years ago

    This is an excellent idea, and long overdue.

    It's public money, the public has the right to spend it anyway they want. Oh, and no one is banning the purchase of junk food. If the individual wants to buy it, they are still totally free to do so. They just can't use public money.

    It is also ridiculous to expect the poorest, least educated segment of our society to know how to eat healthy and responsibly.

    Especially because junk food is the cheapest food.

    Some are saying "what's wrong with the occasional treat?" This is disingenuous because for most poor people, treats are anything but occasional.

    Here is the story of a 17 year old British woman who was rushed to the hospital after collapsing with breathing problems. She has not had a single fruit or vegetable in her life. She has eaten nothing but McDonald's chicken nuggets and french fries since age 2.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic … age-2.html

    It's time to wake up, people. Most Americans are overweight, half of all American children will become diabetic, and this is the first generation of people who have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.

    It's time to stop rationalizing away about "an occasional treat" and start getting serious. It is a national crisis.

    1. HattieMattieMae profile image70
      HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Fortunately people on foodstamps can't eat healthy because they don't get enough money to eat fresh fruits and vegetables for 7 days a week. Most of the time they have to buy the cheapest brands of boxed and can goods. Even the pantries they give out the same thing. They can't afford to eat healthy. The food trucks come in my area and give them fresh fruits and vegetables, but they usually rot in one to two days. The yogurt does too, as well as dairy products. I've seen some that are already outdated. If you work with these people like I have they aren't having steak dinners and caviar. You can buy Mcdonalds or restaurant food on foodstamps. You only can go to the grocery store. They do have dietary programs, but only if they choose to ask for the help. They have cut fundings to programs to help those in  need, and maybe even food pantries will be closing due to losing grants. We do give them one cake mix, or cookies even at the pantries. Of course it depends on when they are shopping whether they are eating healthy or not, but fortunately the obese problem stems also from processed food, and preservatives, and other nasty stuff they have in can and boxed foods. Your chicken even has fats from them injecting stuff. It's not just about snacks, but quality food, and supersizing meals in america. You go to any restaurant and they give you more than on serving on your plate.

  15. Stacie L profile image91
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    The families that need extra help with food should have a place to pick up the food.it would give them some guidance into food choices and insure the children at getting good nutrition at least.
    The other parts of the bill address real abuses of the system as people on assistance are going to casinos and strip joints on the public's dime.

    1. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Hey Stacie, this thread really took off didn't it?....lol

      1. Stacie L profile image91
        Stacie Lposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        yeah I didn't realize it was such a hot button

    2. HattieMattieMae profile image70
      HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      They do have some programs like this already Stacie. They usually do get a few boxes, or groceries full of stuff, but there is always a cake mix, brownies, or some kind of treat in there. So of course the majority of those that help the poor do feel they deserve to have a treat.

  16. Evan G Rogers profile image77
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    Those paying for the food stamps: "Awesome"

    Those using the food stamps: "TYRANNY!"

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, whatever happened to Egalitarianism?  LOL! roll

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image81
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Next to the poptarts wink hehe

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Not sure exactly what you're talking about.

        If you're begging someone else to use their money, then they should be able to tell you how to spend it.

        Banks do this every day.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Then there are those tax payers that are not on food stamps that would prefer tax dollars to go to feeding the poor than to turning deserts into shiny glass parking lots.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not sure what this means, but if you want to feed the poor, you could always donate to charities that do so.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I do donate to charities.  I've also seen what other people donate to charities. Outdated rusty cans, mold covered fruit and bread, rotten meat.  If they "donate" it then they don't have to pay the garbage fee to throw it away.  Hey, when Walmart donates it's bread that's already molding then they get a tax-deduction AND don't have to pay to throw it away.

          What I meant is my tax dollars are used everyday to finance all sorts of things I don't agree with.  I would rather feed hungry children with that money than give churches tax breaks to campaign and fund our little wars and military actions all over the world. 

          If everyone can say "who cares about the hungry?, let them starve" then I should certainly say "who cares about Israel, let them deal with their own problems" or "Let Iran deal with other countries however the hell it wants.  Not my problem"

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I agree with just about everything you say.

            But I would take it one step further: get government out of charity completely.

            If a company gets rewarded for donating filth only because of  an incorrect law, then we should blame government, not the company.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Which would be peachy if one of two situations were present.

              1. There were enough jobs available with wages enough to cover BASIC expenses (food, shelter, clothing)

              As it is, if you compare the wages from a full time minimum wage job (1,160 dollars a month pre-tax) to average U.S. rent for a two bedroom apartment (around a thousand a month) a clearer picture starts forming.  It is just barely doable with a two-income family... however there are quite a few single moms and dads that don't have that option. (BTW, average child support from a minimum wage earner is 215 a month, at least in my state).  If a single parent is working then child care also comes into that (125 a week... MINIMUM).

              2.  Americans were willing to actually give to charity. 

              I'm going to go with the first number I found for average charitable donations a year per american...  which is $1620 annually.  It seems high to me, but it also includes church tithes which are traditionally 10 percent, so it might work out.  Now, how many of those dollars actually go to feeding the hungry in the U.S.?  Well, if you count Church tithes then a large portion will go first to the upkeep of the church and the pay for the clergy.  Then there are all those missionary trips to foreign countries to "spread the word" and other programs that while possibly worthy, do nothing to help the hungry...

              The same with secular gifts.  Administration first off the bat then other programs (such as T-Ball or Educational charities) which may be perfectly worthy but do nothing for those who are hungry.


              As neither of those two conditions exist, then the choices are government footing the bill or people starving.  I guess if you looked at it objectively, unemployment would drop considerably if those at the bottom of the food chain died from starvation.  I'm not sure I can support survival of the fittest when we are dealing with real people.  Especially not when those real people include children who are not at all responsible for the economic condition of their parents.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image77
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Jobs can easily be created if the people are willing to work for a lower wage.

                Charity is completely voluntary. It's impossible to say "you don't give enough to charity".

                So... problem solved.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  "you don't give enough to charity".  Not true - the liberals say it all the time, right before you find their hand digging ever deeper in your pocket.

                  1. lovemychris profile image63
                    lovemychrisposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    Charity is chump change...change the policies!

                    People like feeling all generous and godly, while they scheme ways to avoid paying for the priviledge of living here.

                2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  LOWER wage?  Um... did you actually read what I posted?  MINIMUM wage doesn't pay for an apartment, let alone food, utilities, and clothing.  Explain how LOWER wages would help?  Yep, lots of new jobs that homeless people can work while starving.  Maybe child labor would help too?

                  People love to say that charity should be voluntary... It's their excuse for not giving it.  Yet they love to say that the private sector should take over, even when they know it wouldn't work.  Wouldn't it be much easier to say "Let them starve, we don't care"

                  So yes, problem solved, I guess.  If you are willing to turn America into a Charles Dickens novel.  Maybe our kids can be the new Ethiopians in the "Save the Children" commercials of other countries.  Crime rates wouldn't soar, public health wouldn't suffer, people wouldn't rebel or anything.

                  1. HattieMattieMae profile image70
                    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    hmm...i think people would rebel and start a riot if you don't give them food to eat, or help them survive. There are more and more people on the street every day, not because they are lazy, because they don't have the jobs available. It's not the old poor anymore. Its the middle class falling. You're right Melissa, if people don't wake up it will be a Charles dickens, or commercial. Charity is volunteer basis at the moment, most of the non-profits are run on area support and donations. If you happen to live in a poor area, you lack the donations. The big guys want to make the choices without walking amongst the poor all over the nation. They don't have a clue. They don't waste their time looking. They just sit there talking about it in their nice suits, and nice dinners, and campaign crap. lol

            2. mom101 profile image60
              mom101posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Well, good morning everyone.Wake Up. Heres my 2 for the day.

              How can everyone be correct yet so blinded? What is it that we argue over?

              Is it really a rep/dem society or are they all one?

              Who is it that is really getting into your pockets?

              Food stamps. Medicare.  Who benefits?
              Could it be corporations?

              The constitution. the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
              They have taken the right to life away. Liberty is but a dream. Pursuit of happiness?? Need I say more.

              We are being conned and nobody wants to admit it. Oh they wouldn't do that to us, or you can't please everyone. Or they are just so full of conspiracy they are crazy. WHATEVER..........

              Food industry == HUGE BUSINESS
              Health care=====HUGE BUSINESS

              501c3 ====HUGE BUSINESS

              Food stamps will never go away, because the food corps are so damn greedy. They will never disallow unhealthy foods to be bought.

              I am just waiting for a program to come out that issues fuel stamps. It is on its way. Mark my word.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Isn't Obama essentially offering "mortgage stamps"?

                1. mom101 profile image60
                  mom101posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  sigh n  me up. lol

  17. Mighty Mom profile image88
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    I'm really confused about this bill. I thought the Rs were totally against the "nanny state" which they attribute to the Ds.
    Yet it is an R state senator championing this?

    I'm not in favor of regulating what recipients can buy with their food stamps.
    As long as it is some kind of FOOD.
    Why in the heck would it be possible to buy cigarettes or lottery tickets with FOOD stamps anyway?
    roll

    1. Repairguy47 profile image60
      Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure what you're confused about, the libs are for the nanny state. The republicans are just making sure money isn't wasted on crap.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image88
        Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Mandating what people consume is the ultimate nanny state.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Allowing them my money to do with it as they choose is the nanny state, preventing waste of my money and limiting what they can do with it is responsible leadership.

    2. secularist10 profile image87
      secularist10posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Who is going to pay for the care of those poor people who go to the hospital years later with diabetes and complications thereof? Us, the taxpayers.

      Don't you think it's better to force them into proper dietary choices, since we're already spending the money? If they want to buy garbage they can do it on their own dime.

      Anyway, those who really care about the poor should support efforts such as this that ensure they are staying healthy.

    3. Evan G Rogers profile image77
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'm confused because I thought that Democrats were anti-war.

    4. HattieMattieMae profile image70
      HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      just saying that is a stipulation! Probably someone in history of welfare was buying liquor and tobacco.

    5. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That is the essence of the argument - they are not their food stamps.  They did nothing to earn them, they were awarded them because of their inability or unwillingness to earn them.  The disposition of property belonging to the state, and therefore the taxpayer, is the business of the state.

  18. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    class war

    1. HattieMattieMae profile image70
      HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think if they really want to control what people eat, they will probably have to open their own stores that are ran by the goverment and stock their own food. I'm not sure they'd be able to pull off covering every barcode on candy, bakery goods, and fatty foods. They can control it, but not sure stores are willing to lose the money, nor pay people to go do the work. Which what do rate as fatty foods. It's not all candy and sweets, but pop, juices, boxed foods, canned gods. You have tons of syrup on the fruit alone in a can. Fortunately the way we package foods adds to the obesity in poverty low-income families. As well as high sodium in boxed foods and canned vegetables, soups, and meats. This is all high-risk food they eat. They can't use food cards in casino's or restaurants. They only reason it looks that way is because they put cash assitance on the card as well. Like in Michigan we have the Bridge card. It has food money only on there, as well as cash assistance. You are not allowed to buy alcohol or tobacco with it. I don't think they even take the cards anywhere, but an atm machine to get cash assitance out of it. If this is what they are complaining about it is the cash assistance program they are using. Not food money itself. The only thing possible they could do with the food portion is go buy food and sell it to someone and get money. That is why they made the bridge cards so they couldn't take the paper food stamps without their name on it, and sell them to someone else for drugs and money. No matter what they do, they usually find away around the system.

  19. lovemychris profile image63
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    How did I know this would be a Republican???

    Always getting in your face and controlling your life!

    Hey----that paycheck of Rhonda's is tax money too...she should be regulated as well.

  20. HattieMattieMae profile image70
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    Ha ha I agree with you Melissa! lol I know it don't seem to be any one's problem in my state of Michigan when tons of families can't get a job, and than their benefits are cut, but some how they are supposed to help themselves because it's there problem. lol  If local food pantries weren't there right now lots of people would be out of laundry soap, shampoo, cleaning supplies, even garbage bags. Let me remind you some of these are college graduates that have lost their jobs due to going to other countries like Canada, India, Mexico, and where ever else. I did throw some outdated food at the pantry when I did my internship. The Bread seemed good from local area business, but the food trucks that is where there is plenty of rotting food, outdated, and moldy products.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      LOL, if you REALLY want to see the depravity of human kind, work the receiving station of a Goodwill or Salvation Army drop box one day.  Wear thick gloves and overalls... don't eat beforehand.

      1. HattieMattieMae profile image70
        HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I can imagine! lol No thank you I see enough where I go already! lol

  21. HattieMattieMae profile image70
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    Not to mention half their poor in florida are children living in the woods. The Government knows this, and they come out once a week to fill their back packs with can goods. Hmm...Something about the State of Florida I do not understand! I don't think they honestly care that much about their people.

    1. rebekahELLE profile image88
      rebekahELLEposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure where you got your information, but that is not an accurate statement as it's written.  There have been areas in the state where half the children in a local school district qualified for free lunches, but not half of Florida's poor are children living in the woods.

      Florida is a huge state with over 18 million residents. And it's vastly different depending on what area of the state we're talking about.
      I wouldn't go as far as saying Fl doesn't care for its people, it's a big task. There are many different cultures living in one state. With our current Tea Party governor, he's not very popular. Of course, he's one of the 'bought and paid for' Koch brothers politicians, so his agenda seems to focus less on those most vulnerable. Florida, like many large states, has a lot of work to do to take care of its people. It's been interesting and frustrating watching Scott try to govern.

  22. Druid Dude profile image61
    Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago

    You can have my sweets when you can pry them from my cold, dead fingers!. There are many cookbooks at the library on making anything you like. Not up to cooking? You just aren't jonesing enough yet. Welcome to the Confectioner's Underground!

  23. HattieMattieMae profile image70
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    ha ha uncorrect, helping them be productive and fruitful doesn't work unless they have the training, education, and possibly life skills taught to them. Their basic needs of food, clothing, shelter need to be met first. Than education, training, following a job, if they provide jobs in the state that pay more than minimum wage. The struggle is they can't pay for their housing and utilities even with part time jobs. Even if they had everything straight and did things right if there are no jobs suitable pay bills they will remain on welfare in some shape or form, through day care help, food, health care. If no one helps they will have a rougher time. It's like leaving someone out in the ocean that fell off a ship, if you don't give them a life preserver, or life boat, they are never going to get back home.

    1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Isn't an education through high school available to every American?  Aren't there training opportunities offered by most high schools?  It is the choices we make that result in our poverty not some system stacked against us.

      If one is serious about not being poor than one would seek to excel to the best of one's ability in school, in work and in life.  It is a lack of virtue not a lack of money that is the source of poverty.

      The best way to avoid being poor is:

      1) do your very best everyday at what ever you are doing - school, work, family
      2) stay in school as long as you can and take on challenges - sports, student government, etc....
      3) if you can't keep relationships from interfering with school, work, family than perhaps it isn't best to have those relationships
      4) don't make babies
      5) put off starting a family until after you finish school, after you are married and after you have a stable(as far as you can predict) job
      6) pursue excellence and increasing responsibility in your job

      What money is needed in that formula?  What is missing in the lives of those in poverty isn't money - it is character, virtue, reason, patience, stick-to-it-ness, effort, etc....

      Rewarding the failure to behave virtuously has done nothing more than created a culture of dependence, entitlement, sloth and lust.

      1. Stacie L profile image91
        Stacie Lposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        If every citizen were given a free public education ,but their role models were proud to be on the public assistance and didn't want to work,then it would take  other positive role models to influence them to get off of assistance. i know many teachers who try to be positive role models and train kids to be productive citizens but family influences and a 'get-what-you-can" attitude from social services can thwart any attempts to change

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Sounds like a good reason to contract not expand the welfare system.

      2. HattieMattieMae profile image70
        HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Fortunately I see your point, but than we have to go to families individually, they only learn how to make choices from their families. By example they learn survival skills. This may be living off welfare generation after generation. Vs. Situational poverty where someone loses a job, divorce, someone dieing, or other tragic event. Schools do not teach children how to make good choices in those they surround themselves with anymore than the parents example. You have learned behaviors from generations of sexual abuse, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, any kind of addiction. You learn how to use your money from your parents, you learn how to act in society by family, school, sometimes religion. If you live somewhere where it is all poverty and drugs, you have a hell of fight to get out of it, and succeed. We have famous people that have. Others never make it. You'd have to study Ruby Payne to understand how the classes work and survive. They don't all think the same, act the same, nor live the same. Lower, middle, and upper are all different. The programs out there like I said before get cut because of grants the government decides are important. There priorities come first, but always back lash in the programs. We can't go in the trenches without being paid, and health benefits. People like me can be shot just for entering a house and trying to be a parent mentor. No one wants to be told how to be a parent. We aren't allowed to carry guns to protect ourselves.  Fortunately it is a big mess, and people like me have to deal with it. Not to mention the mental illness, not taking meds correctly. People refusing to get help because they don't want their children taken away. They don't know how to be responsible, because they haven't had positive role models, so of course we count on voluteers like you to get involved in Big Brother, Big Sister to show them the way. It is each to complain about the system, but fortunately when people don't get involved to clean up the mess, we can't even do it ourselves, because we run on grants, donations, and fundraisers.

        1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
          uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          So we put a bandage on a sucking wound by tossing money at a subculture of generational self destruction and by cushioning the fall by ever increasing amounts, because our politicians run on throwing money around, we doom them to yet another generation on the dole.

          It sounds cold but may actually be the real solution - stop it.  Stop using public funds to fight poverty.  Stop growing the massive welfare administrative government.  Stop removing criticism from how we discuss poverty.  It is a failure and should be talked about as one.

          We have introduced mechanisms and language to turn failure into triumph.  We should want to excel, want to avoid poverty.  A safe landing makes poverty less frightening.  It should be frightening.

          1. HattieMattieMae profile image70
            HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I think that is what us social workers see happening, its sad, but fortunately maybe America needs a good riot and fighting to understand what they are doing to themselves and each other. You take help away from those that are in situational poverty and middle class with degrees, they are going to fight hard in their own way, but at the same time lower class ones are going to start the looting, fires, riots, and chaos. Its the way of the world to fight and start wars. Even when it may even come smashing through your own home where you live. You leave people without help the Government knows this will happen. Their already has been some small incidents in Michigan. I've walked in the buildings seen the unemployment lines, the chairs filled because they can't get jobs. I see people trying to go to College to get a degree. I know I see people trying to help each other out sharing their resources for transportation, washing clothes, sharing food, fixing repairs. They will survive on the sharing resources. We've seen this coming for awhile, and the only thing we can do is teach people how to get out of the victim hood, detach from materialism, to sacrifice without having things, not even a shelter over there head. Its sad to watch people have to live in the woods because they have no other choice. Florida is already doing this, and some in Michigan, and of course no one wants to look, or hear about it. I think if the lower man deserves to fall, so does the big guys. I have a feeling more an more people will try to hold on to things, and keep their belongings, but fortunately unless the economy gets better lots of families will be falling into poverty, not because they don't have jobs, or money, but because the businesses go bankrupt. I've seen it happen in my own community, and this is a wealthy area. Investors pulling out, houses foreclosing. Everyone is feeling it. Not just the poverty. It effects you. Never say it can never happen to you, because I've met with corporate guys that have lost their jobs, that had tons of money, and when the money runs out from paying the bills and surviving, and no other job comes along, shit hits the floor when you're sitting in a food pantry with nothing to eat.  I've watched businessmen that thrived for years in my community watch their business go down the drain, and same place. It can happen to anyone, and not because you're lazy, or don't want a job.

  24. LoriSoard profile image77
    LoriSoardposted 5 years ago

    I think we need to do away with the entire welfare system and people should take care of their own family members who need help or the government should set up a program to truly help people find work they can do. No more handouts. If my family didn't have such a huge chunk of our income going to taxes, we might actually be able to make it ourselves. Don't get me started on taxes...

    1. profile image67
      logic,commonsenseposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Ahh.....a kindred soul.  You are exactly right!

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image81
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      +1

  25. profile image0
    leann2800posted 5 years ago

    I think the whole bill is terrible.
    <link snipped>

 
working