Woman calls out family at Walmart for using food stamps

Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
CrocodileStunter said:
Do you grow all your own food? All of our staples are subsidized.
Click to expand...
No they're not subsidized. That is another myth. Let's see if you can take the shit mother nature and the feds, EPA, and Seattle anti-Monsanto goofballs hand to you as a farmer. There isn't one RIU member that's man enough to take up farming.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
How did hamburger get to be $5/lb and yet no wage increases?

There are only so many hours in a day. Working 80 hours per week just to make ends meet is abnormal and invented by the oligarchy.
Click to expand...
2% inflation by year forced by the government. That is devaluation of the dollar. That makes everything more expensive.

Good for government, bad for the people...
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Social safety net programs originated with the New Deal, so, since the 1930s

It has become much harder to support yourself and a family beginning ~1970, meaning there was 40 years of economic growth under New Deal policy. Supply side economic policy, globalization, immigration, wage stagnation and crony-capitalism have all contributed to making it harder to support yourself and a family, not social safety net programs. They've actually helped contribute to the economic growth seen throughout lower income communities. When people are provided the means to grow, studies show they pay back what they were given tenfold in economic returns. When people are given the opportunity to become productive, taxpaying members of society, they take it. When people are kept at the bottom of the social spectrum their entire lives, they bleed the system of resources through incarceration, abuse programs or rehab, all of which have extremely high recidivism rates because our society condemns people that otherwise could have been rehabilitated and creates problems that otherwise could have been prevented.
Click to expand...
New deal programs were largely temporary for the depression era. The perminant ones are peanuts compared to the great society and war on poverty programs.


Plus the 30s and 40s are outliers with respect to other issues going on. The 50s on have remained normal with outside influences. No global wars and stuff.
 
roundplanet

roundplanet

Well-Known Member
Well I watched the video, and for me the only people suffering were the children. None of the parents
could complete a sentence without dropping the "F" bomb, another testament to our public school
system lol....:wall:
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Then why the need for Sanders?

Lol.

We can argue about why. And truth be told neither one of us would likely be right. We have declined. That much is indisputable.
Click to expand...
Man, I know that facts are difficult for you but the good ole daze before social assistance were bleak for the poor. The 1920's were horrendous for rural poor. Life in the cities were OK until the Great Depression, and then the US was within a red cunt hair of revolution. Hoover's idea of private charities carrying the day was completely inadequate for the number of people in need. Roosevelt prevented revolution by implementing social assistance programs that included food for the poor. That food, by the way, was going to waste because nobody had money to pay for it, which led to more farmers going broke and the cycle spiraled downward. The govt. stepped in, funded food assistance, paid farmers and...problem solved.

Today, most adults who receive food stamps work full time or more. Those companies that don't pay a living wage are getting a subsidy from the government in the form of food assistance to their employees. Maybe its time to get corporate america, such as Walmart off food stamps.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Man, I know that facts are difficult for you but the good ole daze before social assistance were bleak for the poor. The 1920's were horrendous for rural poor. Life in the cities were OK until the Great Depression, and then the US was within a red cunt hair of revolution. Hoover's idea of private charities carrying the day was completely inadequate for the number of people in need. Roosevelt prevented revolution by implementing social assistance programs that included food for the poor. That food, by the way, was going to waste because nobody had money to pay for it, which led to more farmers going broke and the cycle spiraled downward. The govt. stepped in, funded food assistance, paid farmers and...problem solved.

Today, most adults who receive food stamps work full time or more. Those companies that don't pay a living wage are getting a subsidy from the government in the form of food assistance to their employees. Maybe its time to get corporate america, such as Walmart off food stamps.
Click to expand...
I'm fortunate enough to have gotten to know both of my grandfather's very well. They lived to old age, they became fathers late in life, at least not early, so the generations were spread out.

The idea of rural poverty from back then is so different than today. They would be the first to tell you their families didn't have money to go buy things. But they had farm land. They were both the sons of share croppers.

They had food year round, and enough resources to barter for what they needed. Life wasnt easy. I wouldn't want to live that way being used to modern life. But their needs were met. One went to college and became a contractor, after ww2. The other became a plumber.

In the world of their youth those who were dirt poor were very self sufficient. There were hard years. What broke this was the dust bowl and we never went back to it.

In urban areas it was aweful. But out in the country the poor were better off.
 
O

ol skool

Active Member
The issue is the expectation of handout. Like the guy said "it's the rules" you know... That because you exist you're entitled to stick your fingers in someone elses pocket. How is that right?
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ol skool said:
The issue is the expectation of handout. Like the guy said "it's the rules" you know... That because you exist you're entitled to stick your fingers in someone elses pocket. How is that right?
Click to expand...
The issue is that some people believe taxes are theft, that poor people don't deserve any help because they're lazy and/or stupid, and the fairy tale belief that everyone starts off at equal points in life
 
O

ol skool

Active Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The issue is that some people believe taxes are theft, that poor people don't deserve any help because they're lazy and/or stupid, and the fairy tale belief that everyone starts off at equal points in life
Click to expand...
Padawanbater2: I like you, your smart and passionate.

Taxation is theft. However SOME poor people deserve help. I have anonymously helped families and kids most of my adult life. Some we provided food for months while they get back on track. Bought shoes and supplies for lots of friends of my kids through the schools.

On the other hand I watched an impressive young women buy cigarettes and beer with a hundred and pre-packaged crap with Oregon Trail Card. What did impress me is how embarrassed she was when she pulled it out. She knew it was wrong, but hey, them's the rules, eh?

My son decided he needed a break from reality a while back. So he sucked up Oregon Trail and rent subsidies for a year. B.S., 22 years old able bodied man(?) sucking off hard working men and women with families via taxes (extortion) trying to make ends meet. I'm sorry but that is just crap. BTW he learned how to get away with that from a son of millionaires from Portland.

Thems the rules...
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ol skool said:
Padawanbater2: I like you, your smart and passionate.

Taxation is theft. However SOME poor people deserve help. I have anonymously helped families and kids most of my adult life. Some we provided food for months while they get back on track. Bought shoes and supplies for lots of freinds of my kids through the schools.

On the other hand I watched an impressive young women buy cigarretts and beer with a hundred and pre-packaged crap with Oregon Trail Card. What did impress me is how embarrassed she was when she pulled it out. She knew it was wrong, but hey, thems the rules, eh?

My son decided he needed a break from reality a while back. So he sucked up Oregon Trail and rent subsidies for a year. B.S., 22 years old able bodied man(?) sucking off hard working men and women with families via taxes (extortion) trying to make ends meet. I'm sorry but that is just crap.
Click to expand...
Nobody denies there is some level of fraud taking place, that happens within any system. According to the Coalition Against Hunger;

“SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent. The introduction of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards has dramatically reduced consumer fraud. According to the USDA, the small amount of fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers." -CAH

So then the question we have to ask ourselves is does the amount of fraud within the SNAP program justify eliminating it for those that actually need it? If it doesn't, then we have to accept that it's an additional cost that becomes necessary for the overall success of the program to work. Using that approach, it actually is more cost efficient to keep even though some people might abuse it.

I personally don't believe the negligible amount of abuse within the system justifies eliminating it
 
O

ol skool

Active Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Nobody denies there is some level of fraud taking place, that happens within any system. According to the Coalition Against Hunger;

“SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program,” according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent. The introduction of EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) cards has dramatically reduced consumer fraud. According to the USDA, the small amount of fraud that continues is usually on the part of retailers, not consumers." -CAH

So then the question we have to ask ourselves is does the amount of fraud within the SNAP program justify eliminating it for those that actually need it? If it doesn't, then we have to accept that it's an additional cost that becomes necessary for the overall success of the program to work. Using that approach, it actually is more cost efficient to keep even though some people might abuse it.

I personally don't believe the negligible amount of abuse within the system justifies eliminating it
Click to expand...
Panda:

You know that means the non-compliance with 'thems rules' was outside the bounds only 3% of the time. That doesn't mean the rules are NOT too loose!

22 year old able bodied man quits a job and goes on the dole FOR A YEAR. I call BS! He's sucked $$$ out of the pocket of working men and women to kick back watch cartoons and smoke dope FOR A YEAR. In a county in Oregon with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state. But thems the rules,eh? No, it's wrong.
 
Last edited:
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ol skool said:
Panda:

You know that means the non-compliance with 'thems rules' was outside the bounds only 3% of the time. That doesn't mean the rules are NOT too loose!

22 year old able bodied man quits a job and goes on the dole FOR A YEAR. I call BS! He's sucked $$$ out of the pocket of working men and women to kick back watch cartoons and smoke dope FOR A YEAR. In a county in Oregon with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the state. But thems the rules,eh? Taxes are extortion.
Click to expand...
Like I said though, everyone left and right of this issue opposes abuse of the system, but it is inevitable within any system. People will always find a way around the rules. Do you believe the 9 families utilizing SNAP the way it's supposed to be used should be left out in the rain because of the 1 family that abuses it? If you do, you must realize that those people wouldn't just pack up shop and call it a day, they would resort to committing crimes to be able to eat, see this thread, 55% of respondents on RIU don't believe it's morally wrong to steal food to feed yourself or your family (including me). I think that would make for a much worse situation throughout society that the current problem of abuse in the SNAP program.
 
B

BuzzD2Kill

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Social safety net programs originated with the New Deal, so, since the 1930s

It has become much harder to support yourself and a family beginning ~1970, meaning there was 40 years of economic growth under New Deal policy. Supply side economic policy, globalization, immigration, wage stagnation and crony-capitalism have all contributed to making it harder to support yourself and a family, not social safety net programs. They've actually helped contribute to the economic growth seen throughout lower income communities. When people are provided the means to grow, studies show they pay back what they were given tenfold in economic returns. When people are given the opportunity to become productive, taxpaying members of society, they take it. When people are kept at the bottom of the social spectrum their entire lives, they bleed the system of resources through incarceration, abuse programs or rehab, all of which have extremely high recidivism rates because our society condemns people that otherwise could have been rehabilitated and creates problems that otherwise could have been prevented.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of reasons why the American doesnt make as much, its cheaper for an American to take out a loan from an American bank at 0% interest, build a facility over seas and ship the goods into the US avoiding corporate taxs. Thats the BS and the bottom line to bring bizz back to US. Its not profitable!
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
BuzzD2Kill said:
There are a lot of reasons why the American doesnt make as much, its cheaper for an American to take out a loan from an American bank at 0% interest, build a facility over seas and ship the goods into the US avoiding corporate taxs. Thats the BS and the bottom line to bring bizz back to US. Its not profitable!
Click to expand...
Sounds like corporate tax evasion should be illegal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top