3 ms·

> I would be more than happy if my tax money could bring joy to these people who normally couldn’t afford these things. But then think of the people who also c

by tivert 3y ago

> I would be more than happy if my tax money could bring joy to these people who normally couldn’t afford these things. But then think of the people who also can't afford these things, but are paying into the system rather than taking from it. They'd rightly feel shafted by people buying luxury items on their dime. The perspective of a well-off person who can easily afford to pay into the system and afford most of their chosen luxuries is probably not the right one to take in this case. The point of food stamps is not to give people a taste of luxury, it's to keep them alive and healthy by giving them access to food so they don't go hungry.

archagon 3y ago
I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. Just give people the resources to buy what they need.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. It certainly wouldn't be "cruel and punitive." After all, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. It would be valuable insofar as it would undercut one of the most biting criticisms of the program. > Just give people the resources to buy what they need. Exactly. People need good nutritious food; not expensive luxury food.
  - archagon 3y ago
    People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (Even if it means getting a bit of ice cream every once in a while, the horror!)
    - tivert 3y ago
      > People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. Living their lives with dignity doesn't mean buying luxury items with benefits that many who don't get benefits can't afford. A lot of people support social programs to keep people from going hungry or being homeless, because those are serious problems. There's a lot less support for taking those programs farther, to providing free or subsidized luxuries. And taking them that far, frankly, is a short-sighted own-goal, because it serves to undermine support for the whole endeavor.
      - archagon 3y ago
        Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results. It also keeps our welfare systems simple, less expensive to run, and less prone to moralistic posturing. ("How dare these people buy raw salmon when there's canned tuna available?") Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady. As for perception, the Republican dogma is starving the beast. "Welfare queens" are just an excuse: any remotely plausible reason will be used to defund social programs, crab legs or no.
        tivert 3y ago
        > Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results. And that misses an important part of the picture. > Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady. Are you a well-off software engineer, who would have no problem buying all the crab legs you want, even if your taxes were higher? If you are, you might not be able to see certain things from your lofty perch, and therefore may need to put in a little more effort to understand some important dynamics.
    - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
      They are quite literally beggars for government money. Welfare is abused heavily in many ways and a lot of people use it as an excuse to laze around on the taxpayer‘s dime. And even if they don’t want to, the system fully endorses that ever since we stopped requiring them to work for the government. As you’re someone from the Bay Area, you genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about, especially in regards to Appalachia. You make a large enough salary to survive, possibly even thrive in an area on the complete opposite side of the USA. The people here are lucky for $40,000 annual salaries. $80,000 and you’re sitting pretty. My father’s never made more than $35,000. I‘ve lived here my whole life and seen the damage welfare does to a community. People have kids just to maximize welfare, they waste their money on the vices they explore now that they don’t need to work, the community is lost. So sure, allowing “treats” isn’t a big deal on paper, but when 65 million, or 1/5th of Americans, are on welfare with 42 million of them getting food stamps, AND you consider the predatory behavior of food companies alongside the general distain the government holds for the health of its people, and you end up with a system that promotes short term pleasure and “feel-goods” rather than actually attempting to improve yourself to where you can contribute like an actual human being.

by tivert 3y ago

archagon 3y ago

I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. Just give people the resources to buy what they need.

tivert 3y ago
> I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. It certainly wouldn't be "cruel and punitive." After all, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. It would be valuable insofar as it would undercut one of the most biting criticisms of the program. > Just give people the resources to buy what they need. Exactly. People need good nutritious food; not expensive luxury food.
- archagon 3y ago
  People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (Even if it means getting a bit of ice cream every once in a while, the horror!)
  - tivert 3y ago
    > People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. Living their lives with dignity doesn't mean buying luxury items with benefits that many who don't get benefits can't afford. A lot of people support social programs to keep people from going hungry or being homeless, because those are serious problems. There's a lot less support for taking those programs farther, to providing free or subsidized luxuries. And taking them that far, frankly, is a short-sighted own-goal, because it serves to undermine support for the whole endeavor.
    - archagon 3y ago
      Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results. It also keeps our welfare systems simple, less expensive to run, and less prone to moralistic posturing. ("How dare these people buy raw salmon when there's canned tuna available?") Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady. As for perception, the Republican dogma is starving the beast. "Welfare queens" are just an excuse: any remotely plausible reason will be used to defund social programs, crab legs or no.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > Studies have shown that just giving people resources with no strings attached produces really positive results. And that misses an important part of the picture. > Personally, I'm happy if there's 9 people using EBT to get what they need without trouble for every crab leg lady. Are you a well-off software engineer, who would have no problem buying all the crab legs you want, even if your taxes were higher? If you are, you might not be able to see certain things from your lofty perch, and therefore may need to put in a little more effort to understand some important dynamics.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    They are quite literally beggars for government money. Welfare is abused heavily in many ways and a lot of people use it as an excuse to laze around on the taxpayer‘s dime. And even if they don’t want to, the system fully endorses that ever since we stopped requiring them to work for the government. As you’re someone from the Bay Area, you genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about, especially in regards to Appalachia. You make a large enough salary to survive, possibly even thrive in an area on the complete opposite side of the USA. The people here are lucky for $40,000 annual salaries. $80,000 and you’re sitting pretty. My father’s never made more than $35,000. I‘ve lived here my whole life and seen the damage welfare does to a community. People have kids just to maximize welfare, they waste their money on the vices they explore now that they don’t need to work, the community is lost. So sure, allowing “treats” isn’t a big deal on paper, but when 65 million, or 1/5th of Americans, are on welfare with 42 million of them getting food stamps, AND you consider the predatory behavior of food companies alongside the general distain the government holds for the health of its people, and you end up with a system that promotes short term pleasure and “feel-goods” rather than actually attempting to improve yourself to where you can contribute like an actual human being.