5 ms·

Workers, are now being forced to give part of their work compensation, to people that are not only don't work, but that are too lazy to even prepare a cheaper a

Workers, are now being forced to give part of their work compensation, to people that are not only don't work, but that are too lazy to even prepare a cheaper and - on average - more nutritious meal. Reminds me of a similar example going on in my country, where unemployed people, get ahead of employed people, for getting a spot to put their children in the nursery. Let that sink in: if you aren't working, you get a nursery to leave your children during the day. If you are working, you either pay private, ask the grandparents, or leave your job. The State has basically transformed itself, on the anecdote of stealing from 1 to redistribute by 2, therefore ensuring its eternal permanence on democracy.

happymellon 3y ago
> Workers, are now being forced to give part of their work compensation, to people that are not only don't work, but that are too lazy to even prepare a cheaper and - on average - more nutritious meal. What makes you say this? You get food stamps if you don't make enough money. For example, being in the service industry and relying on tips to make ends meet. If you have to work 80 hours, why shouldn't you be able to get your groceries delivered? > too lazy to even prepare a cheaper and - on average - more nutritious meal. You do know that only certain food items are available on food stamps. Because of people like you, we need to make sure the poor can't have any pleasure in life.
- benj111 3y ago
  I wouldn't put it like the op. And I don't know how us food stamps work but: 1. Presumably food stamps don't cover all food, so if someone wants to use their own money to get takeaways they can. 2. Surely the aim of the govt should be to make sure the citizenship is fed healthily, especially when they're footing the bill. I know in the UK they have a similar system for pregnant women and young kids and it is restricted to healthy things. Ultimately if you're going to let people spend food stamps on fast food, why not just give them cash instead. Edit: does Uber deliver from supermarkets in the US? If so that seems ok. In the UK it's synonymous with fast food delivery, all the supermarkets have their own delivery services.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    > I don't know how us food stamps work but [snip] So food stamps can only be spent on certain food items. Bread, milk, eggs, etc. So they are doing what is being requested. This is literally why they are given stamps instead of cash, to restrict people. Don't demonise people because they are so poor that they have to accept assistance to be able to eat bread. And yes, in the US they don't have food delivery from all the supermarkets like in the UK. Uber is filling that gap.
    - robk 3y ago
      See for yourself on Amazon. You can get big bags of candy on EBT
      - happymellon 3y ago
        If there are items you don't believe poor people should be allowed to eat then speak to your legislative representatives. All the items you can buy on food stamps are explicitly reviewed. That's the point. People are bitching because poor people can buy anything on UberEats, and this is not true.
        autoexec 3y ago
        > If there are items you don't believe poor people should be allowed to eat then speak to your legislative representatives. Or better yet, maybe mind your own business and say nothing at all. The idea that a poor child shouldn't be allowed to have a birthday cake or that people shouldn't be able to decide for themselves what they'll eat is gross. I've spent a lot of money over the years in taxes, and I do it in part on the expectation that there will be a safety net for those who might someday need it including (should something terrible happen) myself. I'd be pissed off if I fell on hard times and on the day I went to collect the assistance I'm owed it came with a list of arbitrary restrictions by people who assume I don't deserve anything nice. We give a set amount of money to people to help them buy food. What foods they chose to spend that money on is no one else's concern. An exception to this being programs like WIC which are explicitly about making sure pregnant mothers and babies are getting the nutrition they need If someone were genuinely concerned for people's health rather than just wanting to punish them for the moral failing of not having a lot of money, it'd make far more sense to bother their representatives about subsidizing healthy foods instead of restricting unhealthy ones, or fixing the countless issues that plague the healthcare system.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
  >You do know that only certain food items are available on food stamps. LOL! >Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:[0] >Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes, or tobacco >Vitamins, medicines, and supplements. If an item has a Supplement Facts label, it is considered a supplement and is not eligible for SNAP purchase. >Live animals (except shellfish, fish removed from water, and animals slaughtered prior to pick-up from the store). >Foods that are hot at the point of sale >Any nonfood items such as: >Pet foods >Cleaning supplies, paper products, and other household supplies. >Hygiene items, cosmetics I guess you a technically correct here. But "only certain foods" includes almost the whole store, with no limit on junk food at all. >Because of people like you, we need to make sure the poor can't have any pleasure in life. Execpt the pleasure of free food, housing and health care, right? Maybe we can add free tickets to the movies in the next social program. [0]https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items
notTooFarGone 3y ago
So you equate people who get food stamps to unemployed people? Here you see a guy that never even got the taste of minimal wage jobs and working to have something to eat. The pure privilege oozing from your comment is pathetic. Please do yourself a favor and touch some grass. There are millions of people working so much more than 40 hours and still receiving food stamps or people who realistically can't (disabilities etc.) that also receive food stamps and you just flat out ignore them to reinforce your image of the lazy do nothing. Please do yourself a favor and work minimal wage for 2 months and see if you can live of of that.
- wtcactus 3y ago
  And I see a virtue signaling middle class guy, that never once touched a working class person in his life. My parents are working class, they lived on minimum wage or next to it all their life. Never, for once, they lived on welfare. But that's the deal, they are working class. They worked their entire life, they used their money sparingly and without any luxuries for a big part of their life. Vacations, was going 2 weeks to the beach, by bus (later by car), coming and going every day, with a lot of bags, taking previously prepared food from home. Luxuries, was having a black and white TV, later a 2nd hand colour TV that lasted until I got into college and by the end was more than 20 years old. Eating out was a twice a year luxury for most of my infancy, and asking for food delivery? Are you joking me? Weekend programs, was my father getting a side job to make more money installing and configuring electrical appliances in middle class people homes. And taking me along with him to help. As hard-working and money saving people, they, of course, ended up building a better life for them and providing me an education within their means. Also, of course, they absolutely despise people that don't work and live on the state. So, go burn yourself with your ridiculous virtue signalling high morals. It takes a lot of privilege and disconnect from reality, to think, and even say that out loud, that hard-working people are the ones living on the state.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    Some people need delivery. For instance, if you can't afford a car and all the supermarkets are too far away.
verall 3y ago
The easy response: What about disabled people? > therefore ensuring its eternal permanence on democracy I assume you would prefer a different system?
- wtcactus 3y ago
  Well, if you are just telling me outright in my face, that all democracies devolve into massive populism like this, then yes, I would definitely prefer a different system, of course. I most certainly don't approve a dictatorship of the majority.
  - verall 3y ago
    Can you give an example for what you would like? I think democracy favoring populism has been a thing since at least "panem et circenses". It's nothing new. The US certainly has enough money to feed everyone in the country (citizens or otherwise), it would be a tiny fraction of the current budget to do so. I'm curious to hear your ideas for better spending targets.

happymellon 3y ago

> Workers, are now being forced to give part of their work compensation, to people that are not only don't work, but that are too lazy to even prepare a cheaper and - on average - more nutritious meal. What makes you say this? You get food stamps if you don't make enough money. For example, being in the service industry and relying on tips to make ends meet. If you have to work 80 hours, why shouldn't you be able to get your groceries delivered? > too lazy to even prepare a cheaper and - on average - more nutritious meal. You do know that only certain food items are available on food stamps. Because of people like you, we need to make sure the poor can't have any pleasure in life.

benj111 3y ago
I wouldn't put it like the op. And I don't know how us food stamps work but: 1. Presumably food stamps don't cover all food, so if someone wants to use their own money to get takeaways they can. 2. Surely the aim of the govt should be to make sure the citizenship is fed healthily, especially when they're footing the bill. I know in the UK they have a similar system for pregnant women and young kids and it is restricted to healthy things. Ultimately if you're going to let people spend food stamps on fast food, why not just give them cash instead. Edit: does Uber deliver from supermarkets in the US? If so that seems ok. In the UK it's synonymous with fast food delivery, all the supermarkets have their own delivery services.
- happymellon 3y ago
  > I don't know how us food stamps work but [snip] So food stamps can only be spent on certain food items. Bread, milk, eggs, etc. So they are doing what is being requested. This is literally why they are given stamps instead of cash, to restrict people. Don't demonise people because they are so poor that they have to accept assistance to be able to eat bread. And yes, in the US they don't have food delivery from all the supermarkets like in the UK. Uber is filling that gap.
  - robk 3y ago
    See for yourself on Amazon. You can get big bags of candy on EBT
    - happymellon 3y ago
      If there are items you don't believe poor people should be allowed to eat then speak to your legislative representatives. All the items you can buy on food stamps are explicitly reviewed. That's the point. People are bitching because poor people can buy anything on UberEats, and this is not true.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        > If there are items you don't believe poor people should be allowed to eat then speak to your legislative representatives. Or better yet, maybe mind your own business and say nothing at all. The idea that a poor child shouldn't be allowed to have a birthday cake or that people shouldn't be able to decide for themselves what they'll eat is gross. I've spent a lot of money over the years in taxes, and I do it in part on the expectation that there will be a safety net for those who might someday need it including (should something terrible happen) myself. I'd be pissed off if I fell on hard times and on the day I went to collect the assistance I'm owed it came with a list of arbitrary restrictions by people who assume I don't deserve anything nice. We give a set amount of money to people to help them buy food. What foods they chose to spend that money on is no one else's concern. An exception to this being programs like WIC which are explicitly about making sure pregnant mothers and babies are getting the nutrition they need If someone were genuinely concerned for people's health rather than just wanting to punish them for the moral failing of not having a lot of money, it'd make far more sense to bother their representatives about subsidizing healthy foods instead of restricting unhealthy ones, or fixing the countless issues that plague the healthcare system.
Vt71fcAqt7 3y ago
>You do know that only certain food items are available on food stamps. LOL! >Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:[0] >Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes, or tobacco >Vitamins, medicines, and supplements. If an item has a Supplement Facts label, it is considered a supplement and is not eligible for SNAP purchase. >Live animals (except shellfish, fish removed from water, and animals slaughtered prior to pick-up from the store). >Foods that are hot at the point of sale >Any nonfood items such as: >Pet foods >Cleaning supplies, paper products, and other household supplies. >Hygiene items, cosmetics I guess you a technically correct here. But "only certain foods" includes almost the whole store, with no limit on junk food at all. >Because of people like you, we need to make sure the poor can't have any pleasure in life. Execpt the pleasure of free food, housing and health care, right? Maybe we can add free tickets to the movies in the next social program. [0]https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

notTooFarGone 3y ago

So you equate people who get food stamps to unemployed people? Here you see a guy that never even got the taste of minimal wage jobs and working to have something to eat. The pure privilege oozing from your comment is pathetic. Please do yourself a favor and touch some grass. There are millions of people working so much more than 40 hours and still receiving food stamps or people who realistically can't (disabilities etc.) that also receive food stamps and you just flat out ignore them to reinforce your image of the lazy do nothing. Please do yourself a favor and work minimal wage for 2 months and see if you can live of of that.

wtcactus 3y ago
And I see a virtue signaling middle class guy, that never once touched a working class person in his life. My parents are working class, they lived on minimum wage or next to it all their life. Never, for once, they lived on welfare. But that's the deal, they are working class. They worked their entire life, they used their money sparingly and without any luxuries for a big part of their life. Vacations, was going 2 weeks to the beach, by bus (later by car), coming and going every day, with a lot of bags, taking previously prepared food from home. Luxuries, was having a black and white TV, later a 2nd hand colour TV that lasted until I got into college and by the end was more than 20 years old. Eating out was a twice a year luxury for most of my infancy, and asking for food delivery? Are you joking me? Weekend programs, was my father getting a side job to make more money installing and configuring electrical appliances in middle class people homes. And taking me along with him to help. As hard-working and money saving people, they, of course, ended up building a better life for them and providing me an education within their means. Also, of course, they absolutely despise people that don't work and live on the state. So, go burn yourself with your ridiculous virtue signalling high morals. It takes a lot of privilege and disconnect from reality, to think, and even say that out loud, that hard-working people are the ones living on the state.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  Some people need delivery. For instance, if you can't afford a car and all the supermarkets are too far away.

verall 3y ago

The easy response: What about disabled people? > therefore ensuring its eternal permanence on democracy I assume you would prefer a different system?

wtcactus 3y ago
Well, if you are just telling me outright in my face, that all democracies devolve into massive populism like this, then yes, I would definitely prefer a different system, of course. I most certainly don't approve a dictatorship of the majority.
- verall 3y ago
  Can you give an example for what you would like? I think democracy favoring populism has been a thing since at least "panem et circenses". It's nothing new. The US certainly has enough money to feed everyone in the country (citizens or otherwise), it would be a tiny fraction of the current budget to do so. I'm curious to hear your ideas for better spending targets.