Am I the only one in this country that thinks Social Services has gone way overboard, above and beyond the call of duty. I work at a grocery store and the people that get food stamps live better than I do. They can buy anything and everything at the grocery store they want. I would not be afraid to bet that about half or more than half are drug addicts or alcholics. If this is the case they need rehabilitation instead of free food. The people that I call "dead beats" are not the disabled or the senior citizens, but the ones that are able to go to work and will not do it. The biggest majority of people that are getting food stamps are plenty capable of going to work, they just don't want to. As long as we keep coddling these people they will never go to work. If these people cared anything at all about any of the working people in this country they would not keep dragging us down. Since when did people not working begin to have a better life than those that do work. Something is not right here.
I do agree that social services reform would be a good idea but do you have any facts or statistics that back up your position that most on food stamps don't need to be?
yes it should be increased people are not getting enough welfare don't see anything wrong with buying snacks and treats, even 7-eleven accepts the EBT now meaning more tasty candies, cakes, ice cream.
When a person can take their food stamps and buy all the candies, snacks, chips, soda ice cream, cookies and any other kind of junk food they want, I say they are getting too much.
The people that are able to work should be made to work for free for their food, it would bring prices down for the rest of us. I can't afford to buy the kind of food they buy and my taxes are paying for it. They don't care anything about us, if they did they would stop riding out backs.
I personally rang up a guys one night and the first $120 was nothing but drinks. One woman I rang up one month and she spend her entire food stamps ration for the month on a birthday party, now you know she did not need all those food stamps if she was spending all of it on one party.
thats mostly from medicare which is health care for seniors and the poor, and the military NOT food stamps. people shouldn't have to work for food that should be a right in my opinion just like healthcare.
Where are the working people's free food, we have to purchase it with our well earned paychecks, it isn't handed out to us for sitting at home having babies for other people to keep up.
Our social services are entirely inadequate today. Then apply for food stamps? Sure, because the way that EBT works is that they get a lump sum of money in an account which they can spend over a month at the grocery store. They can opt to pile the cart high with whatever they want and eat for two weeks off it, or they can be a little more modest and eat for a month off it. It's not some infinite pool of benefits--it's only a few hundred bucks a month for most folks getting food benefits. They need to eat too. However, most people on food stamps are the working poor--they usually have jobs, it's just not enough to cover the basic costs of living. Because as a society we've decided that a person is entitled to essentially a minimum of ~$25,000 a year in total compensation (from work and from government benefits) if they work. If they want to live on a marginal income, it's better to let them do that than to distort our economy to force them into the workforce. Our economy does not need huge piles of unskilled labor these days--we need skilled labor, and workers who actually want to be there. The more lazy welfare-mooches you force into the workforce, the more management you will require to keep them working. Which is highly, highly inefficient, and disruptive for the actual productive workers who would otherwise need a fraction of the management they get. Well, keep in mind that a lot of them aren't qualified to perform any of the work that's available. There is not an infinite pool of labor opportunities; jobs are not available to anyone who wants one. Would you particularly want these lazy welfare-mooches as coworkers? Do you really think that would improve the operation of the grocery store you work at? Everyone always talks about how those people "should go to work", but never really want to have them working alongside the person making the suggestion. I mean, that's the point you've got to consider--because if they "should get a job", would you feel the same if it was your job? There's a pretty deep difference between productive folks and welfare-mooches. Trying to force them both together in the workplace usually fares badly for the productive folks.
Most folks on food stamps do work; anyone on minimum wage working 40 hours a week is eligible for food stamps.
If you are working and don't have children you cannot get food stamps even if you are making minimum wage. You can't hardly get any help at all if you are working.
I say the ones that are able to work should help the farmers and be taught how to live off the land. Yes if they are alcholics or drug addicts, they need rehabilitation. This is how we weed out the ones that are unwilling to work. If a person is willing to work they will work with a farmer for free for their food in order to make things better for the rest of the country. If not we should just cut the apron strings.
Wrong. It's a household income minimum. Each state handles this somewhat differently, but depending on how much you pay in rent and utilities, you can usually get very reduced food stamp benefits as a single worker making minimum wage for 40 hours a week. Granted, that's less than $100 for a single worker unless they're paying a small fortune in rent. I mean even in a state like South Carolina, with a pathetic social services system, a worker in that situation is entitled to a small amount of food assistance. ... have you ever actually applied? Because there's plenty of assistance available for people making ~$1160/month.
What's the point in teaching them to "live off the land", when they own no land to live off? It's not like we have public commons usable for producing food. And have you ever asked the farmers what they thought about this plan? How would that work for people living in cities? Would you be proposing that we also provide transportation to the farm every day? And they still need to eat, so what's your point? I agree, we need to extend social services to include paying for drug rehabilitation for anyone who needs it. That's an extension of social benefits, not reform. People do have a right to some level of existence, not merely what they can earn from the market. I would also point out that slavery is illegal, so forcing benefits recipients to work for subsistence alone would just force them into an inescapable cycle of slavery. It's exactly the same way that sharecroppers were forced into what amounted to slightly compensated slavery.
I would not mind working along side them as long as they will work. As far as I am concerned the ones that are not willing to work, are not willing to live. Do you recall the old parable, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for life." That is truly the way I feel about it and everyone else should too. Remember the book about the LITTLE RED HEN, we need to bring that book back full force. Most of those people getting those benefits, could care less about us. Do you think for one moment that when the working class gets too old to work, they are going to step up to the plate. Animals are smarter than people. An animal will teach it's young everything it needs to know about how to survive and then they will push the young out of the nest or the den and if it survives it survives and if it doesn't it doesn't.
The ones that are not "dead-beats" would not have a problem with working for their food. The ones that are actually able to work, it's the "dead-beats" that would have a problem with it and they are the ones we need to cut the apron strings on anyway.
Yeah, but they probably wont, and by bringing them into your workplace you'll probably end up having a lot more managerial oversight because of it. Plus, somehow I doubt that the company you work for feels particularly interested in hiring more workers than they need. That is a highly immoral position. All people are entitled to at least a basic existence. Your position on the matter would differ if you were a non-productive person. ... are you able to move past this sort of childish reasoning? This does not change our obligation to care about them. It is an ethical obligation; even if another person chooses to be unethical, that does not absolve your own ethical responsibilities towards them. The productive people in society have always been a narrow sliver of the population. Back when society needed loads of unmotivated, unskilled labor, it made some economic sense to try to force them to go to work in farms and factories and such. It doesn't make any sense in the present economic climate, when their presence would be so extraneous. They would literally have no reason for being there. What's the point in hiring way more people than you need? That's bad for business. That's not smarter, that's less ethical. Animals do not have ethics.
