More Than 500,000 Americans Stand to Lose SNAP Benefits

a reply to: Sargeras

Ha! You only wish. Fact of the matter is that there as many "greedy pieces of crap" among the poor and downtrodden as there ever were among the super rich. You choose not to see it because they don't have the means to show it off, but if they storm all the posh penthouses in New York tomorrow, people would carry away more than they strictly needed and horde it.



At the time when this story was fresh you could find videos of people with large screen TVs in their carts getting them out the doors - 2 or 3 to a cart.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Now2016

If the point of a social program is to help people get off it, then everyone on it will have to or should have to lose their SNAP someday.

And the cold truth about income of any sort is that you are never ready to lose it. You just do and adjust.

The purpose of snap is not to get people off of it.

It's purpose is to keep the hungry from killing to get your food, because that is what starving folks will do to eat, just like any other lifeforms.

The purpose is to provide a hand up, not permanent hand out.

That is the stated purpose of any social welfare program. Aside from some people who genuinely cannot do for themselves, the rest of us should accept that our misfortune is temporary and that SNAP is not a permanent solution.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

There are no food stamps.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sargeras

If there is plenty to go around, then why kill the successful?

Just a hobby?

Successful?

If you call the business practices of most of the Super rich success... You know, building iphones with forced slave labor in China to sell in America at premium prices.. Hint, that is not successful, that is disgraceful. Or buy politicians to make laws that screw over all the workers so you can make even more money you don't need... Not success, just twisted, because all that really did was created suffering since if you already have multiple billions a couple billion more cannot do anything for you.

But I digress, you think the system is fine how it is, so what if millions have to suffer so long as a few get to heap their mountains of gold higher right?

I mean that is all there is to life is getting more right?

a reply to: Sargeras

make no mistake, there are plenty of resources for all to live well.

This is true. Suddenly you reminded me of a moment in time when I almost felt like a "bleeding heart liberal" (but it was very short lived but I learned a lesson from it).

I live in a suburb that has been going through major changes over the past decade or two. There are a LOT of open spaces that are now parking lots or strip malls or apartment buildings. I'm also a bit of an animal lover and several years ago I noticed that I wasn't seeing as many birds as I used to (cardinals, blue jays, starlings, etc). I realized it was because of all of the development. So I started to set up bird feeders around my house. I installed some posts and hung various types of feeders with various types of food (not all birds prefer the same things). What a resounding success. I can't prove it but I assure you I single handedly increased the bird population in my immediate area (and a bonus for me was seeing SO MANY baby birds that had just learned to fly come around while they still needed their mama to take food from the feeders and drop it in their mouths). Anyway, to the "enough resources for all" moment I had...

One day I was in one of the big box pet stores picking up my supplies but I was short on cash so I couldn't buy as much as I had wanted to and I felt bad trying to decide which way to best spend my funds. As I walked the aisles I looked at ALL THAT BIRD FOOD and thought to myself, "No bird should EVER go hungry. THERE IS ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE!!!" That was the moment when I felt I related to the stereotypical "bleeding heart liberal." (That moment sticks with me to this day).

HOWEVER... I immediately thought about the logistics of it all. Where did this food come from? Where was it grown? Where was it stockpiled? How did it go from point A to point B to point C to all the other points until it ended up in that store, all nice and packaged and ready for distribution? Who was going to do all of that work? Should they all be volunteers? Don't we need a system in place to make all this happen? If someone is going to take their funds to hire farmers or truckers or plant workers and they turn a buck, is that REALLY that bad?

Of course the above was just an anecdote and I know ATS hates anecdotes (with some good reason), but I just want to say that I agree that there is more than enough resources in the world for everyone but it's not all in one spot, not all ready for consumption and so far, this is the best system we've got (and even though I have my doubts, my hope is that we can continue to make the system better).

Disclaimer: Yeah, I rambled but it's been a long day.

a reply to: Sargeras

I really don't care how much anyone has or what they make.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JustAnObservation

There are no food stamps.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), called the Food Supplement Program (FSP) in Maryland, formerly known as Food Stamps.

We are talking about the same thing, whatever you wish to call it.

a reply to: eluryh22

We can agree that there are enough resources, but we dick each other over. What liberals would prefer not to understand is human nature. Greed is not something identified and selected against solely by who has more of something than someone else. It is inherent to being human. You have it, I have it, our most passionate (and self-professed more compassionate than thou) liberal posters have it ... it affects us all, top to bottom.

We are also competitive by nature. It's a survival instinct. It is part of what forms our need and drive to succeed. You cannot turn us into what we are not, not even in order to make you preferred ideologies or policies work.

We may have enough for everyone, but there will always be snags - greedy people, corrupt people, people who would rather sell the resources to their own benefit rather then use them to the good of their people, etc.

originally posted by: chelsdh
a reply to: whyamIhere
I wasn't contradicting you- I was pointing out that, at least in the state I live in, if there are children in the household, benefits will not be halted. I can't speak for how other states are deciding who does or does not qualify for assistance.

I screwed up my reply...

I realized it but was far too lazy to fix it...Sorry

a reply to: xuenchen

Gotta love socialism.

originally posted by: Sargeras

originally posted by: In4ormant
a reply to: Rabb420



The community service should be proportionate with the amount of assistance someone recieves. It can't just be free. Forcing taxes on a populace to give to another group of people with no requirements placed on the recipients is unjust.

So is destroying the economy so the already filthy rich can get richer, which is where all this starts at.

Granted, I've been drinking wine but I'm not seeing the relation to my post. Allow this man a little clarity please sir.

320 million in America.

100 million work.

220 million don't, for whatever reason.

So we have 100 million supporting 220 million.

And the 100 million is shrinking and the 220 million is growing.

I predict many more Easter Egg Hunt muggings next year.

a reply to: xuenchen

It sounds like a really big number when you say 500,000.
If you put it as a percentage of the total population, it seems like a really small number.... as in tenths of one percent.

a reply to: IAMTAT

And there might be some missing small dogs and lots of cats who never come home.

a reply to: ketsuko

Some time ago I realized that to be a modern-day "bleeding heart liberal" requires a suspension of reality. I think, at least in part, we agree on that.

We ARE competitive by nature and really, I don't think anything is wrong with that. Hell, back in high school there was a kid that was almost (ALMOST) as good a cross-country track runner as I was. To show my age, our coach referred to us as "Dave and Dave" (remember those failed US Olympic athletes). I will say that even though we wanted to kill each other sometimes, we absolutely made ourselves better runners. That same competitiveness on an industrial level benefits all of us. It creates better cars at more affordable prices. It creates cheaper computers with better processors and memory. It creates better ways to make purchases online. In general, competition is good because it makes people (that have the drive) better than they otherwise would be.


I do also think that part of who "we" are is compassionate. I think we have to be. I think that's why baby humans (and baby animals) are born looking so damned cute because it makes us feel for them. (As a parent of a four year old my wife and I often joke... "You're lucky you're so damned cute!" On a more serious note, I do not believe we could or should try to legislate compassion. I'd like to think that should I ever find myself in a position of considerable power I would treat those that work for me fairly (with fairly being a relative term). But nobody can mandate that. There is no "magic" minimum wage or CEO-to-entry-level equation that will solve the problem.

a reply to: eluryh22

I agree, but I also think that a lot of our compassion is a learned thing. We are taught compassion by our parents, our faith, our cultural surroundings. Greed and competitiveness we come by naturally as they are pure survival skills. A baby minutes from the womb is already displaying those two.

That's why parents and the process of raising our children is so important and why I find so many of the Millennial generation so disturbing. They tend to filter compassion for others through a selfish filter of what makes them feel good. It's like society is starting to swing toward the attitude of "I only care about you if it makes me feel good to do so."

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: Sargeras

make no mistake, there are plenty of resources for all to live well.

This is true. Suddenly you reminded me of a moment in time when I almost felt like a "bleeding heart liberal" (but it was very short lived but I learned a lesson from it).

I live in a suburb that has been going through major changes over the past decade or two. There are a LOT of open spaces that are now parking lots or strip malls or apartment buildings. I'm also a bit of an animal lover and several years ago I noticed that I wasn't seeing as many birds as I used to (cardinals, blue jays, starlings, etc). I realized it was because of all of the development. So I started to set up bird feeders around my house. I installed some posts and hung various types of feeders with various types of food (not all birds prefer the same things). What a resounding success. I can't prove it but I assure you I single handedly increased the bird population in my immediate area (and a bonus for me was seeing SO MANY baby birds that had just learned to fly come around while they still needed their mama to take food from the feeders and drop it in their mouths). Anyway, to the "enough resources for all" moment I had...

One day I was in one of the big box pet stores picking up my supplies but I was short on cash so I couldn't buy as much as I had wanted to and I felt bad trying to decide which way to best spend my funds. As I walked the aisles I looked at ALL THAT BIRD FOOD and thought to myself, "No bird should EVER go hungry. THERE IS ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE!!!" That was the moment when I felt I related to the stereotypical "bleeding heart liberal." (That moment sticks with me to this day).

HOWEVER... I immediately thought about the logistics of it all. Where did this food come from? Where was it grown? Where was it stockpiled? How did it go from point A to point B to point C to all the other points until it ended up in that store, all nice and packaged and ready for distribution? Who was going to do all of that work? Should they all be volunteers? Don't we need a system in place to make all this happen? If someone is going to take their funds to hire farmers or truckers or plant workers and they turn a buck, is that REALLY that bad?

Of course the above was just an anecdote and I know ATS hates anecdotes (with some good reason), but I just want to say that I agree that there is more than enough resources in the world for everyone but it's not all in one spot, not all ready for consumption and so far, this is the best system we've got (and even though I have my doubts, my hope is that we can continue to make the system better).

Disclaimer: Yeah, I rambled but it's been a long day.

I wish I were a bleeding heart liberal, then I would be so brain dead that " ignorance is bliss" would be my date.

Instead I oppose socialism, and agree capitalism is the best system yet used.

But, we don't have capitalism, the entire phylosophy of capitalism is based off of balance. With balance there are finite resources, supply and demand.

There is currently not balance, open boarders and free trade only work for the wealthy and nobody else.

Be there is an ever increasing glut of labor to depress wages, and free trade has offshored all the decent work leaving mostly service industry Jobs with ever rising inflation and never rising pay.

Until now we are here.

And keeping things going the way they are is only going to lead to one place, America will be a third world country controlled by a ruling class with basically no chance for most to do anything but work themselves to death only to die in poverty.

At the current pace, I give it maybe 30 years maximum.

I don't know why so many can't see the obviousness of this outcome.

Maybe they think that the elites will let them into their club so they want things to keep going?

All someone has to do these days is tweet or post that they care about the hungry.

Actually feeding them isn't important.

0_o

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Hunger is a great motivator.

for what crime?