Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in a hospital where tons of patients were on all sorts of assistance yet somehow had the latest $800 phone and other accessories like nail tips done at a salon. Didn't add up... Not everyone was like that but there was obviously some abuse of the system going on.

Yes, the poor in this country live lives of crazy luxury… do you hear yourself?! The abuse has been well studied it’s an extremely small percentage of the whole. Perhaps those folks got gifts for their birthday or bought an expensive phone at a pawn shop? Perhaps her sister does nails? I mean come on now. I’m embarrassed that you are so petty and begrudge a poor person one nice thing.

I should pick your lifestyle markers apart.

Or... There was actual abuse of the system going on. The worst case I still recall was one lady who would come in at 10pm, have us sign her visitation paper (she got money for each visit), stay for 10 min then head out to the club, never to be seen until the same time the next night. Meanwhile her baby was vented and fighting for its life. This went on for several months until the poor baby sadly passed away without anybody there except staff. We heard the lady got arrested a few months later for fraud- she apparently never told the welfare office the baby passed away and was trying to continue collecting benefits. So take a seat there, friend.

Anonymous wrote:SNAP recipient again. I live in subsidized housing. Many of my neighbors have new expensive cars.
Some have real jalopys though

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, you have to remember how welfare used to work - if a couple had kids, they could double down on welfare by the mother filing for welfare as well as the father asing as they didn't marry. That has changed, but you used to double dip and people would game the system by getting huge amounts of welfare checks by pumping out kids and staying unmarried. Welfare incentivized single parent households. Many people who are against welfare still have that scenario stuck in their brains from a while ago. It did happen before.

It’s still a good idea to not get married, at least for poor people
You get more in tax benefits (HoH) and you don’t have to claim dad’s income when applying for food stamps (SNAP).

Anonymous wrote:You need to keep pushing the lies/myth of poor being undeserving but of all the people undeserving are people who have enough money to buy a house or save money for college. Give me a break. The us isn’t divided into givers and takers, we are all takers! There are some serious snobs on here. You’re no better than those you look down on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working class who are just barely making ends meet (but without assistance) are the most bitter toward welfare. I was raised by parents like this. So much disdain for welfare because they worked very hard are still only had barely enough for the same existence. Back when grocery stores started allowing credit cards in my childhood, my mom totally judged those people and told me that anyone who used a CC couldn’t afford their groceries. It’s funny how the world has changed.

+1

there is a poster on the first page who explained that to keep SNAP benefits you have to make under a certain amount

It is a system we need to change and benefits need to phase out for people once they start working and earning an income instead of posing a hard cut off income.

Yes, the welfare cliff is real. It essentially punishes people for making slightly more money and trying to lift themselves out of poverty. It incentivizes people to make less. Some sort of phasing or sliding scale would be so much more helpful to people.

Person on SNAP here. There is a sliding scale but you don’t want to completely slide off because then you would need to apply again and also being snap-eligible makes it easier to qualify for other benefits
I honestly think it should be super restricted (eligibility) - it’s not right when people can keep having kids and getting more and more in benefits their whole life

I think when a family with multiple children goes through job loss or medical debt or some other hardship, it’s helpful when the safety net provides food for the amount of kids they have. But that’s just me.

Yes but if despite already being on benefits they produce more kids…

Exactly. An IUD should be mandatory for benefits. We aren't forcing anyone, they are free to decline the free money.

Exactly. An IUD or vasectomy should be mandatory for all tax breaks, for people at all income levels.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in the 1970s, in the urban core. My mother was a SAHM. My father was self-employed. They struggled to make ends meet. When we went to the grocery store, my mother would sometimes comment after we left, how full the grocery carts would be of the people using food stamps (no EBT card at the time). And how they usually bought junk my mother couldn't afford to buy. And they had more children, sometimes in diapers and no shoes. And they would buy cigarettes. I think the buying of the cigarettes was the kicker. LoL. Lots of judgment.

Actually her personal judgment and behavior seems pretty good.

I agree actually. We should be providing people with enough food to eat but not junk food or cigarettes.

SNAP beneficiary here. Once someone is getting snap, more money is freed up to buy junk or whatever stupid things
I don’t know the answer to this one

There is a lot of research about how much SNAP is used to purchase soda and other junk. You will see lots of posters defending the right of poor people to enjoy themselves. But someone else is working and budgeting to provide SUSTENANCE to poor people. Their freedom to choose junk needs to come when they are footing the bill.

This is old (2017) but I don't want to waste time searching...
"For SNAP shoppers, “sweetened beverages,” “prepared desserts,” “salty snacks,” “candy,” and “sugar” accounted for 22.6 percent of purchases. These junk food items thus accounted for $15 billion of SNAP purchases in 2016, if the study is representative of all SNAP purchases."

https://www.cato.org/blog/snap-15-billion-junk-food

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in the 1970s, in the urban core. My mother was a SAHM. My father was self-employed. They struggled to make ends meet. When we went to the grocery store, my mother would sometimes comment after we left, how full the grocery carts would be of the people using food stamps (no EBT card at the time). And how they usually bought junk my mother couldn't afford to buy. And they had more children, sometimes in diapers and no shoes. And they would buy cigarettes. I think the buying of the cigarettes was the kicker. LoL. Lots of judgment.

Actually her personal judgment and behavior seems pretty good.

I agree actually. We should be providing people with enough food to eat but not junk food or cigarettes.

SNAP beneficiary here. Once someone is getting snap, more money is freed up to buy junk or whatever stupid things
I don’t know the answer to this one

There is a lot of research about how much SNAP is used to purchase soda and other junk. You will see lots of posters defending the right of poor people to enjoy themselves. But someone else is working and budgeting to provide SUSTENANCE to poor people. Their freedom to choose junk needs to come when they are footing the bill.

This is old (2017) but I don't want to waste time searching...
"For SNAP shoppers, “sweetened beverages,” “prepared desserts,” “salty snacks,” “candy,” and “sugar” accounted for 22.6 percent of purchases. These junk food items thus accounted for $15 billion of SNAP purchases in 2016, if the study is representative of all SNAP purchases."

https://www.cato.org/blog/snap-15-billion-junk-food

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Midwest in the 1970s, in the urban core. My mother was a SAHM. My father was self-employed. They struggled to make ends meet. When we went to the grocery store, my mother would sometimes comment after we left, how full the grocery carts would be of the people using food stamps (no EBT card at the time). And how they usually bought junk my mother couldn't afford to buy. And they had more children, sometimes in diapers and no shoes. And they would buy cigarettes. I think the buying of the cigarettes was the kicker. LoL. Lots of judgment.

Actually her personal judgment and behavior seems pretty good.

I agree actually. We should be providing people with enough food to eat but not junk food or cigarettes.

SNAP beneficiary here. Once someone is getting snap, more money is freed up to buy junk or whatever stupid things
I don’t know the answer to this one

Anonymous wrote:Weird. I assumed most cashiers are on some form of assistance too. They don't make livable wages to where they could survive without some form of help.

This feels like a troll post, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working class who are just barely making ends meet (but without assistance) are the most bitter toward welfare. I was raised by parents like this. So much disdain for welfare because they worked very hard are still only had barely enough for the same existence. Back when grocery stores started allowing credit cards in my childhood, my mom totally judged those people and told me that anyone who used a CC couldn’t afford their groceries. It’s funny how the world has changed.

+1

there is a poster on the first page who explained that to keep SNAP benefits you have to make under a certain amount

It is a system we need to change and benefits need to phase out for people once they start working and earning an income instead of posing a hard cut off income.

Yes, the welfare cliff is real. It essentially punishes people for making slightly more money and trying to lift themselves out of poverty. It incentivizes people to make less. Some sort of phasing or sliding scale would be so much more helpful to people.

Person on SNAP here. There is a sliding scale but you don’t want to completely slide off because then you would need to apply again and also being snap-eligible makes it easier to qualify for other benefits
I honestly think it should be super restricted (eligibility) - it’s not right when people can keep having kids and getting more and more in benefits their whole life

I think when a family with multiple children goes through job loss or medical debt or some other hardship, it’s helpful when the safety net provides food for the amount of kids they have. But that’s just me.

Yes but if despite already being on benefits they produce more kids…

Exactly. An IUD should be mandatory for benefits. We aren't forcing anyone, they are free to decline the free money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I worked in a hospital where tons of patients were on all sorts of assistance yet somehow had the latest $800 phone and other accessories like nail tips done at a salon. Didn't add up... Not everyone was like that but there was obviously some abuse of the system going on.

Yes, the poor in this country live lives of crazy luxury… do you hear yourself?! The abuse has been well studied it’s an extremely small percentage of the whole. Perhaps those folks got gifts for their birthday or bought an expensive phone at a pawn shop? Perhaps her sister does nails? I mean come on now. I’m embarrassed that you are so petty and begrudge a poor person one nice thing.

I should pick your lifestyle markers apart.

Or... There was actual abuse of the system going on. The worst case I still recall was one lady who would come in at 10pm, have us sign her visitation paper (she got money for each visit), stay for 10 min then head out to the club, never to be seen until the same time the next night. Meanwhile her baby was vented and fighting for its life. This went on for several months until the poor baby sadly passed away without anybody there except staff. We heard the lady got arrested a few months later for fraud- she apparently never told the welfare office the baby passed away and was trying to continue collecting benefits. So take a seat there, friend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Working class who are just barely making ends meet (but without assistance) are the most bitter toward welfare. I was raised by parents like this. So much disdain for welfare because they worked very hard are still only had barely enough for the same existence. Back when grocery stores started allowing credit cards in my childhood, my mom totally judged those people and told me that anyone who used a CC couldn’t afford their groceries. It’s funny how the world has changed.

+1

there is a poster on the first page who explained that to keep SNAP benefits you have to make under a certain amount

It is a system we need to change and benefits need to phase out for people once they start working and earning an income instead of posing a hard cut off income.

Yes, the welfare cliff is real. It essentially punishes people for making slightly more money and trying to lift themselves out of poverty. It incentivizes people to make less. Some sort of phasing or sliding scale would be so much more helpful to people.

Person on SNAP here. There is a sliding scale but you don’t want to completely slide off because then you would need to apply again and also being snap-eligible makes it easier to qualify for other benefits
I honestly think it should be super restricted (eligibility) - it’s not right when people can keep having kids and getting more and more in benefits their whole life

I think when a family with multiple children goes through job loss or medical debt or some other hardship, it’s helpful when the safety net provides food for the amount of kids they have. But that’s just me.

Yes but if despite already being on benefits they produce more kids…