Dunno about never. If we ever get real single-payer, the mentally ill will be covered too.
Wait, what? :eek:
Well, shit, that’s axiomatic. I mean hell, I ALREADY lack the will to work.
But I also lack the will to try to find out what’s the absolute minimum of resources I can have available to me without DYING. In fact, I lack the will to do that just a LITTLE bit more than I lack the will to work. So I suck it up and do the work at the best wage I can manage to nail down. And there’s really no fundamental difference between me and anybody else who ever had to get by on public assistance.
(Okay, maybe most of them have more ambition and entrepreneurial spirit than I do.)
:dubious: GREAT debate, right.
If you say so.
Dont get me wrong; I fully approve of booting it from Elections.
Since we’re in Great Debates, let me do some witnessing:
“If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.”
And most are “using it with” food.
:eek: We can’t let the kids starve! They wouldn’t be worth eating!
Let them eat Lembas.
Yeah, but those shit wages also have to go to things like housing, medicine, gas, child care, car repairs. Oh yeah, food.
Would you prefer to have sick, starving, homeless families? Maybe the parents could work three or four jobs?
I think we all know the OP is not interested in debating (or facts), but while we’re here, I feel compelled to point out that SNAP was enacted as a subsidy to agricultural producers and stabilizing food prices remains the primary goal of the program.
Yeah, but feeding hungry people is one hell of a great side effect, don’t you think? If that was a secondary goal they sure hit it out of the ballpark.
Also - stable food prices are a good thing for everyone. Sure, the wealthy can afford to buy food at high prices, but what is forgotten is that if the middle class had to weather “food inflation” it would be a real pain for them and a financial burden.
Lack of access to food has brought down governments and lead to revolution - stable food prices and food supplements to the poor bring enormous social and political benefits that we have enjoyed for so long we take them for granted now, and have forgotten why they’re so important.
I wasn’t criticizing the goal. I was simply pointing out that whatever it may be, it’s not a handout to the lazy.
Right? When Walmart and McDonalds give training on how to apply for benefits, it says that not working is not the problem.
Oh, cram it!
Both Brooklyn *and *Queens.
Aren’t something like 90% of full time Walmart (the nation’s largest employer - employs 1% of all workers in the US) employees getting SNAP benefits? Here is an article from the liberal bastion Forbes magazine that talks about the costs to taxpayers of the low wages paid by many employers. I would be willing to bet that the OP is against raising the minimum wage, so we end up with the typical conservative cognitive dissonance. Corporations should be able to pay employees as little as they can get away with but anybody that is starving to death because they can’t make enough to survive is a leach on the American taxpayer. So not only are we feeding poor people (or losers in vernacular of the OP), but we are effectively subsidizing one of the wealthiest corporations in America since their workforce would not be able to survive without us.
I think this thread belongs in the Pit, not great debates. Don’t get wrong, there is plenty to debate here, but the OP has dumped so much poison in the well that I am not sure this tread can recover.
Country and Western!
I’m very glad to hear that you are pro-hunger.
Hush. We have to cut the IRS budget because more audits would prevent fraud by our kind of people. We couldn’t have that, could we?