Quote:
Originally Posted by Slims
There is no way it's less costly for (deadbeats) to purchase brand-name (unnecessary) soft drinks in order to meet their caloric requirements than to simply hand out a loaf of moldy bread and some cheese. Or, for that matter, a 50 pound bag of potatoes which were on sale for $10.99 at my local farmers market recently...That will feed a lot of people for a while.
|
Okay, first, I'm not sure how many people on the program could be considered "deadbeats," especially since I'm not sure what you mean by that term. Second, how is it cheaper to dole out food than to dole out food stamps?
Quote:
|
There is no ethical problem either....If you want a free handout it should be on our terms. you have no right to 'expect' Coca Cola or the ability to sell your food stamps.
|
Ethics aside and food choices aside, there's one problem: it's not a free handout. You may want to look up the eligibility requirements.
Quote:
|
Even better: If you want to eat you have to assist with the distribution of said food items free of charge. Basically: If you want to eat the soup you need to work in the kitchen, at least occasionally.
|
Well, there's the issue of child labour, and the elderly who aren't in good shape for that kind of work. And the disabled? They might be up for it depending on their situation. So you want to do a kind of workfare so people can get their food? Hm. Aren't they already getting their food? They take the food stamps and go shopping, don't they? Distribution is cheaper if you use existing systems (grocery stores) and get the end user to gather their own (shopping). Isn't that efficient?
Quote:
|
As far as I am concerned I think it is ethically preferable to provide no public services whatsoever than to continue on the way things currently are. A good percentage of food-stamps and welfare are used to purchase drugs, rims, and flat-screen TV's....How is that ethical? I get shot at to earn my money, and I would much rather spend it on my daughters education, paying off student loan debt, etc. than on someone who is too lazy to work.
|
How much is a "good percentage"? I think those abusing the system are amongst the minority. And don't worry, I'm sure most of the recipients aren't too lazy to work. It's not worth it to fret over worst-case scenarios. For example, the money going to pay off your student loan debt isn't funding Islamic terrorism. Probably.
You have a very skewed view of the poor, which is unfortunate. Do you think the rich are all corrupt con artists?
Quote:
|
I feel much more charitable to those who live a truly spartan existence and are still struggling. However my house backs up to subsidized housing and at least in my neighborhood, every trailer has a crappy car with an expensive paint job/rims and the owners are home at all times of the (work) day watching TV, drinking, throwing bottles in the yard, selling drugs, and generally being parasites.
|
So this is your snapshot of the how the SNAP program is being used? That's not very scientific.
Oh, and there's this (which is a link I snagged from the TARP thread):
Boost in Food-Stamp Funding Percolates Through Economy - WSJ.com
Quote:
|
They can go piss up a rope if they want to claim it is unethical for me to give them food rather than what equates to money.
|
Are you talking about the guys in your neighbourhood?
Quote:
Lastly, if I/we (via the government) are going to take my or anyone else' earned money and give it away to a third party, it is perfectly ethical to place any restrictions on it we want to...such as don't use my money to eat your way to type 2 diabetes which I will also have to pay for.
It is unethical and wasteful to give away what belongs to someone else. Inexcusably so when you give away more than the bare minimum they really need.
|
You know what would be a good solution? Maybe sell their children as food to gourmet grocery stores and five-star restaurants.
By the way, what system of ethics do you subscribe to? It seems rather dysfunctional.