Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'welfare'.
Found 7 results
roddma posted a topic in Wide World of SnarkIt's a shame his son had to witness this. Little does she know she actually gives very little to food stamps. If the man worked, he contributed himself. http://kdvr.com/2016/05/06/viral-video-shows-woman-angrily-confront-man-using-food-stamps-at-wal-mart/
Curious posted a topic in Wide World of SnarkI swear every story coming out about Wisconsin lately is full on crazy. This came across my facebook feed today. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/05/15/wisconsin-gop-passes-bill-banning-poor-people-from-buying-shellfish-potatoes-and-ketchup/ Quotes from the article: According to some state rep (republican natch) they are doing it to "make poor people healthier." This is clearly utter bullshit when you look at the list (and the full list makes it even more apparent). No brown eggs or cage-free, free range? No organic or natural? In the tuna section in the full list it includes no low or reduced sodium varieties. I guess if you are lactose intolerant you are just fucked because no almond, rice, soy or goat milk. This is DISGUSTING! What they are really saying is people on assistance don't deserve "fancy" varieties of food that might cost a little more, but are likely more healthy. I personally don't think organic is worth it, but that's just my opinion. However, natural products (no/less preservatives) are something I look for. Oh in the peanut butter on the full list no reduced fat or natural, etc.
If you're unemployed/no dependent kids dont' expect food stamps. At the minimum you get 3 months worth with a work requirement.I feel most politicians envision childless people laying home all day and watching TV.The truth is they try just as hard and pay taxes like anyone else. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/food-stamps-work-requirement_568d2c92e4b0cad15e62ca03
So, over in "FRC: 'Nothing More Christian' Than Massive Food Stamp Cut" thread Ken Blackwell, a FRC representative, basically said that cutting food stamps and small government was Christian and biblical. I asked him in that thread if he could point me to those bible verses I would appreciate it. However, I'm not holding my breath so I decided to do a bit of research myself! I went to The Google and found "The Biblical Case for Limited Government" from a publication called First Things which I have never heard of before. Their about us says: So, ok then. That's pretty vague and I can't find a whole lot about them so I will move on to the article. They babble on a bit then get to the start of their argument. The Hebrew Scripture is fundamentally suspicious of the state. Abraham votes in politicians who want to intrude on the lives of everyone else to follow his exact moral code leaves the cities of Mesopotamia and Egypt and heads out into the wilderness (take not modern fundamentalists). They say: Fair enough, but it sounds like they are reading a lot into Abraham's motivations. I think it is also worth noting that there is a huge difference in modern nation states, especially democracies, and living under biblical monarchies. Anyway, biblical states continue to be terrible places to live in. The biblical Israelites were enslaved by the biblical Egyptians (please ignore the lack of historical evidence for this outside the Bible) and they responded by small acts of resistance. How being enslaved and living in a democracy are analogous remains unclear at this point. Anyway, Moses goes out and sees the Hebrews suffering at the hands of the Egyptian by getting food stamps so they don't go hungry an Egyptian beating a Hebrew man. Moses then kills the Egyptian. I would argue here that Moses saw something terrible happened and he stepped in to stop it. I'm not sure if this one incident is enough to justify that government must be small. But, alas, Moses carries on and flees from Egypt and becomes a shepherd out in the boonies. It is here that God reveals himself to Moses, apparently because God doesn't like cities even though God would reveal Godself in cities later on. So far their argument works out to slavery and monarchies are bad, nomadic pastoralism is good. Maybe we should all go buy some sheep and start wandering the countryside. We now jump ahead to Passover where everyone who is to be delivered from Egypt has to put lamb's blood around their door. The price of delivery is an act of civil disobedience (because Amun was represented by a ram -- I learned something today!) And now we begin to get somewhere: However, the article says there can't literally be anarchy, that would be disastrous as shown in the Book of Judges. See, from this I would read that the idea is we need a just state. I would say there are several other forms of state/government than just one that supports enslavement and one that does not exist. The idea they glean from this is: Anyway, at this point in the narrative Saul becomes king and he turns out to be just as bad as the Egyptians. And here we get to the crux of the argument. In the book of Samuel the stat of Israel is formed. Unlike modern states this is not an agreement between the individuals who make up the state. This is an agreement between the individuals who make up the state on one side and God on the other side. They then go on to say that the Bible is more in favour of democracy than any Greek text because God said to Samuel "listen to the voice of the people in everything that they say to you". How this one line goes "further in the direction of endorsing democratic principles than any of the classical texts of Greek philosophy" is beyond me, but there you have it. Now, they say this is not to be interpreted as the government needing only the consent of the people, because the government also needs the consent of (the one version of) God (they deem to be the correct one). What's that now? We are like three quarters of the way into this article and they haven't really said much of anything about limited government?? Well get ready, because here it is! They cite a verse in Deuteronomy: Which they take to mean there should be no large standing armies to wage constant warfare, not too many foreign alliances, and not accumulating a lot of gold apparently means there should be no heavy taxation. Reading that I would think that not greatly multiplying silver and gold to himself would refer more to being a lot more wealthy than the people one is ruling over, but the authors disagree. This ONE verse means there should be a limited state! This, obviously, also means no welfare and food stamps, amirite? The article goes on talking about people accumulating a lot of wealth on the backs of people under them (what does this sound like, I wonder??) and the legitimacy of revolutions. They then go back to how states oscialte between rules like the Egyptians and anarchy. The only happy medium is an imperial government. THEN NAZIS!!!!1!! Because no good analysis of anything ever forgets to discuss the Nazis. And end scene. There you have it folks. We need a specific version of limited government so that people are not enslaved. Good thing that the time fundies hold up as a paragon a Christian limited government had no slavery... oh, wait ..... And this limited government should have the consent of God. I guess only one god's consent. I'm guessing if Vishnu gave his consent that wouldn't go over so well. TL;DR: limited government because slavery! Or something firstthings.com/article/2012/09/the-biblical-case-for-limited-government
I was flipping through the channels and came across this new HBO Documentary - American Winter. http://www.americanwinterfilm.com/ I was bawling within minutes of watching this. I started about 20 minutes into the program, and the scene was the mother and son going to the Panera 'pay what you can' cafe for dinner - but its closed. And the mother has no food for her 11 year old son, and she loses it and is so distraught... and the boy tries to comfort her. It hit a little too close to home. My dh and I have had some rough times.... and I did when I was a kid, too. This movie was filmed in my city and reminded me of people I see every day. By the time it was over, I was so angry at all the assholes out there that try to take away social services, and say that people who need help are lazy. Its such BULLSHIT. The woman I mentioned above was poor and broke because her husband died. Not because she was lazy. Everyone should have to watch this movie, especially the fundies and hard core right-wing 'anti social services' types.
mormonmentality.org/2007/06/05/married-mormon-graduate-students-on-welfare-is-it-right.htm I came upon this while looking for info on a related topic for a personal issue. It's old (2007) but I think it is interesting because we get some insight into the way Mormons view government benefits when they are taken by "good" Mormon couples in grad school with young children. Most of the commenters are completely against it because "the couple will be making 6 figures in a few years". In my experience, future income does little to pay this month's rent. I was surprised, I thought most Mormons were very supportive of women staying home with young children, but the consensus seems to be that the mom needs to get off her ass and work even if she makes about $10 a week after childcare. I was a little surprised at how many people were against a young Mormon family receiving WIC. It is a program that gets mentioned hundreds of times in the comments as an entitlement that these young couples are abusing. I did not know you could "abuse" WIC. Its point is to put healthy food in little tummies, so if a kid is eating then mission accomplished. The Mormon Mentality website that this is posted on is interesting because it offers some insight into the LDS view of life. I consider Mormons kinda fundie just because giving up my coffee would be extreme, and giving up alcohol is not a possibility as long as I have a husband, kids, school, job, any of the above. I am curious about strict LDS people because I have family who are such and I always feel like I am seeing a shiny mirage and not the real story.
I know the Duggars don't get welfare, I just want to know when whether someone is on assistance not became the litmus test for being good parents? I hate how so many in this country assume and fervently believe being on assistance means your a horrible low life scumbag. As a side note does anyone know any large ATI families that are on assistance?