You decided this was Paft's answer, but I will give it to you instead so that we play out this dialogue. Hopefully you will be a good sport about it and engage me on this topic?
100%! I believe that the govt should, if a person NEED IT, provide 100% of the cost of their food bill. Now, that said, they should not be permitted to buy the highest price items in the supermarket just for shits and giggles and then dump that cost on SNAP, which, I think should be renamed (obviously)
It is my theory that a member of our society that is in poverty is better suited, and more likely to pull themselves OUT of poverty, if they *KNOW* that they will be able to eat another meal and fill their stomachs. The STRESS of having NO IDEA where you will get your next meal from does not lend itself to a healthy and productive person.
Perhaps instead of providing money that people spend on food, I would be happier with an alternative system that had a govt run food-store. Provides the basic food-stuffs, not expensive food-stuffs. Any person on the food assitance program could go there and get their food needs, up to a dollar amount. The dollar amount would be dependent upon the size of the persons family--NOT to be effected by their income. At all. Period.
ANYBODY who wanted free food could go get it. It wouldn't be gourmet. It would be SUSTENANCE.
That is, even if you HAD lots of money you could go get this free food. You probably wouldn't want to, unless you were a penny-pincher. But that's OK. As is, a penny-pincher could go to a soup kitchen, right? But most don't.
If you wish to see a healthy and productive person, threatening them with starvation is bad stick to use, IMO. I am completely happy to see a raise in taxes (even my taxes, and believe me, I am working poor) to make sure that EVERY SINGLE HUNGRY PERSON CAN BE FED.
I really do not see the point in spending money on the military (to keep our bodies safe from foreign armies) or on education (to keep our minds sharp) if we will not spend money to keep our population healthy (this applies to my reasoning for UHC and for UFC [universal food coverage. better term than SNAP for what I want])
So there you have it. I believe that up to 100% of a [basic, not gourmet] food budget should be covered.
no subject
You decided this was Paft's answer, but I will give it to you instead so that we play out this dialogue. Hopefully you will be a good sport about it and engage me on this topic?
100%! I believe that the govt should, if a person NEED IT, provide 100% of the cost of their food bill. Now, that said, they should not be permitted to buy the highest price items in the supermarket just for shits and giggles and then dump that cost on SNAP, which, I think should be renamed (obviously)
It is my theory that a member of our society that is in poverty is better suited, and more likely to pull themselves OUT of poverty, if they *KNOW* that they will be able to eat another meal and fill their stomachs. The STRESS of having NO IDEA where you will get your next meal from does not lend itself to a healthy and productive person.
Perhaps instead of providing money that people spend on food, I would be happier with an alternative system that had a govt run food-store. Provides the basic food-stuffs, not expensive food-stuffs. Any person on the food assitance program could go there and get their food needs, up to a dollar amount. The dollar amount would be dependent upon the size of the persons family--NOT to be effected by their income. At all. Period.
ANYBODY who wanted free food could go get it. It wouldn't be gourmet. It would be SUSTENANCE.
That is, even if you HAD lots of money you could go get this free food. You probably wouldn't want to, unless you were a penny-pincher. But that's OK. As is, a penny-pincher could go to a soup kitchen, right? But most don't.
If you wish to see a healthy and productive person, threatening them with starvation is bad stick to use, IMO.
I am completely happy to see a raise in taxes (even my taxes, and believe me, I am working poor) to make sure that EVERY SINGLE HUNGRY PERSON CAN BE FED.
I really do not see the point in spending money on the military (to keep our bodies safe from foreign armies) or on education (to keep our minds sharp) if we will not spend money to keep our population healthy (this applies to my reasoning for UHC and for UFC [universal food coverage. better term than SNAP for what I want])
So there you have it. I believe that up to 100% of a [basic, not gourmet] food budget should be covered.
Tell me what's so wrong with that.