All they can "afford" to eat is the cheap calories from McDonald's so they can pay for the father's diabetes medication.
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit here.
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
Broccoli is on average $1.60 per pound, get organic broccoli and the price almost doubles. 1/4 double cheeseburger at Burger King: $1.
You can get a pound of pasta, a jar of sauce and some veg to throw in and feed a whole family for way less than it would cost to eat the garbage at McDonalds.
Considering the overall size of the social welfare system, it's not hard to find people using resources from that system irresponsibly. In other words, there's no doubt there probably were some welfare queens back in the '80s when Reagan was talking that shit up.
But the question is: do these constitute a tiny minority of recipients or are they the norm? And I've never seen any kind of convincing evidence to suggest that most people receiving some form of social benefit don't actually need it in some way. However, for some programs - welfare especially - the ability to conflate and scapegoat is made easy, especially when there's a perceived divide between those "on the dole" vs. those who've never had to ask to receive benefits.
Compare that with, say, Medicaid or SSI. There's no question there are people misusing both systems, but by and large, you don't see either system being maligned in the same way that welfare and food stamp programs tend to be. I think that's largely because so many more people depend on it (my father just retired this week after 38 years of working white collar and went and applied for Medicaid) that they're less likely to demonize the system even if there's surely people making use of it unethically.
All they can "afford" to eat is the cheap calories from McDonald's so they can pay for the father's diabetes medication.
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit here.
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
Broccoli is on average $1.60 per pound, get organic broccoli and the price almost doubles. 1/4 double cheeseburger at Burger King: $1.
You can get a pound of pasta, a jar of sauce and some veg to throw in and feed a whole family for way less than it would cost to eat the garbage at McDonalds.
If you eat off the dollar menu, drink water, and share fries, they are about the same cost. And Ragu type sauce, nutritionally, is not very good for you.
Considering the overall size of the social welfare system, it's not hard to find people using resources from that system irresponsibly. In other words, there's no doubt there probably were some welfare queens back in the '80s when Reagan was talking that shit up.
But the question is: do these constitute a tiny minority of recipients or are they the norm? And I've never seen any kind of convincing evidence to suggest that most people receiving some form of social benefit don't actually need it in some way. However, for some programs - welfare especially - the ability to conflate and scapegoat is made easy, especially when there's a perceived divide between those "on the dole" vs. those who've never had to ask to receive benefits.
Compare that with, say, Medicaid or SSI. There's no question there are people misusing both systems, but by and large, you don't see either system being maligned in the same way that welfare and food stamp programs tend to be. I think that's largely because so many more people depend on it (my father just retired this week after 38 years of working white collar and went and applied for Medicaid) that they're less likely to demonize the system even if there's surely people making use of it unethically.
I don't for a second think most (or many) people on public assistance are misusing their benefits. I was just countering the 'high cost of broccoli' argument. It's probably difficult to eat really well on welfare/food stamps, but there are clearly lower cost, relatively healthy ways to eat, i.e. high protein, low fat. It might not be very glamorous, but it'll feed the kids. I think the article about the 'hipsters' was clearly written with an agenda.
Considering the overall size of the social welfare system, it's not hard to find people using resources from that system irresponsibly. In other words, there's no doubt there probably were some welfare queens back in the '80s when Reagan was talking that shit up.
But the question is: do these constitute a tiny minority of recipients or are they the norm? And I've never seen any kind of convincing evidence to suggest that most people receiving some form of social benefit don't actually need it in some way. However, for some programs - welfare especially - the ability to conflate and scapegoat is made easy, especially when there's a perceived divide between those "on the dole" vs. those who've never had to ask to receive benefits.
Compare that with, say, Medicaid or SSI. There's no question there are people misusing both systems, but by and large, you don't see either system being maligned in the same way that welfare and food stamp programs tend to be. I think that's largely because so many more people depend on it (my father just retired this week after 38 years of working white collar and went and applied for Medicaid) that they're less likely to demonize the system even if there's surely people making use of it unethically.
I don't want it to be percieved that I am criticizing welfare or the food stamp program. I am criticizing the hipsters in this article who should be ashamed of themselves for being on public assistance because their art world jobs didn't materialize. These are not the down and out working poor types, they are mainly college educated people from the middle class who want help while they "ride out" the financial storm and the art jobs come back. Although I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if there really are no other jobs out there for these people.
All they can "afford" to eat is the cheap calories from McDonald's so they can pay for the father's diabetes medication.
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit here.
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
Broccoli is on average $1.60 per pound, get organic broccoli and the price almost doubles. 1/4 double cheeseburger at Burger King: $1.
You can get a pound of pasta, a jar of sauce and some veg to throw in and feed a whole family for way less than it would cost to eat the garbage at McDonalds.
If you eat off the dollar menu, drink water, and share fries, they are about the same cost. And Ragu type sauce, nutritionally, is not very good for you.
Please tell me you're not advocating eating at McDonalds, as a cost saving measure or otherwise...
I'm not advocating eating at McD's at all. I'm saying that price wise they are comporable, and throwing a few vegtables with pasta and ragu does not make a significantly healthy eating alternative to McD's. Read the Obesity-Hunger Paradox article I linked further up, you'll see where I'm coming from.
Considering the overall size of the social welfare system, it's not hard to find people using resources from that system irresponsibly. In other words, there's no doubt there probably were some welfare queens back in the '80s when Reagan was talking that shit up.
But the question is: do these constitute a tiny minority of recipients or are they the norm? And I've never seen any kind of convincing evidence to suggest that most people receiving some form of social benefit don't actually need it in some way. However, for some programs - welfare especially - the ability to conflate and scapegoat is made easy, especially when there's a perceived divide between those "on the dole" vs. those who've never had to ask to receive benefits.
Compare that with, say, Medicaid or SSI. There's no question there are people misusing both systems, but by and large, you don't see either system being maligned in the same way that welfare and food stamp programs tend to be. I think that's largely because so many more people depend on it (my father just retired this week after 38 years of working white collar and went and applied for Medicaid) that they're less likely to demonize the system even if there's surely people making use of it unethically.
I don't want it to be percieved that I am criticizing welfare or the food stamp program. I am criticizing the hipsters in this article who should be ashamed of themselves for being on public assistance because their art world jobs didn't materialize. These are not the down and out working poor types, they are mainly college educated people from the middle class who want help while they "ride out" the financial storm and the art jobs come back. Although I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if there really are no other jobs out there for these people.
My post above was really meant as a response to the original article, not towards any one post. I just find Salon's approach to be f*cking lame though I suppose it's better to pick on the creative class for a change vs. the typical scapegoats (i.e. urban poor of color).
In regards to what you just wrote above, as you point out, one of the problems with how the welfare system is currently put together is precisely the inability to properly discern between what's known as the "permanent vs. temporary poor." The temporary poor are those who, technically, qualify for public assistance but have the basic social tools (education and/or work) to get themselves out without requiring much help. The permanent poor include those who are incapable of full integration into the labor market as well as former full-time workers now displaced by the disappearance of entire sectors of the labor market with insufficient skills or education to retool into another sector.
A more effective (though probably not efficient) welfare system would be one that could better discern between the two and direct benefits appropriately. However, the path of least resistance is simply to allow those who qualify to apply, regardless of their long-term need profile.
1st off, pasta isn't healthy either. maybe its not as full of chemicals as mcdonalds, but filling up on pasta is still likely to cause diabetes / obesity etc
2ndly, are any of you dudes looking for work right now? im working a pretty (awful) job (although at least a living wage) bcuz the jobs i have experience in arent really hiring. in fact, not much of anyone is hiring. the starbucks down the street from me has a pile of applications a mile long. the idea that 'hipsters' (can we stop w/ this meaningless word) could just walk into a mcdonalds & get a job (never mind that the idea that ppl working those jobs are making enough to not need foodstamps is kinda b.s.) is also wrong; if u are 'overqualified' you arent gonna get hired because managers are afraid that if you get another better opportunity you'll leave their work in a second. which is true.
imo, if yr struggling yr struggling, doesnt matter if you went to college, food stamps are totally legit -- everyone deserves to eat, imo, whether 'temporarily' poor or systematically so (& it should be noted that just cuz poverty is a cycle, maaan doesnt excuse ppl just cuz theyre from the 'wrong side of the tracks')
oO/ folx out to HATE ON HIPSTEURS here are imo just trynna be cool
All they can "afford" to eat is the cheap calories from McDonald's so they can pay for the father's diabetes medication.
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit here.
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
Broccoli is on average $1.60 per pound, get organic broccoli and the price almost doubles. 1/4 double cheeseburger at Burger King: $1.
You can get a pound of pasta, a jar of sauce and some veg to throw in and feed a whole family for way less than it would cost to eat the garbage at McDonalds.
If you eat off the dollar menu, drink water, and share fries, they are about the same cost. And Ragu type sauce, nutritionally, is not very good for you.
Please tell me you're not advocating eating at McDonalds, as a cost saving measure or otherwise...
I had to do this right before the dot-com boom bailed me out and got me going. McDonald's would have 19-cent cheeseburgers on Wednesdays, and I would buy 10 and eat them all day. Eating fast food is cheaper than eating real food, but I don't advocate it. These days, I don't eat fast food anymore because it tastes bad and it's bad for you. But if you're hungry...
A protein bar for 1$ has probably 10 times as much nutrition as a 1$ burger from mcdonalds. Healthy eating is more about education than level of income. Hell, a pack of black beans and a pack of tortillas has more good calories than a greasy burger and fries.
A protein bar for 1$ has probably 10 times as much nutrition as a 1$ burger from mcdonalds. Healthy eating is more about education than level of income. Hell, a pack of black beans and a pack of tortillas has more good calories than a greasy burger and fries.
I can see it now.
Come on kids. Gather round the table for dinner. Tonight we're having Cliff Bars. What do you want? Chocolate or Penut butter? Cut them in half and split them up. Share with your brother. Canyon, put it down and share with your brother.
Most people I know sell their food stamps anyways.
Where in the U.S. are food stamps still used? Here in Washington state food assistance cards are issued that are used like credit cards. You swipe the cards like a debit card and have to show your ID when using the card. Food stamps are too easy to sell.
These people aren't misusing the system, the system has just been expanded to include them. I mean, this kid grew up in Westchester and has a degree, you can't expect him to get his hands dirty? So now he's "poor" - at least until Christmas or his next birthday. And if you think its bad now, wait until you have to start paying for his healthcare too.
Comments
The Obesity-Hunger Paradox
You can get a pound of pasta, a jar of sauce and some veg to throw in and feed a whole family for way less than it would cost to eat the garbage at McDonalds.
But the question is: do these constitute a tiny minority of recipients or are they the norm? And I've never seen any kind of convincing evidence to suggest that most people receiving some form of social benefit don't actually need it in some way. However, for some programs - welfare especially - the ability to conflate and scapegoat is made easy, especially when there's a perceived divide between those "on the dole" vs. those who've never had to ask to receive benefits.
Compare that with, say, Medicaid or SSI. There's no question there are people misusing both systems, but by and large, you don't see either system being maligned in the same way that welfare and food stamp programs tend to be. I think that's largely because so many more people depend on it (my father just retired this week after 38 years of working white collar and went and applied for Medicaid) that they're less likely to demonize the system even if there's surely people making use of it unethically.
If you eat off the dollar menu, drink water, and share fries, they are about the same cost. And Ragu type sauce, nutritionally, is not very good for you.
I don't for a second think most (or many) people on public assistance are misusing their benefits. I was just countering the 'high cost of broccoli' argument. It's probably difficult to eat really well on welfare/food stamps, but there are clearly lower cost, relatively healthy ways to eat, i.e. high protein, low fat. It might not be very glamorous, but it'll feed the kids.
I think the article about the 'hipsters' was clearly written with an agenda.
I don't want it to be percieved that I am criticizing welfare or the food stamp program. I am criticizing the hipsters in this article who should be ashamed of themselves for being on public assistance because their art world jobs didn't materialize. These are not the down and out working poor types, they are mainly college educated people from the middle class who want help while they "ride out" the financial storm and the art jobs come back. Although I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if there really are no other jobs out there for these people.
Please tell me you're not advocating eating at McDonalds, as a cost saving measure or otherwise...
My post above was really meant as a response to the original article, not towards any one post. I just find Salon's approach to be f*cking lame though I suppose it's better to pick on the creative class for a change vs. the typical scapegoats (i.e. urban poor of color).
In regards to what you just wrote above, as you point out, one of the problems with how the welfare system is currently put together is precisely the inability to properly discern between what's known as the "permanent vs. temporary poor." The temporary poor are those who, technically, qualify for public assistance but have the basic social tools (education and/or work) to get themselves out without requiring much help. The permanent poor include those who are incapable of full integration into the labor market as well as former full-time workers now displaced by the disappearance of entire sectors of the labor market with insufficient skills or education to retool into another sector.
A more effective (though probably not efficient) welfare system would be one that could better discern between the two and direct benefits appropriately. However, the path of least resistance is simply to allow those who qualify to apply, regardless of their long-term need profile.
SOCIALISM!
2ndly, are any of you dudes looking for work right now? im working a pretty (awful) job (although at least a living wage) bcuz the jobs i have experience in arent really hiring. in fact, not much of anyone is hiring. the starbucks down the street from me has a pile of applications a mile long. the idea that 'hipsters' (can we stop w/ this meaningless word) could just walk into a mcdonalds & get a job (never mind that the idea that ppl working those jobs are making enough to not need foodstamps is kinda b.s.) is also wrong; if u are 'overqualified' you arent gonna get hired because managers are afraid that if you get another better opportunity you'll leave their work in a second. which is true.
imo, if yr struggling yr struggling, doesnt matter if you went to college, food stamps are totally legit -- everyone deserves to eat, imo, whether 'temporarily' poor or systematically so (& it should be noted that just cuz poverty is a cycle, maaan doesnt excuse ppl just cuz theyre from the 'wrong side of the tracks')
oO/ folx out to HATE ON HIPSTEURS here are imo just trynna be cool
I had to do this right before the dot-com boom bailed me out and got me going. McDonald's would have 19-cent cheeseburgers on Wednesdays, and I would buy 10 and eat them all day. Eating fast food is cheaper than eating real food, but I don't advocate it. These days, I don't eat fast food anymore because it tastes bad and it's bad for you. But if you're hungry...
Fast food dollar menus > Top Ramen.
I can see it now.
Come on kids. Gather round the table for dinner. Tonight we're having Cliff Bars. What do you want? Chocolate or Penut butter? Cut them in half and split them up. Share with your brother. Canyon, put it down and share with your brother.
THE SOULSTRUT WAY!
Plus, what Deej said basically.
I told them I could bring flyers up to Harlem where surely people will apply, and they said they had filled every position in Harlem within a week.
I should've asked about
WilliamsburgBushwickWhere in the U.S. are food stamps still used? Here in Washington state food assistance cards are issued that are used like credit cards. You swipe the cards like a debit card and have to show your ID when using the card. Food stamps are too easy to sell.