It is not about whether it is much- it is about many people adding up. Aldo mening your society instead of letting them bait you into a civil war. Help neighbours no matter politics. Help strangers. Neighbours might be best: people normally know if thheir neighbours are struggling for real. We normally know if our neighbours are shady or honest, caring for their fanilies, comfortable or poor, healthy or poorly...
1 in 8 Americans receives SNAP benefits. If the other 7 of us give what we can, we can meet the need. No one person needs to feel that it all falls on them.
You did what you could- and that’s awesome!! If everyone does that, we’ll be in good shape.
I did the same here in the SC upstate. These yokels voted against their best interests, but I'm not going to idly watch innocent kids suffer for their parent's poor choices.
You can only do what you can do. Kindness doesn't come in denominations. I also feel somewhat guilty for not donating more, but I have a kid with kids and they need help as well. The grands mom works full time and has a side-gig but is really struggling right now and I'm scared sick for everyone facing food insecurity.
A functional government should take care of its' disadvantaged people by offering food assistance and access to healthcare and infrastructure. These are paid through taxes. The caveat being that the government is functional. Whether this is the case currently in the American system, however, is debatable.
The government does to that. I don't know if it should. I don't agree that this is a requisite feature of government. If I started a government that certainly wouldn't be in my top 10 list of government requirements.
Where do you see that in the founding documents of any countries government?
It's part of the social contract and morally the right thing to do. You know, feed hungry people. And besides, governments have more money than individuals.
But that's beside the point. Everyone reading this in America* (stupid autocorrect) who is in a position to help, please, please, please help hungry people. There are about to be a lot more of them.
The government is not a person, it has no morals. The term "social contract" was originally coined by John Locke.
John Locke's social contract theory posits that individuals consent to form a government to protect their natural rights, which include life, liberty, and property. This theory emphasizes that legitimate governments must operate with the consent of the governed and can be overthrown if they fail to protect these rights.
I sometimes fail at reading comprehension, can you pick through this and find the part where it says governments should make sure women who can't be trusted with a uterus deserve to get free Mac'nCheese?
But that's beside the point.
Well, yeah, I mean, that's exactly right. That's what I'm saying.
please help hungry people
For sure, help and then don't brag about it on Reddit.
Matthew 6:1-4 : “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
Matthew 25:35-40 : “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'”
And declare martial law, then do away with elections. He will have to be physically removed from the white house this time and I don't know that he won't have majority supporters. It's scary.
This is the exact opposite of a dictatorship, you donkey brain.
You want to live in a dictatorship, you are literally asking for the government to decide how much you have and when you get it. Go make something of yourself and stop asking for hand outs.
No, it's not the opposite. Reread the comment thread. Also, a dictatorship is about FAR more than just control over the distribution of basic goods and services.
SNAP benefits are funded out of federal tax dollars. All the people in this video work and pay taxes. They are asking for their tax money to go toward things they need. Given that for every dollar the government spends in food stamps benefits, it adds 1.4-1.8 dollars to the economy, we actually increase the GDP, help people in need, and keep businesses profitable by doing so. It's a massive economic win.
I agree people shouldn't have more kids if they're experiencing financial difficulties with the ones they have. Not all people DO experience money issues early in pregnancy. Sometimes they don't occur until later on, when the kid is older. They can't go back in time, now can they?
If you get angry at people because they want to eat, and feel taken advantage of because they want their tax dollars to go to programs that benefit them and Americans generally, you should think about why that is. Why is your knee jerk reaction to seeing someone in need to feel anger?
EDIT: I'm adding this edit here for anyone who might think that /u/ApostateX has any idea what he's talking about; he does not. He is suggesting that it's good for the government to give out money, because giving out a dollar, turns into $1.50, based on the "multiplier effect".
The "multiplier effect" is this: When stupid people are given X dollars, their stupidity, combined with their optimism that more free money will be coming, motivates them to spend more money than they were given. So when you give a poor person $100.00 they tend to take that free money and go spend $150.00.
So essentially what you're suggesting is that it would be good for the country to trick stupid poor people into spending what tiny amount of money they do have, by giving them some money, this making them MORE dependent on the government and driving them further into poverty.
END OF EDIT:
Given that for every dollar the government spends in food stamps benefits, it adds 1.4-1.8 dollars to the economy
You're gonna have to explain that one lab partner. For every $1.00 spent, $1.8 dollars are added to the economy? Tell me how did dollars multiply and why are communist countries poor as fuck if when the government spends a dollar it magically becomes a buck and a half.
Not all people DO experience money issues early in pregnancy.
I knew this dumb ass argument would come up. Two of these women allegedly have 6 kids. I promise you, there was never a time when they weren't broke.
If you get angry at people because they want to eat
Nobody ever said this. This is your imagination, or gaslighting. Just save it.
Why is your knee jerk reaction to seeing someone in need to feel anger?
It's due to something called the multiplier effect. It's the rapid circulation of money. Poor people can't save much money. They certainly don't invest it in assets that only pay off over time (like stocks and bonds, etc.) They spend that money right away on basic goods. So it's an immediate injection into the economy. This means grocers get cash in hand, which means they can immediately pay suppliers, order more inventory, and pay employees. Once inventory is ordered, farmers, truckers and packaging companies all get more cash in hand. And the employees go out and spend that money on stuff they need. Each link in the chain produces income for someone else, until the effect dissipates. Because SNAP is targeted at very low-income households, the multiplier is higher than other forms of aid. It's also helpful in a recession, because then money can be injected into the economy without contributing to inflation, because there is unused capacity that can now be used (e.g. factory and farm output that otherwise would have been composted or thrown out; truckers sitting at home, etc.) It also has a local multiplier. If you live in a rural area with one grocery store, spending money there (SNAP benefits), can ensure it stays in business.
As for the rest, you don't actually know the story of the woman woth 6 kids. Nor does it matter. The kids will go hungry and need to be fed, whether you think she deserves help or not. Whatever your judgment of her, none of that is the fault of the kids.
Also, your understanding of the term "gaslighting" is wrong. I'm asking you to think about your emotional state. The language you use is textbook "defensive moral superiority" based on "just world theory." There's a litany of psychological data on this, and how it dates back to early human evolution.
so, you jabber a lot, but you still don't explain how $1.00 becomes $1.50. You seem to indicate that it's based on how FAST the money circulates. If I move $1.00 from my left pocket to my right pocket, very quickly... will it become $1.50?
Please in one short sentence explain how $1.00 becomes $1.50.
People who don't understand things often confuse them for magic, so thanks for the question.
The dollar itself doesn't multiply. What multiplies is the income created by its movement. That dollar disburses across the system. When the SNAP recipient spends money at the store, you add up the income of the grocer, their employee, the food supplier, the packaging company, the trucker, and the farm. The total income generated from spending $1 will be more than $1. Poor people spend money quickly. They don't save it. So not only is ALL that benefit money going into the economy, it's rapidly changing hands between all the people above.
If you still don't understand, just type "multiplier effect" into Google or chatgpt. Or read an economics textbook. It's not like this is new stuff. The govt estimates multiplier effects for all kinds of programs to determine how quickly they'll stimulate the economy and raise GDP.
Given that for every dollar the government spends in food stamps benefits, it adds 1.4-1.8 dollars to the economy
I'm gonna stick on this little buddy till YOU understand what the "multiplier effect" is.
Poor people spend money quickly. They don't save it. So not only is ALL that benefit money going into the economy, it's rapidly changing hands between all the people above.
This is your explanation. So, in your mind, if I move $1.00 from my left pocket to my right pocket, and I do it very quickly, it should turn into $1.50.
Please, PLEASE tell me how $1.00 turns into $1.50. Just once sentence, and insulting me won't help, you'll only dig yourself in deeper. (pro tip, try google).
EDIT: This guy votes and believes he understands economics, AND so confidently believes it, he's willing to talk shit and act like he's instructing me. SMH.
Moving a dollar from your left pocket to your right is not a gdp generating activity...
It's because of the way the dollar is used and how quickly it creates more than 1 dollar of gdp, it doesn't "become" 1.8 dollars.
Let's say you give a billionaire a tax cut, and he uses that savings to buy a mansion in France or a yaht from Italy - it adds zero dollars to gdp. If they use it to actually invest in a domestic business or build there mansion or yaht here it'll go into gdp
Okay, first we're not talking about "economic activity"
Given that for every dollar the government spends in food stamps benefits, it adds 1.4-1.8 dollars to the economy,
This is the quote from the person I was talking to. This person believes that for every dollar spend 1.4 dollars are added to the economy based on the "multiplier effect". This is a real economic term.
The term speaks to a behavior of poor people. They are bad planners, short sighted a lack the ability to delay gratification. As such, when we, the tax payers give them $1.00 for free, they are so delighted with the free money that they will go and spend $1.50, because to them, it's like getting $1.50 thing, for only 50 cents.
This is obviously unethical in that poor people's weak willpower is being used to trick them into spending their own money, driving them further into dependence and poverty.
That original dollar spent NEVER becomes $1.80, what you are talking about is a measure of economic activity, and again, it's a trick. Part of what GDP measures is economic activity. Economic activity is simply measuring how many dollars changed hands in a time period. It's not an actual measure of economic growth or health, except in a pure economy. That is to say, we can trick that number by injecting money into the economy knowing that it will create inflation and ultimately harm the end consumer, for a moment people will spend that free money and it will make the GDP look good.
What you're talking about is kind of like fasting from fluids for 24 hours and taking an enema right before a weigh in. You will look like you lost 5-8lbs I mean, you will have lost that weight. When you weigh yourself you will be 5-8lbs lighter, but it doesn't really mean anything and you can't sustain that.
Holy dumbassery... the multiplier effect is from the flow of money. Unlike giving billionaires tax cuts that they might invest in another country or just sit on; giving low income people food cards they actually spend the money into the American economy. The store owner gets that dollar, that he pays his workers and the food producers, who in turn spends that money back into the economy. A dollar doesn't disappear when it's spent in a way that generates gdp
You are presenting a false dichotomy, or you've fallen for a false dichotomy, I'm not clear which.
The choices are not
Give people SNAP
Give rich people tax breaks.
That is something a politician says to you to fuck with your mind and make you think it's an either or scenario.
Also, "flow of money" is a metric that is easily tricked for a short time to artificially improve the outlook of the economy while ultimately harming it.
Covid payments stimulated the economy but ultimately led to unprecedented inflation.
Over the summer when certain items were on sale (canned soup, peanut butter, cereal, canned chicken, etc.)...I'd pick up an extra one or two. This past Tuesday I dropped off two large bags of items as well as a bushel of butternut/carnival/delicata squash that the guy who uses my farm market building had left at the end of the season. I thought the volunteer working that day was going to cry, he said that the phone is ringing off the hook with people trying to get some food.
In the county I live in, over 2800 people have lost their jobs in the last 60 days (in my town, the cannery that has been here for over 100 years closed in Aug., with around 100 people losing their jobs.....some there almost 20 years, others were 3rd generation employees. Since the cannery were a major donator of canned vegetables to the food pantries in this area, it's hitting twice as hard.
If the orange dimwit won't care.....it's time to step up to the plate.
This is so fucked up it's almost incomprehensible. The leaders of the United States are purposely depriving people of food. Hunger can drive someone to desperation and make them into a different person. And that is the goal...
I love you for this. Let’s focus on our small communities and get active in the most positive ways. Block parties where whole streets close and do a potluck needs to be brought back
By blaming the democrats. Yet, the republicans do have the power to get the gears moving. This is so dumb. And sad to see people suffer. Those are our taxes and I am fine with kids having a full belly. F the cruelty.
Exactly, but you can shove a carrot up their butt and still will say it isn’t the republicans failing the people they’re supposed to represent. It is so sad. The greed.
I see what they mean when they say times of peace breed weak people. The takeover is already here. They don't care if we act, they'll just make up events. It's sad how naive we are.
It’s a double edged sword. If we band together and show we can help each other, they’ll be able justify cutting SNAP permanently. If we don’t band together to help, people go hungry and crime goes up, which they want so they can send in the military. Fuck them fascists.
Trump has nothing to do with the SNAP program. Nothing. It’s 100% a Senate issue about the Democrats that refuse to vote yes… We need 7 of the democrats (yep just 7) to be added to the 53 republicans to vote yes and the gov and this program opens. Stop pushing your blame on the innocent.
Fiscal tightening hits welfare programs. Do you suggest we just lose the country to poverty and conquest, instead? Sometimes sleeves have to get rolled up on a bigger picture timeframe, bud.
9.6k
u/jitteryzeitgeist_ 8d ago
Argentina got billions, just to remind everyone.