I think I need to edit to say that the reservations are good examples of lots of VERY BAD things
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
News Us politics - read first post before comment
- Post starter anthony
- Start date
- Status
I think I need to edit to say that the reservations are good examples of lots of VERY BAD things
You know some states do not tax clothing, but they do have tax on clothing that are considered luxury item such as coats with fur, swim suits, leathers. Its called a luxury tax. I think it would be possible for supermarkets to label some as luxury foods and EBT card limit that, but then again, I also don't mind kids having a little debbie in their lunch.
Just another thought about the box scheme.
The food stamps / cards attempt to remove choice - they're supposed to be only spent on food. The 50% exchange rate between food stamps and cash is a telling indictment of how strongly that restriction is resented.
The boxes remove another level of choice. Recipients will only be able to receive what a bureaucracy decides they can have
It makes sure that programs to bulk buy crap products from cronies, can continue.
By definition, the bulk sales must be at prices that are very attractive to the producers, otherwise the producers wouldn't be selling to the government, they'd be selling the stuff elsewhere.
The box scheme proposal is pretty clearly serving the bureaucracy and selected producers, and hurting those on food stamps (look at the 50% exchange rate)
And hurting thone who have to pay for it all one way or another.
If the money wasn't taken in taxes, it would be spent, and people would be getting paid for working on the products that the money would be spent on.
Back in about the 1830s in England, the parish based "poor rates" had reached such levels that farms were being abandoned, the rates charged to support the "poor" exceeded what the businesses could pay without collapsing.
There was also a restriction on people moving from the parish of their birth, to take up work however desperately workers were needed, because if they fell on hard times, the new parish might be called on to support them.
Following reform. Most of the people who'd been partially or wholly supported by poor relief, found jobs that supported them at a better level than the relief had. There's an interesting account given in Herbert Spencer's "the man against the state" of Spencer's uncle, a clergyman in the Mendip Hills of Somerset.
The uncle had started off as a supporter of the old system of poor rates, but had read up on the debates, and had energetically reformed the system in his parish.
When, several years later, he died, the former "poor" people of the parish were very much in evidence as mourners at his funeral.
I have little doubt that the transition of the reforms was hard for them, but the end result appears to have been favourable for the former dependants.
The contradictions are far clearer when the system was at the small scale of a parish.
Sumptuary law - Wikipedia
The food stamps / cards attempt to remove choice - they're supposed to be only spent on food. The 50% exchange rate between food stamps and cash is a telling indictment of how strongly that restriction is resented.
The boxes remove another level of choice. Recipients will only be able to receive what a bureaucracy decides they can have
It makes sure that programs to bulk buy crap products from cronies, can continue.
By definition, the bulk sales must be at prices that are very attractive to the producers, otherwise the producers wouldn't be selling to the government, they'd be selling the stuff elsewhere.
The box scheme proposal is pretty clearly serving the bureaucracy and selected producers, and hurting those on food stamps (look at the 50% exchange rate)
And hurting thone who have to pay for it all one way or another.
If the money wasn't taken in taxes, it would be spent, and people would be getting paid for working on the products that the money would be spent on.
Back in about the 1830s in England, the parish based "poor rates" had reached such levels that farms were being abandoned, the rates charged to support the "poor" exceeded what the businesses could pay without collapsing.
There was also a restriction on people moving from the parish of their birth, to take up work however desperately workers were needed, because if they fell on hard times, the new parish might be called on to support them.
Following reform. Most of the people who'd been partially or wholly supported by poor relief, found jobs that supported them at a better level than the relief had. There's an interesting account given in Herbert Spencer's "the man against the state" of Spencer's uncle, a clergyman in the Mendip Hills of Somerset.
The uncle had started off as a supporter of the old system of poor rates, but had read up on the debates, and had energetically reformed the system in his parish.
When, several years later, he died, the former "poor" people of the parish were very much in evidence as mourners at his funeral.
I have little doubt that the transition of the reforms was hard for them, but the end result appears to have been favourable for the former dependants.
The contradictions are far clearer when the system was at the small scale of a parish.
Sumptuary law - Wikipedia
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 41765
Whoa!!! I was not AT ALL saying it was a good model, it's a travesty!!! I was being sarcastic. And yes I have been on a rez. Easy does it there!!
I FULLY agree. I was writing in a rush, and my meaning was not clear!!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Justmehere
Sponsor
Good to know you were being scarastic! Whew.... ya had me worried there a second. :) ;)
Changing the subject...
HR620 is a bill being voted on TOMORROW. It will GUT the Americans With Disabilties Act.
Even right leaning “The Hill” is against it: http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...the-civil-rights-of-the-disabled-harms-us-all
Changing the subject...
HR620 is a bill being voted on TOMORROW. It will GUT the Americans With Disabilties Act.
Even right leaning “The Hill” is against it: http://thehill.com/opinion/civil-ri...the-civil-rights-of-the-disabled-harms-us-all
DharmaGirl
VIP Member
My mom was head of the welfare fraud department in a state I won't mention. After 10 years of investigations and recovery of funds, it was found that the fraud that did go on, which wasn't much, didn't even support the cost of the fraud department. So, all the stories are mainly stories in my mind. I just got my food stamps cut because I am now getting child support, and I'm happy to take less, so others can have more. I can buy what I want with child support, since it is back child support. I don't care if anyone else buys pop and candy, I was thinking about the senator who made the remark that people on food stamps shouldn't buy steak or lobster. It should be forbidden. Really? I buy steak when it goes half price, but he didn't mention candy and pop.
I feel grateful for all the help I get, since getting severe PTSD was not my choice. I really don't want a food box though, since I don't use a lot of what's in there. It would be wasteful for me, and I wouldn't get the food I need.
I feel grateful for all the help I get, since getting severe PTSD was not my choice. I really don't want a food box though, since I don't use a lot of what's in there. It would be wasteful for me, and I wouldn't get the food I need.
It's okay, I got your meaning.
I was just making sure that what I was writing couldn't be interpreted as saying anything good about those centrally planned hell holes.
Imo doing away with the entire Blm and department for interior (or whatever it's called now) would be a good move.
Communism of land in the West is a continuing disaster.
I was just making sure that what I was writing couldn't be interpreted as saying anything good about those centrally planned hell holes.
Imo doing away with the entire Blm and department for interior (or whatever it's called now) would be a good move.
Communism of land in the West is a continuing disaster.
@Justmehere
What's the reason that's being given for public consumption for the rolling back?
I'm a fan of total repeal of the whole statute book immediately , but if we hadn't a gradual repeal, the disabilities acts would be at the bottom of my repeal priority list.
What's given the politicians viagra about it now?
What's the reason that's being given for public consumption for the rolling back?
I'm a fan of total repeal of the whole statute book immediately , but if we hadn't a gradual repeal, the disabilities acts would be at the bottom of my repeal priority list.
What's given the politicians viagra about it now?
D
Deleted member 41765
:)Lesson learned. Will not attempt that again!!!
Justmehere
Sponsor
I'm having terrible difficulty finding anyone in favor of it, or even politicians explaining why they are in favor of it...
It will allow business to discriminate against those with disabilities without repressions. Some in business might think it will save them money, but there are solid arguments to the contrary, and I can't find anything being publicly said by any business, for good cause, that they are in support of this measure and exclusion of people with disabilities. It's all being done by back door lobbying.
I'm all for less regulation in some areas, but not this! Without the ADA, I would not be able to work, travel, navigate a grocery store (food stamps or not!) etc, etc.
Nah, don't avoid it because of my thick skull... :)
Could it just be political revenge against a lobbyield get organisation for the heinous sin of not making sufficient political contributions? It does seem very strange.
As far as personal repercussions go, I wouldn't be expecting many employers to look unfavourably at employees with disabilities.
We all have things that we're comparatively not so good at, and things that we're comparatively not so bad at.
That's the basis of the "Law of comparative advantage" / "law of association" (usually attributed to David Ricardo, but it was more likely his assistant, John mill).
It's those differences that makes it worthwhile for everyone to participate in a division of labour. We don't have to have an absolute advantage, we just need to do what we are comparatively least bad at doing.
Lobbying organisation
D'oh, James mill,
Father of John Stewart
As far as personal repercussions go, I wouldn't be expecting many employers to look unfavourably at employees with disabilities.
We all have things that we're comparatively not so good at, and things that we're comparatively not so bad at.
That's the basis of the "Law of comparative advantage" / "law of association" (usually attributed to David Ricardo, but it was more likely his assistant, John mill).
It's those differences that makes it worthwhile for everyone to participate in a division of labour. We don't have to have an absolute advantage, we just need to do what we are comparatively least bad at doing.
Lobbying organisation
D'oh, James mill,
Father of John Stewart
Sorry for going off last night, I got a surge of anger remembering times long gone and emotionally flooded as I hadn't thought about how difficult those times were in a long time.
The boxed foods are going to create a lot of issues for people with food allergies or special diets. Are they going to have special boxes that are diabetic friendly? Gluten intolerant? Or are they just going to base them of of the crappy government food pyramid that only works for some people?
Personally, I can't eat gluten, and need a low fiber diet due to malabsorption issues and a high iron diet. I do better on a high omega 3 fats and high protien diet, my husband on the other hand does better on a lower fat, lower protein diet. Everyone, has different nutritional needs and I have a feeling these boxed meals are going to make a lot of people either sicker or sicker than they already are. That is going to cause a problem with the medical industry and insurance. Boxed food is going to be expensive down the road.
The boxed foods are going to create a lot of issues for people with food allergies or special diets. Are they going to have special boxes that are diabetic friendly? Gluten intolerant? Or are they just going to base them of of the crappy government food pyramid that only works for some people?
Personally, I can't eat gluten, and need a low fiber diet due to malabsorption issues and a high iron diet. I do better on a high omega 3 fats and high protien diet, my husband on the other hand does better on a lower fat, lower protein diet. Everyone, has different nutritional needs and I have a feeling these boxed meals are going to make a lot of people either sicker or sicker than they already are. That is going to cause a problem with the medical industry and insurance. Boxed food is going to be expensive down the road.
- Status
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
