Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 4:46:00 PM (view original):
LOL.   Post deleting bastard. 

I misunderstood a statement you made.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 4:46:00 PM (view original):
What if they spend $100 at McD's every week?   Problem?

The idea isn't for the government to make you healthy, it's to get you off welfare. If you want your "money coach" to mention "You know, it's not completely smart to eat McDonalds for every meal" that's fine, I guess.

Which one?   Because your response was "If you're spending $100 a week on shoes, there's a problem."   Which led to $100 at McD's per week question.    Dad, mom, two kids could easily spend $15 on a McD's meal. 

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 4:46:00 PM (view original):
What if they spend $100 at McD's every week?   Problem?

The idea isn't for the government to make you healthy, it's to get you off welfare. If you want your "money coach" to mention "You know, it's not completely smart to eat McDonalds for every meal" that's fine, I guess.

Why shouldn't the govt be concerned with your health if you're getting assistance.   Obesity creates all sorts of health problems.   If you're getting govt assistance now, you're damn sure going to need it when you can't work due to medical conditions.

Big picture.

I forgot what I said, if you caught it, congrats, it was up for maybe 10 seconds.

And yes, you don't need to spend $100 a week on shoes. That is a problem. $100 a week on McDonalds is at least food to keep you alive. If you want this person, in this program, to spend money on other food, ok, we can recommend that if you want.

Here's the thing:

I advocated that anyone receiving govt assistance is required to show up for classes, training or work in order to receive a check.   Your "life advisor" can certainly be part of the process.   Smart spending, healthy eating, skills training, minor job duties, whatever.    But, when you have a captive audience, try to teach them something.   Then give them their check and if they stop at the liquor store, buy a bottle and some smokes, hit McD's and pass out, well, you've done all you can do.   Because they're going to do those things some way, some how even if you try to restrict them from it.    And probably want it more because you told them they shouldn't.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 4:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 2/6/2015 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 4:46:00 PM (view original):
What if they spend $100 at McD's every week?   Problem?

The idea isn't for the government to make you healthy, it's to get you off welfare. If you want your "money coach" to mention "You know, it's not completely smart to eat McDonalds for every meal" that's fine, I guess.

Why shouldn't the govt be concerned with your health if you're getting assistance.   Obesity creates all sorts of health problems.   If you're getting govt assistance now, you're damn sure going to need it when you can't work due to medical conditions.

Big picture.

So the point you're making is that there's going to be a significant amount of people who will be buying more unhealthy food in this program because the government is paying more attention to where your money is being spent? And we'd be worse off for it?

I think the change in type of food consumption isn't going to vary greatly.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/6/2015 4:57:00 PM (view original):
Here's the thing:

I advocated that anyone receiving govt assistance is required to show up for classes, training or work in order to receive a check.   Your "life advisor" can certainly be part of the process.   Smart spending, healthy eating, skills training, minor job duties, whatever.    But, when you have a captive audience, try to teach them something.   Then give them their check and if they stop at the liquor store, buy a bottle and some smokes, hit McD's and pass out, well, you've done all you can do.   Because they're going to do those things some way, some how even if you try to restrict them from it.    And probably want it more because you told them they shouldn't.

If you want my financial coach to be more of a life coach, I'd be ok with that. But I wouldn't be for taking anyone off welfare because they're eating too much McDonalds. The idea would be the threat of being taken off if you're spending your money irrationally. 

I want them to not want to use McD's as their main source of nourishment.    But I know I can't make them.    Much like you can't make them not smoke.  

The difference is that McD's IS nourishment. It's not great, but it serves a purpose. 

Smoking serves no purpose, and is more expensive. Horrible financial decision.

You have to walk past millions of better nourishment options in order to eat as McD's.     It's a horrible health decision.

Although I've never been a smoker, I've seen many stressed out folks chill after taking a long drag off a smoke.   They'd say "Bullshit.  It calms my nerves."  No idea if there's some truth to it but, if they believe it, it works. 

I can make the same argument about the beers I'm about to drink too. So I'm doing that. Enjoy your weekend.

We're not on welfare.   So we can drink, smoke, eat fast food and buy expensive shoes if we want.    We're discussing getting other people to be in the same situation without govt assistance.

The real problem with welfare isn't welfare itself, it is that by the time the people on welfare go get a job and then they take taxes out of the paychecks, pay for a babysitter, pay for gas to get to work, etc, etc... there is nothing left. Which would you do? Put in 40 hours a week and give your check to the government, the babysitter, the petroleum company etc, etc, or stay at home and collect your welfare check, watch TV, smoke cigarettes, drink booze, and make more babies so you get a bigger welfare check, etc, etc....????

Want to get people off of welfare? Make it more attractive to them to get a job. This could be done a couple of ways just for starters.
1.Raise the minimum wage to at least $12 and hour. Work a full year and you'd make $25,000. Still nothing to brag about but if both mom and dad both do this it's $50,000 and a step in the right direction. This would apply only to corporate companies, like WalMart, McD's, etc... Small Mom & Pop businesses would not have to pay the $12 an hour as that could put a financial burden on their businesses and cause them to go out of business. Excuse me, but the Millionaires and Billionaires like Walmart can afford it. 
2.Stop taking taxes out of paychecks unless you earn more than the minimum wage. Gives the lower working class more money to spend throughout the year and the incentive to keep working. Hey, keep 'em off welfare and it's a win win! Which would cost more, the welfare check or the loss of taxes coming in? I'd bet welfare.