Cute but sad

[minx]

Was working the food pantry yesterday.  New client came in.  Grandma, mom and little girl (mom's daughter).  All in the same household.

Little girl was cute as a button.  For one we had cereal which is unusual (but we ran out of milk), and 7-11 had donated a case of mini donuts that were reaching their good-by date (and I want to note that 7-11 is really good on doing this - they donate cases and cases of snacks and chips that aren't 'expired' but near their due date).

Anyway, since we never get enough to actually pack these items in the food boxes (plus we don't want things like donuts or chips to go stale), we put them out in shopping carts before you check in - the cereal says 'Take one' and the treats say 'Take two'.  This week someone also donated some sanitary napkins, so we put them in the 'Take Two' bin as well.

Mom took two packs of napkins and a box of corn flakes that the little girl chose.  It was near the end of the day, and we had plenty of donut packages left, so while mom was carrying out the box of canned goods, I asked grandma if donuts were okay - she looked at me a little questionably and said they were.  I asked the little girl if she wanted some donuts.  She looked at me very seriously - pointed at the corn flakes and said "These are mine".  I told her that I knew that and she made a great choice - corn flakes were delicious, weren't they?  But if she'd like, her grandma said she could have some donuts too.

She put her hands on the table and looked at me "Donuts?"  I leaned down, put my arms on the table and looked her in the eye too - "I think donuts are really good - I love them."  "I do too."  "Would she like some?"

She looks at grandma who is now holding a pack of donuts with a smile.  She grabbed them and was hugging them - "For me?"  "I say yes and asked if she was going to let mama and grandmama have some"  "Oh yes, they can have two!"

She was three and so, so adorable and so sweet, not to mention that she was very clear-spoken for a three year old - whip smart for sure.

When they left she was waving by and yelling to me "Thank you grandma!"  Then she blew kisses.

So sweet, but so heartbreaking.  Grandma was staying home with the little girl so mama could work.  And they made too much to qualify for any assistance, but no enough to afford food.

It's so wrong.  I like being able to help people out, and get them *something* to eat for the week, but it's infuriating to see so many people who are decent folks in that line.  And a lot of people who are older than I am are regulars.  It's simply not right.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Think about how much food goes into dumpsters behind grocery stores now that the most prosperous country in the world haa essentially made it illegal to donate. I remember when several organizations used to send out trucks to the stores to pick it all up and then one day it stopped. Someone decided the food was BAD because of the dates and that poor people would sue.

I hope that sweet angel remembers your kindness and passes it along some day later in her life.

[minx]

This will fry your bacon for sure.

In the past, when we gave folks their bag of frozen food, if someone said they didn't want an item we'd take it back.

So if you didn't want fish for example, you could give back the fish and we could give it to some else who wanted it (we did try to see if we had something extra we could substitute - some weeks we did, others we didn't).
Now we can't do that - if you don't want something and the person behind you doesn't want it, we have to throw it out - USDA 'food safety' rules.

Never mind the multiple people who handled this FULLY WRAPPED package before my hands or yours touched it. You touch it, then I can't restock. I can't even describe how pissed off this makes me!

And you can donate as long as the food bank receives it before the best by or sell date - for things like meats (including lunch meat) it has to be frozen before that date. And they won't take canned goods that are too close to the expiration date because there's no guarantee it can be given out before then.

I do get not wanting to pass out fresh food after the expiration date - after all you don't want to give someone sour milk or moldy bread. But I think they should be able to donate cans and jarred food near the expiration date and allow pantry clients to pick and choose. It's not hard to put a pile of cans of spaghetti sauce into a cart and say 'choose one' - if people don't want them, it's okay.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

I'm going to have to pause before I continue to read your reply because I had to IMMEDIATELY respond to USDA Rules.


I can't remember... Did the mother of all enemies of big government and government regulation ever try to eliminate any that were designed to not starve suffocate or poison the population?

And shame on any liberal that can't get their heads out of their asses to realize that over regulation is a thing and you need to use your head not your law degree.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

You said it was gonna burn my ass....

[k9krap]

On a similar note, I was listening to a mattress ad earlier that promoted returning it after using it for 3 months if unsatisfied. There used to be a law forbidding resale of used mattresses. Does that still not exist? Ewwwwwww!

[Dave's Not Here Man]

I'm sure NONE of those make it back to the shelf. That would be unethical.

[minx]

Yup - none of them do - same with pillows, shoes, and more pieces of clothing than you can imagine.
Don't know what happens to the mattresses, but lots of the other stuff gets sold to wholesalers in huge pallets - they then resell them in 'bin' and overstock stores. There's one in Fburg.

And wouldn't it be nice if the USDA spent as much time inspecting poultry plants and meat processing facilities as they do on preventing people from getting food who need it?

[Dave's Not Here Man]

I wonder if rob witless ever spent a day at the food bank or if he has ever taken a look at how they work, or God forbid talk to the people that rely on them to help feed their children, or God forbid twice, the little girl herself. Maybe to him WIC is just one of the stocks he was illegally trading.

If it was me in that office I'd be on the ground every day with people everywhere in my community, but sadly no one is going to fund a campaign for We. Look no further for a greater example of us vs them.

[minx]

I doubt most politicians have. They don't even have to pass the food out - let them pack some boxes then ask them if they could make meals for a family of 4 with the contents. Cause I sure as hell am stumped when it comes to that.

And I will say that I don't expect most politicians to have boots on the ground, especially if you represent someplace like Hawaii and have to be in DC. BUT, they should have staff who have boots on the ground and do things like visit food pantries, talk with workers at the local plants, meet with teachers and parents about schools and hold regular town halls. That way they can pass feedback to that representative to let them know the lowdown on shit.

And those staffers should be required to meet with ALL people in that district, regardless of their political leanings. So if the person is Republican, they'd have to have staffers who go to areas that are liberal in the district and vice versa. Twill never happen of course.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

They don't even live in the districts they represent anymore so I'm going to have to disagree until they do, I'm not letting them off the hook by letting their teams take the pulse. There's got to be time to know the people you represent personally or the office is just politics. Then there's this silly perception of someone who hasn't lived here/has roots here here coming to my neighborhood and telling me my way is better for everyone. And of course on the opposite side you have the good ol boys never shooting straight about anything including their cut of the business. Or all the above with the same last names as all the roads buildings and stores.




Geez. I need more meds and a mouth guard.

[minx]

I think there also needs to be better vetting of a candidate's residence. Hard proof of property ownership or rentals (cause not everyone who runs may own property). And proof that you reside there when you're not performing government duties.

Enough of this shit where congressmen (I'm looking at you Tuberville) claim to be living in one state, but spend all their time in another one. And since I'm a total bitch, I'm not above saying that you have to check in once a week somewhere locally. Maybe rotate it - the grocery store for one check-in (and yes, you have to go through the place and mingle with shoppers), the local rec center for another, a school, the food bank, and any other place we can think of - have signed proof that you were there.

Hell, I'd be for twice a week checks at places throughout the district - show that you're really belong there. You can be like most Americans and take a week or two of vacation, but that's it.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

www.wric.com/news/virginia-news/changes-to-snap-benefit-eligibility-requirements-take-effect-sept-1-heres-how-you-could-be-impacted/

[minx]

As I've always said "define able-bodied" If I can't afford a car and there's no transit near me, will my able-bodiness require me to walk to work and back?

I think everyone is in agreement that people who are fully capable of work and have work opportunities that they have transport to, should take advantage of those opportunities.
And we're all in agreement that there are people who abuse the system.

But cutting off people's food as a punishment for not 'trying hard enough' to find a job is beyond cruel.

Last time I was on unemployment was 8 years ago. At that time you had to have three 'verifiable' job applications each week to keep receiving benefits. 'Verifiable' meaning that you had talked to someone either over the phone or in person so you had a contact name and number, and a physical address for the company.

My areas of expertise are customer service, call centers, medical billing and accounting and computer support. Guess how many jobs there are for that that allow you to apply in person, let alone talk to their HR department over the phone. It was a total joke and my full-time stressful job became trying to find and document something each week to qualify. Still hasn't changed, even though you have to apply online for jobs almost everywhere and have no verifiable proof that you did.

But you know my able-bodied ass was about to be called in to the employment commission to explain my lack of continued employment because it was close to the 26 week mark. Luckily a job finally came through at the 11th hour so I could avoid that humiliating ordeal. And we're not even adding in the trauma from my previous job where I was laid off for no damn reason (we have to cut costs - strangely, I was the only one laid off, and they had to pay at least $6k to train my replacement).

The whole thing is just total bullshit to humiliate people and deter them from applying for programs that should be helping them.

Want me to rant some more? Cause I can rant about this shit all year long!

[Dave's Not Here Man]

This could easily turn into rant cited in future expose's, college theses, and forensic psyhcology lectures.


Without diving into a extended rant of my own (almost dinner time) - Some people cheat the system and don't give a fiddler's fuck and that's a problem. Some people are willing to look the other way and that's a problem. Some people are willing to shut down the entire thing based on a song and that's a problem. Some people want to punish and shame the poor from the seats of government and that, is a problem.

Call me an idiot and fuck me for trying but how about we organize some sort of effort to bring the system under control in some kind of way that would give everyone a little of what they want except for the flat out cheaters. In my opinion they are snatching food right from the mouths of hungry children. I'm not talking about the one that doesn't report the $150 cash made cleaning someone's house and not reporting it. I'm talking about the ones that have more and more children while on public assistance. For example.

[minx]

First reform I would make is removing the penalty for being married - so many people couldn't get married because one of the couple would lose eligibility, even though the other wasn't making enough to support a family.
I personally think this resulted in a lot of men shirking their responsibility towards their children, and a lot of women simply banning a man from their child's life.

Second, as much as it pains me to say, I wouldn't restrict benefits based on your reproductive history. All that will do is put women in a position of not seeking pre-natal care, which would have negative outcomes for the resulting baby. And we can't say that we won't provide for that baby. However, reproductive care should be heavily pushed and if a woman decides that she doesn't want to have more children, she should be allowed to have her tubes ties with no questions asked.
As an aside, you cannot believe how difficult this is - my youngest has been adamant from when she was a teen that she does NOT want children. She's now 28 and has yet to find a doctor who will tie her tubes. Why? Oh, she's 'still young' and might change her mind later. And what if her future husband wants children? What then? How does her boyfriend feel about this? - I kid you not. These are all questions she has been asked, by multiple doctors! Before I got married I worked with a 25 year old married woman with 2 kids. She and her husband adored them, but they both agreed that two was enough - she also couldn't find a doctor who would tie her tubes, despite bringing her husband to the appointment - why? Again, she was 'too young' to make this decision. - I could go on for hours on this.

[minx]

My second reform would be to wean people off the system so that getting a job wouldn't mean total disaster.

My friend was on SSDI and Medicare. When she got a job, her SSDI was put on hold. If the job didn't work out, she didn't need to go through all the hoops to re-qualify. She could file the paperwork and her benefits would resume. This was a huge, huge thing and helped influence her decision to try a FT job from home. She tends to crash in the middle of the day, and her employer was willing to accommodate that - she could take a two hour lunch for example and work an extra hour to make up for that time. Her fear was that when she was under the strain and stress of a FT job that the crash would be a lot more than 2 hours and she'd lose her job because she didn't have the stamina to keep going through the rest of the day. Her Medicare continued for 6 more months, so she had the bridge to her company's health insurance.

A year and a half later, the job is working out and she has dropped Medicare completely and has not had to go back on SSDI. But without that bridge, she wouldn't have risked FT work - the financial cost of failure was way too high. And I truly believe that many people on assistance feel the same way - they want to do more (no one wants to be poor after all), but doing more means losing that assistance and having to go through the process from the beginning if you take that leap of faith and fail. So, maybe having an overlap period of three to four months - your benefits will still be there, and things like SNAP, Medicaid and housing assistance won't stop. After that period, the benefits will gradually drop off until in 6 months you'll be on your own.

That way you aren't sitting on the edge of the cliff looking down at the fall. You're more focused on the trail ahead.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

The first thing I would do is bring the country's attention to the conservative agenda to the Defund The Poor. 


"able-bodied, work requirements, welfare queens, drug tests" all those are dogwhistles. People need to change the channel on that shit. I don't know one single democrat, liberal or progressive, or have ever met one in my entire life that was okay with someone that was simply just lazy getting benefits of any kind. But that's exactly how that side is portrayed with these dog whistles.

[minx]

As always John, you nailed it!

And a good way to start would be to show the 'faces' of the people who receive these benefits.

We don't need to see the actual person, as an actor could stand in for them, but hear their story.
The actor would be the same race and age as the person's story.
So if we were doing John, it would a white man.
"My name is John, and ....."

Run the ads constantly, regardless of it's election season or not. "These are the stories of your neighbors, your fellow church members, your child's classmates. Republicans want you to think that they're lazy, stupid and undeserving of help. Call your representative and tell them to vote against further restrictions on benefits" And have the goddamned name and phone number on the screen of that person.

Probably pie-in-the-sky thinking, but maybe, just maybe if people saw that people who receive government benefits aren't all scammers, drug addicts or 'breeders' then they might start to wake up and realize that people need real help.