Food Stamps

[Jayhawker Soule]

If its one thing Islam teaches me, it is that one has to take care of the needy in whatever means are possible. Even if all you can offer is a smile or an ear, you give it. ...

:clap yes

 

[Sir Doom]

Still neither Athens nor Rome. 'Sides, we're a republic first and a democracy second.

I didn't say we were Athens or Rome. I said democracy.

Such people don't yet have any means of getting their voices heard. But that's changing.

I don't think its changing at all.

'Sides, I knew Obama was corrupt. I didn't think he was craven.

And you voted for him anyway? Why? You intentionally put a corrupt politician in office? And this is supposed to be an argument against what I'm saying?

 

[Curious George]

Here is a really common sight that I've witnessed first hand multiple times at different grocery stores: a person in the check out line, talking on their iPhone, with a shopping cart full of steaks, no other groceries, just steaks, and "pay" with food stamps.

It don't take a rocket scientist to know that all they are going to do is sell it.

But does that mean that we should cut funding to the social welfare programs or that we should better organize the social welfare programs to ensure that the people who need the aid receive the aid?

There are plenty of people who will happily allow their children to get less in order to buy a bottle of booze. That does not mean that their children need less though.

 

[Curious George]

And you voted for him anyway? Why? You intentionally put a corrupt politician in office? And this is supposed to be an argument against what I'm saying?

I am not so sure that the argument works to serve any purpose but to further discourage voting.

While I agree that a lot of problems do exist in the political system in the U.S., no change will ever bring a person to office that wants precisely what you want. That is not how a republic is supposed to function. Ideally, you would have more choices and you would choose the candidate that best represents your views. Limiting the candidates to only two real choices certainly creates a larger disparity between what you want and what you get. However, choosing not to participate will hardly cure this problem. The cure is to engage even more actively. If one chooses not to participate in the voting process but actively engages in other political endeavors and attempts to change the voting process, I understand. However, I do not understand not engaging in the political system at all.

 

[Riverwolf]

I didn't say we were Athens or Rome. I said democracy.

Athens was a democracy. Rome was a republic. We're neither.

I don't think its changing at all.

Internet.

And you voted for him anyway? Why? You intentionally put a corrupt politician in office? And this is supposed to be an argument against what I'm saying?

It's impossible to vote for a non-corrupt politician into office. Only corrupt people can be even remotely successful in politics, regardless of the system. Even the founding fathers recognized this. It's why we have the three-branches of government, checks-and-balances, democratic elections, and the Bill of Rights + Amendments: to minimize the damage corruption can do.

Sides, he was better than the alternatives.

 

[Riverwolf]

Here is a really common sight that I've witnessed first hand multiple times at different grocery stores: a person in the check out line, talking on their iPhone, with a shopping cart full of steaks, no other groceries, just steaks, and "pay" with food stamps.

It don't take a rocket scientist to know that all they are going to do is sell it.

I've NEVER seen it. Not so common, then, eh?

 

[Curious George]

I've NEVER seen it. Not so common, then, eh?

I will advocate for social welfare programs strongly; however, living in environments where many were recipients of social welfare programs I will not deny there is plenty of abuse. To some degree the abuse is impossible to completely eradicate. This abuse that we cannot remove is simply necessary to allow for the help we can provide.

There will be free-riders on nearly any social welfare system, charity, or aid. The logic that we, because of this, should deny those in need is foolish, selfish, cruel, and contrary to any level of common decency.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've NEVER seen it. Not so common, then, eh?

I would say it's much more common than voter fraud. But unless you know the person, there situation, and what exactly is happening, for the most part there is really no way of knowing if you are witnessing it or not.

 

[s2a]

I put this in "Religious Debates" because I think those who do have religious affiliations should deal with something probably more important than 90% of all the topics being discussed at this website.

The Republican-controlled House just today voted to reduce Federal food-stamp expenditures by $4 billion, and I just have to question the basic morality of that decision. But before my getting in to it, I wonder what you think? Please indicate your opinion in terms of your religious affiliation as I'm more interested in covering it from that angle

I'm starting this thread now, but I can't return back to see the results until Monday. Meanwhile, take care, and have a great weekend.

Technically and practically, as an "atheist", religion plays no part in my observations here... just speaking as another member of our collective species...

I might first quibble with your claim that your introduced topic of discussion being "something probably more important than 90% of all the topics being discussed at this website"... may meet with fair challenge.. but anyway...

I know my input somewhat defeats your larger intent in garnering religious persuasions as rationale supporting or disfavoring such a vote... but even unbelievers have a bit of a say too...

Most anyone that argues that poor people and many simply seeking just a minor helping hand (you know, those stereotypical lazy and mooching children, the elderly, in-firmed, laid-off workers living paycheck to paycheck, active military and veterans... those "47%"), those that allegedly live on steak and caviar with that additional $1.50 a day per meal...are simply not any of the above.

Praise to all the elder white guy millionaires or otherwise wealthy "reformers" who deem themselves most qualified to determine that "food" is a luxury item that is to be deemed affordable to "the rest of us".

Slackers. Opportunists. Freeloaders. Blood-sucking killers of the free market!

Whom might explain, how we, as a "free society" can EVER hope to fund such a free ride to um, Food?

You know who you are... you dang wailing and hungry kids of working poor parents!

Take that kids for having dumb parents that serve our nation in uniform! You should know better!

*sigh*

 

[Ingledsva]

Here is a really common sight that I've witnessed first hand multiple times at different grocery stores: a person in the check out line, talking on their iPhone, with a shopping cart full of steaks, no other groceries, just steaks, and "pay" with food stamps.

It don't take a rocket scientist to know that all they are going to do is sell it.

Yep, I've seen this too. I think there needs to be a limit on what you can buy with food stamps.

I also think there should be a child limit. The number of children you have when you first enter the Food stamp program - should be all they ever pay for from that point on. In other words - quite having babies you can't afford - forcing the rest of us to pay for them. They should also have to use a photo ID on the card to help prevent fraud.

With that said - I'm against the cuts, - but I am for a much needed work-over of the system.

*

 

[Curious George]

Yep, I've seen this too. I think there needs to be a limit on what you can buy with food stamps.

I also think there should be a child limit. The number of children you have when you first enter the Food stamp program - should be all they ever pay for from that point on. In other words - quite having babies you can't afford - forcing the rest of us to pay for them. They should also have to use a photo ID on the card to help prevent fraud.

With that said - I'm against the cuts, - but I am for a much needed work-over of the system.

*

There already are limits on what someone can buy with food stamps.

And as for the child limit-
Fractal wrongness - RationalWiki

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I've NEVER seen it. Not so common, then, eh?

I've never seen it, either. My mom and I are on food stamps. She works full time and its still not enough to pay bills and everything. I'm not able to work due to personal issues at the moment, but I'm working on those. The "money" given on that EBT card is only enough to buy food for one week. Oh, and you can only buy food and (non-alcoholic) drinks on it. You can't "cheat" it, lest someone think you're stocking up on beer and junk food. You can buy stuff like chips, I guess, but you can't buy candy with it. You have to focus on stretching meals to get through the week. Food isn't cheap at most of these grocery stores.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yep, I've seen this too. I think there needs to be a limit on what you can buy with food stamps.

I also think there should be a child limit. The number of children you have when you first enter the Food stamp program - should be all they ever pay for from that point on. In other words - quite having babies you can't afford - forcing the rest of us to pay for them. They should also have to use a photo ID on the card to help prevent fraud.

With that said - I'm against the cuts, - but I am for a much needed work-over of the system.

*

There already are restrictions. However things like soda, chips, Papa Murphies, and other junk foods should not be covered. I do not think there is anything unreasonable to expect and require people on food stamps to buy bread, milk and fruits and veggies rather than snack cakes, candy, and highly processed meats.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There already are restrictions. However things like soda, chips, Papa Murphies, and other junk foods should not be covered. I do not think there is anything unreasonable to expect and require people on food stamps to buy bread, milk and fruits and veggies rather than snack cakes, candy, and highly processed meats.

You can't buy candy, snack cakes and the like already. I don't see what the problem is with buying soda. Processed meat? What should we buy, then? Organic? You know how much that stuff costs? If you're poor you pretty much have to buy less healthy things just to be able to eat.

 

[Sir Doom]

Athens was a democracy. Rome was a republic. We're neither.

M'kay, so I can solve this disagreement pretty easily as long as you are willing to play along. When YOU say, "...democracy..." I will automatically assume that you mean, "...Athens and only Athens..." and when I say, "...democracy..." You can automatically assume I mean, "...a country within which the populace gets to vote..."

Deal?

Internet.

The internet? Really? As if the Democrats and Republicans are somehow unaware of the internet or just incapable of flooding it with their standard deluge of advertisements? Somehow, this revolutionary method of mass communication doesn't appeal to them?

It's impossible to vote for a non-corrupt politician into office. Only corrupt people can be even remotely successful in politics, regardless of the system.

Keep telling yourself that.

Even the founding fathers recognized this. It's why we have the three-branches of government, checks-and-balances, democratic elections, and the Bill of Rights + Amendments: to minimize the damage corruption can do.

Its working, too. Hence this thread.

Sides, he was better than the alternatives.

You said that already.

I am not so sure that the argument works to serve any purpose but to further discourage voting.

I'm not trying to discourage voting. I'm trying to do away with it altogether.

While I agree that a lot of problems do exist in the political system in the U.S., no change will ever bring a person to office that wants precisely what you want.

Thinking that what you want is more important than what is good for the country is the very essence of political corruption. And yet, this is exactly what democracy encourages in the populace. And we eat it up like a soup-sandwich.

That is not how a republic is supposed to function. Ideally, you would have more choices and you would choose the candidate that best represents your views.

No, ideally the best person for the job gets the job regardless of your views.

Limiting the candidates to only two real choices certainly creates a larger disparity between what you want and what you get. However, choosing not to participate will hardly cure this problem.

That isn't my problem. My problem is that people vote for what they want, not for what is best.

The cure is to engage even more actively. If one chooses not to participate in the voting process but actively engages in other political endeavors and attempts to change the voting process, I understand.

Maybe I should respond to some politically-themed threads, eh? Or are you suggesting I run for office?

However, I do not understand not engaging in the political system at all.

Its like a boycott. Only its just me so its thus far ineffective. Its likely to remain that way, of course. No one really takes me seriously, anyway.

 

[Riverwolf]

M'kay, so I can solve this disagreement pretty easily as long as you are willing to play along. When YOU say, "...democracy..." I will automatically assume that you mean, "...Athens and only Athens..." and when I say, "...democracy..." You can automatically assume I mean, "...a country within which the populace gets to vote..."

Deal?

Athens is just a model of democracy, not the only democratic city-state in the world.

When I say we're not a democracy, I mean that the people have virtually no say whatsoever in political affairs. In a democracy, the people would have such a say.

The internet? Really? As if the Democrats and Republicans are somehow unaware of the internet or just incapable of flooding it with their standard deluge of advertisements? Somehow, this revolutionary method of mass communication doesn't appeal to them?

I understand that many politicians still think that VCRs are cutting edge technology.

At the very least, they've demonstrated time and time again that they don't know the first thing about the internet. Sure, they know of it, but they don't know how it works or how to use it most effectively.

Keep telling yourself that.

'Tis what I've observed. Have you observed differently?

Its working, too. Hence this thread.

Barely.

You said that already.

Not sure if it's meaning has sunk in.

I'm not trying to discourage voting. I'm trying to do away with it altogether.

WHY?! It's an important part of the checks-and-balances system that you praised a moment ago. Without it, the "democratic" part of "democratic republic" goes away, and we risk tyranny.

 

[Sir Doom]

Athens is just a model of democracy, not the only democratic city-state in the world.

I know that. You didn't seem to.

When I say we're not a democracy, I mean that the people have virtually no say whatsoever in political affairs. In a democracy, the people would have such a say.

Then you should have said this instead of consistently repeating that we aren't Athens. Now I know precisely what you mean when you say we are not a democracy. This is not the definition of democracy that I understand and utilize, and more importantly has little or nothing to do with what I originally stated that prompted your smug condescension in the first place. But at least I know what your objection actually is, now.

In any case, what does 'a say' look like in your vision of a proper democracy?

I understand that many politicians still think that VCRs are cutting edge technology.

At the very least, they've demonstrated time and time again that they don't know the first thing about the internet. Sure, they know of it, but they don't know how it works or how to use it most effectively.

Now you're just being obtuse.

'Tis what I've observed. Have you observed differently?

Umm, no. I said that they were all corrupt from the outset. My comment was intended to ridicule you for rationalizing why you HAD to vote for someone you KNEW was corrupt. You didn't have a choice, right? You HAD to vote! Oh wait... no you didn't.

Barely.

Lol

Not sure if it's meaning has sunk in.

It has. You don't seem to understand my response. Allow me to clarify. Your position that you have no choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils is completely false. You have another choice. Don't vote at all.

WHY?! It's an important part of the checks-and-balances system that you praised a moment ago. Without it, the "democratic" part of "democratic republic" goes away, and we risk tyranny.

After all of that you think I'm FOR democracy? Are you serious?

 

[Cephus]

I am thinking, that's why I find cutting billions of dollars from social welfare programs to be inhuman, a travesty and a betrayal. If we need to cut the budget, let's cut a few hundred billion from the Pentagon. Shoot, with that money, you could give everyone healthcare, food, fix education and tons of other things.

There's something hideous about a country that seeks to gut its social services programs which only take relative pocket lint to run but has no issue with spending close to a trillion dollars a year on so-called "defense". This country has its priorities completely jacked up. We won't help our own people but we'll go bomb the hell out of others and set up military bases there.

Maybe you should start to think and stop swallowing Republican propaganda wholesale. If you want to talk about misuse of social services, maybe you should turn your eye to all the immigrants who come here and get almost everything handed to them on a silver platter while people who are born here and have lived there their whole lives have to struggle to get anything and many times, get nothing at all.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be cutting all that other stuff too, we need to live within our means, we need to stop borrowing trillions of dollars from China so we can spend more money than we actually have. That's not how a fiscally responsible state operates.

That said though, there are lots of people out there who are not being personally responsible for themselves as well. That means not living beyond your means, that means getting an education and job skills while you have a chance, that means not having children you cannot afford, etc. I know this shocks liberals who can't imagine having to rein in their actions, they expect the government to show up and pay for everything, but that's not the way it works. You need to be personally responsible for yourself, for your actions and for the consequences of those actions (or inactions). There's nothing wrong with a short-term welfare system that catches people when they fall and helps them get back on their feet, it's quite a different story when it's designed to keep them off their feet long term, or even permanently, and dependent on the Democratic Party.

Sorry if that gets in the way of your precious feelings.

 

[Tarheeler]

I put this in "Religious Debates" because I think those who do have religious affiliations should deal with something probably more important than 90% of all the topics being discussed at this website.

The Republican-controlled House just today voted to reduce Federal food-stamp expenditures by $4 billion, and I just have to question the basic morality of that decision. But before my getting in to it, I wonder what you think? Please indicate your opinion in terms of your religious affiliation as I'm more interested in covering it from that angle

I'm starting this thread now, but I can't return back to see the results until Monday. Meanwhile, take care, and have a great weekend.

Well, it was a good idea. Too bad most didn't want to play along.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not trying to discourage voting. I'm trying to do away with it altogether.

Thinking that what you want is more important than what is good for the country is the very essence of political corruption. And yet, this is exactly what democracy encourages in the populace. And we eat it up like a soup-sandwich.

No, ideally the best person for the job gets the job regardless of your views.

That isn't my problem. My problem is that people vote for what they want, not for what is best.

Ahh Looking for a philosopher king then? The problem is that what is best is not known. I would completely agree if there was a certain logical path that automatically got us to what is best. However, there is not: There are too many variables for any one person or group of people to weigh. However, the assumption is that a group will see more sides than an individual, and the larger the group the better the analysis. However, a pure democracy has the downfall that the majority wins. Ideally, with different interest groups, those groups will present their causes and analysis and the elected official will represent them. Granted such a system is weak and susceptible to propaganda, but so is any system. Any government must maintain power from the populace. We can suggest that the power can be derived from something else such as divine right but unfortunately divine right will do little if the people don't believe it and decide to go against the government. The same is true for a philosopher king. Imagine that there was just one path, and a philosopher king to take us down that path. If the people could be swayed through propaganda that he was not acting in our best interest then they could easily overthrow such a philosopher king. But the problem is that the "best person for the job" is a vague statement that represents an illusion. Who is to say a person is best for the job, or what is best for our country, or what is best for the world? It simply cannot be done.

And running for office, sure I think you are quite intelligent and would do well in local politics. But it doesn't have to be running for office, I think that you would do well in lobbying, or simply starting a grass roots organization that advocated for ameliorating our voting system to a more efficient, or more representative system.