Food Stamps

[Curious George]

What you don't see is that people will fill up their shopping carts with nothing but steaks, "pay" with food stamps, and turn around and sell the meat for cash profits. What you propose will encourage more of this.

And even limiting those luxury items will not stop someone from filling up a cart with necessities and selling them to another person. Most houses still need to buy eggs, sugar, butter, etc. So, when one person takes another to the grocery store and fills up a cart and buys $200 worth of grocerys and their friend gives them 140 dollars they are still committing the same type of abuse. It MAY be a little harder to sell, but really just making steaks and junk food "off limits' will hardly stem the actual abuse.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I don't think they should make spending cuts to food stamps, I think they need to have stricter rules on who can actually get it. For instance: I'm currently on food stamps. I'm 33, work a full time factory job, and I'm married with three kids. At this time, it's a necessity for us to have it. I'm not thrilled with it, but we can barely make ends meet as it is. But there are people on food stamps who are neither working nor looking for work, get welfare and spend it on drugs and such, who are not productive members of society. These people should not be getting food stamps.

So don't cut the spending, enact stricter laws on it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The point was that when you try to make broad rules, those rules serve purposes beyond the actual complaint. So, let us deal with the actual problem in a way which addresses that problem, rather than get all uppity because a family wants to buy their kid a candy bar every once in a while.

I'm not getting "uppity." What I am saying is that people on food stamps should not be able to buy junk food with them, as it is very likely that we will be paying more assistance for that person when they have cardiovascular, blood sugar, weight, and other problems that can, and do, happen from consuming this junk food. The idea is "nutritional assistance," not "assisted slow-suicide" that is going to costs more money when the medical bills start coming in.

 

[Cephus]

I'm not sure how you think it works... but this seems like exactly how it works RIGHT NOW.

Except it doesn't. You have a lot of lobbies for the poor, bleeding-hearts who want people who have no jobs to have the same standard of living as people who work hard for a living. These are the people lobbying the government, both federal, state and local, for a constant increase in the standard of living for the unemployed.

We, the taxpayers, ought to be able to say "here's what you get, don't run out or you'll be hungry". We're paying their bills, it rests in our purview to lay out the rules we want. If they don't like it, they can get jobs and pay their own way. We ought to be able to say "you can buy this, this and this" and "you cannot buy this, this and this". We ought to be able to stop them from buying and/or using drugs while they're on the public dole. We ought to be able to stop them from drinking or smoking too if we decide to. It's our money, it ought to be our decision.

 

[Cephus]

It's kind of adorable that you think most people operate on a rational basis, or learn to plan ahead based on past mistakes.

It's clear most people do not, it's unclear why we accept that they do not, especially when we're paying their way. We're never going to get people to act rationally if we don't demand rational thought.

 

[Cephus]

What you don't see is that people will fill up their shopping carts with nothing but steaks, "pay" with food stamps, and turn around and sell the meat for cash profits. What you propose will encourage more of this.

Where are the profits? If anyone can go to the store and buy the same steak for less than the person is selling it for, they're idiots. There is no real profit in reselling easily-accessible foodstuffs, except to the gullible.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not getting "uppity." What I am saying is that people on food stamps should not be able to buy junk food with them, as it is very likely that we will be paying more assistance for that person when they have cardiovascular, blood sugar, weight, and other problems that can, and do, happen from consuming this junk food. The idea is "nutritional assistance," not "assisted slow-suicide" that is going to costs more money when the medical bills start coming in.

And to what degree will a candy bar once in a while cause great harm?

 

[Curious George]

I'm not getting "uppity." What I am saying is that people on food stamps should not be able to buy junk food with them, as it is very likely that we will be paying more assistance for that person when they have cardiovascular, blood sugar, weight, and other problems that can, and do, happen from consuming this junk food. The idea is "nutritional assistance," not "assisted slow-suicide" that is going to costs more money when the medical bills start coming in.

If that is your argument then perhaps you should be on a crusade to ban all "junk food" (as broad as that category is) from the general public.

 

[Curious George]

Except it doesn't. You have a lot of lobbies for the poor, bleeding-hearts who want people who have no jobs to have the same standard of living as people who work hard for a living.

Been poor before? did you have the same living standard? This is not what the "bleeding-hearts" are asking. The picture you paint is unrealistic.

 

[Sir Doom]

It's clear most people do not, it's unclear why we accept that they do not, especially when we're paying their way. We're never going to get people to act rationally if we don't demand rational thought.

Oh the irony...

 

[freethinker44]

My question is:

Do we force food stamp users to buy the $1.30 bread because it is cheaper?

Yes and yes. Also, we should force them to recycle their urine and feces so we can avoid wasting any nutrients their body may have accidentally filtered out with the waste, after all, that is tax payer paid for pooh and it should not be wasted.

Also, we should beat them with a stick because it is not satisfying enough beat them mentally and financially, they should also take a physical beating as well so I can feel just that much more superior to them.

 

[Alceste]

Some folks are just control freaks who think the solution to all the world's problems is to micro-manage other people in ways they would not accept for themselves.

Yeah, but it's THE POOR we're talking about here. Not HARD-WORKING FOLKS. Nobody should make any rules for HARD-WORKING FOLKS, but THE POOR are degenerate wastes of human skin that just can't be trusted to manage their own affairs. And the only way to snap them out of their laziness and gluttony is to eliminate all forms of social welfare so that they must either become HARD-WORKING FOLKS or starve to death in the gutter.

It's fun watching the practical effects of this philosophy unfold in a country where everybody and their dog, however poor they are, has a gun and the jails are already over-crowded. Watching from afar, I mean, from a country where we don't even bother to lock our doors half the time.

 

[s2a]

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.

*

Cool. As an atheist (just generally speaking) I favor population control (generally again), But I do not envision any "free society" even actually enforcing such a national policy.

Perhaps we could look to China as example?

Or maybe, as you allude, we could make parenting similar to obtaining a hunting/fishing license?

You want food stamps for your kids that are hungry?

Ok, show us your rod and tackle, and describe just how far away you live from a stream with fish in it first.

*rolls eyes*

 

[Ingledsva]

Cool. As an atheist (just generally speaking) I favor population control (generally again), But I do not envision any "free society" even actually enforcing such a national policy.

Perhaps we could look to China as example?

Or maybe, as you allude, we could make parenting similar to obtaining a hunting/fishing license?

You want food stamps for your kids that are hungry?

Ok, show us your rod and tackle, and describe just how far away you live from a stream with fish in it first.

*rolls eyes*

You folks are being ridiculous and blowing this out of proportion.

It is common sense to control where your money is being spent.

We are not suggesting stopping people from having as many children as they want, or eating junk food, etc.

Just not while living on my dime.

When they are back on their feet they can eat as much junk as they want to, and pump out as many babies as they want.

*

 

[Sir Doom]

Yes and yes. Also, we should force them to recycle their urine and feces so we can avoid wasting any nutrients their body may have accidentally filtered out with the waste, after all, that is tax payer paid for pooh and it should not be wasted.

Also, we should beat them with a stick because it is not satisfying enough beat them mentally and financially, they should also take a physical beating as well so I can feel just that much more superior to them.

Hell, why not give them all jobs as living carpets! Then they can pay their own way and we can still walk all over them! Win-win!

 

[Sir Doom]

You folks are being ridiculous and blowing this out of proportion.

It is common sense to control where your money is being spent.

We are not suggesting stopping people from having as many children as they want, or eating junk food, etc.

Just not while living on my dime.

When they are back on their feet they can eat as much junk as they want to, and pump out as many babies as they want.

*

I see, its like you're paying them to be second class citizens. What a great idea!

 

[ChristineES]

I do realize that the system is abused, but should we punish those who abuse right along with those who don't? That isn't the answer. People should be encouraged to get back on their feet again, by all means. Some people really need food stamps- especially people with low paying jobs and who are looking for work and can't find any.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

It's actually deeper than this. I believe Senate Dems wanted a $4 Billion Dollar cut. Republicans countered with a $20 Billion Dollar cut and they porked up the Farm Bill in the process. When that vote failed they attempted and succeeded to strip the SNAP program from the Farm Bill. This is the first time, that I know of, it's ever been done this way.

I believe the vote you're referring to is a vote to defund the SNAP Program by $40 Billion Dollars over the next ten years. So again.....it's even worse than what you presented in your OP...

House Slashes $40 Billion of Food Stamps Over Next Decade - ABC News

The House of Representatives voted Thursday evening to approve about $40 billion worth of cuts to food stamps over the next 10 years, although the bill must be reconciled with a Senate-passed measure that proposed just $4.1 billion of cuts over the same period of time.

:sad:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

*

This has the Hunger Games written all over it....

 

[metis]

It's actually deeper than this. I believe Senate Dems wanted a $4 Billion Dollar cut. Republicans countered with a $20 Billion Dollar cut and they porked up the Farm Bill in the process. When that vote failed they attempted and succeeded to strip the SNAP program from the Farm Bill. This is the first time, that I know of, it's ever been done this way.

I believe the vote you're referring to is a vote to defund the SNAP Program by $40 Billion Dollars over the next ten years. So again.....it's even worse than what you presented in your OP...

House Slashes $40 Billion of Food Stamps Over Next Decade - ABC News



:sad:

Yes on all counts. Obviously my $4 billion reference was for just one year. It's just morally pathetic what they're trying to do.