Food Stamps

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

You're correct.

I think one of the things that ticked me off about the vote was that it was designed to take from the poor and give to the rich. They wanted to keep the Farm Bill and pork it up because many of them receive subsidies from the federal government. Some even receive direct farm subsidy payments...

These Republicans Who Voted To Cut Food Stamps Personally Received Large Farm Subsidies

Fincher himself has received his own large share of government money. From 1999 to 2012, Stephen & Lynn Fincher Farms received $3,483,824 in agriculture subsidies. Last year he took in $70,574 alone.


Another Republican congresswoman who voted to make cuts to the food stamp program was Rep. Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. Her farm received more than $800,000 in Department of Agriculture subsidies from 1995-2012. In 2001, her farm received $135,482 in subsidies.

Rep. Kristi Noem of South Dakota, who also voted to make cuts to the program, was a partner in Racota Valley Ranch, her family’s farm and previously had nearly a 17% stake through 2008. The farm received $3.4 million in subsidies from 1995-2012. The Environmental Working Group, which analyzes subsidy data, says the “estimated amount of subsidies attributed to Rep. Noem from 1995-2012 is $503,751.”


Rep. Marlin Stutzman, a Republican Rep. from Indiana also received his fair share of government subsidies. He personally took in nearly $200,000 for the farm he co-owns with his father.

:sad:

 

[MysticSang'ha]

"Lower quality food" is debatable. That would depend upon how the recipient prepares it, & what
they do to supplement it. But at least a family wouldn't run out of food at the end of the month.
My safety net is better than your safety net. Hey...how does this happen,
when you're the caring "progressive", but I'm the insensitive miser?

You see it as "crappier", but I see it as better than food stamps.
- It would encourage a culture of preparing food from basic ingredients, rather than dependence upon prepared food, eg, Cheetos, canned goods.
- It would avoid children going hungry because of poorly budgeted stamp spending or inadequate subsidy.
- Unlike food stamps, the benefit wouldn't be lost just because the recipient started working & earned too much to qualify.

Well you have one fan. I would get food from your warehouse.

I lived on ramen noodles, cooked rice and beans that I rehydrated by soaking and then preparing, and when things were really tight: popcorn.

Eggs were a luxury, but I was able to manage paying 79 cents for a dozen at the local cheap grocers back then. I would again if it was really necessary for me, but it isn't right now. Every now and then I was able to skip a meal that I had to buy because the cook at a restaraunt I'd work at would put some soup in a to-go container for me. Generous people are treasures.

If I had access to your warehouse, I would TOTALLY stock up on ugly vegetables that just needed to be trimmed up. It's how I score at farmers markets when I get all the bruised and battered veggies and then can them for chutneys or salsas. Many times, I don't even have to pay for them since the farmer is just trying to get rid of them and wants them out of sight. So, even though it isn't necessary for me to right now, I probably would do that just so that the ugly vegetables don't make it out to the waste stream.

You're right, it isn't a popular idea. But I like it.

 

[metis]

You're correct.

I think one of the things that ticked me off about the vote was that it was designed to take from the poor and give to the rich. They wanted to keep the Farm Bill and pork it up because many of them receive subsidies from the federal government. Some even receive direct farm subsidy payments...

These Republicans Who Voted To Cut Food Stamps Personally Received Large Farm Subsidies



:sad:

And that's just one example of their pathetic hypocrisy. They say they want a small federal footprint, but yet they want federal subsidies for their pet projects. Another example are these red states fighting for more weapons contracts even for equipment the military says it doesn't need.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

If it's once in awhile, then why use food stamps for it?

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.

Actually I do fully agree that alot of what is out there should be banned, and many new policies and regulations made, such as making it so food companies have to list trans fat (rather than being able to dodge it if it is .49 grams-or-less per serving), and fully account for all fat content, rather than making us have to guess where the rest of the fat is, such as foods that will list 15 grams of fat, but only account for 8 of them under saturated and 2 under monounsaturated. Where is the rest of the 5 at? Also a way of making so food companies can put nothing questionable in food, such as high fructose corn syrup and mono- and diglycerides in bread wouldn't be bad. It's really pretty bad when our food is so chemical and so unnatural that "organic" is able to grab people's attention.
I also wouldn't mind leglislation to do away with all fast food. The workers are exploited, the food unhealthy and unsatisfying, and it generates alot of waste.

 

[freethinker44]

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!

As long as I can still beat them with a stick, it's a policy I'll support.

 

[Cephus]

Oh the irony...

You cannot change behavior if you do not have the expectation of change and hold people to that expectation. Surely you understand that, it's quite basic.

 

[Sunstone]

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

I think you might mean "third-class citizens". Anyone in this country who cannot afford a lawyer, and must rely on the public defenders office, is already a second class citizen.

 

[Sir Doom]

You cannot change behavior if you do not have the expectation of change and hold people to that expectation. Surely you understand that, it's quite basic.

And surely you understand that if the expectation is making Ms. Unrealistic jealous by flirting with Ms. Impossible, then it doesn't matter how loud you yell, how hard you stamp your feet, how vigorously you wave your fist, or how vehemently you brandish your weapon... your expectations will NEVER be fulfilled.

The idea of demanding rational thought is one of the most irrational notions I've ever heard.

 

[Sir Doom]

I think you might mean "third-class citizens". Anyone in this country who cannot afford a lawyer, and must rely on the public defenders office, is already a second class citizen.

Haha, perhaps its an elevation TO 2nd class! After all, we are letting them eat...

 

[Cephus]

And surely you understand that if the expectation is making Ms. Unrealistic jealous by flirting with Ms. Impossible, then it doesn't matter how loud you yell, how hard you stamp your feet, how vigorously you wave your fist, or how vehemently you brandish your weapon... your expectations will NEVER be fulfilled.

Clearly it's not impossible because lots of people live that way. Maybe you don't, but a large number of people do go through their lives making rational decisions and living responsibly.

The idea of demanding rational thought is one of the most irrational notions I've ever heard.

It's all a matter of teaching it to children from a young age and encouraging and enforcing it across the board. Increased education has started to spell the death knell of religion, most of the major worldwide religions, especially in first world countries, are hemorrhaging members at alarming rates as people realize there's no need for the irrationality of religion. It just takes time. You seem to want people to act like self-centered idiots, I hold out hope for a better future. We'll see which one comes to pass.

 

[Ingledsva]

I think one of the things that ticked me off about the vote was that it was designed to take from the poor and give to the rich. They wanted to keep the Farm Bill and pork it up because many of them receive subsidies from the federal government. Some even receive direct farm subsidy payments...

These Republicans Who Voted To Cut Food Stamps Personally Received Large Farm Subsidies

And that's just one example of their pathetic hypocrisy. They say they want a small federal footprint, but yet they want federal subsidies for their pet projects. Another example are these red states fighting for more weapons contracts even for equipment the military says it doesn't need.

I agree with both of you on this. They are trying to cut and get rid of a program that is obviously needed, - when all they really need to do is come together and cut the pork, corruption, bureaucracy, and things already discussed.

They are capable of trimming the bulk from the program, while saving the program, and continuing to help the poor.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

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

Being poor, or in need of temporary help, does not make people second class in my world.

You folks keep turning common sense ideas to cut costs from the system - thereby keeping it afloat - I might add, - into somehow being mean to people on SNAP.

It is not mean - or demeaning to the recipient - to say since we are supporting you right now - you can't buy high cost steaks and gift baskets. And it has been pointed out that this would also stop the reselling for drugs and alcohol problem.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

We are talking about high cost items that people want.

They buy them with food stamps then sell them for whatever they can get, so they have the CASH to buy alcohol and drugs.

This is a known problem.

*

 

[Curious George]

Being poor, or in need of temporary help, does not make people second class in my world.

You folks keep turning common sense ideas to cut costs from the system - thereby keeping it afloat - I might add, - into somehow being mean to people on SNAP.

It is not mean - or demeaning to the recipient - to say since we are supporting you right now - you can't buy high cost steaks and gift baskets. And it has been pointed out that this would also stop the reselling for drugs and alcohol problem.

*

But the point is that it will not curtail abuse. I gave a perfect example of why it won't. But in case you missed it- People can still sell groceries (non-steak/candy/cake) to others for a reduced cost. It happens. It is not just steaks and candy that represent the abuse. The EBT cards were put in place to stop the direct sale of food stamps and to stop the food stamp shuffle (buy something for 10 cents in food stamps and get 90 cents in U.S. coin back)- now people sell food. You are not going to get rid of abuse with your get rid of steak and candy routine. You are only going to make it so people who do buy steak or candy on a rational basis can no longer do so. You idea predominantly hurts the people who are not abusing the system. Sure their are other parents out there who make poor eating choices and purchase their kid a cup-cake or a ding-dong for breakfast, but theoretically they could still make cup-cakes and ding-dongs, or cakes, or.... Your system does not work. I understand that you have put a lot of thought into your plan- but it will fail to serve most of the purpose you are suggesting- the only purpose it will serve is to make you feel better because you somehow see it as unfair that a poor kid get a steak and and a cake for his/her birthday.

On the other hand- data storage and mining is relatively cheap with the technology, and people already have EBT cards which track allotted monies, such cards could easily track purchases as well. Granted, that will not solve the abuse problem either because people can still purchase and sell regular groceries- but it is a middle ground (you won't see carts filled with candy or steaks). However, there might be 4th amendment issues issues.

Your child idea is extremely foolish, and will only serve to hurt children born into poverty (because make no mistake people will still have kids).

If you are really serious about wanting to help, why don't we add to the services instead of taking away. Why not bring in nutritional consultants who can talk to parents and families about healthy choices. Why not teach people how to eat better instead of diminishing their choice and dignity. Why not create more space for co-ops, and community gardens. Why not bring in Revoltingest's communistic food depot to boot. Why not, instead of offering agricultural subsidies to not grow- purchase the food and give it away to communities in need?

 

[Curious George]

We are talking about high cost items that people want.

They buy them with food stamps then sell them for whatever they can get, so they have the CASH to buy alcohol and drugs.

This is a known problem.

*

Yes, but people can sell any food for cheaper and there are people who will buy it. Take away steaks and it will just shift the product. Why spend $200 when you can get it for $140 or $100 even. you can suggest there are ethics involved, but I would suggest you are in a make believe libertarian world. Sure some people will say no, but I guarantee you- for everyone who says no, another says yes.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I just love how everyone thinks people are poor due only to laziness. Here's an idea, why don't we just stick all the poor people on the front lines of some war, that way, we eliminate the poverty problem, we don't have to worry about all the worthless poor people taking everyone else's money, and the rich benefit from the war, like they deserve, since they're the important ones. Sound good?

 

[Curious George]

I just love how everyone thinks people are poor due only to laziness. Here's an idea, why don't we just stick all the poor people on the front lines of some war, that way, we eliminate the poverty problem, we don't have to worry about all the worthless poor people taking everyone else's money, and the rich benefit from the war, like they deserve, since they're the important ones. Sound good?

That would never work! then the rich could not point their fingers at the poor as to puppeteer the middle class into attacking them instead of focusing on the real reasons for "fiscal" problems.

 

[Curious George]

That would never work! then the rich could not point their fingers at the poor as to puppeteer the middle class into attacking them instead of focusing on the real reasons for "fiscal" problems.

Let us just look at how much money went to corporations and businesses, through tax breaks, subsidies, private (lobbied for) pork contracts, defense money went to securing or protecting economic strongholds for corporations, and lets not forget the bail-outs... Now let us look at how much money is spent on social welfare programs that benefit the people-

If we want to save money then we need better education, better health, better assistance. Reganomics is garbage, deregulation increases abuse, and corporations and the super wealthy aren't creating jobs comparable to the money we give or comparable to the profits they earn. Something is wrong and it is not the poor leaching the system, immigrants stealing jobs, or public health insurance.

 

[Sir Doom]

Being poor, or in need of temporary help, does not make people second class in my world.

Well, you could have fooled me.

You folks keep turning common sense ideas to cut costs from the system - thereby keeping it afloat - I might add, - into somehow being mean to people on SNAP.

Mean? I'm a bit more creative than that.

It is not mean - or demeaning to the recipient - to say since we are supporting you right now - you can't buy high cost steaks and gift baskets. And it has been pointed out that this would also stop the reselling for drugs and alcohol problem.

*

Which bread did you say was okay, again? Oh right... you didn't say. Can't say I'm surprised.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We are talking about high cost items that people want.

They buy them with food stamps then sell them for whatever they can get, so they have the CASH to buy alcohol and drugs.

This is a known problem.

*

Except you don't have to buy high price items to resell them. Even cheap things can be traded and/or resold. Sometimes people will even help a person with food in exchange for legitimate financial help.
And then some people do occasionally buy higher priced foods (I sometimes buy fish and shrimp) to eat them. But if a person wants to blow their months allotment in a week on steak and shrimp, then it isn't the food itself that needs addressed, it's that person's spending habbits. I know one lady who really does get enough in food stamps, but she is usually short by the end of the month because of she isn't careful enough with what she buys (name brands are common).
Really I think a better investment would be material to teach people how to stretch their grocery budget, how to cook, and a cookbook with meals that are both cheap and nutritious.