Food Stamps

[Sir Doom]

I think we should just evaluate each persons individual metabolism and give them enough to stop them from starving and no more.

J/K I'm a human being.

 

[Curious George]

How exactly is it punishing poor people to say sorry but you can't buy food - that the people who are supporting you - can't afford to buy?

*

And that is the real sentiment that I hear in these types of discussion "but, but its NOT FAIR!!

There is a set amount of money that people receive. If a person buys a steak or candy bar, the other portion of their food budget suffers. You have that ability too. You have the ability to hunt and fish. Not everyone has that ability. People go to the store, make purchases and live with their choices. What you are discussing is beyond worrying about abuse. What you are discussing is limiting a persons choices simply because you believe their choice to be frivolous. That is very, very different from stopping abuse. Purchasing a steak every once in while is not abuse, buying a candy bar for your kid is not abuse, buying a cake for their birthday is not abuse.

 

[Ingledsva]

And that is the real sentiment that I hear in these types of discussion "but, but its NOT FAIR!!

There is a set amount of money that people receive. If a person buys a steak or candy bar, the other portion of their food budget suffers. You have that ability too. You have the ability to hunt and fish. Not everyone has that ability. People go to the store, make purchases and live with their choices. What you are discussing is beyond worrying about abuse. What you are discussing is limiting a persons choices simply because you believe their choice to be frivolous. That is very, very different from stopping abuse. Purchasing a steak every once in while is not abuse, buying a candy bar for your kid is not abuse, buying a cake for their birthday is not abuse.

Here is a news bulletin for you; It is unfair - and I am tired of paying in, so other people can eat better then me.

That is pure logic.

Get rid of the problems and bring the costs down.

You keep trying to make it into, - it is just an occasional candy bar, or steak - but it isn't.

And regardless of how many of these items they buy - I shouldn't have to pay for steak, candy, and junk food - on a program just meant to assist people until they are back on their feet.

*

 

[Curious George]

Here is a news bulletin for you; It is unfair - and I am tired of paying in, so other people can eat better then me.

That is pure logic.

Get rid of the problems and bring the costs down.

You keep trying to make it into, - it is just an occasional candy bar, or steak - but it isn't.

And regardless of how many of these items they buy - I shouldn't have to pay for steak, candy, and junk food - on a program just meant to assist people until they are back on their feet.

*

I make it into "an occasional candy bar" because that is the group that you are reacting to as well. You want to stop the people who fill up a cart with steaks so they can sell them cheaper- fine, let's track purchases. But cutting it off completely, cuts of instances that are not abuse.

 

[Ingledsva]

I make it into "an occasional candy bar" because that is the group that you are reacting to as well. You want to stop the people who fill up a cart with steaks so they can sell them cheaper- fine, let's track purchases. But cutting it off completely, cuts of instances that are not abuse.

It would cost way more to try and track the purchases of everyone on assistance.

Far cheaper to just say no more high-cost foods, or junk food.

Besides, as I said, I do not want to pay for that high-cost food, and I do not believe it should be allowed on a food assistance program.

I would even agree to one birthday cake per year, per person in the house, to help the bleeding hearts get through it.

*

 

[no-body]

How exactly is it punishing poor people to say sorry but you can't buy food - that the people who are supporting you - can't afford to buy?

Banning the expensive items, stems some of the abuses.

Banning junk food makes people more healthy. I am sure you have seen some of the multiple studies showing poor people in the USA being mostly obese. This is from buying and eating - fast - junk food. We need change. They need to buy better food and actually cook the family a good dinner. And YES, that means they should also look at frozen TV dinners and calorie and chemical laden frozen lasagna, etc.

I really don't understand the mentality that thinks we, the working middle class, owe the poor - better food then we can afford - and unlimited junk food - again - which the majority have to cut back on, to pay the monthly bills.

I'm on an Island in Southeast Alaska. Everything has to be brought from the mainland by barge or plane, which means it is very expensive. We still hunt for our meat (and BlueWolf shot a moose yesterday, so I'm stoked, LOL ,) and we fish for salmon and halibut, dig clams, dive for scallops, and set pots for shrimp, etc. We tend to buy basic supplies like flour, sugar, and butter, and make our own meals, including cakes, pies, cookies, and even pasta. My neighbor supplies the eggs and chickens.

So again, I don't understand this idea that we owe poor people high dollar food, or junk food, just because they are poor. Basic good food until they get back on their feet - absolutely.

*

The people on food stamps can't afford them either. Once the money is gone from their account it's gone. Maybe it seems less "real" to them so they spend it on such items?

I do agree there needs to be some system set up to get people to work but a realistic system. Not one set up to punish people when their down. Not one that takes their dignity and choice away.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Aye! That's why I proposed a system wherein the poor (& anyone else) gets
enuf food without restriction or qualification. (It wasn't very popular though.)

 

[metis]

I come from a Jewish perspective whereas halacha (Jewish Law) has requirements to help the poor and disadvantaged, not only through charity but also through government. However, in countries other than Israel, there is no binding power on other governments since we only form a small fraction of the population. Just for those who are interested, here's where it can be found in Torah:

40.Not to afflict an orphan or a widow (Ex. 22:21) .

41.Not to reap the entire field (Lev. 19:9; Lev. 23:22) .

42.To leave the unreaped corner of the field or orchard for the poor (Lev. 19:9).

43.Not to gather gleanings (the ears that have fallen to the ground while reaping) (Lev. 19:9).

44.To leave the gleanings for the poor (Lev. 19:9).

45.Not to gather ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard (Lev. 19:10).

46.To leave ol'loth (the imperfect clusters) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10; Deut. 24:21).

47.Not to gather the peret (grapes) that have fallen to the ground (Lev. 19:10).

48.To leave peret (the single grapes) of the vineyard for the poor (Lev. 19:10).

49.Not to return to take a forgotten sheaf (Deut. 24:19) This applies to all fruit trees (Deut. 24:20).

50.To leave the forgotten sheaves for the poor (Deut. 24:19-20).

51.Not to refrain from maintaining a poor man and giving him what he needs (Deut. 15:7). See Tzedakah: Charity.

52.To give charity according to one's means (Deut. 15:11). See Tzedakah: Charity. -- Judaism 101: A List of the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments)

Please note that all but 51 & 52 are in essence a tax, and the last two are considered charity.

Now, what about Christianity? Jesus and the apostles were Jews, and they would be under those same laws we see above as well. However, since we did not control eretz Israel during their time, what took the government's place for us was the Great Sanhedrin which, along with the Temple authority, continued with enforcing the Law. Jesus at no point, according to the gospels, tells his followers not to pay their due, and why would he? Instead, he really doubles-down by insisting to give from one's needs and not just to follow the requirements of the Law.

And someone has chimed in about the requirements in Islam, so I appreciate that addition.

 

[Sir Doom]

So, I shop a lot at Target for my groceries. Mostly because it's a bike-ride away.

In the bread isle of Target you will find the Target brand bread at $1.30 a loaf and you will find a variety of premium breads some going up to $3.99 a loaf.

Having eaten both ends of the spectrum, I can say with confidence that the $3.99 bread tastes a lot like bread, and the $1.30 bread tastes a lot like binder paper (yes I've eaten that, too). I conjecture from this vast difference in taste that there is little to no nutritional value in the $1.30 bread.

My question is:

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

Or do we force food stamp users to buy the $3.99 bread because it is better for them?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

My question is:

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

Or do we force food stamp users to buy the $3.99 bread because it is better for them?

In Colorado the amount of food stamp allocation for a single person is $217.00. That amount will be reduced $11.00 to $36.00 and maybe more come November. Nevertheless, it's not much. It's the amount of assistance that forces people on food stamps to live on just the basics. I'm not saying there are people who don't abuse this, but for those who don't abuse this lifeline, it's barely enough consider rising food costs.

 

[Sir Doom]

In Colorado the amount of food stamp allocation for a single person is $217.00. That amount will be reduced $11.00 to $36.00 and maybe more come November. Nevertheless, it's not much. It's the amount of assistance that forces people on food stamps to live on just the basics. I'm not saying there are people who don't abuse this, but for those who don't abuse this lifeline, it's barely enough consider rising food costs.

I'm not sure why this is a response to me.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I'm not sure why this is a response to me.

You were asking if people on food stamps should be forced to buy certain types if bread. I'm just saying the amount allotted for people on food stamp is what limits what they can buy.

 

[Sir Doom]

You were asking if people on food stamps should be forced to buy certain types if bread. I'm just saying the amount allotted for people on food stamp is what limits what they can buy.

And yet, they can still choose either loaf depending on their priorities.

The point of my questions was to illustrate a flaw in the 'Make 'em buy X!' position.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

And yet, they can still choose either loaf depending on their priorities.

The point of my questions was to illustrate a flaw in the 'Make 'em buy X!' position.

I understand now and agree.

 

[Sir Doom]

I understand now and agree.

:namaste

 

[Cephus]

Here is a news bulletin for you; It is unfair - and I am tired of paying in, so other people can eat better then me.

That is pure logic.

Get rid of the problems and bring the costs down.

You keep trying to make it into, - it is just an occasional candy bar, or steak - but it isn't.

And regardless of how many of these items they buy - I shouldn't have to pay for steak, candy, and junk food - on a program just meant to assist people until they are back on their feet.

*

Probably the easiest way to do it is to tell people they're getting a certain amount of money for food for the month and not a penny more under any circumstances. If they want to blow it on expensive items, they'll only have enough money to eat for 2 weeks. I hope it was good because they'll starve for the next 2 weeks. I suspect people won't be bothering with the expensive luxuries more than once. They have to be held accountable for their decisions.

 

[Sir Doom]

Probably the easiest way to do it is to tell people they're getting a certain amount of money for food for the month and not a penny more under any circumstances. If they want to blow it on expensive items, they'll only have enough money to eat for 2 weeks. I hope it was good because they'll starve for the next 2 weeks. I suspect people won't be bothering with the expensive luxuries more than once. They have to be held accountable for their decisions.

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

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Probably the easiest way to do it is to tell people they're getting a certain amount of money for food for the month and not a penny more under any circumstances. If they want to blow it on expensive items, they'll only have enough money to eat for 2 weeks. I hope it was good because they'll starve for the next 2 weeks. I suspect people won't be bothering with the expensive luxuries more than once. They have to be held accountable for their decisions.

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

 

[averageJOE]

Probably the easiest way to do it is to tell people they're getting a certain amount of money for food for the month and not a penny more under any circumstances. If they want to blow it on expensive items, they'll only have enough money to eat for 2 weeks. I hope it was good because they'll starve for the next 2 weeks. I suspect people won't be bothering with the expensive luxuries more than once. They have to be held accountable for their decisions.

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.