# Limit what foodstamps  are  able to  buy?



## Mr.Fitnah (Apr 30, 2011)

Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?





Should these   "entitlements  be limited to  nutritional food  to stretch   the tax payers  investment?


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 30, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course, but the tics will just use their cash to purchase junk food and use food stamps to purchase steak.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Apr 30, 2011)

Fine they are  buying   blueray disks and bigscreens now.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 30, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Fine they are  buying   blueray disks and bigscreens now.



Already limited. Question? Have you received food stamps and can you tell us with authority what you could buy? Or is this more knee jerk whining cause you can?


----------



## JBeukema (Apr 30, 2011)

How to enforce it if the store doesn't take the initiative?

How to determine exactly what qualifies?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 30, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> How to enforce it if the store doesn't take the initiative?
> 
> How to determine exactly what qualifies?



Already done.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 30, 2011)

> Should these "entitlements be limited to nutritional food to stretch the tax payers investment?



The cost of the technology needed to determine what is nutritional will use up any savings. 



> Of course, but the tics will just use their cash to purchase junk food and use food stamps to purchase steak.





> Fine they are buying blueray disks and bigscreens now.



So what? Those are goods being moved off the shelves allowing Americans to produce more and work to re-supply the stores. Creating jobs: cant think of a better use for taxpayers dollars.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Apr 30, 2011)

This is not about diet  but  limiting  how the taxpayer is fleeced .


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Apr 30, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Fine they are  buying   blueray disks and bigscreens now.
> ...



I work in retail.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 30, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> This is not about diet  but  limiting  how the taxpayer is fleeced .



And it is a State issue and I know that States do in fact limit what is and is not buyable with food stamps. My mother in law gets food stamps.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Apr 30, 2011)

I see fat americans buys 200 $ of ice-cream  doughnuts and  cake   with  their "entitlements" and  then  buying cigarettes  and big screens and blue ray disks  with  their cash. I see it  daily.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Apr 30, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > This is not about diet  but  limiting  how the taxpayer is fleeced .
> ...



What is limited is  alcohol , not fritos chewing gum and icecream bars.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 30, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I see fat americans buys 200 $ of ice-cream  doughnuts and  cake   with  their "entitlements" and  then  buying cigarettes  and big screens and blue ray disks  with  their cash. I see it  daily.



It is NONE of your business what they chose to spend their money on. Feeling left out? Once again take it up with your State legislator they decide the laws regarding your States food stamp amounts, who can get them and what they can and can not buy.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Apr 30, 2011)

That is the point of the  thread, to  motivate people to  contact the  lawmakers to limit how  them money is wasted.
400 lb slobs eating  shit daily on tax payers  largess is taking its toll on me, I know the difference between people  in  need and struggling to get,  by and pigs at a trough .
6 gallons of  ice cream 36 doughnut 2 cakes  5 bags of chips  and 3 lbs of gen toas chicken is lunch for some people.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Apr 30, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I see fat americans buys 200 $ of ice-cream  doughnuts and  cake   with  their "entitlements" and  then  buying cigarettes  and big screens and blue ray disks  with  their cash. I see it  daily.
> ...



Im a tax  payer 4000 $ this year it is my  business.


----------



## Grace (Apr 30, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes. Foodstamps can't be used for non food items, so why not add non nutritional foods as well? Keep meat, veggies, baby food, canned goods, dairy.


----------



## Grace (Apr 30, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I see fat americans buys 200 $ of ice-cream  doughnuts and  cake   with  their "entitlements" and  then  buying cigarettes  and big screens and blue ray disks  with  their cash. I see it  daily.
> ...




I beg to differ. It IS our business when WE are footing the bill by working our asses off. Well, when I worked my ass off. I can't work. But I damn sure don't expect other tax payers to feed me sodas, candy, donuts, beer, cigs, cakes, or even buy my meds. I survive without holding my hand out. If I can, they can. And if I ever DID ask for food stamps, I would make damn sure I used it responsibly. But that's me.


----------



## Flopper (May 1, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> How to enforce it if the store doesn't take the initiative?
> 
> How to determine exactly what qualifies?


Several states have tried to exclude or implement spending limits on junk food, but the federal government has never granted the waiver because of the cost to create a system that can weed out junk food.


----------



## Grace (May 1, 2011)

How about grocery stores for Welfare Recipients only? Nothing stocked in them except what can be purchased via foodstamps.


----------



## JohnA (May 1, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > I see fat americans buys 200 $ of ice-cream  doughnuts and  cake   with  their "entitlements" and  then  buying cigarettes  and big screens and blue ray disks  with  their cash. I see it  daily.
> ...



 it amazes me how dimocrats believe how   govt hand out of *TAXPAYERS *  money  is spent  should  not be anybody elses business .

 yet  they believe its   everybody  else,es  business when a  entrepreneur chooses to spend his /her * OWN *money on a  manufacturing plant in a country other than the USA  

 if a person who  gets his /her money from a govt   handout  can spent it how they  choose ,so should a person using his /her own money 
 seems logical and fair  to me but then  again dimocrats  are hypocrits


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 1, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> This is not about diet  but  limiting  how the taxpayer is fleeced .



How will the taxpayer save money if we make food stamp recipients buy more brussels sprouts?


----------



## NYcarbineer (May 1, 2011)

I think farm subsidies and child tax credits should be paid in food stamps.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 2, 2011)

Flopper said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > How to enforce it if the store doesn't take the initiative?
> ...



Thats a excuse another  law one  more  regulation , its a few  keys strokes  one  more unfunded  mandate . they dont  want to  offend  the base.


----------



## High_Gravity (May 2, 2011)

I use my food stamps to buy lap dances at Club Jungle.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 2, 2011)

If we the tax payers are going to carry the burden of  feeding those  unable or on willing to to feed themselves we have  the right to say  what  they cannot  spend the gifts cards on.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 14, 2011)

lastnight 2 white one black young $ 348 .00 2 liter bottles of pepsi mountiandew some others *every bottle in the store*.
EBT card.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 18, 2011)

A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told a TV station that he still uses food stamps.

Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!" He told WNEM-TV in Saginaw that more than half the prize went to taxes.

Fick says the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with tax dollars. He told WNEM: "If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it.


----------



## Sarah G (May 18, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They're already limited ya bozo.  Why do you care anyway, maybe we should pay those incentives to big oil and big insurance in food stamps..  Wonder what kind of stuff they get to buy..


----------



## editec (May 18, 2011)

We go down a slippery slope of health facism when we let the goverment decide which foods are nuitritious enough, don't you think?

_Okay here's your foodstamps...you can now only buy TOFU and sprrouts with it because we're decided those are the only foods that are_ good enough _ for you._

I fully appreciate the frustration some of you feel about how food suppliment money is being spent.

But the solution some of you propose could easily become worse than the disease you are seeking to remedy.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 18, 2011)

Flopper said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > How to enforce it if the store doesn't take the initiative?
> ...



typical progressivism nonsense, it just another unfunded  mandate.the system is in place already for alcohol and smokes.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 18, 2011)

editec said:


> We go down a slippery slope of health facism when we let the goverment decide which foods are nuitritious enough, don't you think?
> 
> _Okay here's your foodstamps...you can now only buy TOFU and sprrouts with it because we're decided those are the only foods that are_ good enough _ for you._
> 
> ...


Taxing  the people to death is a form of fascism already.


----------



## boedicca (May 18, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > We go down a slippery slope of health facism when we let the goverment decide which foods are nuitritious enough, don't you think?
> ...




In the general case, taxing people to death is the hallmark of Collectivism of all flavors.


----------



## Flopper (May 18, 2011)

Grace said:


> How about grocery stores for Welfare Recipients only? Nothing stocked in them except what can be purchased via foodstamps.


Having food stamp only stores will reduce the usage.  Even with EBT cards, there is stigma associated with food stamps.


----------



## uscitizen (May 18, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ohh I agree, foodstamps sould not be used for sodas, candy, prepared pastries (like honeybuns, etc).

They used to be that way till the grocers and snack food industires lobbies changed things.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 18, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> > How about grocery stores for Welfare Recipients only? Nothing stocked in them except what can be purchased via foodstamps.
> ...



Not really, some of these people have several cards  and  they like it.


----------



## Flopper (May 18, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> ...


Several times various groups as well as a couple of states have discussed this with the food stamp people.  The problem lies in defining junk food.  Do you exclude by content, salt, fat, sugar, too much carbohydrates, too little protein, or do you exclude by brand name.  If you exclude by food content, you will exclude good foods.  If you exclude by brand, then you're fighting ever food processor in the country which of course would have big politically overtones.


----------



## syrenn (May 18, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree. Food stamps should be limited to certain foods just like wic. All junk/treat foods should be off the list. If they want treats and candy and extras, they can damn well work for the money.


----------



## syrenn (May 18, 2011)

Flopper said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...




It would be easier to tell them what they CAN get, not what they cant.


----------



## boedicca (May 18, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...






Food stamps should only be used for FOOD.  None of the stuff in the picture actually qualifies as Real Food, if one reads the labels.


----------



## Dabs (May 26, 2011)

I honestly haven't paid much attention to the people who use food stamp benefits. I see Moms in the food stores with their children buying chips and sodas and candy, but I see them buying milk and bread and meat as well.
I don't feel it's any of my business to wonder how they are using their benefits, I know people abuse the system, but I have other things to worry about.
I will say tho, in my opinion, I really think families who are on the food stamp program should be allowed to purchase some non-food items, because there are some in that category that are a necessity.
Items like toilet tissue, shampoo, soap, laundry detergent, toothpaste- those items are very much needed and if they take away the candy and chips and soda to those on food stamps, they should allow them to purchase the needed non-food items.


----------



## syrenn (May 26, 2011)

Dabs said:


> I honestly haven't paid much attention to the people who use food stamp benefits. I see Moms in the food stores with their children buying chips and sodas and candy, but I see them buying milk and bread and meat as well.
> I don't feel it's any of my business to wonder how they are using their benefits, I know people abuse the system, but I have other things to worry about.
> I will say tho, in my opinion, I really think families who are on the food stamp program should be allowed to purchase some non-food items, because there are some in that category that are a necessity.
> Items like toilet tissue, shampoo, soap, laundry detergent, toothpaste- those items are very much needed and if they take away the candy and chips and soda to those on food stamps, they should allow them to purchase the needed non-food items.



yeah but when you stand behind one of them holding up the line its hard not to listen and watch..and pay attention.

coach hand bag..coach wallet....Chanel sun glasses... 5 kids hanging on..


"ill pay for this with wick"
"this with my food card"
"and the rest with cash"...an nice crisp 100 dollar bill..

The booz, and fashion mags....... made me sick.


----------



## Dabs (May 26, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Dabs said:
> 
> 
> > I honestly haven't paid much attention to the people who use food stamp benefits. I see Moms in the food stores with their children buying chips and sodas and candy, but I see them buying milk and bread and meat as well.
> ...



Yeah I see what you're saying.
But even tho there are those that evidently do not need the food stamp program, some do, and allowing them to get the non-food items would help.
And not letting them purchase candy and sodas would be great too.
Me, I get pissed off more when somebody waits till the cashier has rang up every single item, and the bitch decides then to take out her checkbook and start writing it out.
She could have had everything filled in and ready for the amount, instead she stood there like a damn zombie.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 26, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Guess what my tax dollars are used to pay for roads that you drive on so from now on I'm going to require you submit to a drug screen on a weekly basis to make sure you're not driving high.


----------



## syrenn (May 26, 2011)

Dabs said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Dabs said:
> ...




The should not be given cart blanch...... it should be like wic.... a very narrow list of things you CAN purchase. I agree..shampoo, soap, and toothpaste should be on that list of things they are allowed to purchase. 

Soda, junk food and candy should be off the list of what our tax dollars pay for.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

You cannot purchase non-food items with food stamps (or rather, SNAP allotment, as food stamps don't exist any more). 

You also cannot buy hot food from the deli.

You don't get change back anymore. 

I used to think that if we give them to them we should just give them to them, but my supervisor convinced me that there isn't anything wrong with limiting the types of food one can purchase. It is, after all, charity...and when one supplies charity, one can supply it in the form that one chooses. So if we determine that it is more economical, healthy, whatever, to limit the types of foods one can buy with snap benefits, it's okay...recipients are still getting something for nothing.

Processed foods are ruining the health of everybody; I don't think it's a violation of anyone's rights to tell them, "Here's $400 to buy meat, dairy products, veggies, fruit, and staples like flour, beans, rice...."


----------



## dblack (May 26, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> This is not about diet  but  limiting  how the taxpayer is fleeced .



I don't see how. Taxpayers will get fleeced for the same amount regardless of how recipients spend the money.

This is about control. If we can't help people without imposing the nanny state on them, we shouldn't bother.


----------



## syrenn (May 26, 2011)

dblack said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > This is not about diet  but  limiting  how the taxpayer is fleeced .
> ...



Cool, im for not bothering then. One less burden on the taxpayers. 

If they want free anything then they should accept it with what ever limitations that are placed on it. Its free and they can pass it by if they don't want it.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Exactly.
Let's provide them with free, healthy food, I'm all for that. And they can choose not to take it if they like...


----------



## syrenn (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Exactly.
> Let's provide them with free, healthy food, I'm all for that. And they can choose not to take it if they like...



Bingo...

this is what is being offered. Take it or leave it. Their choice.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

One of the arguments that brought me over was that many people who work cannot afford to purchase deli items and bakery cakes for parties and their kids' birthdays. They have to plan out their menus, make things from scratch, etc, because they only have a limited amount of money....

So how is it "fair" that people who either don't work, or who don't earn enough to feed their families, get all the perks that people who DO manage to scrape by without assistance, are denied?

And that's a valid point. Why should we provide fripperies to people who don't have lucrative jobs when the people who aren't on assistance can't afford them, and get by just fine?

Food stamps do not exist to make poor people feel good, or lessen the psychological burden of poverty. Food stamps exist to keep people from starving. Let them be used on healthy foods and fuck Frito Lay, Jeno's, and Lamb-Weston.


----------



## syrenn (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> One of the arguments that brought me over was that many people who work cannot afford to purchase deli items and bakery cakes for parties and their kids' birthdays. They have to plan out their menus, make things from scratch, etc, because they only have a limited amount of money....
> 
> So how is it "fair" that people who either don't work, or who don't earn enough to feed their families, get all the perks that people who DO manage to scrape by without assistance, are denied?
> 
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all night.

Lol..I do support the food stamp program, I really do. And I see how much good it does. But I also see how people have completely forgotten how to cook, and pack lunches and stuff.

My kids are in baseball, and the first few games took place far away and at a time of the month when I just didn't have any disposable income...we scraped for the gas money to go and we packed sandwiches (bologna and peanut butter) and water and bananas. The kids were not happy that we weren't hitting the concession stands..but you know, they ate ALL of the stuff we brought, and we actually felt good about what they ate...

Other kids were guzzling soda, licorice whips, nachos, hot dogs...and no, these aren't my clients that I'm talking about but the concept is the same. 

One of the things about non-prepared, non-processed food is it takes time to prepare it, and it almost forces people to sort of eat at the same time. This is a GOOD thing.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

Sorry, that was kinda disjointed...my daughter has carrot sticks and water in her baseball bag for her game 60 miles away tonight....


----------



## syrenn (May 26, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all night.
> 
> Lol..I do support the food stamp program, I really do. And I see how much good it does. But I also see how people have completely forgotten how to cook, and pack lunches and stuff.
> 
> ...



I agree with food stamps too. Though i would rather see it go to seniors then some of these able bodied young adults. When i do catch on to someone who is paying with a food stamp card it truly sickens me what they are purchasing. Snack food makes up the majority of it.


----------



## dblack (May 26, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Cool, im for not bothering then. One less burden on the taxpayers.
> 
> If they want free anything then they should accept it with what ever limitations that are placed on it. Its free and they can pass it by if they don't want it.



I hear ya. And to a point I agree, but there's this weird 'partnership' forming where Democrats create dependency via welfare state 'charity*' and the Republicans respond with a list of 'demands' seizing the opportunity to lord it over people they consider lessers.

I'm quite worried we're going to see this same effect amplified radically if we nationalize health care. The Democrats will succeed at making all of us dependent on government for our health care and the Republican will charge in, guns a blazing,  to use it as an opportunity to tell us all how to live. It's ugly business in my opinion. 


* - FWIW, it's not actually charity. Charity is freely given by the benefactors.


----------



## syrenn (May 26, 2011)

dblack said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Cool, im for not bothering then. One less burden on the taxpayers.
> ...



how do you think the dems keep getting elected? No one is going to vote against their hand outs.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 26, 2011)

I'm a Republican and I don't consider foodstamp recipients "lessers". Nobody I know thinks of them as "lessers". The people you are most likely to hear bitching about them are other food stamp recipients who are worried that somebody else is getting more than they are.

I think everybody can succeed if they're properly motivated. And you don't motivate people by handing out all the perks that other people have to WORK for. Yes, it's a drag being poor. It sucks not to be able to buy every thing that catches your eye. I don't like eating the same thing three days running....ham, then beans for two days, for example. But that's the way it is, and the way it's supposed to be. We are limited by our incomes, that's all there is to it. We are limited by our ability to provide for our families. It's universal and it's silly to expect the government to eliminate all sense of want. People always want more, but that doesn't mean they get it, or that it is their right to have it.

I do not want children or adults in this country to starve. I will never vote to eliminate the food stamp program, I think it's an integral part of our system now and I think we need it. But I also believe there's nothing wrong with putting a few more limits on what foods they can be used for, and they will more effectively battle hunger if we do. And that is the point, after all...isn't it?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (May 26, 2011)

Dabs said:


> I honestly haven't paid much attention to the people who use food stamp benefits. I see Moms in the food stores with their children buying chips and sodas and candy, but I see them buying milk and bread and meat as well.
> I don't feel it's any of my business to wonder how they are using their benefits, I know people abuse the system, but I have other things to worry about.
> I will say tho, in my opinion, I really think families who are on the food stamp program should be allowed to purchase some non-food items, because there are some in that category that are a necessity.
> Items like toilet tissue, shampoo, soap, laundry detergent, toothpaste- those items are very much needed and if they take away the candy and chips and soda to those on food stamps, they should allow them to purchase the needed non-food items.



I see the receipts  most get 500$ and about 400 FBT food  per month  plus there housing is about 20$ a  month  down the street where I pay 600 +   the value of home has not increased as I  would like,  because they turned all the condos in section 8 housing .
 Nobody asked  me or my neighbors if we  wanted to turn a neighborhood with 120.000 (17 years ago)homes into a ghetto.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 26, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Fine they are  buying   blueray disks and bigscreens now.
> ...



I used to work for Kroger's Supermarkets.  For the record, food stamp benefits can only be used for items classified as "grocery", as opposed to "deli", "alcohol", or "general merchandise".    Basically, anything in the supermarket that is edible and not considered "prepared".  This can be confusing sometimes.  For example, the rotisserie chickens made in the deli section?  They cannot be purchased with food stamps when they are hot.  They CAN, however, be purchased with food stamps later on, when they are cold and have been moved to the refrigerator.  When they originally came out, energy drinks could not be purchased with food stamps, because they were considered not to have enough nutritious content.  Now most of them can be, although some still don't qualify.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 26, 2011)

JBeukema said:


> How to enforce it if the store doesn't take the initiative?
> 
> How to determine exactly what qualifies?



I can answer that, as well.  The Department of Agriculture, which administers food stamps (don't ask me why), simply will not pay for items not authorized for their use.  It's programmed into the computers, and when the recipient swipes his EBT card in the card reader, the computer automatically applies the food stamps ONLY to those items allowed, then presents the cashier with a balance owed for all other items.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 27, 2011)

dblack said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > This is not about diet  but  limiting  how the taxpayer is fleeced .
> ...



Its a question of how effectively the taxpayer's dollars are spent. By your logic we should just hand the needy cash money. While their is certainly a large portion of needy people who would take that cash money and spend it on the same food they would have bought with the food stamps - another portion would spend it on booze and smokes - things the taxpayer doesn't really want to buy for them as it does not accomplish the _purpose_ that the taxpayer as set forth. A lot of the irresponsible poor have children to feed - and while they'd spend the cash on booze - they'll spend the food stamps on food and the children will get fed.


One way I think that might be both good for businesses, the taxpayer, and those in need is just to find a way to encourage the grocers themselves to restrict the items that can be bought with food stamps. Perhaps a grocer who does not allow junk food to be bought with food stamps could receive some tax credits in exchange. This way we don't have to monitor ever single recipients spending patterns and the problem is taken care of by the market in exchange for financial benefit. We could use the already existing IRS to enforce the rules - busting grocers who sell junk food on food stamps but claim the credit for fraud.


----------



## dblack (May 27, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Its a question of how effectively the taxpayer's dollars are spent. By your logic we should just hand the needy cash money.



By my logic, we wouldn't be using government to do this at all, at least not to the extent we are currently. But as long as government _is_ doing it, we must understand that it is not the same as private charity. With private charity, those doing the giving can put whatever constraints on the gift that they like. But government must play by different rules.

Equal protection under the law is an incredibly important concept. We don't, or at least shouldn't, tolerate a government that treats some people as "more equal" than others. The nature of state services is that they are paid for from general revenues (taxes) that everyone is subject to, and provided to all more or less equally. Most importantly, we don't want to allow the eligibility for any state service to be based on extenuating 'demands'. We wouldn't tolerate cops who only patrolled neighborhoods that regularly supplied them with coffee and donuts, for example.

As I mentioned earlier, the concern I have is with any policy whereby enlisting the services of government reduces your rights as a citizen. In particular, I don't want to see the services we pay for via taxes, used as indirect means of control. The means by which government can exert power over us are supposed to be constrained by constitutional limits, and I see this as just another way around those limits. In short, if I've paid taxes for various safety net programs, or any other government service for that matter, I shouldn't be required to sign away my basic rights to utilize them.

I'm curious how you see the point I was making earlier about nationalizing health care. If health care is turned into a government entitlement, will you be ok with the state setting up similar restrictions and demands in order to use it? This seems like a dangerous development to me, and will open up our personal lives to micromanagement by the state.

I understand the impulse to not want to see 'handouts' misused. But as long as the 'handouts' are provided as a government services, they must (in my opinion) be offered up as equally as possible. I don't want to see them used as yet another tool for social manipulation. We should resist the urge to tell the poor that the must buy the 'right' kind of food, or go to re-education camps, or church, or whatever other thing that well-meaning people might feel is good for them. Those sorts of conditions are fine as "quid-pro-quo" for private charities, but it's improper use of state power.



> One way I think that might be both good for businesses, the taxpayer, and those in need is just to find a way to encourage the grocers themselves to restrict the items that can be bought with food stamps. Perhaps a grocer who does not allow junk food to be bought with food stamps could receive some tax credits in exchange. This way we don't have to monitor ever single recipients spending patterns and the problem is taken care of by the market in exchange for financial benefit. We could use the already existing IRS to enforce the rules - busting grocers who sell junk food on food stamps but claim the credit for fraud.



This seems like a horrible idea to me, and a perfect example of the kind of indirect control I'm opposed to. The IRS is there to collect taxes to finance government. Not to push us around.


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2011)

The government does not have to provide nothing or all, that's ridiculous. The government can subsidize however it likes....for example, some improvement grants are given only to people with homes on the register of historical sites...just because they are given for those homes doesn't mean the same money must be spread amongst ALL people with homes that need repaired. The money is earmarked for that, specifically.

The foodstamp program can certainly be a program that fulfills the requirement of preventing hunger without providing an all-inclusive smorgasborg of dainties and empty calories, and nobody's rights are violated in putting restrictions on what these department of agriculture dollars can be used for. 

In fact, one could argue that since the money is managed through the Dept. of Ag, it should be provided with the disclaimer that it be used only for staples, fresh and non-processed produce, and US meat.


----------



## dblack (May 27, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> The foodstamp program can certainly be a program that fulfills the requirement of preventing hunger without providing an all-inclusive smorgasborg of dainties and empty calories, and nobody's rights are violated in putting restrictions on what these department of agriculture dollars can be used for.



Alright, then I have to ask again about the health care example - not to be a nag, but because I'm honestly curious how this is going to go down (assuming we do end up with health care as another entitlement). Will you advocate the same reasoning there? Should we withhold health care (or otherwise penalize) people who have unhealthy personal habits? Should people who smoke, or drink, or participate in dangerous sports or hobbies be held 'accountable' for potentially costing the taxpayers more?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 27, 2011)

No because food isn't being withheld from people who have bad eating habits. We're (theoretically) just providing certain foods. It's like the tribes provide salmon, or the dept of Ag provides whatever they have for food boxes. Same concept. Food is being provided; you don't ration certain foods based upon people's behaviors, you just don't provide $$ for any of those foods, period.

Health care....certain medical procedures aren't covered for anyone. They are elective procedures. Same concept. You can live without those procedures, you don't have to have them to live...and you can live without those foods...you don't have to have them to keep from starving.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (May 27, 2011)

dblack said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Its a question of how effectively the taxpayer's dollars are spent. By your logic we should just hand the needy cash money.
> ...



Well I heck I suppose we could provide NO assistance to needy families but then there's the issue of what the fuck do we do with all the hungry children? It costs MORE money to put them into foster care, both in terms of direct costs and the indirect costs that shitty system places on society. And we can't have a nation of hungry children - its bad for national security. In times of grave emergency the nation needs healthy young adults to draft, not malnourished young adults.





> Equal protection under the law is an incredibly important concept. We don't, or at least shouldn't, tolerate a government that treats some people as "more equal" than others. The nature of state services is that they are paid for from general revenues (taxes) that everyone is subject to, and provided to all more or less equally. Most importantly, we don't want to allow the eligibility for any state service to be based on extenuating 'demands'. We wouldn't tolerate cops who only patrolled neighborhoods that regularly supplied them with coffee and donuts, for example.


You make absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.



> This seems like a horrible idea to me, and a perfect example of the kind of indirect control I'm opposed to. The IRS is there to collect taxes to finance government. Not to push us around.



What control are you even talking about, it would be _voluntary_ moron!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 5, 2011)

A  bunch of nice food on food stamps and  high priced Tampa bay ray  ray clothes for a 2 years old.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 5, 2011)

Egg size, bread  type,   type of cheese , and milk and type of cereal and baby food is highly regulated under WIC.


----------



## Shogun (Jun 5, 2011)

Although I tend to fall on the liberal side of the fence I DO support this kind of initiative.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 6, 2011)

After watching this in the grocery the other day..

I also think that "convenience" food should be off of the list. This woman had pre packaged salad mix, pre made chef salad in little plastic bowls, ice cream bars and international flavored coffee. 

WTF?.... buy lettuce..wash it... and make your damn salad! 

Food stamps should not be about being fucking lazy.


----------



## editec (Jun 6, 2011)

> *Limit what foodstamps are able to buy? *



More _hate your neighbor_ blather.

Grow up.

This nation's macroeconomic problems have nothing to do with what your neighbors are buying with their food suppliment dollars.


----------



## dblack (Jun 6, 2011)

syrenn said:


> IWTF?.... buy lettuce..wash it... and make your damn salad!
> 
> Food stamps should not be about being fucking lazy.



We should have minders that keep an eye on their preparation techniques, to make sure they're doing it right.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 8, 2011)

200$ worth of food on ebt and a 760$ dell laptop.


----------



## JohnA (Jun 9, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


 quess what my tax dollars pays for your kids education and the public library so im going to insist the schools only teach what  i believe  in the library  only has books that get my approval


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 9, 2011)

Sorry, but I'm not so crazy about playing Nanny to people in the form of buying them food in the first place, that I want to go even farther and start trying to tell them how to eat and how to live their lives.  That, to me, is just another step in the wrong direction of treating adults like helpless, retarded five-year-olds, and encouraging them to act that way.

Focus on encouraging them to get off the dole, and mind your own damned business about their nutrition or lack thereof.  It stopped being your money at the point where the government took it to give to other people.  By the time it's on their EBT card, it's DEFINITELY not yours.  The time to worry about the misuse of your money is way back when the government was first fleecing us all, and THAT is where you need to put on the brakes.

It really amazes me how much time and energy some people spend scrutinizing the contents of other people's grocery baskets.  When did we become such a nation of Gladys Kravitzes?


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 9, 2011)

I notice when they put it in  the belt  for me to ring it up .


----------



## syrenn (Jun 9, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I notice when they put it in  the belt  for me to ring it up .




I notice it when they are fucking holding up the line in front of me!


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 9, 2011)

the point of the thread is to open a dialogue about the dole  and the benefits .
If we tax payers are going to be asked to pay these taxes, we aught have a say on the waste.
I dont want a  nanny state .
I want grown ups in charge, not premises enablers sucking up for votes


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 10, 2011)

Beer wine  and movies on government gift cards and food on EBT all  day long.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 11, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> the point of the thread is to open a dialogue about the dole  and the benefits .
> If we tax payers are going to be asked to pay these taxes, we aught have a say on the waste.
> I dont want a  nanny state .
> I want grown ups in charge, not premises enablers sucking up for votes



You have no say in how people choose to live their lives, nor should you.  If you think the money going into food stamps is being wasted, then you need to campaign to have the program itself limited or eliminated, not try to use it to micromanage people's lives.  The solution is to BACK AWAY from being involved, not get in even further.


----------



## oldsalt (Jun 11, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > the point of the thread is to open a dialogue about the dole  and the benefits .
> ...



Bingo.  The emphasis should be on who is and how they, qualified.  Once that is set, none of your bees wax.


----------



## Yoda (Jun 11, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...




I've never recieved food stamp but I have worked retail. Ask your boss exactly how much does the store make off of food stamps, cashing welfare checks, SSI/Social Security checks and WIC. The store owner makes more money off the taxpayer than anyone on welfare has ever madem especially if you add all the local/state/federal tax breaks, credits, grants and loans. 

Reguardless what you think, Wal-Mart and you local grocer in short, Big Business makes more money off of social programs than the people do. Want to solve it? Increase corprate tax 250% for american companies who outsource, create or fund jobs overseas and make it 100% Tax free if they create, fund and PRODUCE jobs and good here in the USA. Raise terrifs on all foreign goods 50% and raise corprate tax on foreign companies that operate in the USA by 50% . Replace all social programs with a job training and placement program. Once they have a job, they're off the government tit for good.


----------



## oldsalt (Jun 11, 2011)

Yoda said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Bravo!


----------



## Pekin (Jun 11, 2011)

Isn't putting limits on what they can "buy" with food stamps encouraging them to get off the dole?  We make it way to easy to sit on you ass and collect free food money and rent.   

Perhaps if we limit it to only really healthy food they would find the energy to get off the couch and work for their junk food?


----------



## Polk (Jun 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Grace said:
> 
> 
> > How about grocery stores for Welfare Recipients only? Nothing stocked in them except what can be purchased via foodstamps.
> ...



You realize that even though you're right they'll never admit it, right?


----------



## Polk (Jun 12, 2011)

AllieBaba said:


> Exactly.
> Let's provide them with free, healthy food, I'm all for that. And they can choose not to take it if they like...



Because we definitely want the government determine what is and is not healthy...


----------



## dblack (Jun 12, 2011)

Polk said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Grace said:
> ...



Soylent Green is people!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 12, 2011)

Yoda said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



What a FANTASTIC idea!  Let's raise taxes exponentially on retail stores, so that they raise their prices exponentially, and we reduce the standard of living for the poor and middle-class, just so that YOU can be vindictive and feel like you've "stuck it to Big Business".  And oh, hey, even better, let's make their products even more expensive and harder to find, so that only rich people can afford the things that, right now, nearly everyone in the country takes for granted.  Because all that REALLY matters is satisfying YOUR class envy.

For someone who claims to have worked in retail, you sure are ignorant of how it works beyond the cashier-and-bag-boy level.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 12, 2011)

Pekin said:


> Isn't putting limits on what they can "buy" with food stamps encouraging them to get off the dole?  We make it way to easy to sit on you ass and collect free food money and rent.
> 
> Perhaps if we limit it to only really healthy food they would find the energy to get off the couch and work for their junk food?



No.  You think it's not already a monumental pain in the ass to be on welfare?  If so, you've obviously been lucky enough not to have had to deal with a lot of government bureaucracies in your life.  Which is not to say that there aren't still people who would rather jump through those hoops than get a job.

All you're really suggesting is making life a lot more difficult - and the program more expensive for the taxpayer - in order to satisfy your own desire to "punish" welfare recipients.

Limit or eliminate the program in general.  Don't use it as an excuse to make our government even more intrusive and Big Brother-ish.  This country really needs to learn to mind its own business more.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 12, 2011)

Yoda said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



The hassle of WIC  and ebt is a money loser , the 6 cent on the dollar we  make is the same  without regard to the source.
You  are an  ass talker  for lackof a better term, sorry.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 12, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Pekin said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't putting limits on what they can "buy" with food stamps encouraging them to get off the dole?  We make it way to easy to sit on you ass and collect free food money and rent.
> ...



How our tax money is wasted is our business.
Limiting  what can be bought maybe a step in eliminating the program.
I asked a woman how long she had had her card she said 17 years.
Long enough to grow fat as a cow, and  have several fat children .


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 12, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Pekin said:
> ...



"How our tax money is wasted" is when it is collected and put into social programs, not when the recipients go shopping.  At that point, it is no longer YOUR money; it's theirs.

Furthermore, as I think someone else said, whatever type of food people buy with their food stamps changes your tax liability for that program not in the slightest.  The American taxpayer will be paying exactly the same amount for it either way.  Quite simply, it's just trying to control other people's diets because you want to punish them for being on welfare, without doing a thing that helps or even affects the taxpayers who are your pretext for venting your vindictiveness.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 13, 2011)

Im all for cutting them off completely  .
Since that isnt going to  happen and they are spending money  that  the government is borrowing,

 as citizens we get to steer the government in the directions  that we believe is sensible .
If we are going to have  the poor,  they  are going to be skinny and uncomfortable.
Confiscating their ipods xboxes cars and TV and  air jordans  and auctioning them off sounds like a a good idea as well.
Feathering their beds doesnt seem to be working.


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> ... as citizens we get to steer the government in the directions  that we believe is sensible.



But, as a constitutionally limited institution, we can only steer it to do certain things. Majority rule only goes so far.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > ... as citizens we get to steer the government in the directions  that we believe is sensible.
> ...



Just because we CAN steer the government to do something doesn't mean we SHOULD.


----------



## dblack (Jun 13, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Just because we CAN steer the government to do something doesn't mean we SHOULD.



True, but everyone has different 'shoulds'. The whole point of constitutional democracy is to limit the extent to which people can force their 'shoulds' on others.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Just because we CAN steer the government to do something doesn't mean we SHOULD.
> ...



And tax payers  should not  be forced to  pay for junk food,  they arent allowed to buy  beer or cigarettes why m&ms and pringles.
thet cant by socks or dental floss with food stamps,  but with EBT money anything goes including booze & lap dances .


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Jun 20, 2011)

cant wait to get this  plan here

THOUSANDS of people are enjoying luxury Mercedes and BMW cars provided free by the taxpayer in a vast scam.
The £1.4 billion-a-year Motability scheme supplying cars for the disabled is being abused by claimants' friends and relatives.
A disabled person can nominate someone to drive them around, and rules state the Motability car must not be used for any other purpose.
But few checks are made, and thousands of nominated drivers use the vehicles for their own benefit.
Someone receiving higher rate disability living allowance can use the £51.40-a-week impaired mobility payment to lease a car such as a £12,140 Ford Zetec.
Upgrade

But with a £2,000 deposit they can upgrade to a new £22,695 BMW 3-Series saloon.
Insurance, servicing, breakdown help and replacement tyres are free.

A third of the 580,000 Motability cars on the road are registered with nominated drivers.
A probe found car dealers telling relatives they can use Motability cars for personal commuting, family trips and holidays - in clear breach of the rules.
One dealer told The Sun: "Disabled people genuinely need these cars and many rely on nominated drivers, but there are many clear abuses.
"I see healthy young men laughing as they pick top-of-the-range cars and no one ever checks.
"The scam has gone unchecked for years because it helped push up sales. The only people losing out are the taxpayers ripped off to the tune of millions of pounds."


Read more: Free BMWs for pals of disabled in scam | The Sun |News


----------



## Douger (Jun 20, 2011)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> A man who won $2 million on a Michigan lottery show has told a TV station that he still uses food stamps.
> 
> Leroy Fick of Bay County admitted he still swipes the electronic card at stores, nearly a year after winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!" He told WNEM-TV in Saginaw that more than half the prize went to taxes.
> 
> Fick says the Department of Human Services told him he could continue to use the card, which is paid with tax dollars. He told WNEM: "If you're going to ... try to make me feel bad, you aren't going to do it.


How much did he have to hand over to the IRS ? I'm guessing 500-600 grand. Let him keep the stamps.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 29, 2018)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Can you believe 7 years later they are still debating this?

Food Stamps For Soda: Time To End Billion-Dollar Subsidy For Sugary Drinks?

According to a 2016 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, sweetened beverages, including soda, are among the most commonly purchased items by recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or SNAP.

SNAP households spend about 10 percent of food dollars on sugary drinks, which is about three times more than the amount they spend on milk. In New York City alone, as we've reported, this translates into more than $75 million in sugary drink purchases each year that are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.

However, since taxpayers foot the roughly $70 billion bill for SNAP each year, critics question whether it makes sense to support the purchase of sugary drinks, which have been shown to play a significant role in weight gain and the onset of Type 2 diabetes.

The only possible reason we do this is because of the Coca Cola lobby.

One would incentivize the purchase of healthy foods, by offering a 30 percent subsidy for people to buy such things as fruits and vegetables, nuts, whole grains and fish. "People could still buy less healthy foods, but they'd get 30 percent less for their dollars," 

This approach may also help counter critics who argue that SNAP recipients should have the freedom to make their own dietary choices. With this approach, "we would preserve choice, but nudge people towards healthier eating," 

Rector says he would support a simpler approach: preventing the use of SNAP benefits to purchase sugary drinks and junk food items. "This would be much easier to implement," Rector says.

I actually agree with Republicans on this.  No pops on foodstamps.  Only healthy foods that will keep them alive.  No coca cola or mountain dews.


----------



## dblack (Oct 30, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> I actually agree with Republicans on this.  No pops on foodstamps.  Only healthy foods that will keep them alive.  No coca cola or mountain dews.



Of course, where's the fun in promoting dependency on the state if we can't use for a little arm-twisting here and there, eh?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 30, 2018)

dblack said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > I actually agree with Republicans on this.  No pops on foodstamps.  Only healthy foods that will keep them alive.  No coca cola or mountain dews.
> ...


I don’t think anyone other than a Coca Cola lobbyist or flaming liberal could make an argument for allowing such a bad for you product on the list of things that qualify for food-stamps. Which are you?

Why not twinkees? They probably do qualify. They shouldn’t. 

This is common sense.


----------



## dblack (Oct 30, 2018)

sealybobo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



No. It's using dependency to tell people how to live. It's a nasty one-two punch that Democrats and Republicans cooperate to deliver. They lure the poor into dependency on the state, and then use it to bully them.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 30, 2018)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


corn chips are made from whole grain...


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 30, 2018)

Mr.Fitnah said:


> I see fat americans buys 200 $ of ice-cream  doughnuts and  cake   with  their "entitlements" and  then  buying cigarettes  and big screens and blue ray disks  with  their cash. I see it  daily.


grocery clerk?


----------



## dblack (Oct 30, 2018)

Moonglow said:


> Mr.Fitnah said:
> 
> 
> > Doungnuts cake  chips gum candy soda ?
> ...



And the gluten in them is totally free.


----------



## Moonglow (Oct 30, 2018)

dblack said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...


wrong type of grain..


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Oct 30, 2018)

dblack said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Mr.Fitnah said:
> ...



Unless you have ciliac disease, gluten is not a bad thing.


----------

