Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood

[Cecilie1200]

I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.

Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes, 30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member, a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.

There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries. I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy. And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When I look at all the other "well meaning" bullshit out there, the ongoing trends of the country, and things that have directly touched my life because of others opinions on what petty shit I should, or should not, be doing with my life - I simply have to reject the idea of that level of micromanagement.

I do however like the idea of bulk, excess sure, handouts quite a bit and I think that's a good compromise to not encourage more nanny-state, but still provide only what is necessary or however you want to phrase it. I bet it'd lower our costs as well, if we ran stock like a business does I mean, because I am willing to bet a number of welfare recipients would turn their nose up at the offerings, and surely that would crash any EBT sales rings.

Why exactly did we stop doing the handing out bundles of food thing?

We didn't. There are still various programs that do that.

 

[koshergrl]

I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.

Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes, 30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member, a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.

There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries. I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy. And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.

 

[Boss]

The purpose of the program is to provide people the means to purchase food. At some point, we have to stop treating people like children, assume they can make decisions for themselves, and then let them live with the consequences of deciding badly.

First it wasn't enough to let people go hungry if they wouldn't provide for themselves (I'm not a supporter of letting people suffer if they're incapable of providing for themselves); we had to provide for them. Now it's not enough for them to be fat and unhealthy if they don't choose to eat properly; we must force them to eat what we think they should. At what point do we stop treating adults like retarded five-year-olds and taking over more and more of their independence?

We won't stop as long as this country continues electing liberals. At it's very core, liberalism (socialism) becomes the antithesis of independence and liberty. We're too fucking stupid to know what is best for us, the government has to tell us what's best. We can't be allowed to make our own choices because we might not make the PC choice.

It also does us no good to elect (an re-elect) capitulating Republicans who are afraid of opposing liberals out of fear of losing elections. As long as that "47%" out there is voting for government to solve all our problems, we will continue to see government take more of our freedom.

 

[Boss]

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

The thing is, this isn't a popular thing to say because it's not PC! You are to be chastised and ridiculed, denigrated and insulted for being the worst monster imaginable. We have to compare you to Hitler and assume you like drowning kittens in your spare time.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. When did we jump the tracks on common sense and assume it's our responsibility to care for those not motivated to care for themselves? Was it LBJ? Was it FDR? Maybe it was 1911? Maybe it was 1864? I think it has been incremental, a little at a time, just like Rules for Radicals teaches.

Each generation that passes adds another layer of complexity to the stupid. We now have liberals arguing that government should write off the student loans which liberals begged us to make in order to help the less fortunate. Are HUD loans for homes next on the agenda?

How much is enough? Well, nothing is ever enough for a Liberal and it's never going to be enough.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, if you waste it, then you don't have any more for the rest of the month, and you get to find another way to pay for your food. So what? This is really just about resenting poor people for getting welfare, which I can understand, but I have no interest in reacting by trying to micromanage people's lives even further.

The thing is, how many EBT cards get filled per month for the same money as goes to a single vacation for Michelle and her vast entourage? I have better things to resent than feeding the poor...

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.

Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes, 30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member, a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.

There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries. I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy. And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.

It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all. It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that. And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.

I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living. Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue). Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well. The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.

 

[koshergrl]

I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.

Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes, 30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member, a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.

There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries. I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy. And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.

It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all. It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that. And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.

I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living. Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue). Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well. The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.

More than 600 for a family of four with one working parent, or two parents working part time.

600 in foodstamps can enable a pretty awesome standard of living for people who already don't have to pay for rent or electricity, school lunches or even Christmas presents, thanks to the charity of their communities and federal entitlement programs. I've talked to hundreds of people who, upon finally bringing in an income that is sufficient to support their families, whine that "I'm being punished for working!" when they find out their foodstamps have been reduced. And their response is to quit their jobs. Why should they work if they eat worse when they're working than they do when they aren't, and have LESS disposable income? If you earn $600 a month, and you don't have to pay rent, food, or utilities, that's $600 you can spend on fun!

 

[RKMBrown]

I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.

Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes, 30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member, a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.

There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries. I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy. And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.

It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all. It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that. And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.

I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living. Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue). Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well. The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.

More than 600 for a family of four with one working parent, or two parents working part time.

600 in foodstamps can enable a pretty awesome standard of living for people who already don't have to pay for rent or electricity, school lunches or even Christmas presents, thanks to the charity of their communities and federal entitlement programs. I've talked to hundreds of people who, upon finally bringing in an income that is sufficient to support their families, whine that "I'm being punished for working!" when they find out their foodstamps have been reduced. And their response is to quit their jobs. Why should they work if they eat worse when they're working than they do when they aren't, and have LESS disposable income? If you earn $600 a month, and you don't have to pay rent, food, or utilities, that's $600 you can spend on fun!

That's because the purpose of these federal programs isn't charity. The purpose of these federal programs is to manage the population.

 

[koshergrl]

I would actually much rather they just be given bulk food items once a month and skip the allotment altogether.

Give them 10 lbs of beans, 10 lbs of potatoes, 30 lbs of meat, a gallon of milk per household member, a bag of rice, a bag of sugar, pasta, cheese, and canned or frozen veggies, flour, salt, eggs, and some baked goods mixes.

There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries. I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy. And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.

It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all. It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that. And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.

I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living. Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue). Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well. The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.

More than 600 for a family of four with one working parent, or two parents working part time.

600 in foodstamps can enable a pretty awesome standard of living for people who already don't have to pay for rent or electricity, school lunches or even Christmas presents, thanks to the charity of their communities and federal entitlement programs. I've talked to hundreds of people who, upon finally bringing in an income that is sufficient to support their families, whine that "I'm being punished for working!" when they find out their foodstamps have been reduced. And their response is to quit their jobs. Why should they work if they eat worse when they're working than they do when they aren't, and have LESS disposable income? If you earn $600 a month, and you don't have to pay rent, food, or utilities, that's $600 you can spend on fun!

That's because the purpose of these federal programs isn't charity. The purpose of these federal programs is to manage the population.

Which is why we should limit them, if we can't eliminate them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

The thing is, this isn't a popular thing to say because it's not PC! You are to be chastised and ridiculed, denigrated and insulted for being the worst monster imaginable. We have to compare you to Hitler and assume you like drowning kittens in your spare time.

You are, of course, absolutely correct. When did we jump the tracks on common sense and assume it's our responsibility to care for those not motivated to care for themselves? Was it LBJ? Was it FDR? Maybe it was 1911? Maybe it was 1864? I think it has been incremental, a little at a time, just like Rules for Radicals teaches.

Each generation that passes adds another layer of complexity to the stupid. We now have liberals arguing that government should write off the student loans which liberals begged us to make in order to help the less fortunate. Are HUD loans for homes next on the agenda?

How much is enough? Well, nothing is ever enough for a Liberal and it's never going to be enough.

Yeah, well, I've never given a stale piss about being popular or politically correct, so people are welcome to denigrate and chastise and whatever the hell else to their heart's content. I don't care about that any more than I do the quality of total strangers' nutrition.

The fact is, I treasure every opportunity I have to not put out the energy to care and have an opinion, and I resent just on principle being required to form an opinion because someone insists on making something my business that really shouldn't be. I am therefore incapable of comprehending people who feel the need to have opinions on and get themselves involved in things that do not involve them and do not have to involve them.

The person in front of me in the checkout line has steak and ice cream and TV dinners? Just get the hell out of my way quickly so I can pay and go home, and I really don't give a damn what you buy.

The government is wasting my tax dollars redistributing it to other people. This concerns me. What they spend it on once they get it is irrelevant, because it's not going to be any less a stupid government redistribution if they buy organic tofu than if they buy frozen fried chicken and potato chips.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries. I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy. And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.

It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all. It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that. And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.

I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living. Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue). Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well. The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.

More than 600 for a family of four with one working parent, or two parents working part time.

600 in foodstamps can enable a pretty awesome standard of living for people who already don't have to pay for rent or electricity, school lunches or even Christmas presents, thanks to the charity of their communities and federal entitlement programs. I've talked to hundreds of people who, upon finally bringing in an income that is sufficient to support their families, whine that "I'm being punished for working!" when they find out their foodstamps have been reduced. And their response is to quit their jobs. Why should they work if they eat worse when they're working than they do when they aren't, and have LESS disposable income? If you earn $600 a month, and you don't have to pay rent, food, or utilities, that's $600 you can spend on fun!

That's because the purpose of these federal programs isn't charity. The purpose of these federal programs is to manage the population.

Which is why we should limit them, if we can't eliminate them.

We did once, under Clinton... then we elected Obama.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are already programs that do that.

I frankly have a problem with the food stamp program in general, precisely because I don't think it's the government's job to babysit adults by buying them groceries. I am not going to support further babysitting them by micromanaging the types of food they buy. And I really see no point to doing so simply to pander to people's vindictive nosiness.

Having worked in the administration of a grocery store, I have a pretty good idea what's involved in a hands-on sense to accommodate specifics and exclusions on government programs, and I'm flatly against making that more complicated, costly, and time-consuming without a better reason.

To be brutally honest, I don't much care if those people go hungry. I REALLY don't care if they're fat and have bad nutrition.

I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.

It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all. It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that. And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.

I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living. Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue). Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well. The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.

More than 600 for a family of four with one working parent, or two parents working part time.

600 in foodstamps can enable a pretty awesome standard of living for people who already don't have to pay for rent or electricity, school lunches or even Christmas presents, thanks to the charity of their communities and federal entitlement programs. I've talked to hundreds of people who, upon finally bringing in an income that is sufficient to support their families, whine that "I'm being punished for working!" when they find out their foodstamps have been reduced. And their response is to quit their jobs. Why should they work if they eat worse when they're working than they do when they aren't, and have LESS disposable income? If you earn $600 a month, and you don't have to pay rent, food, or utilities, that's $600 you can spend on fun!

That's because the purpose of these federal programs isn't charity. The purpose of these federal programs is to manage the population.

Which is why we should limit them, if we can't eliminate them.

There's a difference between limiting and micromanaging. We already limit them by requiring that SNAP can only be spent on consumable items with a certain nutrition content (there have actually been energy drinks that did not meet that fairly low standard, which tells you a lot about why they went out of business), requiring that it cannot be used to purchase prepared foods such as deli items or hot foods, etc. Getting into "too nice for you to have on public money; other people don't have that kind of stuff" is micromanaging. It's just pandering to resentment, not really accomplishing anything useful.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We did once, under Clinton... then we elected Obama.

What did we eliminate under Clinton?



This should be RICH...

 

[jknowgood]

what if its round steak?.....

All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.

And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is? I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.

It is called science, but common sense can tell you lots. And I am not suggesting people be told how to live. I am suggesting that when we give charity to to people we should have some control of how the charity is used. They can spend their own money however they want. If my money is being spent to feed your kids I should be able to insist you don't my donated money on soda and candy. If you don't like the rules don't take the donation.

Exactly.
I used to bristle at the thought of denying foodstamp recipients carte blanche when it came to spending their snap dollars as well, I was like "If it's legal for them, they should have the authority to spend it as they please".

Except that begs the question....what is the purpose of the program? The purpose of the program is to stave off starvation. If that's the purpose, then why are we providing empty calories that serve no purpose?

My change of mind came after having a series of involved discussions with a DHS program manager, over the course of 4 years. She said it wasn't a hardship and it wasn't micromanagement...this is CHARITY..and all the rest of us have to budget our food allotment, why should snap recipients be any different? Why should they be able to buy doritos and m&Ms and soda fountain pop..when those of us who are PAYING for their food can't afford them? That's just backwards and wrong.

The purpose of the program is to provide people the means to purchase food. At some point, we have to stop treating people like children, assume they can make decisions for themselves, and then let them live with the consequences of deciding badly.

First it wasn't enough to let people go hungry if they wouldn't provide for themselves (I'm not a supporter of letting people suffer if they're incapable of providing for themselves); we had to provide for them. Now it's not enough for them to be fat and unhealthy if they don't choose to eat properly; we must force them to eat what we think they should. At what point do we stop treating adults like retarded five-year-olds and taking over more and more of their independence?

You can when you're responsible enough to support yourself. If you expect tax payers to support you then you lose certain choices.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.

And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is? I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.

It is called science, but common sense can tell you lots. And I am not suggesting people be told how to live. I am suggesting that when we give charity to to people we should have some control of how the charity is used. They can spend their own money however they want. If my money is being spent to feed your kids I should be able to insist you don't my donated money on soda and candy. If you don't like the rules don't take the donation.

Exactly.
I used to bristle at the thought of denying foodstamp recipients carte blanche when it came to spending their snap dollars as well, I was like "If it's legal for them, they should have the authority to spend it as they please".

Except that begs the question....what is the purpose of the program? The purpose of the program is to stave off starvation. If that's the purpose, then why are we providing empty calories that serve no purpose?

My change of mind came after having a series of involved discussions with a DHS program manager, over the course of 4 years. She said it wasn't a hardship and it wasn't micromanagement...this is CHARITY..and all the rest of us have to budget our food allotment, why should snap recipients be any different? Why should they be able to buy doritos and m&Ms and soda fountain pop..when those of us who are PAYING for their food can't afford them? That's just backwards and wrong.

The purpose of the program is to provide people the means to purchase food. At some point, we have to stop treating people like children, assume they can make decisions for themselves, and then let them live with the consequences of deciding badly.

First it wasn't enough to let people go hungry if they wouldn't provide for themselves (I'm not a supporter of letting people suffer if they're incapable of providing for themselves); we had to provide for them. Now it's not enough for them to be fat and unhealthy if they don't choose to eat properly; we must force them to eat what we think they should. At what point do we stop treating adults like retarded five-year-olds and taking over more and more of their independence?

You can when you're responsible enough to support yourself. If you expect tax payers to support you then you lose certain choices.

Is it reading comprehension or ignorant dick attitude that makes you incapable of having a conversation without making it about the personal? No wonder you're eating your liver out over what you imagine other people are doing. Get a grip.

 

[koshergrl]

I agree, but I also believe that if the program is going to be forced upon us, it behooves us to require that it actually follow the guidelines it was established under...that is, to keep people from starving. Not to provide them with a standard of living that is beyond what most working people can provide for their families.

It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all. It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that. And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.

I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living. Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue). Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well. The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.

More than 600 for a family of four with one working parent, or two parents working part time.

600 in foodstamps can enable a pretty awesome standard of living for people who already don't have to pay for rent or electricity, school lunches or even Christmas presents, thanks to the charity of their communities and federal entitlement programs. I've talked to hundreds of people who, upon finally bringing in an income that is sufficient to support their families, whine that "I'm being punished for working!" when they find out their foodstamps have been reduced. And their response is to quit their jobs. Why should they work if they eat worse when they're working than they do when they aren't, and have LESS disposable income? If you earn $600 a month, and you don't have to pay rent, food, or utilities, that's $600 you can spend on fun!

That's because the purpose of these federal programs isn't charity. The purpose of these federal programs is to manage the population.

Which is why we should limit them, if we can't eliminate them.

There's a difference between limiting and micromanaging. We already limit them by requiring that SNAP can only be spent on consumable items with a certain nutrition content (there have actually been energy drinks that did not meet that fairly low standard, which tells you a lot about why they went out of business), requiring that it cannot be used to purchase prepared foods such as deli items or hot foods, etc. Getting into "too nice for you to have on public money; other people don't have that kind of stuff" is micromanaging. It's just pandering to resentment, not really accomplishing anything useful.

It needs to be further limited.

 

[KissMy]

Hamburger will cost more than steak if this passes. When the recession hit, hamburger prices here went up 400% within a year, but steak prices dropped 30% because hamburger was a by-product of steaks that was sold at a loss. Now demand drove hamburger prices through the roof because the explosion of unemployed & working poor could only afford the cheapest crap . This was a huge punch in the gut for poor people while the rich who caused the disaster get a break. Even the BLS price index shows hamburger is up 130% while steak is only up 30%. Unless some of the working poor are allowed or can afford steaks, hamburger will cost the same or more than steak.

Hamburger Prices

Steak Prices

Walmart Hamburger is $5.98/lb and Save A Lot T-Bone Steaks are $4.97/lb.

Why would you pass regulations that force people to waste taxpayer money on crap?

 

[jknowgood]

And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is? I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.

It is called science, but common sense can tell you lots. And I am not suggesting people be told how to live. I am suggesting that when we give charity to to people we should have some control of how the charity is used. They can spend their own money however they want. If my money is being spent to feed your kids I should be able to insist you don't my donated money on soda and candy. If you don't like the rules don't take the donation.

Exactly.
I used to bristle at the thought of denying foodstamp recipients carte blanche when it came to spending their snap dollars as well, I was like "If it's legal for them, they should have the authority to spend it as they please".

Except that begs the question....what is the purpose of the program? The purpose of the program is to stave off starvation. If that's the purpose, then why are we providing empty calories that serve no purpose?

My change of mind came after having a series of involved discussions with a DHS program manager, over the course of 4 years. She said it wasn't a hardship and it wasn't micromanagement...this is CHARITY..and all the rest of us have to budget our food allotment, why should snap recipients be any different? Why should they be able to buy doritos and m&Ms and soda fountain pop..when those of us who are PAYING for their food can't afford them? That's just backwards and wrong.

The purpose of the program is to provide people the means to purchase food. At some point, we have to stop treating people like children, assume they can make decisions for themselves, and then let them live with the consequences of deciding badly.

First it wasn't enough to let people go hungry if they wouldn't provide for themselves (I'm not a supporter of letting people suffer if they're incapable of providing for themselves); we had to provide for them. Now it's not enough for them to be fat and unhealthy if they don't choose to eat properly; we must force them to eat what we think they should. At what point do we stop treating adults like retarded five-year-olds and taking over more and more of their independence?

You can when you're responsible enough to support yourself. If you expect tax payers to support you then you lose certain choices.

Is it reading comprehension or ignorant dick attitude that makes you incapable of having a conversation without making it about the personal? No wonder you're eating your liver out over what you imagine other people are doing. Get a grip.

It's my fucking money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.

 

[Moonglow]

Hamburger will cost more than steak if this passes. When the recession hit, hamburger prices here went up 400% within a year, but steak prices dropped 30% because hamburger was a by-product of steaks that was sold at a loss. Now demand drove hamburger prices through the roof because the explosion of unemployed & working poor could only afford the cheapest crap . This was a huge punch in the gut for poor people while the rich who caused the disaster get a break. Even the BLS price index shows hamburger is up 130% while steak is only up 30%. Unless some of the working poor are allowed or can afford steaks, hamburger will cost the same or more than steak.

Hamburger Prices

Steak Prices

Walmart Hamburger is $5.98/lb and Save A Lot T-Bone Steaks are $4.97/lb.

Why would you pass regulations that force people to waste taxpayer money on crap?

Where is this Save A Lot?? I want t-bone and I have govt. vouchers....