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

[Cecilie1200]

Yep. I watched a similar video about a college professor that got his students to do this as a project. They lived on a diet. Of hot dogs, bologna,bread, ramen noodles,oranges and lettuce.

It can can be done in a pinch.

In a pinch yeah, but imagine that's your diet for months or years. Without Walmart and other discount stores, there would be little recourse for some of these people to start stealing food, escalating into armed robberies. I see no reason why benefits can't be capped like unemployment...two years at $10 a day. That way a person can eat nutritious food that is healthy and produces energy....after two weeks the guy in my link was already feeling sick.

I think that Snap is more than that in this state. I know a few people who were getting 125.00 a month.

But yes... I agree with you. It needs to be at least enough for a person to buy produce and other healthy items.

You DO realize that the "S" in SNAP stands for "supplemental". As in, it's not intended to be your entire food budget; it's intended to provide a supplement to what you already earn.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I am not willing to read 56 pages of posts, so forgive me if what I say has been said.

If we are going to regulate what foods they are allowed to buy, why are we wasting time on the nutritious stuff?

I'd rather they buy steak & seafood than Twinkies & Capt Crunch.

It all depends entirely on who is doing the limiting and why. One of the many problems with the idea.

 

[Andylusion]

So you don't know how to read even a basic chart? Did you have some sort of head trauma?

Brown, we know how to read one but we're wondering if you do.

The chart shows a steady increase in welfare spending. You were supposed to be showing where welfare spending was limited, curtailed, cut back, slowed down or something other than increased. You failed.

It's not even a matter of semantics or your infantile grasp of context this time. Is this one of those things where you've dug the hole so deep you figure to just keep digging? Maybe you think the chart is like one of those hidden image pictures and if we stare at it long enough you will be vindicated? Or maybe you're just a true-to-form liberal jackass braying his lies over and over in order to turn them into truths?

Whatever the case, you're definitely mental.

Welfare Spending Did Go Down for a few years During the Clinton Administration. That NEVER EVER happened under Reagan, Bush or Bush!

Reagan Bush were a Joke that you idiots worship!

Yes it did go down. The Republicans got control of congress in 1994. In 1995 they had the contract with America, and the budget battle. Part of that deals was welfare reform.

Republicans sent welfare reform to Clinton 3 times. He veto'd it twice, and finally signed the third one into law while promising to "fix it" later.

Instead welfare reform was a massive success, and welfare rolls declined year over year.

 

[BlueGin]

Yep. I watched a similar video about a college professor that got his students to do this as a project. They lived on a diet. Of hot dogs, bologna,bread, ramen noodles,oranges and lettuce.

It can can be done in a pinch.

In a pinch yeah, but imagine that's your diet for months or years. Without Walmart and other discount stores, there would be little recourse for some of these people to start stealing food, escalating into armed robberies. I see no reason why benefits can't be capped like unemployment...two years at $10 a day. That way a person can eat nutritious food that is healthy and produces energy....after two weeks the guy in my link was already feeling sick.

I think that Snap is more than that in this state. I know a few people who were getting 125.00 a month.

But yes... I agree with you. It needs to be at least enough for a person to buy produce and other healthy items.

You DO realize that the "S" in SNAP stands for "supplemental". As in, it's not intended to be your entire food budget; it's intended to provide a supplement to what you already earn.

Yes. And I don't agree with it being used for anything other than a supplement to your current earnings if a person qualifies .

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yep. I watched a similar video about a college professor that got his students to do this as a project. They lived on a diet. Of hot dogs, bologna,bread, ramen noodles,oranges and lettuce.

It can can be done in a pinch.

In a pinch yeah, but imagine that's your diet for months or years. Without Walmart and other discount stores, there would be little recourse for some of these people to start stealing food, escalating into armed robberies. I see no reason why benefits can't be capped like unemployment...two years at $10 a day. That way a person can eat nutritious food that is healthy and produces energy....after two weeks the guy in my link was already feeling sick.

I think that Snap is more than that in this state. I know a few people who were getting 125.00 a month.

But yes... I agree with you. It needs to be at least enough for a person to buy produce and other healthy items.

You DO realize that the "S" in SNAP stands for "supplemental". As in, it's not intended to be your entire food budget; it's intended to provide a supplement to what you already earn.

Yes. And I don't agree with it being used for anything other than a supplement to your current earnings if a person qualifies .

Quite true. If you can work, you should be. If you can't, then you have some other sort of income.

 

[AntiParty]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

There is a huge problem with welfare fraud. How to deal with it is the good debate and you are taking a step into it. Before it was "Cut food stamps for everyone because some abuse it!"

I like to look at welfare projects as though everyone is blind. When you cut all food stamps, you cut food supply to that blind person and don't even come close to fixing the actual issue. Many criminals are found with dozens of EBT cards they trade for drugs. Just research it.

So the debate is now, "Should a welfare fraud piece of crap have steak and shrimp" vs. a blind person.

I could type days about this topic if America was anywhere near recognizing this very obvious gap. Great post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So I was looking at Gwyneth Paltrow's food picks for a week on $29, and noticed something (I'm not the only one). These are food picks for someone who has to look like a stick figure, whose job is basically to look pretty, who has a car and servants to clean her house and take care of her kids. Real poor people have much more labor-intensive lives, and require a much higher calorie count than Ms. Paltrow apparently considers healthy.

What concerns me is that limousine liberals, with their unrealistic view of the real world the rest of us live in would be in charge of deciding the "healthy limits" for SNAP purchases when liberals are in power, and they clearly don't have a clue.

 

[Andylusion]

Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years). I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.

Then I got a job working for the now defunct Big Bear grocery store chain. You want to talk about having a paradigm shift.

The first time was this chick who walked in, talking on her cell phone. (cell phones were both rare and expensive in 2001-2002) She rang up cases of Mountain Dew, and Jolt, plus bags of Frito. All with food stamps. Then rang up cases of beer. Meanwhile, she's talking on her phone about how her parents bought her a condo (in an expensive area of town) to live in while she was doing to OSU.

Then another time a lady came in, and she bought a ton of stuff, and got most of it on food stamps. And she looked like she crawled out from under a rock. So I thought, well maybe she really needs it. It was a slow day, and I looked out the window, and saw her climb into a late model mint condition Cadillac. At the time, I was in my 1990 200K+ Mile Chevy Lumina, and I'm working 40 hours for my food.

So... yeah my views on food assistance dramatically hardened.

My view? No food assistance at all. Zero. You want food? You can leave mommy&daddies condo, and waddle your butt to your luxury car, and drive it to the food pantry. There's your free food.

 

[HenryBHough]

Nutritionally speaking, a significant percentage of long-term welfare recipients live on diets deficient in Vitamin W.

Work.

 

[quorthon]

 

[JOSweetHeart]

To me, if a person is given any kind of help, they should be responsible with it and in my opinion splurging every five seconds is not responsible. Try to save what you can for later because you will never know how things will be then until you are finally there.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[BULLDOG]

Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years). I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.

Then I got a job working for the now defunct Big Bear grocery store chain. You want to talk about having a paradigm shift.

The first time was this chick who walked in, talking on her cell phone. (cell phones were both rare and expensive in 2001-2002) She rang up cases of Mountain Dew, and Jolt, plus bags of Frito. All with food stamps. Then rang up cases of beer. Meanwhile, she's talking on her phone about how her parents bought her a condo (in an expensive area of town) to live in while she was doing to OSU.

Then another time a lady came in, and she bought a ton of stuff, and got most of it on food stamps. And she looked like she crawled out from under a rock. So I thought, well maybe she really needs it. It was a slow day, and I looked out the window, and saw her climb into a late model mint condition Cadillac. At the time, I was in my 1990 200K+ Mile Chevy Lumina, and I'm working 40 hours for my food.

So... yeah my views on food assistance dramatically hardened.

My view? No food assistance at all. Zero. You want food? You can leave mommy&daddies condo, and waddle your butt to your luxury car, and drive it to the food pantry. There's your free food.

I can see how you might make such a broad decision on the basis of two people who you didn't even know. It's what the right encourages you to do.

 

[Boss]

Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years). I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.

Then I got a job working for the now defunct Big Bear grocery store chain. You want to talk about having a paradigm shift.

The first time was this chick who walked in, talking on her cell phone. (cell phones were both rare and expensive in 2001-2002) She rang up cases of Mountain Dew, and Jolt, plus bags of Frito. All with food stamps. Then rang up cases of beer. Meanwhile, she's talking on her phone about how her parents bought her a condo (in an expensive area of town) to live in while she was doing to OSU.

Then another time a lady came in, and she bought a ton of stuff, and got most of it on food stamps. And she looked like she crawled out from under a rock. So I thought, well maybe she really needs it. It was a slow day, and I looked out the window, and saw her climb into a late model mint condition Cadillac. At the time, I was in my 1990 200K+ Mile Chevy Lumina, and I'm working 40 hours for my food.

So... yeah my views on food assistance dramatically hardened.

My view? No food assistance at all. Zero. You want food? You can leave mommy&daddies condo, and waddle your butt to your luxury car, and drive it to the food pantry. There's your free food.

I am not quite so cynical. A lot of people are on food stamps because they can't help the situation they are in. It's not a matter of being lazy or unmotivated, it's just the circumstances of life. I am a truly blessed person who doesn't have to worry about much financially but there was a time in my life where things were much different. I can recall making "ketchup soup" for dinner... (from condiment ketchup packs) If lucky, I had crackers too! It's not fun to be so poor you can't buy basic food.

So I can see where we as a society have a responsibility to do what we can to help those who are truly in need of assistance. The problem is, it has gotten way out of control. A single food stamp recipient in Alabama gets around $200 a month. If you have 3-4 kids you can get up to $1200 a month. Now, I am not what you would call "affluent" or anything, I'm a single person who eats what he likes and I don't spend $200 a month on groceries. And then we have the massive amount of absolute fraud going on that isn't being caught. We've got people selling their food stamps for drugs, using them to barter for things they can't buy with food stamps... people double and triple-dipping, claiming the same kids as dependents... all sorts of scams and cons. None of it is being addressed, we just keep throwing more appropriated billions at it every year.

Here's MY idea... End SNAP entirely. No more Food Stamps. Take 50% of what is currently budgeted for SNAP and send it to the State Agriculture Departments. They will be required to use the money to support a food truck delivery to each county twice a month. The truck will deliver surplus food to a distribution center where poor families and individuals can go and obtain basic food items. [This is actually the system we used before food stamps.]

 

[tigerred59]

Let me give you a real definition of a welfare reciepitant......one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents....uhmmmmmm, lets see...SOUNDS LIKE TODAYS CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS TO ME!!

 

[Andylusion]

Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years). I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.

Then I got a job working for the now defunct Big Bear grocery store chain. You want to talk about having a paradigm shift.

The first time was this chick who walked in, talking on her cell phone. (cell phones were both rare and expensive in 2001-2002) She rang up cases of Mountain Dew, and Jolt, plus bags of Frito. All with food stamps. Then rang up cases of beer. Meanwhile, she's talking on her phone about how her parents bought her a condo (in an expensive area of town) to live in while she was doing to OSU.

Then another time a lady came in, and she bought a ton of stuff, and got most of it on food stamps. And she looked like she crawled out from under a rock. So I thought, well maybe she really needs it. It was a slow day, and I looked out the window, and saw her climb into a late model mint condition Cadillac. At the time, I was in my 1990 200K+ Mile Chevy Lumina, and I'm working 40 hours for my food.

So... yeah my views on food assistance dramatically hardened.

My view? No food assistance at all. Zero. You want food? You can leave mommy&daddies condo, and waddle your butt to your luxury car, and drive it to the food pantry. There's your free food.

I am not quite so cynical. A lot of people are on food stamps because they can't help the situation they are in. It's not a matter of being lazy or unmotivated, it's just the circumstances of life. I am a truly blessed person who doesn't have to worry about much financially but there was a time in my life where things were much different. I can recall making "ketchup soup" for dinner... (from condiment ketchup packs) If lucky, I had crackers too! It's not fun to be so poor you can't buy basic food.

So I can see where we as a society have a responsibility to do what we can to help those who are truly in need of assistance. The problem is, it has gotten way out of control. A single food stamp recipient in Alabama gets around $200 a month. If you have 3-4 kids you can get up to $1200 a month. Now, I am not what you would call "affluent" or anything, I'm a single person who eats what he likes and I don't spend $200 a month on groceries. And then we have the massive amount of absolute fraud going on that isn't being caught. We've got people selling their food stamps for drugs, using them to barter for things they can't buy with food stamps... people double and triple-dipping, claiming the same kids as dependents... all sorts of scams and cons. None of it is being addressed, we just keep throwing more appropriated billions at it every year.

Here's MY idea... End SNAP entirely. No more Food Stamps. Take 50% of what is currently budgeted for SNAP and send it to the State Agriculture Departments. They will be required to use the money to support a food truck delivery to each county twice a month. The truck will deliver surplus food to a distribution center where poor families and individuals can go and obtain basic food items. [This is actually the system we used before food stamps.]

Yeah, I am cynical. Very cynical. And I should be, and so should any rational American. We're one of the few nations in the world, where "poor people" have a higher obesity rate than any other income class of citizens.

Where are these people that can't help it? I've been working among the poor my whole life. I'll likely only pull $20K this year too. I've met dozens of people who used food stamps. Not once... not one time yet, have I met someone that "couldn't help it".

Where are they? When the Republicans pushed through welfare reform in the 90s, people screamed that all these poor people who "couldn't help it" would be starving and die.

Food stamp rolls fell by almost half, and yet..... no one starved... no one died.... How could that be? Where did all the people who couldn't help it go? Apparently they got jobs, and fed themselves. Apparently..... they COULD help it.

Every time someone says "this person can't help it", it's almost predictable what I see. They have beer.... smoking sticks... smart phone.... three kids and no husband, and never had a husband. It's always, and I do mean ALWAYS something similar to that every single time.

Some dumb chick spreads her legs for a guy she's not married to, and you think it's my duty to feed her, and her fatherless kids? You are crazy.

I asked this one chick, why doesn't she get help from her family. "oh well I ran away from them years ago, and haven't spoken."

That's my fault, that I must pay for you, because your pride won't let you ask your parents for help?

Now I don't have a problem helping people...... when it's *MY* choice. Not coerced by the government. You screwing up your own life, does not entitle you to my hard worked for earnings. I have no problem with charity. Provided it is actually CHARITY. Charity, doesn't involve men with guns confiscating your money, and that's where I have the problem.

People that are poor, do not "DESERVE" anything. You are not 'owed' by society, because you were an idiot, and screwed up your life. Sorry.

 

[Andylusion]

Let me give you a real definition of a welfare reciepitant......one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents....uhmmmmmm, lets see...SOUNDS LIKE TODAYS CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS TO ME!!

That could be equally applied to every single politician.

Here's the difference. The leftists promote this. We don't.

In order to have people work in congress without pay, they have to have money, and business.

But you people on the left, attack anyone that has money or business. Remember Cheney and Halliburton? You people went into a 5-year-old temper tantrum over that.

So what does that position support? Electing people into government who have no private business or money. Obama is the poster child for the exact "one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents" you just referenced.

Obama has yet to spend one entire day working an honest job. He has never once, run a company, or worked in the private sector. This is a man who has lived off the tax payers for his entire life.

So which party stands for that? Democrats, or Republicans?

 

[tigerred59]

Let me give you a real definition of a welfare reciepitant......one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents....uhmmmmmm, lets see...SOUNDS LIKE TODAYS CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS TO ME!!

That could be equally applied to every single politician.

Here's the difference. The leftists promote this. We don't. Now I will give you facts...The 2014 calendar for the House was released Thursday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and shows members will only work only 113 days. That's down from 2013, when House lawmakers were scheduled to meet for 126 days.

In order to have people work in congress without pay, they have to have money, and business.

But you people on the left, attack anyone that has money or business. Remember Cheney and Halliburton? You people went into a 5-year-old temper tantrum over that. Now I will give you more facts....Halliburton will pay the Pentagon $6.3 million for possible overcharges by a subcontractor that is accused of giving kickbacks to supply U.S. soldiers in Iraq, a spokeswoman said Friday in new trouble for Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.

So what does that position support? Electing people into government who have no private business or money. Obama is the poster child for the exact "one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents" you just referenced. You really don't want me to list his accomplishments, it would take all day.

Obama has yet to spend one entire day working an honest job. He has never once, run a company, or worked in the private sector. This is a man who has lived off the tax payers for his entire life. (sigh)...more facts for you dumb white ass.....
A:According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."
On Aug. 8, 2014, Knoller tweeted that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days so far while in office. Those numbers have risen a bit due to the Martha’s Vineyard vacation, but that’s still many fewer thanGeorge W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency.

I HOPE YOUR DUMB ASS IS SITTING DOWN, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP FOOL!!

So which party stands for that? Democrats, or Republicans?

Here's the difference. The leftists promote this. We don't. Now I will give you facts...The 2014 calendar for the House was released Thursday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and shows members will only work only 113 days. That's down from 2013, when House lawmakers were scheduled to meet for 126 days.

In order to have people work in congress without pay, they have to have money, and business.

But you people on the left, attack anyone that has money or business. Remember Cheney and Halliburton? You people went into a 5-year-old temper tantrum over that. Now I will give you more facts....Halliburton will pay the Pentagon $6.3 million for possible overcharges by a subcontractor that is accused of giving kickbacks to supply U.S. soldiers in Iraq, a spokeswoman said Friday in new trouble for Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.

So what does that position support? Electing people into government who have no private business or money. Obama is the poster child for the exact "one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents" you just referenced. You really don't want me to list his accomplishments, it would take all day.

Obama has yet to spend one entire day working an honest job. He has never once, run a company, or worked in the private sector. This is a man who has lived off the tax payers for his entire life. (sigh)...more facts for you dumb white ass.....
A:According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."
On Aug. 8, 2014, Knoller tweeted that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days so far while in office. Those numbers have risen a bit due to the Martha’s Vineyard vacation, but that’s still many fewer thanGeorge W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency.

I HOPE YOUR DUMB ASS IS SITTING DOWN, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP FOOL!!

 

[Andylusion]

Let me give you a real definition of a welfare reciepitant......one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents....uhmmmmmm, lets see...SOUNDS LIKE TODAYS CONSERVATIVE CONGRESS TO ME!!

That could be equally applied to every single politician.

Here's the difference. The leftists promote this. We don't. Now I will give you facts...The 2014 calendar for the House was released Thursday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and shows members will only work only 113 days. That's down from 2013, when House lawmakers were scheduled to meet for 126 days.

In order to have people work in congress without pay, they have to have money, and business.

But you people on the left, attack anyone that has money or business. Remember Cheney and Halliburton? You people went into a 5-year-old temper tantrum over that. Now I will give you more facts....Halliburton will pay the Pentagon $6.3 million for possible overcharges by a subcontractor that is accused of giving kickbacks to supply U.S. soldiers in Iraq, a spokeswoman said Friday in new trouble for Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.

So what does that position support? Electing people into government who have no private business or money. Obama is the poster child for the exact "one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents" you just referenced. You really don't want me to list his accomplishments, it would take all day.

Obama has yet to spend one entire day working an honest job. He has never once, run a company, or worked in the private sector. This is a man who has lived off the tax payers for his entire life. (sigh)...more facts for you dumb white ass.....
A:According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."
On Aug. 8, 2014, Knoller tweeted that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days so far while in office. Those numbers have risen a bit due to the Martha’s Vineyard vacation, but that’s still many fewer thanGeorge W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency.

I HOPE YOUR DUMB ASS IS SITTING DOWN, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP FOOL!!

So which party stands for that? Democrats, or Republicans?

Here's the difference. The leftists promote this. We don't. Now I will give you facts...The 2014 calendar for the House was released Thursday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and shows members will only work only 113 days. That's down from 2013, when House lawmakers were scheduled to meet for 126 days.

In order to have people work in congress without pay, they have to have money, and business.

But you people on the left, attack anyone that has money or business. Remember Cheney and Halliburton? You people went into a 5-year-old temper tantrum over that. Now I will give you more facts....Halliburton will pay the Pentagon $6.3 million for possible overcharges by a subcontractor that is accused of giving kickbacks to supply U.S. soldiers in Iraq, a spokeswoman said Friday in new trouble for Vice President Dick Cheney's former company.

So what does that position support? Electing people into government who have no private business or money. Obama is the poster child for the exact "one who doesn't work, mooches off tax payers, gets perks up the ass, who works about 4 months out of a 12 month year, the rest is either campaigning or lyin to their constituents" you just referenced. You really don't want me to list his accomplishments, it would take all day.

Obama has yet to spend one entire day working an honest job. He has never once, run a company, or worked in the private sector. This is a man who has lived off the tax payers for his entire life. (sigh)...more facts for you dumb white ass.....
A:According to one count, Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush spent more time on "vacation" during their first year than President Obama did. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton spent less time on "vacation."
On Aug. 8, 2014, Knoller tweeted that Obama had taken 19 vacations totaling 125 days so far while in office. Those numbers have risen a bit due to the Martha’s Vineyard vacation, but that’s still many fewer thanGeorge W. Bush’s 65 combined trips to his Texas ranch and his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, which totaled 407 days at the same point in his presidency.

I HOPE YOUR DUMB ASS IS SITTING DOWN, NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP FOOL!!

Point one, was irrelevant. Whether they work 113 days or 126.... who cares? Either one they are living off of tax payers like me. Making such a childish argument is like "that pile of dog poop is bigger than my pile of dog poop".... if that's your argument, then you have none.

Further, you just made my argument, by complaining about Halliburton again. Thanks. That made my point.

As for Obama's "accomplishments".... again, that's irrelevant to my point. Doesn't matter what you think he accomplished. Has the man spent one full day in the private sector EARNING a pay check? Or has he lived off tax payers his entire life up to now? Answer.... lived off tax payers. He's NEVER held an honest job, no matter what his accomplishments are.

Do you ever actually discuss the topic of the post? Or do you just randomly spout irrelevant factoids of no value? Doesn't matter how much time he spent on vacation or not. He's not working at a private company. He's working off the tax payers. We're paying for his entire life, no matter what he does, or where he does it.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Beef's bad for ya, seafood's worse.

Trust Big Brother. Big Brother lubs you.

 

[Boss]

Some people might remember my history of being more liberal in the past (high school years). I used to not have a strong opinion on food stamps either way.

Then I got a job working for the now defunct Big Bear grocery store chain. You want to talk about having a paradigm shift.

The first time was this chick who walked in, talking on her cell phone. (cell phones were both rare and expensive in 2001-2002) She rang up cases of Mountain Dew, and Jolt, plus bags of Frito. All with food stamps. Then rang up cases of beer. Meanwhile, she's talking on her phone about how her parents bought her a condo (in an expensive area of town) to live in while she was doing to OSU.

Then another time a lady came in, and she bought a ton of stuff, and got most of it on food stamps. And she looked like she crawled out from under a rock. So I thought, well maybe she really needs it. It was a slow day, and I looked out the window, and saw her climb into a late model mint condition Cadillac. At the time, I was in my 1990 200K+ Mile Chevy Lumina, and I'm working 40 hours for my food.

So... yeah my views on food assistance dramatically hardened.

My view? No food assistance at all. Zero. You want food? You can leave mommy&daddies condo, and waddle your butt to your luxury car, and drive it to the food pantry. There's your free food.

I am not quite so cynical. A lot of people are on food stamps because they can't help the situation they are in. It's not a matter of being lazy or unmotivated, it's just the circumstances of life. I am a truly blessed person who doesn't have to worry about much financially but there was a time in my life where things were much different. I can recall making "ketchup soup" for dinner... (from condiment ketchup packs) If lucky, I had crackers too! It's not fun to be so poor you can't buy basic food.

So I can see where we as a society have a responsibility to do what we can to help those who are truly in need of assistance. The problem is, it has gotten way out of control. A single food stamp recipient in Alabama gets around $200 a month. If you have 3-4 kids you can get up to $1200 a month. Now, I am not what you would call "affluent" or anything, I'm a single person who eats what he likes and I don't spend $200 a month on groceries. And then we have the massive amount of absolute fraud going on that isn't being caught. We've got people selling their food stamps for drugs, using them to barter for things they can't buy with food stamps... people double and triple-dipping, claiming the same kids as dependents... all sorts of scams and cons. None of it is being addressed, we just keep throwing more appropriated billions at it every year.

Here's MY idea... End SNAP entirely. No more Food Stamps. Take 50% of what is currently budgeted for SNAP and send it to the State Agriculture Departments. They will be required to use the money to support a food truck delivery to each county twice a month. The truck will deliver surplus food to a distribution center where poor families and individuals can go and obtain basic food items. [This is actually the system we used before food stamps.]

Yeah, I am cynical. Very cynical. And I should be, and so should any rational American. We're one of the few nations in the world, where "poor people" have a higher obesity rate than any other income class of citizens.

Where are these people that can't help it? I've been working among the poor my whole life. I'll likely only pull $20K this year too. I've met dozens of people who used food stamps. Not once... not one time yet, have I met someone that "couldn't help it".

Where are they? When the Republicans pushed through welfare reform in the 90s, people screamed that all these poor people who "couldn't help it" would be starving and die.

Food stamp rolls fell by almost half, and yet..... no one starved... no one died.... How could that be? Where did all the people who couldn't help it go? Apparently they got jobs, and fed themselves. Apparently..... they COULD help it.

Every time someone says "this person can't help it", it's almost predictable what I see. They have beer.... smoking sticks... smart phone.... three kids and no husband, and never had a husband. It's always, and I do mean ALWAYS something similar to that every single time.

Some dumb chick spreads her legs for a guy she's not married to, and you think it's my duty to feed her, and her fatherless kids? You are crazy.

I asked this one chick, why doesn't she get help from her family. "oh well I ran away from them years ago, and haven't spoken."

That's my fault, that I must pay for you, because your pride won't let you ask your parents for help?

Now I don't have a problem helping people...... when it's *MY* choice. Not coerced by the government. You screwing up your own life, does not entitle you to my hard worked for earnings. I have no problem with charity. Provided it is actually CHARITY. Charity, doesn't involve men with guns confiscating your money, and that's where I have the problem.

People that are poor, do not "DESERVE" anything. You are not 'owed' by society, because you were an idiot, and screwed up your life. Sorry.

I like your tenacity, reminds me a lot of Mark Levin. I can't argue with what you're saying because you're absolutely right. I don't have a problem with some of my tax dollars being used to feed people who can't help the situations they find themselves in. I personally don't have a problem with us all doing that through our taxes, it benefits us all to be charitable. But the line was crossed years ago and there has been no turning back.

I am a Conservative. What that means is, I don't generally go for radical changes. I wouldn't want us to pull the plug on all Federal social services. I think there is a middle point where we can assist the truly needy but not be totally bat-shit crazy. With our agricultural resources, there is no reason we can't feed every hungry family in America. We can do this for FAR FAR less through State Ag departments with help from USDA. I know we could do it because we used to do it, before Food Stamps.

Bud sadly enough... You are probably correct... It's probably too late for anything other than stark radical change because that is what is going to happen sooner or later. Either we make some hard choices now or those choices will be made for us later. The liberals seem to have decided on a no-holds-barred expansionism that is unprecedented and unsustainable... They are like Thelma and Louise at this point.