SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

[Lewdog]

Being poor isn't an incurable disease... what you just said is one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

"You want food? You gotta give up the chance to have kids the rest of your life..."

So the non-idiotic thing is for poor people to have more children for a larger SNAP's card, a bigger HUD home in the suburbs, and of course, paid utilities?

And let me ask: what do you think working parents do when they can't financially support any more children?

My suggestion is nothing more than society asks of working people. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. But for some reason, you think poor people should be exempt from that restriction. And BTW, most birth control methods can be reversed. When you are off the dole and want to have children, in most cases, that's possible.

No, you are being over the top... and putting forth a fucking retarded idea. Again, being poor is not an incurable disease. Someone shouldn't have to give up their ability to have kids the rest of their life just to be able to eat. Something along the lines of, a person is locked into the amount of aid they get based on the size of the family at the time they sign up, and that if they have more children while on assistance programs they don't get any extra funding... would be enough to keep people from having more kids on purpose.

Obviously you don't even understand your own party. If kids were starving because government refused to pay the parents more to support their additional children, that would fly okay with the MSM?

If someone shouldn't give up their right to have children so they can eat, why is it working parents do exactly that? Is that inhuman?

When working responsible parents can no longer afford any more children, they stop having them. They voluntarily get themselves fixed. But you think it's a fucken retarded idea that we do exactly the same thing for people that can't afford more children.

My own party... again. WTF are you talking about? You aren't talking about fucking giving them a choice. You are talking about FORCING them to chose whether to eat or give up their ability to have kids.

Again, which is something all working parents do across the country. If you really want more kids, fine, get a job and pay for those kids. I have no problem with that. But if you're going to tell me that "it's a choice" for people to have children they can't afford and send me the bill, then where is my choice in the matter?

Seriously, are you fucking stupid? I gave you an alternative answer to your retarded idea. You don't increase benefits to people that have kids while on assistance programs.

 

[SYTFE]

Procreating is a constitutional right covered under the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

Trump supporters are starting to sound more and more like little Hitlers every day.

And that fat fuck Enthion or whatever his name is gets mad at me for calling Trump voters Nazi's.

 

[Camp]

Procreating is a constitutional right covered under the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

But having society pay for those children is not Constitutional.

Birth control as a method of reducing the number of poor children in need of food assistance is a topic being discussed in this thread. I merely pointed out that those promoting the birth control method are promoting an anti-Christian and anti-Constitutional option.
Feeding the hungry is a mandate demanded by the American public for decades. Funny how many of the same folks insisting on a false definition of the word "mandate" in regards to the Trump election refuse to recognize the actual definition of the word when it comes to feeding kids, senior citizens, the disabled and the poor in general. Only the extreme element of hateful and angry people want to stop feeding the hungry. The mass majority support food programs of one kind or another.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, here is one of the issues where I split with the conservatives. I am all for helping our poor people here in our own country. I can understand the concern that people will become dependent upon government/taxpayer resources, but in order to be a successful country you have to take care of your poor people.

 

[ChrisL]

And people cannot survive on rice, flour, oats, and sugar alone!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Procreating is a constitutional right covered under the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

That's a joke post right? Right?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

And people cannot survive on rice, flour, oats, and sugar alone!

It's better than candy bars and potato chips and booze. That's what most welfare bums live on.

 

[ChrisL]

Procreating is a constitutional right covered under the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

That's a joke post right? Right?

Why? Do you want the government controlling such personal matters? You either want a small government or a big one, but you can't have both on a whim.

 

[ChrisL]

And people cannot survive on rice, flour, oats, and sugar alone!

It's better than candy bars and potato chips and booze. That's what most welfare bums live on.

How on earth do you know? Do you go into their homes and do an inventory on their cupboards?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Well, here is one of the issues where I split with the conservatives. I am all for helping our poor people here in our own country. I can understand the concern that people will become dependent upon government/taxpayer resources, but in order to be a successful country you have to take care of your poor people.

If we'd stop giving illegal aliens $500 billion in benefits every year, we'd have the money to take care of our poor citizens.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, here is one of the issues where I split with the conservatives. I am all for helping our poor people here in our own country. I can understand the concern that people will become dependent upon government/taxpayer resources, but in order to be a successful country you have to take care of your poor people.

If we'd stop giving illegal aliens $500 billion in benefits every year, we'd have the money to take care of our poor citizens.

Well that we can agree on, as well as stop sending so much money to other countries.

 

[Grandma]

Poor people rarely have the kitchen supplies and utensils and counter space needed to cook from scratch.

What does "Pinked Lives Matter" mean? Just curious.

gallantwarrior

It refers to the victims of banhammering. I can't bear that some are gone for good. There are pros and cons to their return, certainly, but I miss most of them and want them back.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well, here is one of the issues where I split with the conservatives. I am all for helping our poor people here in our own country. I can understand the concern that people will become dependent upon government/taxpayer resources, but in order to be a successful country you have to take care of your poor people.

It's less about taking care of the poor people than it is people freely abusing the system. Democrats love when people abuse the system because those people will likely vote Democrat. Simple observation at your grocery store (if you have a lot of SNAP's customers there) is what angers most of us.

It also discourages people from getting work and trying to get ahead. The last people I threw out of one of my apartments was due to the lazy mom who didn't want to get a job because income would interfere with her benefits. I had to take two days off of work for court to get them out of here. Without SNAP's, she would have had no choice but to get a job and perhaps keep their apartment.

 

[rightwinger]

There you have it...

The secret formula to end poverty as we know it

It's not a secret at all, only to liberals perhaps.

Conservative point of view:

What is poverty? Poverty is the state of not having enough money.
What is the solution to poverty? Money.
How does one obtain money? By working at a job.


Liberal point of view:

What is poverty? Poverty is a state where one is a victim of discrimination or lack of education.
What is the solution to poverty? Government.
How does one obtain government? Fill out a form at a local government office.

Now you are talking....

Conservative point of view:

What is poverty? Poverty is the state of not having enough money.
What is the solution to poverty? Money.
How does one obtain money? By working at a job.

Now you are getting close to the problem. What is the common factor in impoverished regions? Whether it is in Detroit or Appalachia these regions have seen the jobs leave and the communities left with nothing. Claiming the solution is "Get a Job" doesn't help when qualified workers find their way of living gone. It applies to former coal miners and auto workers

Nice try, but a lot of those people also live in big cities where employers are almost begging people to work. Trust me, I work in industrial sections all day long and businesses are loaded with HELP WANTED signs all over.

If there is absolutely no work where you are at, move to where the work is. It's not going to get any better by sitting there with your SNAP card hoping and praying.

Nice try...

But cities like Detroit, Camden, and yes.....even Cleveland
Have nowhere near he job opportunities for number unemployed

So move. Lots of kids in the country move off to college and then move where the jobs take them.

Who is responsible for the people who breed kids they can't afford and won't raise right?

That's a good idea!

And that is exactly what those who can, end up doing....relocating to somewhere else
Those who can't end up left behind struggling to survive as the community they grew up in crumbles

It is not just the cities but backwoods hillbillies who saw their source of income disappear and have nowhere to go

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Procreating is a constitutional right covered under the 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

But having society pay for those children is not Constitutional.

Birth control as a method of reducing the number of poor children in need of food assistance is a topic being discussed in this thread. I merely pointed out that those promoting the birth control method are promoting an anti-Christian and anti-Constitutional option.
Feeding the hungry is a mandate demanded by the American public for decades. Funny how many of the same folks insisting on a false definition of the word "mandate" in regards to the Trump election refuse to recognize the actual definition of the word when it comes to feeding kids, senior citizens, the disabled and the poor in general. Only the extreme element of hateful and angry people want to stop feeding the hungry. The mass majority support food programs of one kind or another.

There is nothing anti-christian or anti-constitutional about it. Can you point out where in the Constitution it says that the public is liable for people that want to have families they can't support? Having children is optional. You don't have to have children if you don't want (or can't support) them.

All programs have regulations and restrictions in order to apply. If you have a full-time job, you can't apply for unemployment benefits. If you are perfectly capable of working, you can't apply for disability. If you are under 65 and not disabled, you can't apply for Medicare.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[OldLady]

Rolled oats
Rolled oats are traditionally oat groats that have been dehusked and steamed, before being rolled into flat flakes under heavy rollers and stabilized by being lightly toasted. Rolled oats that are sold as porridge oats usually have had the tough bran removed. They have often, but not always, been lightly baked or pressure-cooked or "processed…


25 pages in and I finnally looked it up. LOL! rolled oats. Do you mean Oatmeal? I like Oatmeal. Love it, with sugar and half & half too of course. I should eat more oatmeal. darn it!

Make cookies with the recipe on the back of the container. You'll get your fiber and feel virtuous eating your cookies. Follow the recipe exactly, and they will be the best cookies you ever ate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the non-idiotic thing is for poor people to have more children for a larger SNAP's card, a bigger HUD home in the suburbs, and of course, paid utilities?

And let me ask: what do you think working parents do when they can't financially support any more children?

My suggestion is nothing more than society asks of working people. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. But for some reason, you think poor people should be exempt from that restriction. And BTW, most birth control methods can be reversed. When you are off the dole and want to have children, in most cases, that's possible.

No, you are being over the top... and putting forth a fucking retarded idea. Again, being poor is not an incurable disease. Someone shouldn't have to give up their ability to have kids the rest of their life just to be able to eat. Something along the lines of, a person is locked into the amount of aid they get based on the size of the family at the time they sign up, and that if they have more children while on assistance programs they don't get any extra funding... would be enough to keep people from having more kids on purpose.

Obviously you don't even understand your own party. If kids were starving because government refused to pay the parents more to support their additional children, that would fly okay with the MSM?

If someone shouldn't give up their right to have children so they can eat, why is it working parents do exactly that? Is that inhuman?

When working responsible parents can no longer afford any more children, they stop having them. They voluntarily get themselves fixed. But you think it's a fucken retarded idea that we do exactly the same thing for people that can't afford more children.

My own party... again. WTF are you talking about? You aren't talking about fucking giving them a choice. You are talking about FORCING them to chose whether to eat or give up their ability to have kids.

Again, which is something all working parents do across the country. If you really want more kids, fine, get a job and pay for those kids. I have no problem with that. But if you're going to tell me that "it's a choice" for people to have children they can't afford and send me the bill, then where is my choice in the matter?

Seriously, are you fucking stupid? I gave you an alternative answer to your retarded idea. You don't increase benefits to people that have kids while on assistance programs.

And I told you the liberal media would rip that to shreds. Do you really think for one minute that the public would stand to see children starving in homes because of government not feeding them enough? It would be a Democrat dream come true.

Your "retarded" idea is to let them have all the kids they want and starve them, instead of just not allowing them to have more children in the first place. And you ask if I'm fucken stupid? You better stay in school longer honey.

 

[OldLady]

do the rules vary from state to state on food stamps? i was on wic way back when, it was a good program. but you are limited on what you can buy....has to be wic approved...

starving in america is a total different concept than starving in the sudan

SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

Rice: Good choice. A billion starving Chinese can't be wrong
Flour: Flour needs to be milled. Give them raw wheat and let them grind their own flour like they do in Africa
Rolled oats: Let them roll their own damned oats
Sugar: A luxury they haven't earned. Get a job and buy your own damned sugar

There are those on the Right who won't be happy until our Poor are properly Poor like in China or India or Africa.

Until they start rioting and breaking into their nice homes at an even higher rate. Begging at every traffic light. We feed people for a reason, and it is not just to be nice.

Correct, it's to buy votes.

You are being myopic. It is not JUST for votes, either.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

do the rules vary from state to state on food stamps? i was on wic way back when, it was a good program. but you are limited on what you can buy....has to be wic approved...

starving in america is a total different concept than starving in the sudan

SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

Rice: Good choice. A billion starving Chinese can't be wrong
Flour: Flour needs to be milled. Give them raw wheat and let them grind their own flour like they do in Africa
Rolled oats: Let them roll their own damned oats
Sugar: A luxury they haven't earned. Get a job and buy your own damned sugar

There are those on the Right who won't be happy until our Poor are properly Poor like in China or India or Africa.

Until they start rioting and breaking into their nice homes at an even higher rate. Begging at every traffic light. We feed people for a reason, and it is not just to be nice.

Correct, it's to buy votes.

You are being myopic. It is not JUST for votes, either.

Sorry, that's all it's about. Do you really think Obama and the Democrats care if you have health insurance or not? Do you think they really care if you eat or not?

With Commie Care alone, the Democrats created over 20 million additional government dependents. With food stamps, DumBama doubled the SNAP's role almost overnight creating another 20 million more dependents. It's no accident.

 

[OldLady]

do the rules vary from state to state on food stamps? i was on wic way back when, it was a good program. but you are limited on what you can buy....has to be wic approved...

starving in america is a total different concept than starving in the sudan

SNAP (food stamps) should be restricted to rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar

Rice: Good choice. A billion starving Chinese can't be wrong
Flour: Flour needs to be milled. Give them raw wheat and let them grind their own flour like they do in Africa
Rolled oats: Let them roll their own damned oats
Sugar: A luxury they haven't earned. Get a job and buy your own damned sugar

There are those on the Right who won't be happy until our Poor are properly Poor like in China or India or Africa.

Until they start rioting and breaking into their nice homes at an even higher rate. Begging at every traffic light. We feed people for a reason, and it is not just to be nice.

Correct, it's to buy votes.

You are being myopic. It is not JUST for votes, either.

Sorry, that's all it's about. Do you really think Obama and the Democrats care if you have health insurance or not? Do you think they really care if you eat or not?

With Commie Care alone, the Democrats created over 20 million additional government dependents. With food stamps, DumBama doubled the SNAP's role almost overnight creating another 20 million more dependents. It's no accident.

Yes, I think they care if I eat. About a month ago, I reported on another thread that the line at our food bank was getting longer and longer (I live in a rural area with very high unemployment). I discovered in the paper this morning why that is: SNAP was cut off to 10,000 eligible Mainers if they didn't work or volunteer. But here the opportunities to work or volunteer are not available. Great move toward self sufficiency and saving tax payers from benefits fraud--but guess what -- THESE PEOPLE ARE STILL HUNGRY.
We are beginning to experience more theft like laptops getting lifted from cars in parking lots and packages left by the UPS man getting stolen. People are desperate. This is what happens.