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

[ChrisL]

Speaking of lobster, I was going to make a lobster salad and I wanted to take the easy way out and get some from my local seafood place that was already cooked and removed from the shell. OMG! It was like $50 a pound! Outrageous.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

You are conflating constitutional rights with mandates. Certain religions demand procreation and do not allow birth control. That means procreating is covered in the 1rst Amendment allowing for freedom of religion..

That's BS. Any child molester can say "it's my religious belief that child molesting is ok". Do we sanction that? THINK.

 

[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.

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.

Which is a completely separate issue from your desire to have the government micromanage people's food purchases.

Government has no business in managing people's food purchases. I will spend my money as I choose. Having said that, I don't want moochers dining on lobster on my dime.

If they were buying lobster all the time, then they wouldn't have enough food for the month, so they really cannot do that anyways.

I don't think he meant seven days a week, but it is part of their purchases. I've seen it myself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I've seen a lot of the things you've seen with the poor, but I think food stamps and other such programs, are what keep many kids from going hungry, like in the times of Dicken's England. And if we're going to go hard core against the poor, let's go after some of the wealthy welfare bums too. None of the wall streeters and bankers who have committed crimes, have gone to jail. None.

If you're referring to the housing crisis, I do believe that yes, people went to jail. But even if they didn't, it has nothing do to with social programs.

If we need SNAP's to feed poor children, fine with me, but we should also make sure they don't keep having children to get more benefits.

I agree with your sentiment, but how can we prevent people from having children?

Same way you discourage people from doing anything: make it less profitable, and thus less desirable.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Speaking of lobster, I was going to make a lobster salad and I wanted to take the easy way out and get some from my local seafood place that was already cooked and removed from the shell. OMG! It was like $50 a pound! Outrageous.

I stopped eating seafood a year or two after fukushima. I like tuna fish but i haven't had any in years.

 

[leftwinger]

Last night Sheldon Cooper said two words. Don't know how or if it works......one can dream eh?

Chemical Castration.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is it I can make a pot of black beans with ham hocks and the additional ingredients are Mexican Bulb Onions, Poblano Pepper, little cumin powder, pepper, and two chicken bouillon cubes for less than ten dollars!?!

It will feed four people easily, so if I can cook this while not being on the government welfare system why is it the poor can not do this!?!

So now you want mexican bulb onions and cumin powder included in the list of things snappers can buy??? That's why i said rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar; Keep it simple.

No, my point is you can make a meal cheap and they do not deserve steak and lobster. People believe that the taxpayer is their personal bank account and I say forget that!

These lazy people need to get a damn job and learn to cook and stop expecting the working society to pay for their lazy ass.

I am more agree with shooting the lazy drug addicted pieces of shit than supporting their worthless asses anymore!

Also that goes for every race!

The only segment of society I will pay for willingly is the Native American Population and I know you will disagree that but as for any other segment of society fuck'em!

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

Yes, that's what we need, is to spend even more taxpayer money on home invasions to make sure people are living the way we want them to.

Or we could behave like REAL conservatives, mind our own damned business about what priorities people do or don't have for their cash, and address the REAL problem of our bloated welfare state.

Their cash? What about MY cash?

REAL conservatives are those that want to help the people who truly need help by weeding out those that can take care of themselves and are just using our tax dollars so that they can free up more of their own cash to use on non-necessities.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Speaking of lobster, I was going to make a lobster salad and I wanted to take the easy way out and get some from my local seafood place that was already cooked and removed from the shell. OMG! It was like $50 a pound! Outrageous.

I stopped eating seafood a year or two after fukushima. I like tuna fish but i haven't had any in years.

I love fish but really hate to spend the money. Any kind of walleye is around $18.00 a pound and it comes skinned. I can handle tuna because it makes several sandwiches.

 

[danielpalos]

special pleading, is the right wing really has.

So it is trolling.

only trolls resort to fallacy.

...more special pleading. Troll.

I have a good argument. We merely need solve simple poverty on an at-will basis to improve the efficiency of our economy and lower our tax burden.

 

[danielpalos]

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. .

Even i think that's extreme. Just take away their right to vote. If you're been on medicaid or section 8 or SNAP in the 12 months prior to an election, then you're not eligible. In the future maybe you will be.

I don't see how that's extreme given the fact that's exactly what working parents do. If you can't afford anymore children, you get yourself fixed.

I shouldn't have to wave the word "voluntarily" in the face of someone who's allegedly conservative. There's a big difference between me voluntarily and privately deciding to have a tubal ligation (which I did) because I didn't want more kids after I had the last at 40, and the government ordering someone to have one. Obviously. Duh.

It's not an order. If you don't want to have it done, don't go on any public assistance.

that is like saying, if you don't want taxes, obey Ten simple Commandments.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, so they don't want to enroll in a vocational program. They don't want (or can't get) a job. They don't want to volunteer 20 hours a month. I don't think that's asking all that much to receive taxpayer dollars to buy food.

So they look for the next effortless freebie which is food banks. Even if one can't go to school for some reason or get a part-time job, volunteer work is not that hard to find. Nursing homes, hospitals, homeless shelters and so on are all looking for any kind of free help they can get.

Most of those people dropped out of the SNAP's program. It doesn't seem to me they were all that hungry after all. If there absolutely no jobs available in your area, then it's time to move the hell out of there. I haven't been to one McDonald's that's not looking for workers over here.

A lot of Maine is doing fine. We are one of the counties that is far above the national and even state unemployment average because of rapid decline in paper mills and associated lumbering. We have two hospitals.. Only a handful of nursing homes left (reduction in state payments to Medicare have forced the closure of many in the past few years). There is no public transportation system to get people from Point A to Point B. The county seat doesn't even have a taxi. We have no homeless shelters. The places the State approves for volunteering are full up and many of the folks on welfare have extremely low academic skills -- they are nowhere near ready for a training program. The obstacles to being productive, contributing members of the community are a lot more complex, sometimes deep rooted, and harder to fix than most folks here understand. It is not an overnight or even a one-term "fix" to resolve. Yes, there are people who are very crafty and skilled at milking the system for every cent they can get, but I can only think of one, out of the many, many, I have known, who would easily transition to work if she were forced.
I don't like laziness anymore than you do and I hate the defeated mess that generations of welfare have imposed on entire generations of the poor. But it is not just laziness that prevents people from working and they are not you and me, born with the brains and the luck to be given the opportunity to learn a strong work ethic.
Anyway, I'm rambling, but it's not so simple as you think. There are programs here that are trying to chip away at some of the obstacles, but it is slow and the funding doesn't come close to matching the need. Some of these folks can't be "saved," no matter what you do. So you have to make a decision. Do you leave them hungry or feed them so they're not breaking into your home or squatting in your summer cottage for the winter, stealing and dealing drugs to eat? I guess it's your choice, but you should know what you're actually up against before you decide. And right now it sounds as if you don't.

The same exact words the left was using when Welfare Reform was in debate: more crime, more murders, more homeless and so on. Yet for the most part, Welfare Reform proved to be a very successful program. The people that were about to get kicked off of their social programs got a job instead.

I've never been to Maine and don't know much about it other than what I read. So why don't you tell me the name of your city or town, and I'll go to CraigsList and look to see if there are any available jobs in the area. I'm willing to bet that I will find at least some jobs that people could do in order to keep their SNAP's benefits coming. And I'd like to see some evidence that there is no available volunteer work available. I find that hard to believe since you can't get enough volunteers for any kind of work. The more the merrier.

As for these people that rely on public transportation, why are they living out there if they can't drive? And if they can't get somewhere to work or volunteer, how are they getting to the stores to spend their SNAP's card?

You are keeping your ears plugged so your opinion doesn't have to change. I have no reason or inclination to tell you anything that isn't true, but you can continue to question what I'm telling you if you wish.
I'm offering you a different perspective, one based on years of social work and teaching that put me into daily contact with folks in the welfare boat.
Some of your questions are laughably naive. If you ever feel like actually learning what the issues are, let me know.

I know you about as much as you know me, so why should I take your word for it? I'm looking for evidence because I can't believe there are places in the country where there are absolutely no jobs of any kind and no volunteer work to boot. To me it sounds like excuses because the real problem is people just want to sit home collecting benefits. It's not just country folk either. We have tens of thousands of the same kind of people right here in the city.

Well, I could give you more specifics if I was willing to tell you and everyone else on this board where I live, which I'm not willing to do. Sorry.

Yeah, I know how you feel. I'm Ray from Cleveland. Good luck finding me if you desire.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

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.

Obama may have changed this, but last time I checked, if you get pregnant while already on food stamps, your benefits are not increased for the extra kid (although he/she will qualify for whatever nutrition aid the state has for newborns).

And I haven't noticed "society asking working people" to have invasive surgery.

If you have children, you are expected to be able to support them. I have no idea where this notion came that if you want to keep having kids and billing your neighbor, that's just fine.

we have Ten simple Commandments, why so many laws?

 

[danielpalos]

Even i think that's extreme. Just take away their right to vote. If you're been on medicaid or section 8 or SNAP in the 12 months prior to an election, then you're not eligible. In the future maybe you will be.

I don't see how that's extreme given the fact that's exactly what working parents do. If you can't afford anymore children, you get yourself fixed.

I shouldn't have to wave the word "voluntarily" in the face of someone who's allegedly conservative. There's a big difference between me voluntarily and privately deciding to have a tubal ligation (which I did) because I didn't want more kids after I had the last at 40, and the government ordering someone to have one. Obviously. Duh.

It's not an order. If you don't want to have it done, don't go on any public assistance.

That's not even a good dodge, Chairman Mao.

It's not a dodge. Nobody is required to go on welfare. It's an option like anything else. Nobody forces you on welfare, nobody forces you to have children you can't support. All options.

nobody is forcing you to make what you do, and pay the taxes you do.

the rich and the poor, don't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I've seen a lot of the things you've seen with the poor, but I think food stamps and other such programs, are what keep many kids from going hungry, like in the times of Dicken's England. And if we're going to go hard core against the poor, let's go after some of the wealthy welfare bums too. None of the wall streeters and bankers who have committed crimes, have gone to jail. None.

If you're referring to the housing crisis, I do believe that yes, people went to jail. But even if they didn't, it has nothing do to with social programs.

If we need SNAP's to feed poor children, fine with me, but we should also make sure they don't keep having children to get more benefits.

I agree with your sentiment, but how can we prevent people from having children?

As I stated earlier, if you apply for assistance, you don't get one dime until you are fixed first.

why care what the poor do or don't do for their money; you don't want the poor to care about how much the rich make or work for their money.

Well because it's really not "their money" it's our money because our government takes it from us to give to them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

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.

Obama may have changed this, but last time I checked, if you get pregnant while already on food stamps, your benefits are not increased for the extra kid (although he/she will qualify for whatever nutrition aid the state has for newborns).

And I haven't noticed "society asking working people" to have invasive surgery.

If you have children, you are expected to be able to support them. I have no idea where this notion came that if you want to keep having kids and billing your neighbor, that's just fine.

While this part is true, you lost me AFTER this point when you veered into correcting invasive Big Government micromanagement with EVEN MORE invasive Big Government micromanagement.

Again, not even a good dodge.

 

[danielpalos]

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

At what point did you become a big-intrusive-government Fascist instead of a conservative, and where was I? Hey, while we're copying China's mindset, why don't we also just institute a one-child-only law for undesirables, and kill off any excess kids they sneakily squirt out without your permission?

Jesus Christ. Government-mandated surgery. This is what "conservatives" have degenerated into.

What we "degenerated" to is having personal responsibility. Sorry you're against that.

we have public traffic laws, not personal responsibility or Ten simple Commandments. That is just plain, right wing fantasy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't see how that's extreme given the fact that's exactly what working parents do. If you can't afford anymore children, you get yourself fixed.

I shouldn't have to wave the word "voluntarily" in the face of someone who's allegedly conservative. There's a big difference between me voluntarily and privately deciding to have a tubal ligation (which I did) because I didn't want more kids after I had the last at 40, and the government ordering someone to have one. Obviously. Duh.

It's not an order. If you don't want to have it done, don't go on any public assistance.

That's not even a good dodge, Chairman Mao.

It's not a dodge. Nobody is required to go on welfare. It's an option like anything else. Nobody forces you on welfare, nobody forces you to have children you can't support. All options.

nobody is forcing you to make what you do, and pay the taxes you do.

the rich and the poor, don't.

Sure somebody forces me to pay taxes. You think that if it was an option, I would prefer to pay taxes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

I agree but the real problem is the fools have kids!!! Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Which is why I think if a person is applying for any kind of welfare, they shouldn't receive one dime until they are fixed. You can't solve poverty when the government offers incentives for poor people to create more poor people. I think it should apply to both genders as well. If a father of a child isn't supporting or help supporting it, he too should have to be fixed before he gets any kind of welfare.

At what point did you become a big-intrusive-government Fascist instead of a conservative, and where was I? Hey, while we're copying China's mindset, why don't we also just institute a one-child-only law for undesirables, and kill off any excess kids they sneakily squirt out without your permission?

Jesus Christ. Government-mandated surgery. This is what "conservatives" have degenerated into.

What we "degenerated" to is having personal responsibility. Sorry you're against that.

we have public traffic laws, not personal responsibility or Ten simple Commandments. That is just plain, right wing fantasy.

I have absolutely no idea what point (if there is one) you were trying to make.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is it I can make a pot of black beans with ham hocks and the additional ingredients are Mexican Bulb Onions, Poblano Pepper, little cumin powder, pepper, and two chicken bouillon cubes for less than ten dollars!?!

It will feed four people easily, so if I can cook this while not being on the government welfare system why is it the poor can not do this!?!

So now you want mexican bulb onions and cumin powder included in the list of things snappers can buy??? That's why i said rice, flour, rolled oats, and sugar; Keep it simple.

No, my point is you can make a meal cheap and they do not deserve steak and lobster. People believe that the taxpayer is their personal bank account and I say forget that!

These lazy people need to get a damn job and learn to cook and stop expecting the working society to pay for their lazy ass.

I am more agree with shooting the lazy drug addicted pieces of shit than supporting their worthless asses anymore!

Also that goes for every race!

The only segment of society I will pay for willingly is the Native American Population and I know you will disagree that but as for any other segment of society fuck'em!

I also think that one of the requirements should be you are not allowed to own pets. It makes no sense that taxpayers are feeding people and those people are feeding their animals. The government should be allowed to send agents to various homes to see if these people have huge dogs or ten cats.

Yes, that's what we need, is to spend even more taxpayer money on home invasions to make sure people are living the way we want them to.

Or we could behave like REAL conservatives, mind our own damned business about what priorities people do or don't have for their cash, and address the REAL problem of our bloated welfare state.

Their cash? What about MY cash?

REAL conservatives are those that want to help the people who truly need help by weeding out those that can take care of themselves and are just using our tax dollars so that they can free up more of their own cash to use on non-necessities.

Your cash is going to pay for our wars on crime, drugs, and terror, not our war on poverty, so you can "look tough".

 

[danielpalos]

I've seen a lot of the things you've seen with the poor, but I think food stamps and other such programs, are what keep many kids from going hungry, like in the times of Dicken's England. And if we're going to go hard core against the poor, let's go after some of the wealthy welfare bums too. None of the wall streeters and bankers who have committed crimes, have gone to jail. None.

If you're referring to the housing crisis, I do believe that yes, people went to jail. But even if they didn't, it has nothing do to with social programs.

If we need SNAP's to feed poor children, fine with me, but we should also make sure they don't keep having children to get more benefits.

I agree with your sentiment, but how can we prevent people from having children?

As I stated earlier, if you apply for assistance, you don't get one dime until you are fixed first.

why care what the poor do or don't do for their money; you don't want the poor to care about how much the rich make or work for their money.

Well because it's really not "their money" it's our money because our government takes it from us to give to them.

it is your poor lifestyle choice that are not rich or poor, so you don't have to pay personal income taxes.