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

[Slyhunter]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

Personally, I think the easiest way would be to stock some food pantries with healthy food and allow people to come in and pick up what they need on a weekly basis. Just don't offer junk. No different than schools these days. If people don't live near food pantries, we can deliver to handicapped or restrict what can be purchased in grocery stores.

My mother hits the food pantries. She finds plenty of cake, donuts, pastries we could never afford or waste our money to buy and gourmet breads. But veggies and fruit are hard to find.

 

[Clementine]

My mother hits the food pantries. She finds plenty of cake, donuts, pastries we could never afford or waste our money to buy and gourmet breads. But veggies and fruit are hard to find.

The one here also has pastries and donuts but they are often getting stale. Each month we offer 10 lbs. of raw meat. Sometimes, it's beef but usually it's chicken. We usually have canned fruits and veggies as well as the fresh ones (when in season). The most popular items are always the pizzas or other easy to make foods. We also offer cereals, peanut butter and sometimes gallons of low fat milk. It varies. We get a lot of people coming through and always have tons of chicken and fresh veggies left over. It's a shame since they don't keep. A lot of people reject the rice, too.

It is a helpful program and I feel sorry for the people waiting in line so long to get in. Some come and camp out several hours early. The last ones through the line are usually offered more items than the first ones. One day we were giving two frozen pizzas to each person and the last few people in there got 5 each just to get rid of them. Maybe pays to go last sometimes but we run out of the breads and anything popular right away. No one ever wants the spinach or kale. We usually have bags of mixed raw veggies, like broccoli, cauliflower and carrots. A lot of people pass on those. People tend to grab the canned stuff more than fresh, which puzzles me. Peanut butter always good, as does jelly. A lot of people pass on the bags of potatoes, too.

I think we should offer recipes with detailed instructions to encourage people to try to cook more. Those 10 lb. bags of chicken would make quite a few meals, from barbecue chicken to chicken soup but some people are unsure how to cook it. Definitely more hassle than heating something up but damn good when you take the time. They can cook up a bunch of things in a day and freeze them for some meals later. Just doesn't make sense to reject food when you're in need.

I used to volunteer in my kid's school and was always amazed at how some kids wouldn't touch veggies on the tray. We do have a problem but it starts at home. When I see mom's coming through the food line and wrinkling their noses at healthy meats and veggies, it's not hard to see why there is a problem with young people and junk food. It's what they know.

Most people who come through are very nice and most seem appreciative but I'd like to see them excited about more than the processed foods.

 

[danielpalos]

You're knocking down a straw man. No one is pushing for giving the poor a lifestyle like the rich. But there is something wrong when CEOs are paid 300 times what their workers are paid.

Why is there something wrong with that? Don't companies have the right to choose who they pay what to?

And the free market corrects. If that CEO is being paid beyond what he's worth to the company, or the workers are being paid less than they're worth, the company won't be around for very long.

Agreed. If a CEO is getting paid 12 million dollars a year, chances are, that CEO is bringing in 20 million a year to the company. If the company doesn't want to pay that CEO 12 million dollars a year, their competitor will, and they will make that profit instead and perhaps put that first company out of business.

Pay workers more and the CEO less, that's likely to happen, but some people just don't get that.

How did that work for Enron?

It doesn't work for everybody, just most companies. CEO's get hired and fired all the time. No place is home. They have to pickup their family and move all the time.

maybe, but, the rich may get to keep their multimillion dollar bonus while on means tested corporate welfare; the poor don't get that option.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't want to live in the kind of country that allow the poor to starve and whither away like in Hong Kong

, or in coffin homes like in Japan

or like in third world countries in garbage pits and bamboo huts. You might not care about your fellow men I do, especially when I'll probably end up one of them.

So the answer is taking money from the rich to give to those that are not? We would have to give up the Republic to do that. And if we were to take money from the rich so they live like everybody else, what would be the incentive to become rich in the first place?

can it be immoral, to solve simple poverty and tax the rich into Heaven, at the same time?

Let me tell you a little personal story of something that happened to me as a child back in the 60's.

I was with my father driving through a bad part of town. As I looked upon the despair, I turned to my father and said "I wish I had a million dollars." My father asked why? I said "So I could give it to these people so they could move out of here."

My father looked at me with a smile and said "Son, you could give each and every one of these people a million dollars, and in just a few years, they would be right back here in this neighborhood."

I didn't understand what he meant until I got older. But what he was telling me is that money doesn't solve poverty. In fact, books have been written on lottery winners where the money made their life a living hell.

That begs the question: If we could tax every millionaire at 90%, how would that help you? Of sure, it would give the government more money, but how would that help you?

The answer is it doesn't. If you give people money that aren't responsible enough to have that money, you could be doing them more harm than good.

Only the right wing believes that; and, no one takes the right wing seriously about economics.

By solving for simple poverty, economics can be learned, eventually.

You can't solve poverty in this country because of the Democrats. The less poor people there are, the less Democrat votes and they know it.

not true at all.

 

[danielpalos]

[Q

no, i mean like equal protection of the law regarding the concept of employment at will.

If we really had employment at will then the fucking oppressive government wouldn't be in the business of dictating minimum wages, would they?

they wouldn't need to dictate statutory minimum wages, with unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis. the right has the most problem with equal protection of the law.

Equal protection under the law for what?????

employment at will.

In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

just clueless and Causeless? employment at will, means employment at the will of either party; that includes for unemployment benefits.

 

[danielpalos]

[Q


In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

He thinks that "equal protection" means that the government should give him a welfare check as big as the paycheck of a Corporate Executive because then they both will be equal.

equal protection of the law regarding employment at will, for unemployment compensation purposes. it is not welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

[Q


In other words, you have no idea what equal protection under the law means. Why am I not surprised?

He thinks that "equal protection" means that the government should give him a welfare check as big as the paycheck of a Corporate Executive because then they both will be equal.

They really believe that too. They think equal protection means equal outcome.

Our government doesn't guarantee happiness, but they guarantee the pursuit of happiness. Liberals just don't get that.

equal protection of the law; not your fantastical right wing, strawman arguments that you can easily beat, to "look tough".

 

[danielpalos]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

I

I work at a drug store and I see plenty of people use their ebt card to buy energy drinks, pop, and candy.

I one time had to bite my tongue as two people bought 30 dollars worth of candy on an ebt card. Laughing about how they had a sweet tooth. I thought, "I hope you will enjoy that candy because you aren't paying for it, I am!"

I don't think EBT should be as restricted as the op, but if people want, pop, energy drinks, potato chips and candy they should buy it with their own money. Leave EBT for actual FOOD.

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

 

[danielpalos]

If a company is paying their workers on average $30,000 per year, a CEO should only make $150,000 a year? How long do you think a company could stay open with a CEO willing to work for that low of wages? Who would even want to be a CEO? They could use that talent in other forms of work where they would make much more money.

What talent do most CEOs have?

Running a company is something most of us could never do. That's why CEO's get paid that kind of money. Besides all the education, they have climbed their way up the ladder, spent decades proving themselves and making business ties, political ties, Wall Street ties, then they have to have a pretty good past performance before they make nearly the kind of money MSM and left-wing blogs report on.

If it was a job anybody could do, I'd be doing it.

You are not Jesus, either.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

I

I work at a drug store and I see plenty of people use their ebt card to buy energy drinks, pop, and candy.

I one time had to bite my tongue as two people bought 30 dollars worth of candy on an ebt card. Laughing about how they had a sweet tooth. I thought, "I hope you will enjoy that candy because you aren't paying for it, I am!"

I don't think EBT should be as restricted as the op, but if people want, pop, energy drinks, potato chips and candy they should buy it with their own money. Leave EBT for actual FOOD.

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

I

I work at a drug store and I see plenty of people use their ebt card to buy energy drinks, pop, and candy.

I one time had to bite my tongue as two people bought 30 dollars worth of candy on an ebt card. Laughing about how they had a sweet tooth. I thought, "I hope you will enjoy that candy because you aren't paying for it, I am!"

I don't think EBT should be as restricted as the op, but if people want, pop, energy drinks, potato chips and candy they should buy it with their own money. Leave EBT for actual FOOD.

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

I

I work at a drug store and I see plenty of people use their ebt card to buy energy drinks, pop, and candy.

I one time had to bite my tongue as two people bought 30 dollars worth of candy on an ebt card. Laughing about how they had a sweet tooth. I thought, "I hope you will enjoy that candy because you aren't paying for it, I am!"

I don't think EBT should be as restricted as the op, but if people want, pop, energy drinks, potato chips and candy they should buy it with their own money. Leave EBT for actual FOOD.

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

 

[danielpalos]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

I

I work at a drug store and I see plenty of people use their ebt card to buy energy drinks, pop, and candy.

I one time had to bite my tongue as two people bought 30 dollars worth of candy on an ebt card. Laughing about how they had a sweet tooth. I thought, "I hope you will enjoy that candy because you aren't paying for it, I am!"

I don't think EBT should be as restricted as the op, but if people want, pop, energy drinks, potato chips and candy they should buy it with their own money. Leave EBT for actual FOOD.

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I

I work at a drug store and I see plenty of people use their ebt card to buy energy drinks, pop, and candy.

I one time had to bite my tongue as two people bought 30 dollars worth of candy on an ebt card. Laughing about how they had a sweet tooth. I thought, "I hope you will enjoy that candy because you aren't paying for it, I am!"

I don't think EBT should be as restricted as the op, but if people want, pop, energy drinks, potato chips and candy they should buy it with their own money. Leave EBT for actual FOOD.

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

Yeah yeah Yeah, let's go into that communist utopia together.

Never mind all the bodies we have to step over.

 

[xband]

I

I work at a drug store and I see plenty of people use their ebt card to buy energy drinks, pop, and candy.

I one time had to bite my tongue as two people bought 30 dollars worth of candy on an ebt card. Laughing about how they had a sweet tooth. I thought, "I hope you will enjoy that candy because you aren't paying for it, I am!"

I don't think EBT should be as restricted as the op, but if people want, pop, energy drinks, potato chips and candy they should buy it with their own money. Leave EBT for actual FOOD.

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

All men are not created equal and some are born smart and some are born stupid. I don't mind helping stupid people but they have to ask.

 

[danielpalos]

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

Yeah yeah Yeah, let's go into that communist utopia together.

Never mind all the bodies we have to step over.



View attachment 104968

only the right wing are a bunch of communists and don't know it.

the left may try to be poets, and know it.

it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership. it is just not specifically, about guns; that is why you missed the concept of natural rights.

unlike national and social, infringement to natural rights regarding freedom of association and (employment) contract; as the right wing's preferred modus operandi, that enables them to "throw capitalism under the bus" for the communism of command economics.

 

[xband]

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

Yeah yeah Yeah, let's go into that communist utopia together.

Never mind all the bodies we have to step over.



View attachment 104968

only the right wing are a bunch of communists and don't know it.

the left may try to be poets, and know it.

it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership. it is just not specifically, about guns; that is why you missed the concept of natural rights.

unlike national and social, infringement to natural rights regarding freedom of association and (employment) contract; as the right wing's preferred modus operandi, that enables them to "throw capitalism under the bus" for the communism of command economics.

Equal protection under the law opens up yet another avenue. The rich have a right to be protected from the poor and vice versa.

 

[BlueGin]

Don't gimme any crap about how poor people need a balanced diet. As it is these snappers spend all this money on junk food. A diet of staples will be better for them. And MUCH cheaper for the taxpayers. Eating just those 4 staples, a person can live on a dollar a day.

Personally, I think the easiest way would be to stock some food pantries with healthy food and allow people to come in and pick up what they need on a weekly basis. Just don't offer junk. No different than schools these days. If people don't live near food pantries, we can deliver to handicapped or restrict what can be purchased in grocery stores.

My mother hits the food pantries. She finds plenty of cake, donuts, pastries we could never afford or waste our money to buy and gourmet breads. But veggies and fruit are hard to find.

You can get fresh veggies at the farmers market. And the do take snap.

 

[danielpalos]

sure; like asking the rich to Only take legitimate tax write offs.

No, nice try but those write offs, whether you think them legit or not, is THEIR MONEY. It's not the government's money.

EBT is the OUR TAX DOLLARS, not something the "rich" earned and greedy liberals think should be theirs.

But it's another reveal of the liberal mindset that you would think that money belongs to the government.

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

All men are not created equal and some are born smart and some are born stupid. I don't mind helping stupid people but they have to ask.

it is about the equality, of equal protection of our social laws, not natural selection. only the right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

it is about equality, not capital. it is not the poor's fault, that the rich are not creating Jobs Booms for their capital gains preference.

No, sorry it is NOT about equality.

Equality is the way leftists try to confiscate the goods of those who work for those who don't.

That's not "equality." That's wealth distribution.

Leftists use equality to oppress people. Communists did this by confiscating land and wealth, to "give to the poor."

Yet the poor stayed poor, and the state got rich.

That is what wealth distribution does. Obama did wealth distribution plenty. Who got rich but Obama and his Wallstreet cronies.

yes, it is specifically about equality. you are simply clueless and Causeless. it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership.

Yeah yeah Yeah, let's go into that communist utopia together.

Never mind all the bodies we have to step over.



View attachment 104968

only the right wing are a bunch of communists and don't know it.

the left may try to be poets, and know it.

it is about the social concept of equality and equal protection of the law, not the capitalism of the concept of private ownership. it is just not specifically, about guns; that is why you missed the concept of natural rights.

unlike national and social, infringement to natural rights regarding freedom of association and (employment) contract; as the right wing's preferred modus operandi, that enables them to "throw capitalism under the bus" for the communism of command economics.

Equal protection under the law opens up yet another avenue. The rich have a right to be protected from the poor and vice versa.

yes, they can claim they don't want to have to care about the poor and not have the poor care about them, with equal protection of the law.