A new way to use food stamps

[Dragon]

Since a lot of food stamps are received by homeless people who have no access to cooking facilities, this is actually a good idea.

that should be covered as a seperate issue.

Why? I'm reasonably certain that this is the reason why food stamps are being extended to restaurant use. Not everyone has access to cooking facilities or even food storage. So I don't think it is a separate issue.

Bear in mind that we're not just talking about fine dining. We're talking fast food, too, and as food stamps are tightly limited in quantity, that's far the more likely use.

I am not sure that homeless people can even get food stamps.
And address, etc is required.

Yes, they can. A mailing address is easy to come by. Get a friend to take your mail for a while, and using that, get a P.O. box. You're good to go. I volunteered at a homeless shelter a while back and people came in from California's food stamp program to hand out applications and explain how the program worked.

 

[uscitizen]

Since a lot of food stamps are received by homeless people who have no access to cooking facilities, this is actually a good idea.

that should be covered as a seperate issue.

Why? I'm reasonably certain that this is the reason why food stamps are being extended to restaurant use. Not everyone has access to cooking facilities or even food storage. So I don't think it is a separate issue.

Bear in mind that we're not just talking about fine dining. We're talking fast food, too, and as food stamps are tightly limited in quantity, that's far the more likely use.

I am not sure that homeless people can even get food stamps.
And address, etc is required.

Yes, they can. A mailing address is easy to come by. Get a friend to take your mail for a while, and using that, get a P.O. box. You're good to go. I volunteered at a homeless shelter a while back and people came in from California's food stamp program to hand out applications and explain how the program worked.

Hmm. Thanks for the info I will check into that.
Here in KY foodstamps are based on household income so if you use someone elses address then their income and headcount figures in.
And flasifying info on an application is a felony.

 

[Paulie]

I'm not sure why the right isn't embracing this. It's a state's right issue. It's a free market issue. And it would stimulate the economy. And as long as we apply personal responsibility, it doesn't really matter what people do with their food stamps. They still have the same budget. If they spend too much of their food stamps by eating out, which is more expensive, then they'll learn their lessons on their own when they go half the month starving with no way to eat.

First of all, the "right" doesn't embrace states' rights. The only ones who truly embrace states' rights are libertarians. Every mainstream conservative RINO on this board has argued in one way or another for something that flies in the face of states' rights.

As far as dining out on food stamps, the point is that welfare programs should not incentivize someone to stay on welfare. Food stamps shouldn't come with luxuries, they should be considered a bare minimum temporary bridge to something better in your life. You should be seeing dining out as a goal to reach in your personal progression, not an entitlement.

I'm known to argue that food stamp recipients shouldn't be limited to what they can buy in the supermarket, but adding dining out privileges is just ridiculous.

"luxuries"??? "dining out privileges"???

You people are completely out of touch with the real world. Why don't you stop listening to Noot's and foxNOTnew's LIES and educate yourselves?

Yes, dining out is a luxury. Even hard working middle class citizens have to budget themselves carefully to fit in dining out. For 2 adults and a child to eat a decent dinner out, it's at LEAST $50. A lot of the middle class has to make room in their budget for an extra $50 expenditure just once a month.

I'm not saying people don't deserve it. If you work hard you deserve to treat yourself to a nice dinner out. But as a taxpayer funding that program, I'm not comfortable with people taking $50 they can't earn themselves, and buying one single meal for themselves. That same money can buy enough groceries to eat for days.

What's so bad about wanting people to dig their way OUT of welfare and work towards earning a nice dinner out?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'm not sure why the right isn't embracing this. It's a state's right issue. It's a free market issue. And it would stimulate the economy. And as long as we apply personal responsibility, it doesn't really matter what people do with their food stamps. They still have the same budget. If they spend too much of their food stamps by eating out, which is more expensive, then they'll learn their lessons on their own when they go half the month starving with no way to eat.

Food stamps don't stimulate the economy. Neither does unemployment. I'm continually astounded at the ignorance, in regards to basic economics, exuded by so many.

 

[Dragon]

What if someone is renting a room in someone's house? Does that mean Kentucky uses the income of everyone living there, even if they keep separate budgets?

 

[Dragon]

Food stamps don't stimulate the economy. Neither does unemployment. I'm continually astounded at the ignorance, in regards to basic economics, exuded by so many.

Actually, your statement above is a perfect example of ignorance as to basic economics.

Putting money into the hands of consumers ALWAYS stimulates the economy.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm not sure why the right isn't embracing this. It's a state's right issue. It's a free market issue. And it would stimulate the economy. And as long as we apply personal responsibility, it doesn't really matter what people do with their food stamps. They still have the same budget. If they spend too much of their food stamps by eating out, which is more expensive, then they'll learn their lessons on their own when they go half the month starving with no way to eat.

Food stamps don't stimulate the economy. Neither does unemployment. I'm continually astounded at the ignorance, in regards to basic economics, exuded by so many.

Umm food stamp mone virtually all goes into the grocery industry.
They would cut heads and such if the food stamp money ended.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Food stamps don't stimulate the economy. Neither does unemployment. I'm continually astounded at the ignorance, in regards to basic economics, exuded by so many.

Actually, your statement above is a perfect example of ignorance as to basic economics.

Putting money into the hands of consumers ALWAYS stimulates the economy.

Actually, it doesn't.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The right is jealous of the poor people eating dollar menu meals now?

 

[Dragon]

Food stamps don't stimulate the economy. Neither does unemployment. I'm continually astounded at the ignorance, in regards to basic economics, exuded by so many.

Actually, your statement above is a perfect example of ignorance as to basic economics.

Putting money into the hands of consumers ALWAYS stimulates the economy.

Actually, it doesn't.

On what basis do you make this statement? Money in the hands of consumers = more sales = a stimulated economy. Why do you say that doesn't work?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

OH so you equate yourself as the whole left and bam obama has been vilified? Dude come on. You know what you just said is total bullshit. You may feel it but your view does not represent the action of the left towards obama.

Your statement indicated 100% of left wingers would not villify Obama.
You did say "any".

They does not equate all they only implies a group. When I say all LIBERALS I WILL MEAN ALL LIBERALS.

This is being vilified so when has the left done this to obama?
Fast forward to 4:06 of the video
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6b1VOAATNk&list=FLrek-r6Y4lLacXbzj03BbBg&index=2&feature=plpp_video]A Trip Down Memory Lane - YouTube[/ame]

What no comment on how to vilify someone??

 

[uscitizen]

near 75 billion in spending at grocery stores has to stimulate something.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Food stamps shouldn't come with luxuries

Call me crazy, but if you're homeless, then a fridge and stove are pretty damn luxurious.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I'm not sure why the right isn't embracing this. It's a state's right issue. It's a free market issue. And it would stimulate the economy. And as long as we apply personal responsibility, it doesn't really matter what people do with their food stamps. They still have the same budget. If they spend too much of their food stamps by eating out, which is more expensive, then they'll learn their lessons on their own when they go half the month starving with no way to eat.

Food stamps don't stimulate the economy. Neither does unemployment. I'm continually astounded at the ignorance, in regards to basic economics, exuded by so many.

Umm food stamp mone virtually all goes into the grocery industry.
They would cut heads and such if the food stamp money ended.

Come on USC, I didn't think you were in that bunch. Food stamps are paid by the taxpayer in the form of taxes. Food stamps don't stimulate. You can fabricate a short term increase but long term is negated.

 

[uscitizen]

Food stamps don't stimulate the economy. Neither does unemployment. I'm continually astounded at the ignorance, in regards to basic economics, exuded by so many.

Umm food stamp mone virtually all goes into the grocery industry.
They would cut heads and such if the food stamp money ended.

Come on USC, I didn't think you were in that bunch. Food stamps are paid by the taxpayer in the form of taxes. Food stamps don't stimulate. You can fabricate a short term increase but long term is negated.

Ahh you are talking about real long term economic growth.
Not the same thing as something stimulating the economy.
We have not had much real long term economic growth for over a decade. The only growth for the last decade was in debt, both public and private.

I agree with you on not creating long term growth, but the debt spending does stimulate the short term economy and that is all that seems to matter for the last few decades.
Long term planning does not exist much in the USA.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Actually, your statement above is a perfect example of ignorance as to basic economics.

Putting money into the hands of consumers ALWAYS stimulates the economy.

Actually, it doesn't.

On what basis do you make this statement? Money in the hands of consumers = more sales = a stimulated economy. Why do you say that doesn't work?

X amount taken from the taxpayer reduces that segments disposable income. Its just rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Yes, dining out is a luxury. Even hard working middle class citizens have to budget themselves carefully to fit in dining out. For 2 adults and a child to eat a decent dinner out, it's at LEAST $50. A lot of the middle class has to make room in their budget for an extra $50 expenditure just once a month.

I'm not saying people don't deserve it. If you work hard you deserve to treat yourself to a nice dinner out. But as a taxpayer funding that program, I'm not comfortable with people taking $50 they can't earn themselves, and buying one single meal for themselves. That same money can buy enough groceries to eat for days.

What's so bad about wanting people to dig their way OUT of welfare and work towards earning a nice dinner out?

So, you're opposed to the free market, then? Let the recipient worry about whether it fits into their budget. If they go two weeks without a bite to eat because they made a foolish decision, they'll learn the first time, right?

 

[Dragon]

Food stamps are paid by the taxpayer in the form of taxes. Food stamps don't stimulate. You can fabricate a short term increase but long term is negated.

Salaries are paid by the consumers in the form of purchases. All money spent anywhere by anyone came originally from someone else.

There is no simple one-for-one tradeoff between taxes and benefits, because not everyone spends all of their money. The net benefit of unemployment insurance on propping up an economy was shown in the recent meltdown, compared to the one in 1929 when such benefits were nonexistent. With business sitting on mountains of cash they have no incentive to invest, the idea that taxes are a drag on the economy when applied to successful businesses and the wealthy has no merit.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Food stamps don't stimulate the economy. Neither does unemployment. I'm continually astounded at the ignorance, in regards to basic economics, exuded by so many.

Call me crazy, but I thought that the more money businesses make, the better off the economy would be. Doesn't making more money cause businesses to hire more people, which in turn causes more people to be able to spend their money, contributing to a snow balling trickle down?

 

[uscitizen]

Actually, it doesn't.

On what basis do you make this statement? Money in the hands of consumers = more sales = a stimulated economy. Why do you say that doesn't work?

X amount taken from the taxpayer reduces that segments disposable income. Its just rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

Not really since it is mostly borrowed money