The Food Stamp Discussion (POLL)

[JBeukema]

Buying soda and junk when the point of the system is to provide nutrition for your children is misuse- even abuse- any any fair application of the term.

Perhaps we should do away with the system altogether and stick to food banks. it won't eliminate abuse, but it'll certainly help reduce much of it.

 

[Paulie]

Buying soda and junk when the point of the system is to provide nutrition for your children is misuse- even abuse- any any fair application of the term.

Perhaps we should do away with the system altogether and stick to food banks. it won't eliminate abuse, but it'll certainly help reduce much of it.

I'm fine with that.

I just don't advocate giving someone money and then telling them what they can eat.

Either let them eat whatever, or cancel the program and start over with a better one.

 

[Annie]

Many people are receiving food stamps as a means to an end.

Many are going to college, albeit maybe later in their lives than many of you did.

There are PLENTY of hard working, deserving people who are getting a little assistance to buy some food while they aren't making enough money yet to adequately do so on their own.

Why do the bad apples have to ruin it for the good ones?

I find it interesting that so many of you seem to conveniently know so many people who are not only on food stamps, but abusing them as well.

I don't know anyone that is or has been on food stamps. I've not been aware of anyone even using them in the big chain stores I've usually shopped at, certainly not Whole Foods.

However, with this new experience of trying to get by on a negative income, I've shopped at Aldi's quite alot. I have seen people swiping what is obviously not a debit card. Living where I do, I'd make an assumption that most of these are mothers with younger kids, living in an apartment. I now know what is necessary income level in IL to receive, if my unemployment is too high to qualify, then it would be nearly impossible to have a mortgage and qualify. I bought the house before the prices skyrocket or fell.

I don't believe that anyone should go hungry in America, however this program just doesn't seem to be what most tax payers think it should be. So, take it to the local level, I think if possible to the private level, with volunteers. One of the success stories locally has been our PADS system, DuPage PADS is committed to end and prevent homelessness in DuPage County Illinois

Granted homelessness here, unlike in the city, is invisible, yet there's no denying it's real. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many locations. I've volunteered in the past, the rules are strict, people high or drunk are turned away, (actually the police take them). Families are sheltered separately. There are country social services there to help find jobs and housing. Clothing is available, especially for children and job interviews. Transportation arranged and applications for low cost medical facilities are given. The local businesses give preference to qualified applicants for jobs. I've no doubt that there are areas where there would be a lack of volunteers or services, but I still cannot see the Fed or even the state doing as much, certainly not as effectively.

 

[Conspiracist]

Buying soda and junk when the point of the system is to provide nutrition for your children is misuse- even abuse- any any fair application of the term.

Perhaps we should do away with the system altogether and stick to food banks. it won't eliminate abuse, but it'll certainly help reduce much of it.

In all honesty, if churches would take that responsibility, I would be for it. We don't need government run food anything. United Way taking responsibility would be good too.

 

[JBeukema]

Ben Franklin pointed out that people should be made uncomfortable in their poverty, otherwise they will never leave it. It's paraphrased, but that's the essence of it.

In NorCal, there's a homeless shelter where some have stayed for years. Three hots, a cot, and plenty f crack dealers around- they're in heaven.

It's the difference between a handout and a hand up.

To that end, we should take the beggar donation model. You don't give them cash, you give them the essentials. /QUOTE]

 

[JBeukema]

Buying soda and junk when the point of the system is to provide nutrition for your children is misuse- even abuse- any any fair application of the term.

Perhaps we should do away with the system altogether and stick to food banks. it won't eliminate abuse, but it'll certainly help reduce much of it.

In all honesty, if churches would take that responsibility, I would be for it. We don't need government run food anything. United Way taking responsibility would be good too.

When I've found or heard of such programs, they've usually been affiliated with the SA or other religious institutions.

Government programs tend to boil down to 'just throw money at it'.

We don't need government run food anything

I disagree. I think there's definitely a place for city- and county-run food banks. Church-based assistance is a great thing, but we can't let our society leave its people to the mercy of the churches. The good society must itself, in a fair, secular, and impartial manner, be willing to aid those in honest need of a hand up.

 

[Paulie]

Exactly.

I don't hand cash out to beggars either.

But if I did, I certainly wouldn't place caveats on it.

The point is, stop giving people cash on a card, and then geting pissed that they're not buying what YOU want them to buy.

Fix the fucking system, stop just bitching about.

 

[syrenn]

How about military BAS?

Anyone have a justification for that, considering military members are already taken care of in terms of guaranteed pay, housing, healthcare, etc?

BAS is not food stamps. That is a totally different program. People on food stamps are can join the military too and receive what the government OWES them and what they have EARNED for serving the country.


IF and this is a BIG IF If they WANT too

 

[Paulie]

How about military BAS?

Anyone have a justification for that, considering military members are already taken care of in terms of guaranteed pay, housing, healthcare, etc?

BAS is not food stamps. That is a totally different program. People on food stamps are can join the military too and receive what the government OWES them and what they have EARNED for serving the country.

I didn't say it was food stamps.

It's extra money given to military members to buy food with, on top of what they already make.

E-4's are up to almost $2000/mo in base pay. You can achieve E-4 in about 2 years of service. That's plenty of money to live on without needing extra assistance for food.

They also get free housing, healthcare, and can eat very cheaply, if not free, at the chow hall. They can do all their shopping at reduced prices and tax-free on base as well.

They don't necessarily need extra money for food.

But they get it, so we should probably place caveats on it because I don't want people who protect my country eating unhealthy foods on my dime.

 

[Conspiracist]

Buying soda and junk when the point of the system is to provide nutrition for your children is misuse- even abuse- any any fair application of the term.

Perhaps we should do away with the system altogether and stick to food banks. it won't eliminate abuse, but it'll certainly help reduce much of it.

In all honesty, if churches would take that responsibility, I would be for it. We don't need government run food anything. United Way taking responsibility would be good too.

When I've found or heard of such programs, they've usually been affiliated with the SA or other religious institutions.

Government programs tend to boil down to 'just throw money at it'.

We don't need government run food anything

I disagree. I think there's definitely a place for city- and county-run food banks. Church-based assistance is a great thing, but we can't let our society leave its people to the mercy of the churches. The good society must itself, in a fair, secular, and impartial manner, be willing to aid those in honest need of a hand up.

Actually I mistated the "We don't need government run food anything" Watchdogs on the money and supplies given to charity organizations would be necessary. I just would not want to see government employees passing out food allotments.

 

[Paulie]

Tell me Syrenn...

Why does an O-3, who makes about $50k per year in just base pay, need extra money to buy groceries?

 

[Annie]

The PADS program I mentioned above? While nearly all locations are churches, they don't preach or hold services for bed, food, or services. If anyone wishes to join a service, they are in different area of the building and they are escorted to them. Most do not, even if there is some type of service or bible study or AA Meeting going on. The later actually does often draw people to it.

I just took a look at the interim nightly housing for Oct, here's the schedule:

As you can see, it's a mix of denominations. This month I don't see a synagogue, though I know of two that participate.

 

[JBeukema]

So the county or state shouldn't be involved in running the food banks?

What if the only churches around refuse to serve non-members or persons of a given faith?

Do you not see why we need a secular system? Or would you instead force a church, because it aids one man, to also give to another man whether they can/wish to or not?

The two should compliment eachother.

 

[JBeukema]

Man has a right to food (read: nutrition); man does not have a right to candy.

 

[Paulie]

Man has a right to food (read: nutrition); man does not have a right to candy.

Even with my line of argument, I can understand the problem with the candy.

Not so much with soda or potato chips though. Those things actually have nutritional value, as little as it is.

How about while we're going to be stupid enough to give people money on a card, instead of letting them have NONE of this so-called unhealthy food, we place a limit on the amount of it?

Each monthly roll-over of benefits allows one 12-pack of soda, one economy sized bag of chips, etc?

This way, they're not going overboard with the unhealthy crap, but they at least get to enjoy it in some way like the rest of the obese pieces of shit in this country?

 

[Annie]

Man has a right to food (read: nutrition); man does not have a right to candy.

Even with my line of argument, I can understand the problem with the candy.

Not so much with soda or potato chips though. Those things actually have nutritional value, as little as it is.

How about while we're going to be stupid enough to give people money on a card, instead of letting them have NONE of this so-called unhealthy food, we place a limit on the amount of it?

Each monthly roll-over of benefits allows one 12-pack of soda, one economy sized bag of chips, etc?

This way, they're not going overboard with the unhealthy crap, but they at least get to enjoy it in some way like the rest of the obese pieces of shit in this country?

I can't believe they've worn you down to making a complex system even more complex. LOL! Seriously it's just more control issues from the progressives that won't be happy until we can all be as 'good and righteous' as they are.

 

[Conspiracist]

So the county or state shouldn't be involved in running the food banks?

What if the only churches around refuse to serve non-members or persons of a given faith?
Do you not see why we need a secular system? Or would you instead force a church, because it aids one man, to also give to another man whether they can/wish to or not?

The two should compliment eachother.

If that were the case, they would not receive any assistance from the gubmint

 

[JBeukema]

The problem with that, Paulie, is determining what counts as junk and then putting into place and enforcing any such system. If not impossible, it's at least a logistics and bureaucratic nightmare. Food banks, OTOH, can readily be checked to ensure that they're providing safe and healthful items.

Private charity (eg: churches), being the actions of private individuals, can give what they please, so long as (A) they are not publicly financed and (B) any kitchen or other food-serving function meets the requirements of the Health Inspector.

 

[Paulie]

Man has a right to food (read: nutrition); man does not have a right to candy.

Even with my line of argument, I can understand the problem with the candy.

Not so much with soda or potato chips though. Those things actually have nutritional value, as little as it is.

How about while we're going to be stupid enough to give people money on a card, instead of letting them have NONE of this so-called unhealthy food, we place a limit on the amount of it?

Each monthly roll-over of benefits allows one 12-pack of soda, one economy sized bag of chips, etc?

This way, they're not going overboard with the unhealthy crap, but they at least get to enjoy it in some way like the rest of the obese pieces of shit in this country?

I can't believe they've worn you down to making a complex system even more complex. LOL! Seriously it's just more control issues from the progressives that won't be happy until we can all be as 'good and righteous' as they are.

I'm really just putting my feelers out there to see what the opponents of this really think. Is it really about health and what's "best" for them, or is it just about controlling a demographic that they hate?

I think it's just about control and nothing more. You're poor, I'm not, therefore I will not sit idly by and watch you actually manage to get some form of enjoyment out of life.

Speaking of progressives, there's a lot of them on the right

 

[JBeukema]

So the county or state shouldn't be involved in running the food banks?

What if the only churches around refuse to serve non-members or persons of a given faith?
Do you not see why we need a secular system? Or would you instead force a church, because it aids one man, to also give to another man whether they can/wish to or not?

The two should compliment eachother.

If that were the case, they would not receive any assistance from the gubmint

Churches shouldn't receive any funds from the government.

The state should do the state's job and the church should be left alone.

Whenever the two begin to mix, it always goes to shit for them both.

Surely, history has shown us that.