Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood

[Cecilie1200]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

And what do we base the determinations of those items on? We don't want them buying expensive foods, but we don't want them buying the cheap junk, either. Exactly what is "acceptable" food for them to have?

 

[koshergrl]

They should either be restricted in what they can buy..or better yet, we should just reduce the amount they receive by about 1/2.

Well the problem with the amount is that cost of living is so dramatically different from place to place. It's just not a good idea to try and fund a social program federally, and that should be what we are debating here. Instead, we're playing this stupid "good guy-bad guy" routine with bleeding heart liberals who know how to do that best.

I understand there are people in society who fall through the cracks, who can't hold down a job for whatever reason, maybe it's mental health or physical health or just circumstances of who they are and how they've been raised? But we have millions of them and let's face it, no one is going to let anyone die in the street of starvation.

So we can all agree that some level of humanitarian aid is in order, but it shouldn't be what it is currently, it's way too much. Most of the problem is not the amount but how it is being spent. You see, we hand the financial responsibility over because liberals insist this is some matter of "dignity" for them, but they can't ******* manage money, that's why they are poor! Why the hell are we giving them, basically, a credit card and free will? Why isn't there some sort of oversight or supervision in place? Well, because that would cost a lot of money to do, and there's the "dignity" thing.

I would get rid of the SNAP (food stamps, EBT) and WIC programs altogether. replace them with either Commodity centers or trucks for rural areas, and let people go get a "care package" each week or two. I guarantee we'd be able to provide for every food stamp or WIC recipient at about half the current cost or less. No one will starve, people won't have to go without food. Meanwhile, we stretch our resources out which makes them last longer... this is not rocket science.

But the Liberals.... they have a different viewpoint about money the government spends. They envision Washington D.C. as this big giant endless pile of money from all the rich bastards... it just never ends, we never can run out, and if we do we can just print more as we need to or squeeze the rich bastards more. Money is simply not an object to the Libs. Of course, in such a fantasy universe, you can be as benevolent as you please! Hell, Lobsters and Steak for everybody!

Nice post until your last paragraph of useless imaginary "liberal boogeyman" made up crap!

Each State does handle their own welfare programs, and each State is different from the next.... they just take the the Feds money to pay for half, the State pays the other half and the State institutes their own rules.

It would cost a lot less, if there could be a pick up place for food, or trucks to come to each neighborhood or a Meals on Wheels type thing....even though sending out trucks seems expensive, when you look at all the "middle men" that get their "cut" of the money spent on food welfare.... the grocer, the manufacturer, the farmer, the Banks that supply the EBT cards are even getting their cut.

Food stamps is managed at the state level. But it's a federal program, funded federally and with federal oversight.

 

[koshergrl]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

And what do we base the determinations of those items on? We don't want them buying expensive foods, but we don't want them buying the cheap junk, either. Exactly what is "acceptable" food for them to have?

I think it's probably easier to just figure out what food they shouldn't be able to purchase with foodstamps.

Chips. Candy. Soda..things with zero food value, and that aren't going to make their lives HARDER. I mean, I appreciate that working moms once in a while want to have microwave dinners on hand for latchkey children, though those are expensive and have low nutritional value...I think it could (possibly) be a hardship for a working single parent if those were ruled out altogether. I don't have a problem with people purchasing cold case deli items either...lunch meats and cheeses are often less expensive there anyway, and the cold deli chickens are a fairly good buy and a great box lunch item. But if they want chips, and bakery items, they can find a way to fund those themselves. It isn't going to kill them or make their lives less meaningful if they do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.

Well, if you waste it, then you don't have any more for the rest of the month, and you get to find another way to pay for your food. So what? This is really just about resenting poor people for getting welfare, which I can understand, but I have no interest in reacting by trying to micromanage people's lives even further.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.

So no hamburger either?

Hamburger meat runs around $3.50 a pound. Ribeye steak runs around $12.99 a pound. What do you think?

what if its round steak?.....

All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.

And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is? I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.

 

[Boss]

They should either be restricted in what they can buy..or better yet, we should just reduce the amount they receive by about 1/2.

Well the problem with the amount is that cost of living is so dramatically different from place to place. It's just not a good idea to try and fund a social program federally, and that should be what we are debating here. Instead, we're playing this stupid "good guy-bad guy" routine with bleeding heart liberals who know how to do that best.

I understand there are people in society who fall through the cracks, who can't hold down a job for whatever reason, maybe it's mental health or physical health or just circumstances of who they are and how they've been raised? But we have millions of them and let's face it, no one is going to let anyone die in the street of starvation.

So we can all agree that some level of humanitarian aid is in order, but it shouldn't be what it is currently, it's way too much. Most of the problem is not the amount but how it is being spent. You see, we hand the financial responsibility over because liberals insist this is some matter of "dignity" for them, but they can't ******* manage money, that's why they are poor! Why the hell are we giving them, basically, a credit card and free will? Why isn't there some sort of oversight or supervision in place? Well, because that would cost a lot of money to do, and there's the "dignity" thing.

I would get rid of the SNAP (food stamps, EBT) and WIC programs altogether. replace them with either Commodity centers or trucks for rural areas, and let people go get a "care package" each week or two. I guarantee we'd be able to provide for every food stamp or WIC recipient at about half the current cost or less. No one will starve, people won't have to go without food. Meanwhile, we stretch our resources out which makes them last longer... this is not rocket science.

But the Liberals.... they have a different viewpoint about money the government spends. They envision Washington D.C. as this big giant endless pile of money from all the rich bastards... it just never ends, we never can run out, and if we do we can just print more as we need to or squeeze the rich bastards more. Money is simply not an object to the Libs. Of course, in such a fantasy universe, you can be as benevolent as you please! Hell, Lobsters and Steak for everybody!

Nice post until your last paragraph of useless imaginary "liberal boogeyman" made up crap!

Each State does handle their own welfare programs, and each State is different from the next.... they just take the the Feds money to pay for half, the State pays the other half and the State institutes their own rules.

It would cost a lot less, if there could be a pick up place for food, or trucks to come to each neighborhood or a Meals on Wheels type thing....even though sending out trucks seems expensive, when you look at all the "middle men" that get their "cut" of the money spent on food welfare.... the grocer, the manufacturer, the farmer, the Banks that supply the EBT cards are even getting their cut.

Thanks for the compliment and not the backhand slap. Nothing imaginary about liberal boogeymen, they are indeed real. The current administration is increasing our debt over $1 trillion per year on average. I've said this before and had doe-eyed liberals retort.. "so what, we spent a trillion dollars, big deal!" No... We spent a trillion more than we took in and we've been doing this for the past 7 years. Most liberals can't even comprehend the amount of a trillion. I've actually heard them argue that something should be done about "those rich billionaires and trillionaires!" Trillion isn't even a value anymore, it's just a word synonymous with greedy rich bastards who control all the wealth.

In every debate with every liberal on the matter of social entitlement, there is never an ounce of concern over cost. It's always justified, there's always the promise of new taxes or mandates on business to pay for whatever liberals dream up that we need and gotta have. We can debate objectively about how to best help people in need, but when one side has no concept of budget and finance, where money simply doesn't matter, it's easy to be benevolent and generous while painting the adversary as cheap and cruel. And this happens every single day in the La-la-land known as Liberalism.

 

[koshergrl]

I stockpile cake mixes every month or so..I get them on sale, and I buy enough for one a week. I bought 10 dozen eggs this month..we usually go through 3-5 dozen a month, which costs about $8. Eggs save our asses. If we have eggs, beans, potatoes, oil and cake mixes, we make out pretty good. I can make bread (and often do) and I always have boloney and peanut butter, and bacon (most of the time). With eggs I can feed the kids for weeks on just those things. I haven't bought a bakery cake in years, because I just can't afford them. But we always have cake mixes on hand. I usually make the icing...powdered sugar and cocoa, a little evaporated milk (or water, or powdered milk and water) and butter (or not, meh). Jello! Jello has protein, and it's CHEAP. I buy the big ones when they're on sale, 10 boxes for $10. I make it as regular jello, which the kids love...or when they're squirrelly and tired of not having anything junky for a while..or when they're sick, I make it as a drink for them, and they love it.

My must haves:
potatoes (white and usually a few sweet)
beans
onions
sugars (brown, powdered, grandulated)
flour
oil
butter
cake mixes
jello
eggs
apples
oranges
canned fruit (whatever is on sale)

When I get meat I figure enough for one meat-based meal a week, plus one or two extra. So this month, I got some beef ribs on sale, a 2 or 3 lb package of burger, a package of chicken legs, a roast, and the easter ham.
Last month was a less lucrative month, we made due with much less meat. Probably less than 1/2 of what's listed there.
I buy tomatoes and ice burg lettuce at the beginning of the month, but of course they don't make it to the end.

I don't buy every item every month. I know what I have on hand, and I pounce on sales. It takes time to build up the pantry, especially when you clean it out regularly. Cabbage and onions are items that will last for months in the fridge if they don't freeze.

I can beans, potatoes, and veggies when I can so that even when I don't have money to buy yummy food, I can pull SOMETHING out of the cupboard. The canned potatoes are fairly gross but we fry them and eat them when we're hungry and we're out of regular potatoes.

A lot of my time is spent thinking about and preparing food for my family. If I had a lot of money for food, it would be a lot less time consuming...but the point is, it can be done, and people who are on charity SHOULD BE DOING IT. But when they have to really think about it and budget, they start whining. I can't tell you how maddening it was for me to be talking to women who get child support and rental assistance, who don't have to pay for child care, who receive more in foodstamps than I would know what to do with, boo hoo "I can't feed my family on that, how am I supposed to feed my family on that?" I wanted to tell them "omg are you shitting me?"

 

[jknowgood]

Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.

Well, if you waste it, then you don't have any more for the rest of the month, and you get to find another way to pay for your food. So what? This is really just about resenting poor people for getting welfare, which I can understand, but I have no interest in reacting by trying to micromanage people's lives even further.

Yep, and it's usually the child that hurts.

 

[koshergrl]

Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.

So no hamburger either?

Hamburger meat runs around $3.50 a pound. Ribeye steak runs around $12.99 a pound. What do you think?

what if its round steak?.....

All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.

And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is? I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.

Progressives are always big on limiting the poor people's access to food, lol. "You don't need no stinking meat!" Sounds like something Stalin would have said to justify taking all the food from the starving masses, in order to sell it.

 

[EverCurious]

hmmm so apparently food assistance in Alaska extends to buying "supplies for subsistence living" I'd imagine guns and ammo, fishing poles and fish hooks, perhaps snow machines/four wheelers and gas, boats perhaps... I suppose that makes sense up here, and would argue the need for state management and regulation.


I'm also inclined to sound my agreement with Boss' commentary, our spending is out of control. As a former 1%'er I can tell you that mismanagement can and will easily dry up even the supposed unlimited tap of the wealthy. My mistake was trusting that our investments were soundly spread to resist the economic pits; it was not apparently enough, but I failed to recognize it a serious problem until it was too late. We lost over a million dollars in the market in the past 6 years, and I did nothing, presuming that my financial fate was secure because it'd bounce back eventually, that it'd recover and rebuild itself... Seem's humans in general do not realize their mistakes far too late to prevent calamity in the first place.

While I had tossed enough off into other venues to live comfortably, I have to wonder if there even /is/ any possible venue of reserve that the US could even consider tapping once the wealthy have no more to give - or as many of my friends have done have fled the country under the hatred of the general populace. Fair warning, there are MANY other countries that are quite happy to become home to wealthy ex-Americans; and a payout of tax is a much, much easier price to pay, than to bear the unrelenting despise of ones countrymen.

Yes, yes, I know, no sympathy for the rich; because of course money can buy love, belonging, and respect as a fellow human being. /scarcasm

 

[Cecilie1200]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

And what do we base the determinations of those items on? We don't want them buying expensive foods, but we don't want them buying the cheap junk, either. Exactly what is "acceptable" food for them to have?

I think it's probably easier to just figure out what food they shouldn't be able to purchase with foodstamps.

Chips. Candy. Soda..things with zero food value, and that aren't going to make their lives HARDER. I mean, I appreciate that working moms once in a while want to have microwave dinners on hand for latchkey children, though those are expensive and have low nutritional value...I think it could (possibly) be a hardship for a working single parent if those were ruled out altogether. I don't have a problem with people purchasing cold case deli items either...lunch meats and cheeses are often less expensive there anyway, and the cold deli chickens are a fairly good buy and a great box lunch item. But if they want chips, and bakery items, they can find a way to fund those themselves. It isn't going to kill them or make their lives less meaningful if they do.

I think it's probably easier not to compound the problem of trying to nanny people by further nannying them and telling them what they can and can't eat.

 

[Boss]

Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.

Well, if you waste it, then you don't have any more for the rest of the month, and you get to find another way to pay for your food. So what? This is really just about resenting poor people for getting welfare, which I can understand, but I have no interest in reacting by trying to micromanage people's lives even further.

If Liberals had their way the federal government would micromanage every aspect of our lives. We have Michelle Obama mandating and micromanaging what our kids can eat for lunch, we have nationalized health care where government can micromanage all sorts of personal stuff under the guise of "affordable health care." We've got mandates on what kind of light bulbs we can use... what kind of toilets we can install... what kind of cars we can drive... the list goes on and on. I won't even get into the social issues that Liberals would simply cram down our throats and demand we accept or be castigated as bigots, racists, homophobes or whatever. And God forbid we should actually exercise religious freedom!

We never hear liberals talking about where cuts need to be made, it's always more funding, more taxes, more bloated ineffective pipe-dream liberal programs implemented. When someone with common sense suggests where we might reduce the deficit by decreasing the built-in amount of annual increase in funding for a given program, that's turned into "draconian cuts that will starve kids and elderly folks!" Anything short of spending more trillions we don't have, is characterized as "uncaring and greedy!" Hey... It's so easy to do whenever your brain can divorce your mind from the concept of monetary value.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

I am against that, but they surely should not be used for candy, cookies, chips, soda and junky fast-food, or anything else unhealthy.

No business micromanaging. I'll say it again.

 

[koshergrl]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

And what do we base the determinations of those items on? We don't want them buying expensive foods, but we don't want them buying the cheap junk, either. Exactly what is "acceptable" food for them to have?

I think it's probably easier to just figure out what food they shouldn't be able to purchase with foodstamps.

Chips. Candy. Soda..things with zero food value, and that aren't going to make their lives HARDER. I mean, I appreciate that working moms once in a while want to have microwave dinners on hand for latchkey children, though those are expensive and have low nutritional value...I think it could (possibly) be a hardship for a working single parent if those were ruled out altogether. I don't have a problem with people purchasing cold case deli items either...lunch meats and cheeses are often less expensive there anyway, and the cold deli chickens are a fairly good buy and a great box lunch item. But if they want chips, and bakery items, they can find a way to fund those themselves. It isn't going to kill them or make their lives less meaningful if they do.

I think it's probably easier not to compound the problem of trying to nanny people by further nannying them and telling them what they can and can't eat.

I don't see a problem with telling them they can't use government subsidies to purchase food with zero nutritive value. Just chips and pop and candy. Let them get whatever else they want. But if we're giving them the money, let's be realistic and limit how they can spend it. If they don't like it, they can get a job.

 

[koshergrl]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

I am against that, but they surely should not be used for candy, cookies, chips, soda and junky fast-food, or anything else unhealthy.

No business micromanaging. I'll say it again.

So if we have a huge overfunded government subsidy program, we should just throw the money out the window?

Naw. It's charity. We should be able to dictate what it's spent on. We determined they couldn't use it for alcohol and ciggies, we can dictate it not be used for candy, pop and chips. Or bakery items. It isn't like you're telling poor people they can't buy those things. You're just telling them that's not what snap is for. And remind the American people that SNAP is meant to stave off starvation...not allow people to enjoy a standard of living they haven't earned and don't need.

 

[koshergrl]

hmmm so apparently food assistance in Alaska extends to buying "supplies for subsistence living" I'd imagine guns and ammo, fishing poles and fish hooks, perhaps snow machines/four wheelers and gas, boats perhaps... I suppose that makes sense up here, and would argue the need for state management and regulation.


I'm also inclined to sound my agreement with Boss' commentary, our spending is out of control. As a former 1%'er I can tell you that mismanagement can and will easily dry up even the supposed unlimited tap of the wealthy. My mistake was trusting that our investments were soundly spread to resist the economic pits; it was not apparently enough, but I failed to recognize it a serious problem until it was too late. We lost over a million dollars in the market in the past 6 years, and I did nothing, presuming that my financial fate was secure because it'd bounce back eventually, that it'd recover and rebuild itself... Seem's humans in general do not realize their mistakes far too late to prevent calamity in the first place.

While I had tossed enough off into other venues to live comfortably, I have to wonder if there even /is/ any possible venue of reserve that the US could even consider tapping once the wealthy have no more to give - or as many of my friends have done have fled the country under the hatred of the general populace. Fair warning, there are MANY other countries that are quite happy to become home to wealthy ex-Americans; and a payout of tax is a much, much easier price to pay, than to bear the unrelenting despise of ones countrymen.

Yes, yes, I know, no sympathy for the rich; because of course money can buy love, belonging, and respect as a fellow human being. /scarcasm

You can buy veggie and fruit seeds and seedlings with snap benefits.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The main recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, veterans, disabled and of course, that most hated of all Americans, single mothers whose children's fathers have run out on them. Its very important to the right to punish people for being poor and to do anything and everything to keep them that way.

Whaddaya wanna bet Brattin calls himself a "christian".

BTW, his demonic bill is all for show. Or, just as likely, the idiot has no idea how the system works. Thanks to gerrymandering hewill feed at the public trough for the rest of his working life and have plenty of time to do a lot more damage.


Brattin admits that the language might need some tweaking. “My intention wasn’t to get rid of canned tuna and fish sticks,” he said. But he also insists that people are abusing the system by purchasing luxury foods, and believes that that must be stopped, even if it ends up requiring the inclusion of other less luxurious items.


“I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards,” he said. “When I can’t afford it on my pay, I don’t want people on the taxpayer’s dime to afford those kinds of foods either.”


Of course, Brattin is not only a first class asshole, he’s also full of shit. Missouri legislators are paid $35,915 per year plus a $104 a day per diem for miscellaneous costs such as food. Seeing as how a steak can be purchased for under $20.00 at Walmart, it’s pretty safe to assume Brattin can afford to buy prime cuts of beef from time to time. Filet mignon is even cheaper. Brattin can easily purchase filet mignon, a package of two in fact, at a Missouri Walmart for under $9.00.


Brattin makes more than twice the annual earnings of a family who is eligible to receive food assistance, and he probably makes a mint during tax refund season considering he has five kids. And you can bet he isn’t allowing his children to live on fish sticks and tuna. And apparently, Brattin doesn’t understand that his own pay is courtesy of the very taxpayers that he has been attacking relentlessly with stupid bills.


In addition, SNAP rules allow recipients to purchase steak and seafood because they are food items and it would be costly and burdensome to restrict these items. Brattin’s bill also has no teeth because only Congress can change SNAP rules.

Yeah mothers really need it? The one I saw the other day bought 4 20 oz moutain dews, and candy bars for the youngsters. If she really needed the money she wouldn't be wasting it. Then She whipped out cash and bought cigarettes and 2 25 oz ice houses. That's what we pay for. If someone is really needy I have no problem giving them welfare, but I see them abusing the system all the time. Heck even the ice cream truck takes ebt cards.

You'll be a lot healthier if you spend less time inspecting other people's grocery purchases and gnawing your liver out over them. If you have a problem with welfare, have a problem with welfare. Don't make it worse by saying, "I'll give you the ******* money, you damned leech, but I'm gonna keep you from enjoying it, by GOD!" What a waste of time and energy and unnecessary complication just so you can feel vindictive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

I am against that, but they surely should not be used for candy, cookies, chips, soda and junky fast-food, or anything else unhealthy.

No business micromanaging. I'll say it again.

So if we have a huge overfunded government subsidy program, we should just throw the money out the window?

Naw. It's charity. We should be able to dictate what it's spent on. We determined they couldn't use it for alcohol and ciggies, we can dictate it not be used for candy, pop and chips. Or bakery items. It isn't like you're telling poor people they can't buy those things. You're just telling them that's not what snap is for. And remind the American people that SNAP is meant to stave off starvation...not allow people to enjoy a standard of living they haven't earned and don't need.

We're going to spend that money regardless of what those people spend it ON. Do you really think there's any amount of fiddly, buttinsky rules that are going to make those people suddenly become health nuts and upstanding citizens beyond what they already are?

The issue is the program itself. Focusing on, "Well, you're by God going to live exactly the way I think you should on that money" just perpetuates the mindset that it's acceptable for government to nanny and micromanage, adds confusion and waste to the system, and doesn't do a damned thing to change the people involved. All it accomplishes is to let leftists feel smug and righteous and conservatives to love their rump roast because they're sticking it to the freeloaders.

 

[Camp]

Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.

So no hamburger either?

Hamburger meat runs around $3.50 a pound. Ribeye steak runs around $12.99 a pound. What do you think?

what if its round steak?.....

All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.

And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is? I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.

It is called science, but common sense can tell you lots. And I am not suggesting people be told how to live. I am suggesting that when we give charity to to people we should have some control of how the charity is used. They can spend their own money however they want. If my money is being spent to feed your kids I should be able to insist you don't spend my donated money on soda and candy. If you don't like the rules don't take the donation.

 

[koshergrl]

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
Missouri Republicans are trying to ban food stamp recipients from buying steak and seafood - The Washington Post
Banning food stamps for thugs who spend it on luxury items, or they're trying to destroy welfare system?
I think that the only way to stop these people to spend our tax money on unnecessary items - is to create list of goods they can buy! And what do you think guys?

I am against that, but they surely should not be used for candy, cookies, chips, soda and junky fast-food, or anything else unhealthy.

No business micromanaging. I'll say it again.

So if we have a huge overfunded government subsidy program, we should just throw the money out the window?

Naw. It's charity. We should be able to dictate what it's spent on. We determined they couldn't use it for alcohol and ciggies, we can dictate it not be used for candy, pop and chips. Or bakery items. It isn't like you're telling poor people they can't buy those things. You're just telling them that's not what snap is for. And remind the American people that SNAP is meant to stave off starvation...not allow people to enjoy a standard of living they haven't earned and don't need.

We're going to spend that money regardless of what those people spend it ON. Do you really think there's any amount of fiddly, buttinsky rules that are going to make those people suddenly become health nuts and upstanding citizens beyond what they already are?

The issue is the program itself. Focusing on, "Well, you're by God going to live exactly the way I think you should on that money" just perpetuates the mindset that it's acceptable for government to nanny and micromanage, adds confusion and waste to the system, and doesn't do a damned thing to change the people involved. All it accomplishes is to let leftists feel smug and righteous and conservatives to love their rump roast because they're sticking it to the freeloaders.

I used to think that way, I thought that if we're going to give it to them, just give it to them.

But the sticking point is this..they don't receive actual CASH. They are receiving what amounts to VOUCHERS for food. If the purpose of the foodstamp program is to stave off starvation, and NOT to enable the unemployed and derelict to achieve a higher standard of living than they are willing to pursue, why should we not tell them "You can't use this for these things because starving people who have access to less expensive food don't NEED these things....chips, soda, candy."

It's not that big a deal. The rest of us have to budget our grocery dollars, why should we give them access to non-nutritive garbage? You have to look at the PURPOSE of the program. The PURPOSE is to prevent starvation. They don't need chips, candy and soda to keep from starving. Let's stick to the PURPOSE of the program. Instead of saying "Well they get too much money but meh, they already get it so let's not exert any control over it".