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

[Moonglow]

Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats. Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc. Free juice and water. Healthy stuff. Completely reorganize the system.

Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free. Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​

Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy". They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

If you think that SNAP recipients are dining on steak and lobster on the money they're getting, you are delusional.

They're also banned from getting massages and manicures and going on cruises.

This is yet another example of Republicans passing useless laws designed to punish poor people for being poor. Like the drug testing laws for welfare recipients. Thousands and thousands tested, very few positives. What a waste of time and money!

Yet the legislature members do not have to take a drug test for their jobs...they claim it is against their right to privacy..

 

[Correll]

Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats. Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc. Free juice and water. Healthy stuff. Completely reorganize the system.

Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free. Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​

Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy". They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

If you think that SNAP recipients are dining on steak and lobster on the money they're getting, you are delusional.

They're also banned from getting massages and manicures and going on cruises.

This is yet another example of Republicans passing useless laws designed to punish poor people for being poor. Like the drug testing laws for welfare recipients. Thousands and thousands tested, very few positives. What a waste of time and money!

Yet the legislature members do not have to take a drug test for their jobs...they claim it is against their right to privacy..

It is interesting that you seem to make little if any distinction between a job and being on food stamps...

 

[Moonglow]

Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy". They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

If you think that SNAP recipients are dining on steak and lobster on the money they're getting, you are delusional.

They're also banned from getting massages and manicures and going on cruises.

This is yet another example of Republicans passing useless laws designed to punish poor people for being poor. Like the drug testing laws for welfare recipients. Thousands and thousands tested, very few positives. What a waste of time and money!

Yet the legislature members do not have to take a drug test for their jobs...they claim it is against their right to privacy..

It is interesting that you seem to make little if any distinction between a job and being on food stamps...

Considering that many in the legislature are business owners and rug test their workers I find it most hypocritical.. If you pass a law making everyone get drug test but top level govt employees I see a breach of ethics...

 

[Correll]

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

If you think that SNAP recipients are dining on steak and lobster on the money they're getting, you are delusional.

They're also banned from getting massages and manicures and going on cruises.

This is yet another example of Republicans passing useless laws designed to punish poor people for being poor. Like the drug testing laws for welfare recipients. Thousands and thousands tested, very few positives. What a waste of time and money!

Yet the legislature members do not have to take a drug test for their jobs...they claim it is against their right to privacy..

It is interesting that you seem to make little if any distinction between a job and being on food stamps...

Considering that many in the legislature are business owners and rug test their workers I find it most hypocritical.. If you pass a law making everyone get drug test but top level govt employees I see a breach of ethics...

Many in the legislature are "business owners"? And drug test their workers?

You're just guessing.

 

[BlueGin]

Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats. Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc. Free juice and water. Healthy stuff. Completely reorganize the system.

Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free. Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​

Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy". They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

If you think that SNAP recipients are dining on steak and lobster on the money they're getting, you are delusional.

They're also banned from getting massages and manicures and going on cruises.

This is yet another example of Republicans passing useless laws designed to punish poor people for being poor. Like the drug testing laws for welfare recipients. Thousands and thousands tested, very few positives. What a waste of time and money!

I have no problem with SNAP recipients buying crab, small lobster tails and certain cuts of steak. All of those things can be purchased for a reasonable price. King crab...and expensive cuts of beef are a different story.

And no I'm not delusional.

 

[Moonglow]

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

If you think that SNAP recipients are dining on steak and lobster on the money they're getting, you are delusional.

They're also banned from getting massages and manicures and going on cruises.

This is yet another example of Republicans passing useless laws designed to punish poor people for being poor. Like the drug testing laws for welfare recipients. Thousands and thousands tested, very few positives. What a waste of time and money!

Yet the legislature members do not have to take a drug test for their jobs...they claim it is against their right to privacy..

It is interesting that you seem to make little if any distinction between a job and being on food stamps...

Considering that many in the legislature are business owners and rug test their workers I find it most hypocritical.. If you pass a law making everyone get drug test but top level govt employees I see a breach of ethics...

Many in the legislature are "business owners"? And drug test their workers?

You're just guessing.

Sure buddy, and they are also drug testing kids in schools, sorry if you think that govt. officials should be above the rest instead of setting an example of submission as most people have to to survive..

 

[Moonglow]

Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats. Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc. Free juice and water. Healthy stuff. Completely reorganize the system.

Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free. Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​

Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy". They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

If you think that SNAP recipients are dining on steak and lobster on the money they're getting, you are delusional.

They're also banned from getting massages and manicures and going on cruises.

This is yet another example of Republicans passing useless laws designed to punish poor people for being poor. Like the drug testing laws for welfare recipients. Thousands and thousands tested, very few positives. What a waste of time and money!

I have no problem with SNAP recipients buying crab, small lobster tails and certain cuts of steak. All of those things can be purchased for a reasonable price. King crab...and expensive cuts of beef are a different story.

And no I'm not delusional.

Why not?

 

[jon_berzerk]

steak and sea food is good for you

what they should ban is soda pop candy and pre done foods

Why? What's it to you whether people want to be healthy or not?

it is my business i am paying for it

I'm not arguing that taxpayers have the ability to make any micromanaging, meddling laws they like regarding spending. I'm asking why the hell you care what other people eat or don't eat, beyond the simple fact of them getting food at all. What's it to you?

it is not meddling if the tax payers are paying for it

meddling is the whole premise behind obamacare

either we are all in or all out

Look up the definition of "meddling".

And anytime you're ready to stop diverting off onto "I have the RIGHT to butt in!" - which no one is disputing - and address the question of why the hell you WANT to butt in, let me know. I realize how hard it can be to sack up, so I won't hold my breath.

By the way, I love the argument of "We already interfere in people's lives, so we should just run EVERYTHING!" What exquisite jackassery.

Look up the definition of "meddling"

maybe you are the one who needs to look up meddling

if you did you would find

interfere in or busy oneself unduly with something that is not one's concern.

meddling refers to messing around with business that is not of your concern

being a tax payer it is indeed a concern on how the money is spent

 

[Interpol]

If Missouri Republicans really care about saving money, they ought to stop buying steak & seafood.

 

[Correll]

If Missouri Republicans really care about saving money, they ought to stop buying steak & seafood.

How do you know they haven't?

Lord Knows I don't buy much of it.

 

[Dragonlady]

There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, for a party that purportedly believes in "small government", this is expanding the reach of government, increasing the size of government to monitor what poor people are buying.

Secondly, for a party which purportedly believes in the Constitution, this is a gross invasion of privacy. We're talking about the senior citizens, working poor, and military families who make up the vast majority of SNAP recipients.

Last, but not least, there is the assumption that SNAP recipients are not capable of making prudent financial decisions. Again, I point out that most SNAP recipients are working poor, retired people and military families.

 

[Andylusion]

There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, for a party that purportedly believes in "small government", this is expanding the reach of government, increasing the size of government to monitor what poor people are buying.

Secondly, for a party which purportedly believes in the Constitution, this is a gross invasion of privacy. We're talking about the senior citizens, working poor, and military families who make up the vast majority of SNAP recipients.

Last, but not least, there is the assumption that SNAP recipients are not capable of making prudent financial decisions. Again, I point out that most SNAP recipients are working poor, retired people and military families.

Firstly..... you don't understand what 'smaller government' means, if that's what you think. Smaller government, means less money stolen from working people, to give to non-working people.

You made government bigger, by taking our money in the first place, and handing it out to people who haven't earned it.

We're reducing it, by cutting these people off, and limiting what they do with OUR tax money. Not theirs. If they want control of the money, tell them to get off their butts, and work for a living.

Second, if we were following the constitution darling, there would be no SNAP at all. There is not one single enumerated power in the constitution, which grants the Federal government the ability to tax one group of people, to provide free food for another.

SNAP itself, is entirely unconstitutional. Moreover, if you had read the constitution, you would know that all other rights, are reserved for the states.... meaning, the states are allowed to make laws the limit what people do with tax payer money, and there is absolutely no contradiction in that.

Lastly, if they are living off of tax payer money, then clearly they are not making prudent financial decisions, whether they are capable or not.

But regardless, I don't give a crap if they are able or not. If you want my tax money, then I gain the right to impose my views on your life.

You don't like that? Tough snot. Get off your butt, and earn your own money, and you can do whatever the flip you want with it.

You live off the money that I got up at 3 AM, drove 30 minutes into work, and worked 12 hours to earn????? Then SHUT UP AND DO WHAT I SAY IF YOU WANT MY MONEY SCUM BAG........ Tough snot. That's how it works. You live off the money of others, you grant them right to dictate your life. Earn your own paycheck if you don't like it.

 

[Dragonlady]

There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, for a party that purportedly believes in "small government", this is expanding the reach of government, increasing the size of government to monitor what poor people are buying.

Secondly, for a party which purportedly believes in the Constitution, this is a gross invasion of privacy. We're talking about the senior citizens, working poor, and military families who make up the vast majority of SNAP recipients.

Last, but not least, there is the assumption that SNAP recipients are not capable of making prudent financial decisions. Again, I point out that most SNAP recipients are working poor, retired people and military families.

Firstly

..... you don't understand what 'smaller government' means, if that's what you think. Smaller government, means less money stolen from working people, to give to non-working people.

You made government bigger, by taking our money in the first place, and handing it out to people who haven't earned it

We're reducing it, by cutting these people off, and limiting what they do with OUR tax money. Not theirs. If they want control of the money, tell them to get off their butts, and work for a living.

"Smaller government" means fewer government workers, and fewer government programs. It takes people to set these stupid laws up, and people to enforce them, thereby increasing administration costs of these programs.

Americans are overly focused on punishing poor people for being poor and making sure that no one gets anything they aren't entitled to. They spend more money than they save on qualifying by income, and putting restrictions on what they can buy. It's a waste of resources and merely increases the administration costs.

It's THEIR money. Most of the people receiving SNAP are working, retired or in the military. They are working, or they have worked all of their lives. They aren't lazy, but Republicans refuse to vote for higher wages for the military, or hirer minimum wages. So SNAP is a wage subsidy given to the workers of some of the most profitable corporations in America because they don't want to pay their workers a living wage.

You want to get angry, get angry at the companies who don't pay their workers a living wage.

Second

, if we were following the constitution darling, there would be no SNAP at all. There is not one single enumerated power in the constitution, which grants the Federal government the ability to tax one group of people, to provide free food for another.

SNAP itself, is entirely unconstitutional. Moreover, if you had read the constitution, you would know that all other rights, are reserved for the states.... meaning, the states are allowed to make laws the limit what people do with tax payer money, and there is absolutely no contradiction in that.

BULLSHIT. Another conservative lie. You don't want people to have make living wages, and you don't want them to get public assistance. Just what the hell are these people supposed to live on?

Lastly

, if they are living off of tax payer money, then clearly they are not making prudent financial decisions, whether they are capable or not.

But regardless, I don't give a crap if they are able or not. If you want my tax money, then I gain the right to impose my views on your life..

You are an idiot. Do some research and find out who receives SNAP. You let Republicans do this to them and to you and now you're angry that the people who work longer hours than you do don't make enough money to eat. Stop swallowing the lies Fox News feeds you and get the facts.

You don't deserve the right to vote, you're so ill informed.

 

[Moonglow]

There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, for a party that purportedly believes in "small government", this is expanding the reach of government, increasing the size of government to monitor what poor people are buying.

Secondly, for a party which purportedly believes in the Constitution, this is a gross invasion of privacy. We're talking about the senior citizens, working poor, and military families who make up the vast majority of SNAP recipients.

Last, but not least, there is the assumption that SNAP recipients are not capable of making prudent financial decisions. Again, I point out that most SNAP recipients are working poor, retired people and military families.

Firstly..... you don't understand what 'smaller government' means, if that's what you think. Smaller government, means less money stolen from working people, to give to non-working people.

You made government bigger, by taking our money in the first place, and handing it out to people who haven't earned it.

We're reducing it, by cutting these people off, and limiting what they do with OUR tax money. Not theirs. If they want control of the money, tell them to get off their butts, and work for a living.

Second, if we were following the constitution darling, there would be no SNAP at all. There is not one single enumerated power in the constitution, which grants the Federal government the ability to tax one group of people, to provide free food for another.

SNAP itself, is entirely unconstitutional. Moreover, if you had read the constitution, you would know that all other rights, are reserved for the states.... meaning, the states are allowed to make laws the limit what people do with tax payer money, and there is absolutely no contradiction in that.

Lastly, if they are living off of tax payer money, then clearly they are not making prudent financial decisions, whether they are capable or not.

But regardless, I don't give a crap if they are able or not. If you want my tax money, then I gain the right to impose my views on your life.

You don't like that? Tough snot. Get off your butt, and earn your own money, and you can do whatever the flip you want with it.

You live off the money that I got up at 3 AM, drove 30 minutes into work, and worked 12 hours to earn????? Then SHUT UP AND DO WHAT I SAY IF YOU WANT MY MONEY SCUM BAG........ Tough snot. That's how it works. You live off the money of others, you grant them right to dictate your life. Earn your own paycheck if you don't like it.

I don't think Dragon Lady takes any of you money...

 

[Boss]

I don't think Dragon Lady takes any of you money...

She hasn't won the Democratic nomination yet... oh wait?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats. Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc. Free juice and water. Healthy stuff. Completely reorganize the system.

Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free. Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​

Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy". They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

Remind me again why I have to pay to feed other people's families when I'm clipping coupons and poring over sale papers to feed my own.

Exactly. Granted if I find good sales on canned food ( tuna, ham, chicken) or flats of bottled water, sports drinks or cereal that I know they don't get everyday I will pick it up and donate some to the food bank. But... Ungrateful moochers whining about not getting prime cuts of steak everyday or organic canned goods can kiss my butt.

There's a big difference between "have to" and "choose to". I have no problem with voluntarily helping people, but I balk at being told I'm obligated to, or owe it to anyone.

This being said, I see no profit in actually encouraging the nanny mentality by trying to micromanage each item people eat. A better idea, to my mind, is to back off of funding people's lives in the first place, and let them stand up and take responsibility for themselves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Maybe if we gave free food and water to everybody... you know... basic fruits and vegetables, and some lean meats. Maybe milk too, and things like eggs, beans, etc. Free juice and water. Healthy stuff. Completely reorganize the system.

Oh and go full Tesla and make electricity completely wireless and free. Then just about everyone could survive and be happy on the bare minimum, and if they want a more extravagant life, they can work for it.​

Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy". They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

Remind me again why I have to pay to feed other people's families when I'm clipping coupons and poring over sale papers to feed my own.

Exactly. Granted if I find good sales on canned food ( tuna, ham, chicken) or flats of bottled water, sports drinks or cereal that I know they don't get everyday I will pick it up and donate some to the food bank. But... Ungrateful moochers whining about not getting prime cuts of steak everyday or organic canned goods can kiss my butt.

There's a big difference between "have to" and "choose to". I have no problem with voluntarily helping people, but I balk at being told I'm obligated to, or owe it to anyone.

This being said, I see no profit in actually encouraging the nanny mentality by trying to micromanage each item people eat. A better idea, to my mind, is to back off of funding people's lives in the first place, and let them stand up and take responsibility for themselves.

 

[BlueGin]

Missed the point where it was anyone's job to provide "the bare minimum" for free to anyone else, or to have them "survive and be happy". They can work for all of it, not just "more extravagant".

I cannot imagine why anyone would think that enabling an entire class of worthless, non-producing consumers who provide nothing of value whatsoever to themselves, let alone to anyone else, would be a good thing.

How noble, decent and Christian of you. Even the ancient Romans had the good sense to realize that if the privileged few didn't provide food and distraction for the rabble, the rabble would turn on them and destroy them.

As a result, every Roman was entitled to a measure of wheat from the city stores, and the Senators paid for performances and gladiator competitions at the Coliseum. Hence the phrase "bread and circuses".

There are far more poor people than rich. People with nothing - no hope, no future, no stake in their communities, will turn on those who have oppressed them.

It's simply in your best interest to provide for the needs of the poor.

Remind me again why the SNAP recipients are too good to eat hamburger and must be pampered with high cost food that even the middle class can't afford every week?

Remind me again why I have to pay to feed other people's families when I'm clipping coupons and poring over sale papers to feed my own.

Exactly. Granted if I find good sales on canned food ( tuna, ham, chicken) or flats of bottled water, sports drinks or cereal that I know they don't get everyday I will pick it up and donate some to the food bank. But... Ungrateful moochers whining about not getting prime cuts of steak everyday or organic canned goods can kiss my butt.

There's a big difference between "have to" and "choose to". I have no problem with voluntarily helping people, but I balk at being told I'm obligated to, or owe it to anyone.

This being said, I see no profit in actually encouraging the nanny mentality by trying to micromanage each item people eat. A better idea, to my mind, is to back off of funding people's lives in the first place, and let them stand up and take responsibility for themselves.

I agree. And I feel they get too much SNAP money as it is... Which is why they waltz into a store and don't think twice about buying king crab and steak.

 

[Andylusion]

If Missouri Republicans really care about saving money, they ought to stop buying steak & seafood.

That wouldn't save any money. Unless you are suggesting that employees of government should be paid less.... which I would agree. Wisconsin tried to cut benefits to government employees, and you people on the left had a total 2-year-old hissy fit melt down.

Practice what you leftists preach, hypocrite.

I would love it if public service was 100% community service. But in order for someone to take on the job in high public office, and not starve to death, they would have to be in big business. But of course you leftists hate and attack anyone that has a background in business, and actually prefer people who have never worked an honest job, and have lived their entire life on the life blood of working Americans (Obama anyone?).

Practice what you leftists preach, hypocrite. You find someone willing to work in high office, without being in business, and without living off the tax payers..... Good luck.

In the mean time, welfare is money stolen from my check, so I demand politicians lock down people on welfare as much as they possibly can. Regulate every single aspect of welfare recipients lives. Don't like it? Simple solution. Earn your own money.

 

[Andylusion]

There is so much about these laws being passed that is wrong, I hardly know where to start.

Firstly, for a party that purportedly believes in "small government", this is expanding the reach of government, increasing the size of government to monitor what poor people are buying.

Secondly, for a party which purportedly believes in the Constitution, this is a gross invasion of privacy. We're talking about the senior citizens, working poor, and military families who make up the vast majority of SNAP recipients.

Last, but not least, there is the assumption that SNAP recipients are not capable of making prudent financial decisions. Again, I point out that most SNAP recipients are working poor, retired people and military families.

Firstly

..... you don't understand what 'smaller government' means, if that's what you think. Smaller government, means less money stolen from working people, to give to non-working people.

You made government bigger, by taking our money in the first place, and handing it out to people who haven't earned it

We're reducing it, by cutting these people off, and limiting what they do with OUR tax money. Not theirs. If they want control of the money, tell them to get off their butts, and work for a living.

"Smaller government" means fewer government workers, and fewer government programs. It takes people to set these stupid laws up, and people to enforce them, thereby increasing administration costs of these programs.

Americans are overly focused on punishing poor people for being poor and making sure that no one gets anything they aren't entitled to. They spend more money than they save on qualifying by income, and putting restrictions on what they can buy. It's a waste of resources and merely increases the administration costs.

It's THEIR money. Most of the people receiving SNAP are working, retired or in the military. They are working, or they have worked all of their lives. They aren't lazy, but Republicans refuse to vote for higher wages for the military, or hirer minimum wages. So SNAP is a wage subsidy given to the workers of some of the most profitable corporations in America because they don't want to pay their workers a living wage.

You want to get angry, get angry at the companies who don't pay their workers a living wage.

Second

, if we were following the constitution darling, there would be no SNAP at all. There is not one single enumerated power in the constitution, which grants the Federal government the ability to tax one group of people, to provide free food for another.

SNAP itself, is entirely unconstitutional. Moreover, if you had read the constitution, you would know that all other rights, are reserved for the states.... meaning, the states are allowed to make laws the limit what people do with tax payer money, and there is absolutely no contradiction in that.

BULLSHIT. Another conservative lie. You don't want people to have make living wages, and you don't want them to get public assistance. Just what the hell are these people supposed to live on?

Lastly

, if they are living off of tax payer money, then clearly they are not making prudent financial decisions, whether they are capable or not.

But regardless, I don't give a crap if they are able or not. If you want my tax money, then I gain the right to impose my views on your life..

You are an idiot. Do some research and find out who receives SNAP. You let Republicans do this to them and to you and now you're angry that the people who work longer hours than you do don't make enough money to eat. Stop swallowing the lies Fox News feeds you and get the facts.

You don't deserve the right to vote, you're so ill informed.

Since you had nothing of value to add to the conversation.... I'll sum up my response with "Right back at you". Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, and shouldn't be voting in the polls on this forum, let alone who is in government.