The Food Stamp Discussion (POLL)

[JBeukema]

The point is, fat boy, that if people EXERCISED MORE, they could handle a ******* candy bar and a can of soda every now and then.

Why you're a fat **** has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.

The problem is not what people are eating. The problem is that they're sitting on their fat ******* asses and watching Maury while they're eating it.

No, it's not. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

[JBeukema]

What, exactly, do you think the entire point of food aid is, dumbass?

 

[Paulie]

It's also really great that we're forming a parallel between Americans who have grocery stores in which to choose any kind of food they want, and starving people in Africa where the mosquitos have more choices than they do.

You've simply nailed it, JB.

 

[Paulie]

What, exactly, do you think the entire point of food aid is, dumbass?

If I'm hungry, and I eat a bowl of pretzels, I'm usually not hungry anymore.

Sure, if I live off pretzels and nothing more, eventually my health will deteriorate.

But then, I don't think we're talking about anyone living off of pretzels in this thread.

We're talking about someone having the freedom to buy a ******* bag of them if they want.

Apparently you think that if someone is receiving aid, then they're only going to choose the crappiest foods they can find.

You, and many others around here.

 

[Paulie]

Anyway, I'm out.

I'm going to go work out and then drink a bottle of Mountain Dew.

Please pray for me that I don't die of malnutrition before the day is out.

 

[JBeukema]

You're the moon equating a musclehead having a coke with a program designed to prevent starvation.

=/=

 

[Sheldon]

I find the food stamp discussion to be really interesting, with conservatives and liberals arguing both sides.

I have created a public poll to see where people really lie...hopefully the three choices that I came up with represent most of your positions. If they do not, please explain yourself.

1. The food purchased with food stamps should NOT be limited...recipients should be allowed to choose the foods that they buy

2. The food purchased with food stamps should be limited to only healthy choices...other food can be bought with cash

3. Food stamps should be discontinued entirely

4. Other

I'm not going to vote or get too involved in this debate. I had enough of it in that 600+ post thread from like two weeks ago. There's ultimately no meeting of the minds here.

But I will say this. This topic is a pretty good litmus test for adhering to conservative principles. The conservative position is the one that defaults to more choice, and trusts that individuals will act in their own rational self interest. The idea here being that a dominant majority of people on SNAP will purchase the food that best suits their nutritional needs, and more regulation of choice gives more power to the government--something directly opposed to conservative ideals. So it's funny to see who is flipping like me, and arguing from the other side on this topic.

If these restrictions were made nationwide then I'd figure the different lobbyists would have a say in who and who doesn't get on the list of approved foods... and there'd invariably be exceptions and waivers, like we've seen with the HIR law. Since about 30something million people are on SNAP it's not an insignificant market.

My bottom line is, I'll trust the consumer here to make their dietary decisions. There's too many examples of major wastes of my tax dollars to worry about how a poor person feeds themselves with pennies off my dollar.

 

[Luissa]

I find the food stamp discussion to be really interesting, with conservatives and liberals arguing both sides.

I have created a public poll to see where people really lie...hopefully the three choices that I came up with represent most of your positions. If they do not, please explain yourself.

1. The food purchased with food stamps should NOT be limited...recipients should be allowed to choose the foods that they buy

2. The food purchased with food stamps should be limited to only healthy choices...other food can be bought with cash

3. Food stamps should be discontinued entirely

4. Other

I'm not going to vote or get too involved in this debate. I had enough of it in that 600+ post thread from like two weeks ago. There's ultimately no meeting of the minds here.

But I will say this. This topic is a pretty good litmus test for adhering to conservative principles. The conservative position is the one that defaults to more choice, and trusts that individuals will act in their own rational self interest. The idea here being that a dominant majority of people on SNAP will purchase the food that best suits their nutritional needs, and more regulation of choice gives more power to the government--something directly opposed to conservative ideals. So it's funny to see who is flipping like me, and arguing from the other side on this topic.

If these restrictions were made nationwide then I'd figure the different lobbyists would have a say in who and who doesn't get on the list of approved foods... and there'd invariably be exceptions and waivers, like we've seen with the HIR law. Since about 30something million people are on SNAP it's not an insignificant market.

My bottom line is, I'll trust the consumer here to make their dietary decisions. There's too many examples of major wastes of my tax dollars to worry about how a poor person feeds themselves with pennies off my dollar.

 

[syrenn]

Tell me Syrenn...

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

BAS is not the subject here.

 

[syrenn]

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

To specifically answer your feeler. For me it has nothing to do with I am rich and your poor. It has nothing to do with i am better then you. It has nothing to do with feeling "superior" It has nothing to do with me telling you what you can and cant have. It has nothing to do with me telling you what you can and can't eat.

Again, the food stamp program is to stave off hunger and to provide nutrition.

No one would be telling food stamp recipients what they can and can not have. It WILL tell them what foods ARE and are NOT covered. If what they WANT is not covered by the plan they are free to purchase it themselves with CASH.

 

[syrenn]

What, exactly, do you think the entire point of food aid is, dumbass?

If I'm hungry, and I eat a bowl of pretzels, I'm usually not hungry anymore.

Sure, if I live off pretzels and nothing more, eventually my health will deteriorate.

But then, I don't think we're talking about anyone living off of pretzels in this thread.

We're talking about someone having the freedom to buy a ******* bag of them if they want.

Apparently you think that if someone is receiving aid, then they're only going to choose the crappiest foods they can find.

You, and many others around here.

Tell me something Paulie,

Where has anyone said that their personal freedom to have that bag of pretzles is being taken away from them? Where is anyone saying 'NO YOU CANT HAVE JUNK ITS BAD FOR YOU'?

 

[JBeukema]

In Paulie's head; the voices were yelling at him again.

 

[Flopper]

No, but what i DO see is that many seem to have enough disposable income that is spent on beer, alcohol, cigarettes, cell phones, and bling.

I have no problem with them buying box cake mix and baking one for themselves.

You mean a few.
I know many people who have received food stamps, and most were not living the high life. You guys want to punish many, for what a few do.

I agree. No decent parent punishes all their kids when one does something wrong - same methodology applies to food stamps. We shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of the few. Having said that, I do think we need to clamp down on those few. I see no reason why someone who needs help should be punished by saying 'no luxuries' (like cakes and shit). I certainly don't think we should force people on foodstamps to only have 'healthy' stuff - just because someone is struggling does not mean we should 'nanny' those people.

Right, you don't punish everyone on foods stamps because of a few cheats.

Both my wife and myself have volunteered at a food bank for some years. It seemed like most of the regulars had jobs but there were just to many mouths to feed on a small pay check. We were open 10-3 twice a week. The line would form outside the door starting about 9. By 1 most most everything was gone. We had some things you can't get on food stamps such as toilet paper, soap, and toothpaste. We had a lot of can food, but never any fresh vegetables or fruit. Most everything was donated, so the customers never new what they might find.

Without food stamps, there is just no way most of these people could survive. Charitable operations such as food banks help, but they are just not enough. I have not been in a food bank in the last 2 years but I would imagine the makeup of the clients have changed quite a bit with the recession.

 

[Conspiracist]

Man in store provided wheels and a woman with tons of tattoos constantly on a cell phone purchased around $1000 worth of groceries with four different welfare cards and $10 dollars cash. I just laughed out loud 'casue I thought of this discussion right away.

 

[JBeukema]

Anyone on food stamps or other aid should be required to take drug tests and document their work and/or search for employment.

Dropping dirty or failing to show the caseworker that you're making an honest effort means you're out for 6 months.

 

[Paulie]

Hey syrenn, gluten and casein are causing a lot of health problems in people. In fact, studies have shown that they especially increase symptoms in people with developmental disorders such as autism.

They also cause intestinal problems, amongst many others. 99% of people with gluten sensitivity don't even know that gluten is causing their symptoms.

As I'm sure you know, gluten is found in almost everything we eat, from bread, to pasta, to pizza, and most processed foods.

The New England Journal of Medicine has 55 diseases linked to gluten exposure, including osteoporosis, irritable bowel disease, inflammatory bowel disease, anemia, cancer, fatigue, canker sores, and rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis, and almost all other autoimmune diseases. Gluten is also linked to many psychiatric and neurological diseases, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, dementia, migraines, epilepsy, and neuropathy.

In light of this, it doesn't seem to make much sense to allow people to buy bread, cows milk products, barley, sandwich wraps, pizza, etc.

Basically, gluten and casein products are unhealthy and can not be trusted to be included in people's diets.

 

[JBeukema]

After carefully examination of the evidence, I've concluded that paulie is retarded.

 

[Paulie]

You guys don't want your tax dollars going to fund the health care costs of people who are exposing themselves to gluten and ending up sick, right?

 

[Paulie]

After carefully examination of the evidence, I've concluded that paulie is retarded.

The creepy little death metal kid that no one likes thinks I'm retarded.

Holy ******* shit! I'm cancelling my internet!

 

[Annie]

You mean a few.
I know many people who have received food stamps, and most were not living the high life. You guys want to punish many, for what a few do.

I agree. No decent parent punishes all their kids when one does something wrong - same methodology applies to food stamps. We shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of the few. Having said that, I do think we need to clamp down on those few. I see no reason why someone who needs help should be punished by saying 'no luxuries' (like cakes and shit). I certainly don't think we should force people on foodstamps to only have 'healthy' stuff - just because someone is struggling does not mean we should 'nanny' those people.

Right, you don't punish everyone on foods stamps because of a few cheats.

Both my wife and myself have volunteered at a food bank for some years. It seemed like most of the regulars had jobs but there were just to many mouths to feed on a small pay check. We were open 10-3 twice a week. The line would form outside the door starting about 9. By 1 most most everything was gone. We had some things you can't get on food stamps such as toilet paper, soap, and toothpaste. We had a lot of can food, but never any fresh vegetables or fruit. Most everything was donated, so the customers never new what they might find.

Without food stamps, there is just no way most of these people could survive. Charitable operations such as food banks help, but they are just not enough. I have not been in a food bank in the last 2 years but I would imagine the makeup of the clients have changed quite a bit with the recession.

And not everyone that shows up at food banks are receiving food stamps. That's been the case for years, but I'm sure it's much worse now with the economy and unemployment being where they are.