There should be more restrictions on what poor people can buy with food stamps.

[dblack]

Actually it's about different restrictions. I think they should be permitted to buy hot food. I want them to be able to buy more actual meals. I want to give them better options.

Sure I get it. It's really awesome that you know better and want to "give them" better options.

 

[Unkotare]

I think they should be permitted to buy hot food. I want them to be able to buy more actual meals. I want to give them better options.

Dictating what can be purchased isn't an option, it is an order.

 

[Unkotare]

Not unless you use your spelling skills to write thank you letters to all the upstanding taxpayers who gave you their money.

Me? Who is giving me money? There must be some problem with the system, because I haven't gotten any.

 

[Anomalism]

Dictating what can be purchased isn't an option, it is an order.

I think my opinion is fair.

 

[dblack]

Me? Who is giving me money? There must be some problem with the system, because I haven't gotten any.

"you" in the hypothetical sense.

 

[dblack]

I think I'm being very fair.

Of course you do. You're the fairest of the fair.

I still like progressive hunter's idea of making welfare recipients wards of the state. Then we can just make them do whatever we want.

 

[Anomalism]

Of course you do. You're the fairest of the fair.

Rules and limitations are necessary.

Do you agree that there should be rules and guidelines with public assistance?

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course you do. You're the fairest of the fair.

I still like progressive hunter's idea of making welfare recipients wards of the state. Then we can just make them do whatever we want.

if you would stop misquoting me or editing my comments out of context you would have a better understanding what I meant,,,

 

[dblack]

Rules and limitations are necessary.

Do you agree that there should be rules and guidelines with public assistance?

Nope. I don't agree that there should be public assistance, for exactly this reason. But as long as we do, I oppose using it as a means of controlling people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm sure the intent isn't to ruin their lives. Statists always convince themselves that their meddling is "for our own good". But you do want to control what they eat. And, mostly, you just want to slap a bunch restrictions on them because you blame them for the welfare state. And your party doesn't have the balls to do anything about it, other than fucking with the recipients.

Restricting what they can buy on the taxpayer dime and controlling what they can eat is apples and oranges once again. Nobody is telling them they must have pork chops on Monday and spaghetti on Wednesday. That's controlling what they can eat.

My party did address these problems in the past. It was called Newt Gingrich's Welfare Reform. They had to fight to get it but they finally pushed it through. Compare that to Dementia who just increased SNAP's by the largest margin since the program started, and we have millions of jobs out there people won't work.

President’s 2021 Budget Would Cut Food Assistance for Millions and Radically Restructure SNAP | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

President Trump’s 2021 budget proposes to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) by more than $180 billion — nearly 30 percent — over the next ten years...

www.cbpp.org

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope. I don't agree that there should be public assistance, for exactly this reason. But as long as we do, I oppose using it as a means of controlling people.

whos trying to control people??

 

[Anomalism]

Nope. I don't agree that there should be public assistance, for exactly this reason. But as long as we do, I oppose using it as a means of controlling people.

You're not going to get rid of welfare. It's better to be realistic and try to make it work as well as possible.

 

[Unkotare]

This all gets too complicated too quickly. I'm all for rooting out fraud in the system, but if we're going to have such support for those who really need it, just let them use it as they see fit. As long as it is being used to buy actual food, I don't care if someone gets Boo-Berries rather than Special K. If you take away all personal responsibility, the danger of dependency only gets worse. If you treat people like children they will act like children, and any expectation of getting off of state support goes right out the window.

 

[dblack]

Restricting what they can buy on the taxpayer dime and controlling what they can eat is apples and oranges once again.

Yes, yes. It's different when "we" do it.

Does ANYONE on this site have an actual principles? Do you understand the concept of precedent and how government expands its power?

 

[Unkotare]

"you" in the hypothetical sense.

I haven't even gotten any hypothetical money!

 

[dblack]

This all gets too complicated too quickly. I'm all for rooting out fraud in the system, but if we're going to have such support for those who really need it, just let them use it as they see fit. As long as it is being used to buy actual food, I don't care if someone gets Boo-Berries rather than Special K. If you take away all personal responsibility, the danger of dependency only gets worse. If you treat people like children they will act like children, and any expectation of getting off of state support goes right out the window.

But, see - Republicans are very concerned about ensuring Americans have a healthy diet. It's on their platform. They're quite passionate about it.

Also, those fucking freeloaders don't deserve nice stuff.

 

[Unkotare]

But, see - Republicans are very concerned about ensuring Americans have a healthy diet. It's on their platform. They're quite passionate about it.
.....

Remember how well Michelle Obama's school lunch dictates worked out.

 

[Anomalism]

just let them use it as they see fit

Within reason. I don't want to stop people from buying corndogs and Captain Crunch with public funds, even though both of those things are horrible for you. There needs to be guidelines though. Good guidelines will allow us to get better value out of what we're trying to do.

 

[progressive hunter]

But, see - Republicans are very concerned about ensuring Americans have a healthy diet. It's on their platform. They're quite passionate about it.

Also, those fucking freeloaders don't deserve nice stuff.

why do you keep running from my one simple question??

whos trying to control peoples lives??

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, yes. It's different when "we" do it.

Does ANYONE on this site have an actual principles? Do you understand the concept of precedent and how government expands its power?

Again with the ridiculous extremisms. Saying people should not be allowed to buy candy on SNAP's is not expanding government power. Saying people should not be able to buy candy on SNAP's or for cash is.