Food stamps are crazy...

[SgtRock]

My experience with welfare as a child was what influenced my position on welfare today.

 

[SgtRock]

starvation = motivation

 

[teamosil]

excuse me. The thing where? what are you talking about. I grew up a welfare kid of a single mother. I got the **** out of that situation asap.

Oh yeah right. You just thought that threatening people with starvation to try to make them work harder was a normal, sensible, thing to say. You were not trying to show off for the other right wingers by being the biggest a-hole... Riiiight...

 

[justabubba]

Well, but in both cases you have to weigh the loss of freedom against the health benefits, right?

no
the food stamp recipient still receives their food stamp allotment
the only government intervention is to assure that the taxpayer subsidy is not also underwriting negative behavior: eating unhealthy food rather than nutritious food
and that limitation is imposed only to the extent of their food stamp benefits
just as they are still able presently to purchase beer and wine and toiletries with their own funds, they would not be deprived of buying the unhealthy foods they desire; the only change would be that they had to do so without the taxpayer, by spending their own money. by definition, those who qualify for food stamps have little discretionary income. they will now have to choose between a purchase of unhealthy food to eat or other discretionary purchases. discretionary purchases they do not presently have to forego because uncle sugar will pay for their junk food habit

And both those columns would total up the same regardless of whether the person is on food stamps or not, right?

notice there is no restriction preventing the food stamp recipient from buying junk food
only, as proposed, they will not be doing it with the taxpayers' money
just like everyone else will not be buying junk food with taxpayer money
i think that balances the equation even better

I think it is kind of based on this implicit notion that the freedom of somebody on food stamps is less important.

they have lost NO freedoms. they continue to have the same freedoms that non-food stamp recipients enjoy

That they've somehow had to give up freedom in order to receive food. I don't accept that premise.

and it's good that you don't accept that premise because it is a very wrong one to hold dear
as was noted immediately above, there is absolutely NO taking of any freedom from the food stamp recipient. they continue to enjoy EVERY freedom that is enjoyed by the non-food stamp recipient

They don't owe society a debt of freedom because they're getting food stamps.

and they are not incurring a loss of freedom because they are in no way being deprived of freedom in any manner. they remain free to act in all ways like non-food stamp recipients

We want them to have the food stamps.

i disagree
we want them not to have them, because that would indicate they are meeting their needs themselves
but what we, as a compassionate society, do recognize is that they presently NEED food stamps to acquire the nutrition they would otherwise be without but for the federal NUTRITION program

We chose to set up a system where whenever any of us ends up in that situation where we need some help, at least we know we won't starve.

absolutely
and notice, when that NUTRITION system was established, it was not to assure that the underclass was able to buy the junk food they - like the non-food stamp recipients - crave

I mean, the government certainly has the right to refuse to pay for junk food, but it has the right to take those foods off the shelves completely too.

and that would be wrong
hell, we know cigarettes cause cancer and we still allow cancer sticks to be sold
because we recognize that people have a right to hurt themselves. people have a right to be stupid
but notably, also recognize that cigarettes are not items that the government allows to be purchased with food stamps. for good reason. and similarly - but to a lesser degree - the government should eliminate junk foods from being eligible for purchase with food stamps. and if that happens, go short on any pepsi, coke, mars, hersheys, etc stock you might be holding - because they will be certain to tumble in the face of a near immediate 15% reduction in revenues

Seems to me that the same reasons we don't want it to do that for society as a whole- that we don't like being micromanaged by the government- apply just the same to folks on food stamps.

you actually have it backwards
we allow people to buy what they want
it is only when they seek to purchase junk food using food stamps issued under a NUTRITION program that it is very legitimate to restrict those items which are eligible to be purchased such that obvious non-nutritious items are no longer eligible to be bought with food stamps. again, that food stamp recipient is still able to buy junk food - just like non-food stamp recipients - only no longer with the taxpayers' money

Now, if it were a situation where we would somehow be spending less on food stamps if we excluded unhealthy foods, that'd be no issue at all for me.

but the intent - at least my intent in offering this proposed change - was not to diminish the amount of food stamp assistance to be provided to those who need such help
what we could then expect is that the food stamp recipients - having few other options - would have to substitute the purchase of more nutritious foods in the place of non-nutritious foods
that would help our nation's healthcare condition and it would save taxpayer healthcare dollars down the road

I could totally get behind the idea that we were only willing to pay enough, for example, to cover the nutrition people need. But that isn't an option. If these foods get excluded, that doesn't save any money on food stamps, it just requires people that get food stamps already to eat different foods.

yes. exactly. and that would be a good thing. mom bringing home a gallon of milk instead of a couple of 2 liter bottles of coke is a good thing. eating vegetables instead of twinkies and donuts in a good thing. eating rice and beans instead of potato chips is a good thing

What changes actually has very impact on us at all.

i strongly disagree
in my never humble opinion the change would be immense
our underclass kids and adults would be healthier
our taxpayer would wind up paying less in healthcare costs because of the diminishment of junky diets

It is their personal lives we are regulating.

in no way are we doing that
they continue to possess the identical freedoms of non-food stamp recipients

I mean, to some extent I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I am not even sure I totally think it is a bad idea. But I do think it is important to analyze what we're doing and why.

agreed. if we want a particular outcome then what must change to expect that result

People on food stamps aren't second class citizens and I think a lot of this kind of stuff sort of smacks of roundabout ways to try to demean people in poverty more than concern about the nation's health.

the Constitution prevents legal class discrimination and as has been noted, the food stamp recipients will continue to enjoy the same liberties and freedoms of the non-food stamp recipients
and being a junk food junky myself, if i saw my access to ice cream and chocolate and other candy and pie and cake and cookies was going to be made more limited, i would not like it
but i do not expect anyone else to pick up the tab for my junk food habit. or my preference for high gravity beer. or my insistent on smoking high end marijuana, or my wife's cigarette habit. i pay for that out of my discretionary income. why should the taxpayer have to incur the cost of maintaining an unhealthy habit for those who are on food stamps?

An awful lot of folks on the right support this kind of thing under the pretense of looking out for the health of the nation while at the same time opposing far, far, less invasive efforts to improve the health of the general population.

i hear you. but while i do not disagree with that genuine concern, let's do not make this a partisan issue. simply because those on the far right seek such limitation should not cause the rest of us to automatically oppose what might be a good idea - one which will best serve our NATION and its CITIZENS. and while i realize that is an old fashioned concept i absolutely refuse to let go of it

IMO the reason there is that discrepancy is a desire punish people who take public assistance. I'm not saying that is either of you, but just something to think about.

i do hear you. and i could anticipate the food stamp recipients believing this is about discrimination, because their privileges will be reduced and they will insist it is driven by economic discrimination rather than sound public policy. and do expect jessie 'hymietown' jackson and al 'twanna brawley' sharpton to organize marches and exploit the discontent for personal enrichment and insist this is a backward racial ploy against minorities. and while this will disproportionately affect the minority population, because their demographic is more concentrated in the underclass, such action would not be racially inspired. but fear of such unfounded racial aspersions should not prevent the effecting of sound public policy

 

[LizardofOz]

So why doesn't anyone respond like a **** to sgt rock? Anyways, I think the idea of the system is fine it is just the abuses of the system. The older and the genuinely disadvantaged need them to get by, they just don't need crab legs and ho-hos. If food stamps were limited to nutritional things like WIC perhaps with a set balance of suggested calorie intake for ages and weight it would be more efficient and being restrictive will give others more incentive of finding other means. I think a good place to start is free school for single moms.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

I am for the elimination of food stamps / SNAP. Starvation is an incredible motivator. take away food stamps and lazy people might get a freakin job.

the bible according to SgtRock

Story of feeding the multitudes.

__________________________________


And the disciples said to him, it is getting late, send them away so they can buy bread. And Jesus said "damn straight, let them motherf***ers buy their own s***"

__________________________________

LoL... I think it's funny how most conservatives claim to be Christian too, but then reject the teachings of Christ.

I am not saying SgtRock claims to be Christian, but if he does, he has a warped perception of Christianity.

 

[justabubba]

Yes I do realize that many are single mothers irrsponsibly pumping out kids with multiple fathers and living off the 2 % who pay 70% of all the taxes. Its time we put an end to welfare altogether. Let charities and churches feed them. Its not the governments resonsibility to feed the poor. I grew up the child of a single mother on food stamps. My mother wouyld spend her welfare check on drugs. I would have been better off in foster care.

sarge, i am truly sorry you had such a crappy childhood. really. but let's try to not inflict such a harsh existence on kids and underclass families today
no doubt there are too many rogues who exploit programs which are intended to assist those whose circumstance is beyond their control
but let's not quit helping those who really need such help only to prevent those rogues from receiving that they should not morally be entitled to
for three and a half years i have been running a soup kitchen. we average 220 daily now. and among our guests are quite a number of rogues and ne'er-do-wells who would work harder to achieve something illicitly than they would legally. but we also feed many more who are there thru no fault of their own. many are young who have come from dysfunctional, un-supportive families. others were workers and even business owners who lost it all when the economy crashed. many are under-educated, and quite a few are too dim to educate. many have mental problems. and a surprising number are kids. there are now 7200 homeless children in our public schools. difficult for me to imagine being a kid and homeless
so, what i am trying to convey is that many would be hurt if we folded and put away the social safety net. yes, the louts would be hurt by that, and get what they truly deserve. but tragically, it would hurt a huge number of citizens who are in a desperate situation thru no fault of their own. and there are far too many in severe need to expect to be adequately served by churches and charities. i can say i know this because i am in the trenches every day doing what i can to patch that safety net

so that i don't end this post sounding like debbie downer, let me make another - this time, positive - observation from my soup kitchen experience. i now know most guests by name and know the background, situation and abilities of a large portion of them. and those who have skills and a good work ethic are by and large missing from our meal service. that tells me that the economy is on the rebound

 

[Aunt Spiker]

the bible according to SgtRock

Story of feeding the multitudes.

__________________________________


And the disciples said to him, it is getting late, send them away so they can buy bread. And Jesus said "damn straight, let them motherf***ers buy their own s***"

__________________________________

LoL... I think it's funny how most conservatives claim to be Christian too, but then reject the teachings of Christ.

I am not saying SgtRock claims to be Christian, but if he does, he has a warped perception of Christianity.

That's the funniest ****. A true knee slapper.

 

[teamosil]

they would not be deprived of buying the unhealthy foods they desire; the only change would be that they had to do so without the taxpayer, by spending their own money.

Then what is the benefit of doing it? There is no health benefit if they're just buying unhealthy food with different money, there is no savings to the taxpayer. You can't really have it both ways. Either the change would force some people to change their eating habits, in which case they are being coerced, or it wouldn't, in which case there is no up side to doing it.

yes. exactly. and that would be a good thing. mom bringing home a gallon of milk instead of a couple of 2 liter bottles of coke is a good thing. eating vegetables instead of twinkies and donuts in a good thing. eating rice and beans instead of potato chips is a good thing

Definitely. But it would be no less of a good thing if a mom who isn't on food stamps brings home a gallon of milk instead of a couple 2 liters of coke. The advantages seems to be the same whether we're talking about somebody on food stamps or somebody not on food stamps.

in no way are we doing that
they continue to possess the identical freedoms of non-food stamp recipients

Not really. We would be taking advantage of the desperate situation they're in to use economic power to coerce them. It kind of reminds me of, for example, missionaries in countries that are hit by famine who tell people that they will feed them, but only if they convert to their religion and attend services regularly. On paper you can say that they aren't coercing the people. After all, they have the option not to convert and to starve just like they did before the missionary made that offer. But in reality, the missionary is using their superior economic position to coerce them into doing something. Power is still being exercised even if it is in the form of conditional help.

At the end of the day, you still have one kid who has a normal bagged lunch and another kid who has a boring bag lunch because his mom is on food stamps while the other kids' mom isn't and somebody decided that kids on food stamps shouldn't eat chips or whatever. In a practical sense, we are still reaching into his personal life and making changes based on our preferences. Maybe the hit to freedom isn't as big as banning chips outright would be, but its still there.

i hear you. but while i do not disagree with that genuine concern, let's do not make this a partisan issue. simply because those on the far right seek such limitation should not cause the rest of us to automatically oppose what might be a good idea - one which will best serve our NATION and its CITIZENS. and while i realize that is an old fashioned concept i absolutely refuse to let go of it

Yeah, that's fair.

 

[Aberration]

the bible according to SgtRock

Story of feeding the multitudes.

__________________________________


And the disciples said to him, it is getting late, send them away so they can buy bread. And Jesus said "damn straight, let them motherf***ers buy their own s***"

__________________________________

LoL... I think it's funny how most conservatives claim to be Christian too, but then reject the teachings of Christ.

I am not saying SgtRock claims to be Christian, but if he does, he has a warped perception of Christianity.

You may have noticed, but Jesus also never said go out and take from your neighbor to feed the poor.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

You may have noticed, but Jesus also never said go out and take from your neighbor to feed the poor.

No, but he did admonish his followers to give up worldly possessions and pursuits and favor a life of ministry and charity. He fed the poor without judgment or expectation of return.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

You may have noticed, but Jesus also never said go out and take from your neighbor to feed the poor.

No - he expected people to do it willingly . . . but he also did that neato trick with the loaves and fishes.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

You may have noticed, but Jesus also never said go out and take from your neighbor to feed the poor.

You obviously didn't notice that an important part of the Bible.
Love thy neighbor was, in part, Jesus' answer when the Pharisees, the chief
religious sect of that day, asked Him about the greatest commandment in the
Law (See Matthew 22:36-40). These religious leaders had made almost an art
form of classifying all the various laws and giving them relative degrees of
importance, so in asking Jesus this question, their aim was to test Him. His
answer stunned them: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all
your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest
commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All
the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Be a part of the Pharisees all you want.
There is still no denying that you reject the teachings of Jesus.

Leaning is a sign of weakness. Don't ask me my political leaning. My convictions are my own, not the result of a weak mind misguided by the powerful politicians.

 

[Aberration]

And yet it still does not say you should compel your neighbor.

How have I rejected anything?

 

[Higgins86]

if food stamps were used to buy organic foods, healthy meats etc the country woudl either go bankrupt trying to pay for it all or the poor would go hungry as they wouldnt be able to buy enough to feed themselves

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

And yet it still does not say you should compel your neighbor.

How have I rejected anything?

I am sorry, are you in government setting the laws on how much we should all give?
If so I do apologize.
If not, is your complaints about welfare for the sake of your neighbors or the sake of yourself.
If it's for the sake of your neighbor than you must truly have Godlike powers to know the hearts and beliefs of all your neighbors.
If it is for the sake of yourself, you should remember your neighbors are also the ones in need.
Do you feed yourself when hungry?

Leaning is a sign of weakness. Don't ask me my political leaning. My convictions are my own, not the result of a weak mind misguided by the powerful politicians.

 

[hazlnut]

I think the OP would be interested in reading A Modest Proposal by Johnathan Swift.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

if food stamps were used to buy organic foods, healthy meats etc the country woudl either go bankrupt trying to pay for it all or the poor would go hungry as they wouldnt be able to buy enough to feed themselves

Time for the buzzer Charlie. This contestant is WRONG! Enjoy your consolation prize of nothing.

I have more comparisons if you would like.

Leaning is a sign of weakness. Don't ask me my political leaning. My convictions are my own, not the result of a weak mind misguided by the powerful politicians.

 

[Higgins86]

Time for the buzzer Charlie. This contestant is WRONG! Enjoy your consolation prize of nothing.

I have more comparisons if you would like.

Leaning is a sign of weakness. Don't ask me my political leaning. My convictions are my own, not the result of a weak mind misguided by the powerful politicians.

I said organic food not supermarket crap, read the post next time "charlie"

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

I said organic food not supermarket crap, read the post next time "charlie"

You also said "healthy meats, etc."
You might want to proofread your own posts then.


Leaning is a sign of weakness. Don't ask me my political leaning. My convictions are my own, not the result of a weak mind misguided by the powerful politicians.

 

[Higgins86]

You also said "healthy meats, etc."
You might want to proofread your own posts then.


Leaning is a sign of weakness. Don't ask me my political leaning. My convictions are my own, not the result of a weak mind misguided by the powerful politicians.

yes and I dont consider a majority of the foods you posted as healthy. I see orange juice probably loaded with sugar as most are, Walmart brand goods ( enough said), some good old supermarket packed fruit and veg sprayed with god knows what and oddly in season all year round and some boxed hamburgers.
Go visit a farmers market or a locally owned supermarket and you will see real organic foods and foods that are actually good for you and then come back to me with some prices.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

yes and I dont consider a majority of the foods you posted as healthy. I see orange juice probably loaded with sugar as most are, Walmart brand goods ( enough said), some good old supermarket packed fruit and veg sprayed with god knows what and oddly in season all year round and some boxed hamburgers.
Go visit a farmers market or a locally owned supermarket and you will see real organic foods and foods that are actually good for you and then come back to me with some prices.

That is another debate entirely.
Half the country can't afford Organic food, stamps or not.

Fogging the mirror doesn't change the the face staring at it. You can throw organic into the mix to cloud the subject all you want.
The question is, can a person eat healthier spending the same.
I think I have proven the answer is yes.
You may not consider the alternatives healthy, but by most standards they are certainly healthier
And are you the surgeon general deeming all that is healthy and unhealthy?
Most doctors would still consider the alternatives listed healthy.


Leaning is a sign of weakness. Don't ask me my political leaning. My convictions are my own, not the result of a weak mind misguided by the powerful politicians.

 

[Henrin]

the bible according to SgtRock

Story of feeding the multitudes.

__________________________________


And the disciples said to him, it is getting late, send them away so they can buy bread. And Jesus said "damn straight, let them motherf***ers buy their own s***"

__________________________________

LoL... I think it's funny how most conservatives claim to be Christian too, but then reject the teachings of Christ.

I am not saying SgtRock claims to be Christian, but if he does, he has a warped perception of Christianity.

Jesus never said anything about using government to force people to give. He wanted and talked about people being generous on their own free will to help their fellow man.

Notice the difference? You should. People that think Jesus wanted us to beat each other over the head with a stick are missing the point entirely.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Jesus never said anything about using government to force people to give. He wanted and talked about people being generous on their own free will to help their fellow man.

Notice the difference? You should. People that think Jesus wanted us to beat each other over the head with a stick are missing the point entirely.

Romans 13:1

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing
authorities, for there is no authority except that which
God has established. The authorities that exist have
been established by God."


I can keep this up all day if you like.

Leaning is a sign of weakness. Don't ask me my political leaning. My convictions are my own, not the result of a weak mind misguided by the powerful politicians.

 

[Henrin]

Romans 13:1

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing
authorities, for there is no authority except that which
God has established. The authorities that exist have
been established by God."

Lol, so he was talking about government there and wanted the government to compel people to give? Nope. Sorry that you think like a caveman that wants to beat everyone else with a stick and think you can use Jesus as your defense in ignorance, but keep going.

Not like I care what Jesus said anyway, but you are wrong just like all your welfare socialists friends.