Yeah, the people that are saying “let them make their own decisions” are the offenderati. What would you call the people that get all offended because they can’t dictate the choices of others?
So people using food stamps should either buy healthy, nutritious food, or they should get the maximum caloric bang for the food stamp buck.
In the first case, lean meats and fresh vegetables are pretty pricey, so there are your expensive, “luxury” items. Steak and fresh broccoli aren’t cheap, at least in the grocery stores where I’ve shopped.
In the second case, there is your processed, unhealthy junk food. Boxed macaroni and cheese is cheap, but a steady diet of that is going to result in weight problems and other health issues. Ramen noodles are dirt cheap, and loaded with fat and sodium.
So make up your mind; you want them to buy expensive healthy food, or cheap unhealthy food? If you choose the second, I suspect then you’ll be bitching about your tax dollars going to Medicaid to pay for their healthcare when they have heart attacks at 40 because of years of horrible diet.
Not everyone goes on public assistance because they’re stupid or uneducated or lazy. Sometimes circumstances change, and the job market isn’t exactly booming right now. My perfectly good job ceased to exist, thanks to corporate downsizing, and I suddenly couldn’t afford to feed my family anymore. I sucked it up and got food stamps for a month until I found another job. It was a major blow to my pride, but at least my kid wasn’t going hungry. You want to tell me I should have fed him cheap, processed foods that aren’t good for him so I don’t offend you? Piss off. He got fresh, healthy food, and that is the intent of the food stamp program.
Sure, some education about nutrition would be helpful for lots of folks. It would also be helpful for people who aren’t using food stamps, to keep healthcare costs and medical insurance premiums down. Hey, your insurance costs are probably higher because of millions of obese people with high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart problems, and they’re not even using food stamps! And I’ll bet some of those same people bought Twinkies and Doritos, so they’re affecting your wallet, too. Why not go after them, also? Do you really want to start legislating what everybody eats?
Want to see my social security mailings with my yearly earnings? I’ll show you poverty you judging mindless twit. If you can read which I will assume you can, you will read my post in this very thread where I said about parents needing to have as many children as EITHER one of them can afford not both! Just because of the way life works, you have to think ahead not think the government will be there to catch you.
The mass starvation’s that could result from a depression should waken anyone up to the fact that people that depend on the government need to smarten up before such an event happens. Eating ho’ho’s and twinkies is not solving there problem.
My high horse is a little low, considering I do things that are quite stupid. I admit I am not the smartest nor close to the smartest person anywhere. The difference is, I depend on myself to get through those times, if I do something stupid I take responsibility hence even though I could of clearly many times in my past got government help, I did not. I decided working my ass off was better then that.
Clearly there is a need for these programs, but its not being used to the best ability it can. Its broke, fix it.
If being a sanctimonious prick is caring for myself and my family, doing it without government help, and trying to change things that our broken (even if the change would be hard WAHHHH) then I guess thats what I am.
And if they do, I’d bet that it’s for reselling so they can get money for other stuff. Sure, that other stuff might be drugs and/or alcohol but it could just as well be for diapers. You never know.
The issue is not that you want to care for yourself and your family, it’s that you want to lord your choices over every other family. Feed your kids whatever the fuck you want. But your right to choose meal ends at my dinner table.
No better yet have the government completely step out of the issue, no more welfare, no more government help period. Then no obese problem because a lot obese people would die without insurance.
Would that be better then tweaking a program I have not said should be taken away? Your inferring something I never stated, your not alone apparently a lot of others have done the same thing, rather then read what I said they read what they want and type a response.
Glad even smart people do that makes me feel a little better.
Comparing store bought to branded items is a big issue here, no difference in anything other then name and price. Make it where people who need help can get store brand items. Thats simple and in no way will it “starve the poor children” like some of you seem to think I am saying.
It’s easy to say “I heard there’s welfare queens driving around in Cadillac cars, we gotta fix the system!” It’s another to suggest practical fixes that will be cheaper and more effective than the current system. You haven’t addressed the questions regarding how, specifically, you would come up with a list of all junk food that would be forbidden/restricted to food stamp users and how you would keep that system from being abused. Nor have you addressed the fact that just studying the problem would likely cost more than the abuses themselves, let alone fixing it.
Case in point: my old car had a fuel sensor go bad. The net effect was a loss of about a half gallon/mile in fuel efficiency. The cost to fix the sensor was about $500. Is it worth paying $500 for a problem that will cost me $50 for the rest of the life of the car? (In California, it turns out the answer is yes, if you want to pass your smog inspection, but that’s another story.)
How would you prevent this system from being abused? If you allow only store-brand items to be purchased with food stamps, what is to stop grocery stores in poor areas from charging more for those items than the name brand versions? There’s no law that says store brand items have to be cheaper – stores can set whatever price they want. And if they have a large captive market, they will.
I did not infer that you wanted to eradicate the food stamp program; I suggested that you seemed to want to dictate peoples’ food choices.
So what if the store raises the store brand item prices to be higher than the name brand items, because they already have a guaranteed market share? Wouldn’t it be better if the consumer could actually compare prices (not to mention ingredients) for the two and make an informed decision? See where I’m going with this whole “choice” thing?
I’m a pretty hardcore conservative, and I don’t see what LookingAround’s problem is.
It comes down to this: do those who want controls on food stamp spending want to foot the bill for the amount of money it will cost to control what people buy? Do they want to pay more taxes to pay the salaries of people who could be hired to track welfare recipients, making sure that these people are buying only so many bucks worth of “junk food” per month? It’s possible, you know, and it would be easy: just make welfare recipients bring in their grocery receipts. If they buy too much junk one month, just cut their food stamps next month to make up for it.
I don’t know where people get the idea that being on welfare is something good, and that those who are on it have it easy. They’ve constantly got caseworkers breathing down their necks, bullshit meetings to attend, the state has access to all of their financial information, the program itself is designed to KEEP you poor (don’t work and you can have a medical card: work, and it gets cut off, etc.), and of course every time the subject is mentioned people come out of the woodwork to talk about welfare recipients being the biggest pieces of shit on the planet.
Maybe it’s a picnic in other states, but those I know who are on it where I live sure as hell aren’t living high on the hog. They can barely keep their lights on. You wouldn’t believe some of the stories my friend that works for DHHR has told me about her cases. Yes, she sees her share of people who have absolutely no pride, no goals in life and are content to sit around on their asses. Most of them, though, know how they are regarded in the general populus: scumbags. And they’re trying to fix their situations, which means they’ve got to fight the very system that was supposed to be designed to help them fix it.
And yet giving them the freedom to choose what they spend their food stamps on is too much to ask?
We could see some REAL change in this country if people like LookingAround would direct just 1/10 of their hatred for the poor towards politicians who use public funds to do things like take care of their mistresses, fund their own vacations, take their friends out to swanky restaurants for drinks and dinner, etc.
Nobody screams when some Senator lands a few million bucks of pork for some stupid project in his or her home state. We never hear “but those are MY tax dollars” when Congress gives itself a giant pay increase. We might hear a little grumbling, but nobody really does anything about it because they know they would be going up against a big dog.
But if some welfare mom buys some Twinkies or a steak, it’s Annie bar the door. Off with her head! It’s easier to go after a little dog, I guess.
Good grief: am I, a Republican, turning into a liberal, or is it just that LookingAround is an asshole?
as a charter (paying) member here, I’m apparently subsidizing Looking Around’s posting. I’d request that he increase his content to a healthier, better version pronto. thanks ever so.
Stores agree to the stipulation (Pennsylvania sets milk prices so its been done) that to allow people to use welfare there they must not gouge the customers. If they don’t like it they can not accept foodstamps. I think most will not turn away the millions. UPC codes already brand the items as too what they are, you cannot buy dog food with the stamps so you program the machines not to allow you to buy lobster (example only)
You set aside a fair amount each month for “goodies” on the card say 5-10% for those special occasions (Birthdays, holidays whatever)
So if someone gets 400 a month in foodstamps they can use 20-40$ on junk food the rest has to be used on whatever an independent nutrional board sets up. This will reduce childhood obesity as well as save insurance money.
Diabetics can have another plan, those that need special foods can all have different plans like your airline meal. Made to suit.
Now the money carries over so if you only use 10$ of your goodie money in one month you get the same the next month leaving you with more goodie money.
So it will also teach people to conserve and spend wisely.
Simple plan
We’ve been spiking your drinks. You are slowly turning into a liberal. We’ll have you destroying traditional marriage by the end of the week. Mwa ha ha ha ha ha! There is no escape!
Seriously, though, good post.
I am not a conservative, I believe in abortion rights, I believe in government aid, I believe Rush, O’Reilly, and the kooks need a brain enema, I think religion is for suckers who don’t understand reality.
Nah maybe I am just an asshole for suggesting a tweaking of a program I think is not right.
I do not hate the poor, I do hate poverty and give as much as I can to help others. Including having my son every year we could afford it tell me what kids want for Christmas and have him wrap the gifts and we drive around dropping off “gift baskets” in our rural area to those children in need. Its something I do not do for any attention because quite honestly I do not want people to not accept it by returning them to me. Its something I do, because I couldn’t imagine my childs face if he didn’t get anything for the holidays. Me and my wife have volunteered at the food bank and continue to do so when they call for a replacement.
You see your all misunderstanding what I stand for and what I say. If someone wants help they should get help. Never said otherwise.
Hey there is a little hole in that dam over there but a big one on that dam lets not worry about the little hole because we got the big one to worry about attitude never helped anyone.
An “independent nutrional board” is not cheap. It also is likely impossible in the current political climate. Foods that have good lobbyists will be allowed, those without huge lobbies won’t.
Not everyone who gets food stamps have medicaid. How will those with special needs get confirmaiton of those needs?
I still say the system we have is cheaper and affords a greater dignity to those on it. Your proposal sounds nightmarish to me.
Does Wierdave mean to imply that some form of eugenics might be applied to stupid people, to cull them from the population? Should we sterilze stupid people, so as to prevent them from reproducing like rabbits (they do, you know!) and overwhelming the rest of us? Starving them out seems a bit uncertain, they might be lucky as well as stupid. Or they might find some shelter from their proper extinction amongst those bleeding-heart types…you know, liberals, Christians, the kind of people who lack the stern and hard-headed approach these social issues require.
In nature, red in tooth and claw, stupidity is a capital crime. Does he wish to suggest a return to this vigorous sort of Social Darwinism, so much in vogue in the last century?
I agree with what you have to say, and cannot argue against your points. Your right. It would take a lot to change it. It would be impossible with the lobbyist and special interests. That will not change either. Just because I want something to change doesn’t mean it can be the way I like it. Just because I have a problem with something does not mean I want to kill it. Your points are all valid and I cannot argue with those other then to say sometimes you have to spend money to save money. Not that it will happen.
Yes, it is. I have an even simpler one, one that is even more cost effective. Wanna hear it?
Probably not. But if you are, could you mention by name when you sign up? I’m about ten points shy of the toaster oven…