Why not? They are getting paid with your money; shouldn’t you have a say in how they spend it?
The definition of condescension was your 143 post. You have no clue what other people think. None. That post was nothing but a projection of your idiological bigotry.
Tax money was used for services rendered. The onus for efficient use of the labor would be the matrix. If a government worker was drawing a salary in excess of private industry then that would fall under a discussion of efficient use of public funds.
I think you see what you want to see. One of my kids? In your world do all women have children or is that just more of your “humor” that doesn’t hit any marks?
I see plenty of people who are “standing up” for the poor who are telling us that they are unable to choose things for themselves because of a variety of reasons and some of those reasons are that they are ignorant. Why do those people get a pass but anyone who disagrees with you HATES the poor? You can’t have it both ways. You bashed on Rushgeekgirl in post #187 for being against poor people and she is on assistance. Nothing stands in the way of your throwaway inflammatory comments, least of all facts.
Also, it’s been a few posts since you floated your “oh hai we should match poor people up with the smart people so they can help them dur dur dur” so maybe you should run that knee slapper out again for the third time or so, Sir Champion of the Poor.
Do you really not see the difference between someone earning their salary but happens to be paid by the government and someone who is given money by the government because they cannot live on their wages?
I ask you this as someone who does not believe that people on assistance should only have to be limited to purchasing ingredients.
The government gave MASSIVE bailout money to Wall Street and people were bitching like crazy that these same people paid massive bonuses to executives and took spa vacations. As taxpayers do we have no right to question how they spend our bailout money?
Sleeps, I absolutely can see a difference. I was trying to make a point: the point being that if he’s saying “they’re my tax dollars, I should decide how they’re spent!” while he pounds his chest, well, aren’t they ‘his tax dollars’ when they are paying federal salaries?
As far as the tax bailouts, yes, we should have a say. We say what we need to say by voting. Not the most efficient way, perhaps, but the best way we have right now. Of course, we can also write and email all of our congresscritters, etc. We should definitely let them know how unhappy these things make us.
My personal outrage goal post is somewhere in the nebulous spectrum inbetween a poor person getting some enjoyment from a bag of chips on my dime, and an already-filthy-rich executive using my money to cruise around on a private jet and go on exhorbitant vacations (closer to the executive). :rolleyes:
The EBT is just a method of transferring benefits to the recipients for their use with a debit card. It’s a way to implement assistance programs, not a program itself.
I suspect you’re interested in the missions of the actual programs like SNAP, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program formerly known as food stamps, or TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. I’m sure their web pages can give you details as to their purposes.
Information about SNAP mission: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/pressreleases/2008/PR-0241.htm
TANF Mission Statement: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html
Some of the "solutions"presented so far have been simply brilliant, I must say.
Specially marked foods for purchase by the poor? Will this list be established by Congress, and will the lobbyists from the major food industries descend on Congress like locusts to help them determine which foods will be on the list? Does the pope shit in the woods?
Grills. Riiight. I think that if they set up these grills inside their apartments the apartment managers will have a shit fit, and they certainly can’t set them up in front of the building on the sidewalk. Also, I can just imagine a beat cop coming across a group of homeless people having a cookout on a city street.
No, the OP wants you to buy only “ingredients.” So buy the eggs, cream or half & half, vanilla & whatever else goes into your favorite flavor. Cook it up–necessary for the French style, with eggs; surely you have the correct thermometer! Then put it in your ice cream maker. You know, the one sitting next to your crock pot. Be sure to let it rest 24 hours in your capacious freezer!
Blue Bellis a favorite Texas brand of ice cream. My local convenience store often offers 2 half pints for 3 dollars. I could afford half gallons but I try to ration myself…
Obviously the only true solution is for you, or anyone poor, to never eat ice cream again. Or anything else that requires cooking, refridgeration, or storage.
Chewing on uncooked rice grains is good enough for you.
Awww you’re really cute when you use your little eyeroll smilie. Who’s cute? Aww, you’re cute!!
Well you can picture him pounding his chest and talking about tax dollars but your example of someone earning their money and being able to do exactly what they want with it and someone needing monthly help from the government to meet their needs aren’t even close. I think I’ll picture him pounding his chest like King Kong from now on when he posts and when the other side posts I’ll picture some melodramatic hand wringing and “What about the chiiiiildren?” That way I get entertained no matter who does the posting. It’ll be awesome.
At the beginning of this debate, I was pretty firmly in the government should not regulate what is bought with food stamps camp. As it has progressed, I have found myself sliding more and more into being fine with regulation of junk food (assuming one can find ways to define junk food, etc. )
And this was due less to any brilliant suggestions for negotiating the regulation bureaucracy than it was to being turned off by the constant whining about cookies and ice cream.
For god’s sake, not getting FREE ice cream and cookies is not a hardship! For that matter, not getting any ice cream and cookies is not especially terrifying! Whenever I am trying to save money, I don’t buy ice cream or cookies or other luxuries. Since nobody else is buying them for me that means – gasp! – I don’t eat ice cream or cookies. It hasn’t killed me yet. In fact, on the list of things that I am devoting significant energy to improve in my life, it doesn’t even show up.
I just applied for food stamps. I may be able to get up to 200$/month of free food. That’s about 4 times what I have been spending. That blows my mind. I’ll be feasting like a king on that. Now I’m supposed to be mad if the government were to say, “you know that 200$ of free food that we’ve been giving you? Well (brace yourself, you may want to sit down), we won’t be giving you free ice cream and cookies with that anymore.” I’m really supposed to be upset at that?
Why wouldn’t you be upset at that?
Putting aside for the moment that I and the post I was responding to were challening the “ingredient” thing and its associated assumption that every poor person has a fully stocked kitchen and the time to use it, could you explain to me what specific goal you’re pursuing by banning the purchase of ice cream and cookies with food stamps?
If it’s about reducing the fatness of the nation, that’s kind of nuts - they’re hardly the problem demographic for the nation. You should be trying to ban the things entirely.
If it’s about preventing children from being brought up eating only ice cream and cookies - that’s kind of nuts too. This may happen but it is certainly not the norm, and again is as likely to occur with the middle class as with the poor.
If it’s about saving money, that’s kind of nuts - you’ll still be getting the same amount. Eating like a king, as you said - just on wheat germ.
If it’s about preventing the poor from having perks that could help them enjoy life - then it’s not nuts. However it is assholery, and I don’t find it a compelling argument for building the law based on.
Because, as has been noted, such a change like this is not as trivial as it first appears. What is a “cookie”? Almost any definition you like will either lead to absurdities where healthier products are banned in favor of unhealthy products, or where your desired standard of poor-people-suffering isn’t being met, or where the restrictions are so sweeping we’re back to the rice grains and other things that don’t work so hot if you don’t have a fully stocked kitchen and working refridgerator.
This whole idea is, in general, a mess waiting to happen. Particularly when you start messing with poorly-defined things like “cookies”. (Alcohol at least is a pretty clear subset.) If you want me to bother supporting this mess, you need to present a good reason to bother. Reducing alcoholism in the despondent seems like an acceptable moral crusade to me, so restricting alcohol seems fine. The militant crusade to aimlessly crush their happiness, less so.
I was on food stamps for a short time and I got around $200 per month as a single person. This is, objectively and factually, a huge budget for food for a single person. I went from subsisting on dried beans, dried chickpeas, potatoes, 25-lb bags of white rice, and frozen peas and spinach – from which I made tasty meals I was quite happy with – to being able to afford fresh vegetables, steel-cut oatmeal (not expensive, but I’d always pegged it as a luxury item for some reason), non-rancid meats 2 times per week, occasional a luxury item like fish (not the 3/$1 canned tuna) and the luxury of purchasing bread versus making my own exclusively – I see pre-made bread as a convenience food, similar to a frozen TV dinner or something. (I’m not a great bread baker, but I turn out edible, flavorful bread easily, when I choose to eat it rather than rice). The money I received in the form of EBT was much larger than what I had been charging to a credit card per month. I was also able to buy canned beans for the convenience factor as well. I was embarrassed by how well I was able to eat during this time, and I would frequently use any surplus to stock up my pantry with foods I could give to others in my building whom I knew were hungry, but had mental issues that prohibited them from going through the interview process.
[quote=“begbert2, post:535, topic:549410”]
You’ve hit the nail on the head. As I stated before, when I had the cast on my arm people were willing to put the junk food in my basket (“Oh, you poor thing…”). Now my arm is free, though it’s still not working right, people think “Why is that lazy bitch buying junk food instead of cheap stuff?”
It would be nice if someone who is getting a larger amount of EBT benefits then they need could visit CostCo and buy some of their excellent canned chicken to donate to the local food bank. But it is none of my business if you do so or not.
I guess it is just my idea of what a government should be responsible for. I don’t feel entitled to free ice cream and cookies. So if the government fails to provide me that, I don’t really care. I tend to get upset when the government fails to protect the environment, wastes lives and money on needless wars, or fails to protect people who have worked hard their hold lives, get sick, and get screwed over by insurance companies. But not when they don’t give me free ice cream.
Ensuring that the money that is spent does what it is supposed to do – provide sound nutrition for adults and growing kids so that they can be healthy and productive members of society. If the money is spent on frozen corn dogs and ho-hos, it doesn’t accomplish that.
“Socioeconomic status plays a significant role in obesity. Low-income minority populations tend to experience obesity at higher rate and are more likely to be overweight.” From the first thing that popped up on google (http://www.obesityaction.org/educationaltools/factsandstats.php).
Banning food entirely would be the government overstepping its boundaries. I don’t care what you eat – that’s your choice. However, if I’m footing the bill to keep you healthy, that gives me some say in the matter.
That’s nuts? Why? It does happen. See the cite above for what socioeconomic group it is more likely to happen to.
It is about saving money only to the extent that unhealthy fat people are more likely to get sick and pass these costs onto society.
Also, why do you keep choosing the most unappetizing thing you can find and acting as if the only alternative to a diet that includes junk food is eating wheat germ and uncooked brown rice out of a bucket or some crap like that?
It’s not that. I’m also not so sure that eating a diet rich in junk food makes you measurably happier, although it does make you measurably fatter.
This is the part of your argument that I find most sound.
Unhappy people turn to alcohol and to junk food; neither one is good for you.
I keep seeing variations of this, but unless you personally are authorized by Congress to make up this theoretical list of healthy foods, what you are asking for is impossible. The closest we can come to your idea is a congressional committee, heavily influenced by food industry lobbyists, making up a list that will include products made by Nabisco, Frito-Lay, Kraft, Coca-Cola etc.
Of course. I refer to “EBT” because that’s what you see in the store window, and it’s what you see on the supermarket LCD screen “EBT food,” or “EBT cash.” And I know what their present “mission statements” are. I’m talking about the larger public health policy.
The “interview” isn’t that demanding. It’s really just a caseworker who verifies and inputs your data into the database. S/he looks over your proof of citizenship, your (presumably empty) bank statement, evaluates your housing situation, and makes sense of the somewhat cryptic way they phrase things on the application. The people with mental issues in your building could always bring an “interpreter.” If they can get SSI, they can get SNAP or TANF.