It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Missouri Lawmakers Don't Want Food Stamp Recipients To Buy Steak

page: 24
37
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

I was a cashier and also a front end manager many years ago in a grocery store in a poverty stricken area in the city that I lived in. This was back when they still had actual paper food stamps. Back then if they bought something with food stamps that was $5.01, then they would get 0.99 cash back. With the majority of the mindsets on here that think everyone on food stamps are committing fraud, you would think that everyone would come in and spend a few cents on something to get cash back. We had lots of customers on food stamps, but hardly anyone abused them that way in our store. And we had a huge store. The few that did do this were men. Men that came in alone would go through different lines, buy 5 cent pieces of gum, get 95 cents back, until they had enough to buy a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of malt liquor. The only time I ever saw a woman do anything similar was when she was a dollar or so short on paying for diapers. When they got rid of the paper food stamps, this stopped. There are people that will sell their food stamp benefits from their cards, but it is very illegal and if you get caught you can't ever get benefits again plus you can do jail time.

YOU CANNOT GET CASH BACK FROM A FOOD STAMP CARD.

If someone has actual WELFARE (TANF), which is not the same as food stamps, and requires alot more work to get, then they can use an EBT card to get cash.

I personally have never been on TANF even when I was left destitute with two small children, but I did receive food stamps for a short period of time. If I had not had family and friends to help me when my children's father left, I would have probably needed TANF, but I luckily had people that were able to help enough to keep me from that. TANF is supposed to be used to pay for bills, rent, gas, toiletries, etc... And it is temporary, which is actually what the T stands for.

It is obvious that many people on here have no clue what they are talking about and are just flat out lying. A young single woman is not going to be getting $400 a month from the government unless she is disabled. I know that everyone on here is not following food stamp purchasers out to their cars after shopping at the store. And why are you so interested in what kind of card someone is paying for their food with? Do you stare at everyone's credit cards when they pull them out and use them at the register? How rude.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Macman, you must never plan to retire, because you seem to completely lack any comprehension of the concept that most of the people who are on wellfare are and have been taxpayers themselves who've fallen on hard times.

Part of the reason we pay taxes is so that these programs exist should we fall on hard times. Same as social security exists based on the idea that we paid our dues to society in taxes and can now retire.

By your logic no one should ever retire because they're living on the taxpayers dime, completely ignoring that they have been a taxpayer all their life because woe and behold once they retired they stopped.

You're not paying for my SNAP benefits when I have them, we're all paying for our SNAP benefits.

Stop treating taxpayers who've paid their dues using the services they paid into same as you, as some separate parasite that's never contributed anything.

These aren't handouts.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

There are only 2 places on Earth right now that I am aware of where leaders seek to control even what you get to eat: North Korea, and Missouri.

If you want to abolish SNAP altogether...that is one thing. But to worry about how someone spends money that really isn't yours anyway....

Like i said earlier: this is about individual rights. You and 1000 other people may want to decide where a homeless man spends his EBT funds, or what he spends it on. But you don't have that right.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: coldkidc

They do have to pay some of their income towards their food. The food stamp program is not designed to pay for all of your food. It is assistance towards your food bill. When I had to have assistance, it only covered approximately half to 3/4 of my food costs for the month.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: caladonea

Before reading that article, I was astounded. The problem here lies with the youth interviewed in the beginning buying lobster and sushi, "It's free food. It's awesome."

It's not "free food". It's paid for by others number one, and number two you pay with a loss of stature in the eyes of anybody who knows you are on food stamps. It's never "free".

These kids are treating it like a free lunch card when it should be used to feed starving families, it's original purpose. I think there should be more stringent application rules, but as far as actually restricting what food you can buy...aside from the one longstanding rule of "no hot food". You can't buy food that is already cooked. You can't buy pizza or hamburgers from a store, but you CAN buy the same ingredients raw and cook it yourself.

I don't know how to feel about this, having been both a recipient of and a payer-into of the food stamp service. I know there are families out there who depend on that monthly stipend to survive, to feed their kids. Then there are kids who get it and as I said earlier, treat it like a free lunch card.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I couldn't have said it better!



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Ensinger23

By being rational and not punishing everyone else for a few bad apples.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
By allowing food stamp recipients to buy luxury foods, what incentive is there to get off of foodstamps? You're creating a dependency on the government to provide those items, which is a dangerous precedence. The goal should be to rely on food stamps for only as long as you must until you are in a stable enough place to purchase your own food.

By making poverty too easy you're encouraging those who are poor, to stay poor.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: moonleaf

My mother currently receives $400/month in EBT, and there are MANY others who receive more.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Pants3204

Paying for that luxury food one day is a trade off. It usually comes at a greater expense somewhere else.

What do you care if a person has one good meal for 20 bad meals as opposed to 15 decent meals.

If someone splurges they're paying for it unless they're not playing by the rules and are doing something illegal.

You will never hear me speak in favor of people on food stamps lying on their applications and committing other such fraud.

Anyone who's doing the system right is NOT eating crazy expensive food without a severe trade off somewhere.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Pants3204
What do you care if a person has one good meal for 20 bad meals as opposed to 15 decent meals.

20 "bad meals" will keep you fuller for longer than 15 good ones. Again, it's about subsidizing those who make a career from living off of the government. You're removing the incentive to advance your own personal standing if you can just rely on welfare programs to pay for the things you want. They should be supplied with the bare nutritional necessities, in plentiful enough quantities that they are well fed, so that they can afford to continue trying to better themselves.

I don't have a problem with assistance of this sort, but I have a problem with enabling financially irresponsible lifestyles at the expense of the tax payer.
edit on pam430283204 by Pants3204 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: caladonea

OH heck yeah. Food stamps should be able to be used for filet mignon, lobster, the finest whisky, top dollar wines.

Why not?

*Sigh* wtf happened to common sense. Can the family that is just barely above the "qualify for food stamps" income able to buy steak whenever they like? If they cant, then why should taxpayers be paying for it for those who, in many cases, do not have a job and do not want one.

It is my opinion that any govt benefits should be accompanied by a cup in which to pee into as well. If you can afford drugs, then by yumpin yimminy you can afford your own food. Why should my tax dollars contribute to supporting your drub habit?




edit on 7-4-2015 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Pants3204

Most of the people on these programs are taxpayers.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

So? Are you implying that they personally fund the entirety of their welfare? Because you are sorely mistaken if you believe that is the case.
edit on pam430353204 by Pants3204 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: bbracken677

Way to paint everyone on food stamps with the junky criminal brush.

Will people please stop getting mad at people on food stamps for the actions of the criminal element who we all agree are criminals, that are also on food stamps.

What one person does on food stamps is not representative of the majority, especially if that person is breaking the law and thus clearly not a proper representation of a law abiding citizen on food stamps.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pants3204
The goal should be to rely on food stamps for only as long as you must until you are in a stable enough place to purchase your own food.

Why should it be that? Maybe american society is starting to transition into the type of society where everyone gets a minimum salary.

Like it or not, it is a possibility.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Pants3204

And you completely over blow how much SNAP benefits cost the taxpayer.

Overall I would say that those who are on food stamps have contributed more in taxes than the cost of food stamps itself in taxes. As long as this remains true, then I have no problem with food stamps. I know I've paid WAY WAY WAY WAY more in taxes than all I've ever spent on food using SNAP so as long as that remains true, I've cost you nothing for my stint of food stamps.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

If it is tax payer funded, then yes...the tax payer does have the right to say this, via Govt.

If truly is about food, then giving people food is the answer.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

So, then it isn't exactly "foodstamps"....it is "whateverstamps".

And bite you? No thanks. I will go make a meal from some chicken and beans.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Your right to give input on how SNAP is managed ends with the voting booth.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join