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

originally posted by: EvilBat
Those things cost way more then what a household could get a year with help for food. and when used properly they could stop hundreds at a time from eating "luxury foods"

And just what is "luxury foods" ? Twinkies?

You could also say you know what MY taxes helped that starving family down the street they didn't abuse the system they just happen to have bad times right now.

I can say that just fine, AND also say I do not like abuse of the system...

Better yet-
"You are now my adopted family!

I have.. I pay 200 per month to a local old couple to make ends meet... Your post suggests I'm against all this and I'm not. I just think we need more control to ensure it is done correctly, efficiently and smart...

Sound stupid to do that ... so does saying it's your money. It's not , it's the governments. If it were truly yours it would not have left your check in tax forum.

Actually I own the Government too.. So it is all mine....

originally posted by: Puppylove

Most people on food stamps are not getting free food, they've paid taxes just like you do and have fallen temporarily on hard times. They've PAID for the program, so it's their money too, since well they've contributed to the pool.

Why do you all keep insisting it's your money, it's not, it's our money, and the people benefiting are most of the time contributors same as you.

Its their money too and they can suggest that they should be able to buy all junk food...

a reply to: Xtrozero

Or since it's the same cost either way, we can leave it be and focus on more important matters. All more regulation does is cost more for less gain.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Xtrozero

Maybe you need to rethink your post?

www.cbpp.org...

I'll repeat again...

The many are people who will never make enough to pay taxes except for sales tax...

a reply to: Xtrozero

I can say that just fine, AND also say I do not like abuse of the system

No one here in this thread has condoned abuse of food stamp.

I would worry more about those who sell food stamp for drugs than those people who buy steaks and lobsters with food stamp.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Xtrozero

Maybe you need to rethink your post?

www.cbpp.org...

You know what the best part of those numbers is? The labor force participation rate among those who get food stamps is higher than those who don't.

So much for the stereotype that people who get food stamps don't work. The reality is MORE of them work.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have a relative that was collecting food stamps to get by, while working a low-paying job, and still unable to afford enough to eat. While waiting to be checked AGAIN for eligibility (white single male), he had to listen to a non-white female talking on her expensive cell phone about drug deals, and also to her bragging about how she was going to get increased benefits and how easy it was for her to do so.

So poor ( single white guy) down on his luck needing that hand-up, a person of good moral character vs the non white welfare queen with expensive cell phones and cushy drug deals wanting that hand-out, and he just happened to overheard her fiendish plots..because U sayz so..

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Right I've constantly mentioned criminals and how they aren't acceptable, and how using the ones that break the law as representative of the majority who have been proven time and again by expensive tests are not breaking or gaming the system nor the law, is both wrong and dishonest.

When talking about how the system works, you cannot use the ones who are breaking the law and not using the system in the legal proper way as the example of what those who are using the system honestly and legally do.

None of us, like you have said, are speaking in defense of the criminals that break the law.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Or since it's the same cost either way, we can leave it be and focus on more important matters. All more regulation does is cost more for less gain.

I would rather people get off of the program. Limiting types of junk might get people to actually eat healthier and maybe say "boy this sucks" and work towards being able to buy their junk foods they love so much from a pay check...

S

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I would worry more about those who sell food stamp for drugs than those people who buy steaks and lobsters with food stamp.

I digressed from the OP, I do not see fish and steak as a bad thing... I mainly talked about junk foods...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
If my say is in a vote for one who can actually control it then that is my say.

You handed over both your money and your say. That's representative government. You cast your vote and hope the person you voted for gets into office and even if they do, there is no guarantee that they will vote on the issues how you would have but like BFFT said, your say ends at the ballot box.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I digressed from the OP, I do not see fish and steak as a bad thing... I mainly talked about junk foods...

Ok cakes and cookies are considered junk food right?

Do you think that a mother shouldn't buy cakes and cookies for her children's birthdays and such?

a reply to: Xtrozero

A lot of people wish they could get off the program and work hard to do it, but the reality of our current economy is that's not always possible.

Food stamps supplement most incomes, most people aren't paying for food with just food stamps either. Food stamps rarely cover enough to do that. Most people on food stamps get it for that little bit of extra help.

Those who are on them legally and honestly get food stamps based on their income and dependents. Which in the world of part time jobs where companies restrict you from holding a second job, and fulltime jobs are hard to come buy because companies like to dodge paying benefits, food stamps are a necessary reality for lots of people.

Instead of blaming dishonest business practices and taking note of our terrible economy, you instead want to make sure people who actually are working to make a living suffer even more.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

Ok cakes and cookies are considered junk food right?

Do you think that a mother shouldn't buy cakes and cookies for her children's birthdays and such?

Nope... They can buy that stuff from their pay checks and use EBT to subsidize the real food they should be eating...

originally posted by: Puppylove
Instead of blaming dishonest business practices and taking not of our terrible economy, you instead want to make sure people who actually are working to make a living suffer even more.

You even say it is to help and does not pay for everything, so shouldn't that help be in good wholesome foods, and not junk foods? Am I making people suffer because I would rather see them buy the staple foods with their EBT card and not total junk?

originally posted by: daskakik
You handed over both your money and your say. That's representative government. You cast your vote and hope the person you voted for gets into office and even if they do, there is no guarantee that they will vote on the issues how you would have but like BFFT said, your say ends at the ballot box.

So I shouldn't have an opinion of how I think it should be? I can't vote for people who like think?

If you want to debate another 20 posts on whether the money is physically mine or a percentage of my taxes that our representatives spend as WE see fit, hopefully... we can, is that what you would like to do?

a reply to: Xtrozero

It's an unnecessary restriction. It costs the same either way. The less restriction the more adaptive the program is, the better it handles varying circumstances.

Is like humanity and why we are successful, we are a varied and adaptive species. The more varied and adaptive the food stamps the better it accounts for unique and unusual circumstances. The more restrictive you make it, the less adaptive it is, and the more likely it is to fail in more cases to provide the help that's really needed.

originally posted by: Puppylove
The more restrictive you make it, the less adaptive it is, and the more likely it is to fail in more cases to provide the help that's really needed.

Why restrict booze and cigs then too? I don't think coke is healthier than beer...hehe

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So I shouldn't have an opinion of how I think it should be? I can't vote for people who like think?

Not at all but you are saying that you have a say in what people buy and you don't have that say anymore.

If you want to debate another 20 posts on whether the money is physically mine or a percentage of my taxes that our representatives spend as WE see fit, hopefully... we can, is that what you would like to do?

There's no need. The truth is that you can complain all you want but that isn't going to change anything. You would be better off writing your representatives then posting here for another 20 posts, although you would probably get the same results. Sorry.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why restrict booze and cigs then too?

They are not considered food. How will booze help them on their feet and work? Can you eat cigarettes?