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

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

My dear, "keeping them poor, is just an oxymoron", is those that work and still need government assistance and is those that do not do a darn thing but collect tax payers money (insert here my neck of the woods welfare town with three Wallmarts.

Food stamps is not a benefit is not an entitlement either, is a service and not a life time ride on, as a service that uses tax payers dollars it should be closely monitored, plain and simple.

We have an entire generation that thinks others tax payers money is their right by birth.

and how many big and/or small, corporate/non-corporate, farms have received federal/state farm subsidies, for years and years in Missouri?..........farm.ewg.org..., why don't you see how many wealthy, or even middle class people have been tapping that welfare trainride before going after the poor?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: macman

$2.46....not big enough to be on my radar right now.

But to be honest, i would triple that contribution every year (and be ecstatic to do it) if it would employ people to fix pot holes. If the conversation shifts from welfare to workfare....that is something I am willing to put my back into. Our nations infrastructure is starting to look utterly 3rd world.

When Texas roads look like Oklahoma roads...something is wrong.

Workfare sounds like a great concept. Personally instead of having prisoners out cleaning the streets, I'd rather we used a workfare type program for that as well. There's plenty of work that could be done that could be paid for, there's even work that most handicapped or older folk CAN do out there, if someone would pay them to do it.

I wouldn't mind cleaner streets, better roads, and whatever else can be thought of, I'd certainly contribute more for that kind of thing. You couldn't consider people doing these things freeloaders, their doing a service and working for their benefits.

Sure it might cost more than the system we currently have in place, but we'd have a much better more beautiful country for it, and no one would be thrown under the bus.

lol wrong thread

originally posted by: bbracken677
There is a rather large portion of HUD residents who are not interested in bettering themselves, not interested in getting a job and not interested in helping their children improve on their lot in life.

Ok, lets say that's accurate. If they have no motivation to better themselves why do they have to have poor living conditions as motivation to better themselves? It's sadistic.

Instead, we see the exact opposite across the globe. When people have a bit of comfort, and can see that things might actually get better they work to make that happen. Again, I'll point to Norway as an example. On the other hand when people have no upward mobility and think it doesn't matter, they don't do anything.

BTW, HUD (unless it has changed in the last 2 years) pays all but $25 for an all utilities paid apartment in the community I worked at. The crap apartments were charging the govt over $900 and charging the residents $25. Most of the full-time residents there also drew social security, even though they were as young as their 20s. Now I know where my FICA is going and why there wont be any for me when I retire.

Around here there's a 5 year waiting list for HUD and the only people that get enough points are pregnant single mothers who are homeless (and to keep that spot they have to remain pregnant... how do you think that works in practice? Lots of kids). They also pay closer to $75, though the difference between $25 and $75 isn't very large. It sounds to me like your issue is instead with the landlords that are over charging the government just because they can. They're getting a free $875 per person they rent to while the person living there gets maybe $700, and the person who gets more doesn't even need it.

So...when I state that recipients of govt welfare should have to take a drug test, you could say that comes from experience.

Yet despite this stereotype you perpetuate two states did drug tests. 0.5% in Kansas, 2.3% in Florida. The drug use rate among the general population is 9.2% or 4 times higher if not more.

So far no one has really explained why a drug user or addict should be entitled to collecting welfare. Or if they did, I certainly missed it.

Well, for one it keeps them from committing crimes to fuel their drug use. For two, it costs more to weed them out than to pay for them. You want lowered government spending right? Doesn't that mean we should do what's most cost effective?

originally posted by: bullcat
The food stamp people should get the Beef producers on their side, I am very sure they have more clout over politicians

They are. What do you think food stamps are? It's corporate welfare to the farms by a more politically acceptable name.

a reply to: Puppylove

its ok if its a little more expensive. Even double the cost. Because the cost, in light of the entire budget, is still barely 1/10th of 1% of the entire budget. And you are getting a return on that investment.

I have a community full of really cool little stone benches, tables, pavillions, etc. They were built during The New Deal, and have been used constantly ever since. All over the town, if there is a view or gathering place, you find these stone tables, benches, and pavillions made from local limestone and cedars.

I don't know how much they spent on that back then....but it has paid itself off in use for 80 some odd years. To the point that many of the benches sitting on dirt have deep ruts worn around them, and need to be filled in (again).

originally posted by: Puppylove
Workfare sounds like a great concept. Personally instead of having prisoners out cleaning the streets, I'd rather we used a workfare type program for that as well. There's plenty of work that could be done that could be paid for, there's even work that most handicapped or older folk CAN do out there, if someone would pay them to do it.

I wouldn't mind cleaner streets, better roads, and whatever else can be thought of, I'd certainly contribute more for that kind of thing. You couldn't consider people doing these things freeloaders, their doing a service and working for their benefits.

Sure it might cost more than the system we currently have in place, but we'd have a much better more beautiful country for it, and no one would be thrown under the bus.

Workfare is fine in theory but putting it into practice is another matter. Look at all the problems the UK is having with their workfare program. They've taken what were a bunch of paying jobs that people were making a living doing, displaced those workers, and now force their workfare recipients to work at half of minimum wage to do those same jobs. That's not to say it couldn't be done but there are several challenges with the system.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They were built during The New Deal, and have been used constantly ever since. All over the town, if there is a view or gathering place, you find these stone tables, benches, and pavillions made from local limestone and cedars.

Like a large percentage of our reservoirs (man-made lakes) also, they were built during the New Deal.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Some of ours were built then...that is correct. And it may be possible that modern equipment could find more efficient ways to use the watersheds that feed the reservoirs. I know Salt Cedar is a real issue here.

Mesquites growing along waterways, or within a couple hundred feet, can be a real problem too.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I've been thinking a lot about the New Deal lately.
I owe student loans, and am unable to find a job (not even at Taco Bell, or ALDI!). I am a professional in the behavioral health business -
and with further cuts to social services, my options are slimmer and slimmer.

I would be totally willing to 'work it off' over 2 or 3 years, giving ALL of the money back to them (or earning against it), but until that happens, well, they're screwed.

I've even thought of writing to the POTUS to ask him about it.
Wash dishes in the White House to work it off? Sure. Pick up garbage along the highways, anywhere in the US? Yep.
etc.

The way things are going, though - I'm not optimistic. I actually applied as a Congressional Intern for my local rep. No answer.

Oh, and BTW, I have NEVER applied for government assistance, unemployment, food stamps, etc. Ever.
The student loans are Federal - but if I have no job, how am I supposed to make things 'even'?
I think it ain't gonna happen....I've been trying since Sept 2008.

Can't help but to agree with this to an extent. Having worked at a grocery store in a small community for a number of years, I have seen the people that abuse the system. The people on their EBT cards coming in regularly and buying out the lobster tails and fine cut steaks at anywhere from $12-$20 per pound. They would purchase a carton of cigarettes alongside it all the while their child is walking around in sneakers with the soles falling off.

The system not only isn't perfect, it is a terrible system that is ripe with abusers, probably moreso than people in actual need. I have seen the real meek who actually needed the help and they were self conscious to a fault about it. They would be buying the vegetables and cheap frozen dinners to get buy, not spending their months allowance on a handful of luxury products without blinking an eye.

It isn't the rich looking down on the poor, it is people looking down on the abusers. No one who is hard up for food is going to go in and buy those luxury goods to begin with. Anyone who has faced hard times will know how to make the most with their buck that they are given, not splurge it each and every week on goods that even the middle class cannot afford.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Honestly, you should just try to make your minimum loan payments and not worry about ever having them paid off. I realize that's easier said than done, but that's the best way to go about it (or don't pay anything at all... there's issues with that though).

The student loan bubble is a pretty big issue, and the fact is there just aren't the jobs for all of us with degrees to go and work. Sooner or later the government is going to have to forgive all student loans. They know it too, they've already proposed 10 years of government service=loan forgiveness but that will fail because it's not doing enough.

a reply to: Aazadan

My payment is now Zero, because I have no income at all.

I expect I'll be simply filling out paperwork every year until that bubble bursts. And I won't be 'sorry' at that point.

LOL!!!! Last time I called them (because they hadn't 'received' the form I uploaded) to talk about it, and the guy says, "Do you want to change your due date?" I replied: "Well, I have NO INCOME, I am a dependent, so it doesn't matter what day of the month you set my 'due date' to, does it?"

originally posted by: Spider879
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..

No, he heard the because he was there. Nor did i state he was of "good moral character". In fact he isn't, but he doesn't lie about that sort of thing. If you don't believe that sort of thing happens, that's your choice; feel free to live in a delusion.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Spider879
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..

No, he heard the because he was there. Nor did i state he was of "good moral character". In fact he isn't, but he doesn't lie about that sort of thing. If you don't believe that sort of thing happens, that's your choice; feel free to live in a delusion.

So what's the point of contrasting his whiteness to her non whiteness.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Spider879
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..

No, he heard the because he was there. Nor did i state he was of "good moral character". In fact he isn't, but he doesn't lie about that sort of thing. If you don't believe that sort of thing happens, that's your choice; feel free to live in a delusion.

So what's the point of contrasting his whiteness to her non whiteness.

The point is that such benefits go readily and easily to minorities, and are difficult to impossible to get for whites. I know other people who were told they could not get benefits, even though seriously in need, and some of them were told flat out that if their name was Hispanic, they'd have a better shot. That was from disgusted and disgruntled workers in that field. When race is a factor in determining whether or not a person receives benefits, that ought to be an issue for everyone.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Spider879
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..

No, he heard the because he was there. Nor did i state he was of "good moral character". In fact he isn't, but he doesn't lie about that sort of thing. If you don't believe that sort of thing happens, that's your choice; feel free to live in a delusion.

So what's the point of contrasting his whiteness to her non whiteness.

The point is that such benefits go readily and easily to minorities, and are difficult to impossible to get for whites. I know other people who were told they could not get benefits, even though seriously in need, and some of them were told flat out that if their name was Hispanic, they'd have a better shot. That was from disgusted and disgruntled workers in that field. When race is a factor in determining whether or not a person receives benefits, that ought to be an issue for everyone.

So you are telling me that food stamps is based on race/ethnicity not need, sorry I need more than just hearsay on that.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The stats, which you are free to doubt, say 43% of SNAP participants are white.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The point is that such benefits go readily and easily to minorities, and are difficult to impossible to get for whites. I know other people who were told they could not get benefits, even though seriously in need, and some of them were told flat out that if their name was Hispanic, they'd have a better shot. That was from disgusted and disgruntled workers in that field. When race is a factor in determining whether or not a person receives benefits, that ought to be an issue for everyone.

I find this hard to believe. I happen to live in a pretty high poverty area. The population demographics are over 99% white. I've never seen anyone have trouble getting assistance due to their skin color.

As far as I can tell, race is a complete non factor in who gets them. It's based entirely on income and assets.

What is more likely to have made a difference in your story is if one person had kids. You see, our system isn't designed to support adults who fall on hard times, rather it's primary function is to keep kids from being disadvantaged. Food payouts for a single person with no kids are along the lines of $60/month, but if that person has a kid? $300/month. Welfare style payments like TANF are similar. If you have no income and no kids, the government says you go out on the street. But if you have a kid you get $x for shelter. If you have 2 kids you get even more.

It is a completely backwards way to run a system, but that's how it works.

a reply to: daskakik

Indifference or no stance is still a stance.

a reply to: Aazadan

Hey! Look on the sunny side. We were 41 pages in before we got our first racist! For a thread of this subject matter, that must be a record.