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: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As I have said, those doing that are often criminals in some other way, and it's not the food stamps itself that's the problem.

Addendum: For example sharing their food stamps with their mother who they live with, while lying on their application and saying they do not share their food, and both people are pooling their resources illegally.

Lying on a legal document is a crime.
edit on 4/6/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: liejunkie01
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


The difference being that food stamps are NOT your money. It's MY money.


Nah, your money is going toward the pension of a rich congressman.

He really appreciates it, while you are bitching about someone treating themselves to a good dinner.

Oh I'm sorry, my tax dollars don't pay for food stamps? Is it magic stamps?

So what about the working folk who have EBT in conjunction with a job? Their tax dollars just magically poof & don't make it to the same pool?

Are you really this dense?

You should refrain from ad-hominems, they may come back to bite you.

Someone dense would not understand (taking MA as an example) a family of 4 can only make $31,008 a year and still get EBT. How much do you think that family is paying in taxes? Someone dense might not know, do you know?

Tax refunds are not in question. The fact is, they still pay in. You get no refund for everyday taxable purchases, do you? You are basically telling me despite our household's jobs that any possible refund someone might be entitled to disqualifies them from using a program paid for by their taxes. That that pack of toilet paper, container of laundry detergent, etc also helped pay for.

No I am telling you there is nothing wrong with food stamps, but it should be recognized that it's being paid for by others and many of those others are going without. It's rude to order lobster on someone else's dime.

Note, I am not advocating they buy the cheapest crap possible, I am advocating they shop responsibly with other people's money, exactly like I do with my own.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I completely agree. The system needs a rework. That's a topic best left for another thread.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sometimes everyone needs a little pick me up. Just because someone is poor and struggling to get back on their feet doesn't mean they should forgo ever getting even a slight bit of momentary joy.

I feel bad splurging with anyone's money, unless it's my birthday. I personally feel everyone deserves at least one day out of the year where they put themselves first.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Because I lived through it and the only time I ever had a luxury item was if it was on sale or it was a special occasion like a birthday or Christmas. When states have conducted studies on food stamp and income assistance abuse, each and every time they spent more money on the research than they saved finding the very few people actually abusing the system.

Do you keep a tally of each of these individuals and know with 100% certainty that are constantly abusing their EBT cards? Remember them by face every time you go into a Walmart? Probably not.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

I don't have to know if it's the same person every time. I haven't bought steak or lobster for 6 years. No one on EBT should be buying it with my money.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Since when do you need steak and lobster to have a moment of joy? Fallacious argument.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So even on sale... where a frozen then thawed near expiration lobster tail is $2, a person can never buy it just because you view it as a luxury item? Ever?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I knew a guy that willing ate a plane baked potato and a small sprite every day for dinner and was perfectly happy with just that. I couldn't do it myself, but to them it was fine, food was irrelevant to them, it was just that thing you have to do to live day to day.

Food is more important to some people than others. For one person that lobster is what they look forward to all year. For me it was being taken to Captain Georges for all I can eat clams, where I'd pig out one day out of the year for my birthday.

You might not care about that, you'd rather have something else, which is fine by me, I don't judge or begrudge you that, but obviously if you haven't eaten either of these things for 6 years it's because it's not really that important to you. I'm sure there's thousands of things that people buy on food stamps that you don't because you just don't give a crap about those things.

Should people have to mimic your exact diet if their on food stamps?

What about people that make the same amount as you, in the same position as you, but sacrifice different things so they can enjoy their steak and lobster? Can the person on food stamps mimic their diet?

At what point do you draw the line on, this is too much and this is too little? Where do you draw this arbitrary line?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: caladonea
Rick Brattin a Republican lawmaker in Missouri...does not want people who get food stamps to be able to eat, steak, lobster, cookies, sodas. He says and I quote "that people are abusing the system by purchasing luxury foods, and believes that that must be stopped, even if it ends up requiring the inclusion of other less luxurious items."

So...poor people according to him should not be able to enjoy a cookie or some seafood etc.

Link to article: www.washingtonpost.com...

What are your opinions on this ATS?

I personally feel that people on Food Stamps should still have the freedom to buy what they want to buy.



I don't see the problem. This would go along nicely with Michelle Obama's plan to rid the world of excess calories and all things that taste good. You should be championing it. Your messiah's wife is getting what she wants: To rid the world of excess calories because they can make you put on a few pounds.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So even on sale... where a frozen then thawed near expiration lobster tail is $2, a person can never buy it just because you view it as a luxury item? Ever?

Which has what to do with people spending $10/lb on lobster? Why use logical fallacies?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Everything when you blanketly apply a restriction against buying lobster. Which is what this thread is about.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove

You might not care about that, you'd rather have something else, which is fine by me, I don't judge or begrudge you that, but obviously if you haven't eaten either of these things for 6 years it's because it's not really that important to you.

I am from Boston and LOVE lobster and used to have it frequently. I constantly rave to my wife about it and tell her I can't wait for her to try it. I am just fiscally responsible, and when people are spending other people's money, I expect them to be too.

If they truly need a lobster they should put in an extra shift or do something and buy it on their own dime.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Everything when you blanketly apply a restriction against buying lobster. Which is what this thread is about.

No, it's about people buying high priced items with food stamps. $2/lb lobster is not a high priced item.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

It's weird that certain foods like steak and lobster are being singled out. Lobster was originally fed to prisoners because it was considered low quality food. Then someone discovered if you put butter on them they are the best freaking food on the planet it became a luxury food item. Same story with shrimp.

I wonder why more expensive vegetables and fruits get a pass.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

When I was on food stamps I would just spend my food stamp money blanketly on food, then, when it ran out spend my own money. Using both my own money and food stamps as needed. I didn't go "Hmmm, ok this is kinda a splurge so I'll buy it with my money, and this is fiscally responsible so I'll buy this with EBT." I splurged when I had enough extra cause I was lucky enough to get overtime that week, but I didn't micromanage which food was bought with what, that's just silly.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Wrong, because it's not doing that, it's singling out specific food irrelevant as to whether it's on sale or not.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

I can't think of any luxury vegetables, if there are any they don't get a pass from me. Do you know any $10/lb veggies?



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Why do you assume every single person is spending that much on lobster? You're acting like people are buying it whenever and wherever on a whim rather than with calculation like many of us have suggested.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Wrong, because it's not doing that, it's singling out specific food irrelevant as to whether it's on sale or not.

Except that's false. The idea is EXPENSIVE items, which $2/lb lobster is not.

In 2013, Fox News proudly broadcast an interview with a young food stamp recipient who claimed to be using the government benefit to purchase lobster and sushi.

"This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate explained to Fox. “It’s free food; it’s awesome."


The goal is to stop THAT mentality. Who cares how much it costs it's not my money. I don't think people will have a problem with items being on sale so they are no longer high priced. Very few people will have a problem with lobster for the price of chicken.




top topics



 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join