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: 7
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
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.

Look at my last post. Maybe I am just the only one who actually read the OP's source.




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What I mentioned earlier. Kale is 3 times more expensive than less healthy iceberg lettuce and you get half as much. I would consider that a luxury vegetable.

Healithier fruits like blackberries and strawberries are $4 a pound while bananas are $1 a pound and not as healthy because of their sugar content.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I read through the article twice and they never make mention of people spending exactly $10 per pound of lobster.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I read through the article twice and they never make mention of people spending exactly $10 per pound of lobster.

No, but that's the average price for a Maine Lobster. The person in the article said he views it as free food and doesn't care how much it costs and isn't going to stop. Do you think there would be anyone caring if instead of saying ...

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."


He said ...


I am really grateful for the food stamps and any time I buy something like lobster I make sure it's on sale so it is not costing any extra.


No one would care. It's not the lobster. It's the attitude of it's "free to me" so I don't care and if you don't like it too bad because I am going to keep doing it anyways, and it's awesome.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Right which goes back to the #tard I knew that put vodka in his waterbottle. I hardly think his being a dick means that nice older lady deserved to die three days later that never did anything wrong and worked her hardest.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Even by that person's omission he doesn't buy it at $10 a pound. He does what many of us have said from the start, buy it when it is on sale so it would be no different than spending the same on a cheap piece of chicken or pork.

Also, you are using a broad brush to paint everyone as abusers because of one person that is not seeing the privilege of the benefits he is receiving. One of the studies done recently was in the province I live where there are around 180,000 on income assistance. Of the 180,000, 7% were suspected of abuse of the system which is about 12,600 people. Of those 12,600 people, only 3% were found to be defrauding the system. That came down to 378 people. I'm not saying let people get away with it, but I am saying that number of people doing it is being overblown by the media.

Plus, the bill wants to not just ban the purchase of lobster but of all seafood period. Even cheap seafood is healthier than any meat you can purchase.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Not sure the connection of the lady, but I have no problem with limiting the sale of high priced meats like steak and lobster to only purchasing on sale. If they can do it for $2/lb I would love them to eat lobster every day, no problems here.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Even by that person's omission he doesn't buy it at $10 a pound. He does what many of us have said from the start, buy it when it is on sale so it would be no different than spending the same on a cheap piece of chicken or pork.

Can you quote where in the source the person mentions anything about buying on sale? Here is the source so you don't have to go back.

www.washingtonpost.com...

You clearly did not read the source, which is what I said.

Plus, the bill wants to not just ban the purchase of lobster but of all seafood period. Even cheap seafood is healthier than any meat you can purchase.


from the source ....


Brattin admits that the language might need some tweaking. "My intention wasn't to get rid of canned tuna and fish sticks," he said. But he also insists 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 his intent is not to ban everything, and the language needs tweaking to reflect that. He recognizes there may be collateral damage, but the only goal is to end abuse. $2/lb lobster is hardly abuse.
edit on 6-4-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The guy was caught with vodka in his waterbottle, he was fired and all our water bottles were taken away as a result. Three days later a nice hardworking lady who did her best died from heat stroke.

Everyone else being punished and judged by the actions of a lone asshole resulting in someone else who was innocent and doing their best by the company paying the price as well as everyone else who were just doing their jobs.

This bill is someone doing the same thing. Some dude is a disrespectful ass, so everyone else should suffer as a result.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My apologies in this case. I thought your second quote in your reply was one from the article, not a hypothetical/alternative quote like it is. Had to go back and read your post a second time to see it.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm sorry but I have a huge problem with everyone being punished because one person is an ass.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The guy was caught with vodka in his waterbottle, he was fired and all our water bottles were taken away as a result. Three days later a nice hardworking lady who did her best died from heat stroke.

That would be equivalent to taking away all food stamps. No one is suggesting that. the idea is to make sure people get their water, just not vodka, I think you would have no problem with that.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

No problem, any time there isn't some sort of confusion in a long thread like this it's a miracle.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm sorry but I have a huge problem with everyone being punished because one person is an ass.

I don't think fiscal responsibility is punishment.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm not sure fiscal responsibility is what this is creating at all though. What you want is not what this would be doing, which is the problem. What you are saying and what this is doing are so completely different things.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Thanks for the understanding. It's also nice to have a good and long debate, I'm really enjoying it.


I'm glad that he wants to tweak the language because it does remove some cheap staples for people on assistance and food stamps like tuna fish. Sometimes the only way my mom could get my brother to eat mac &cheese again was to throw a can of tuna in it to change the flavour.

But I think it does a disservice to those who are fiscally responsible and mindful. The ones who try to make every bit stretch and avoid the processed foods. Even though fresh salmon is nice, previously frozen salmon fillets are just as (in)expensive as chicken. It's a snap judgement call that will do more damage in the end.
edit on 4/6/2015 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
If you're going to go the route of deciding what can be bought with food stamps and what cannot, I'd prefer a different thing entirely. Like some kind of discount on healthier items to come with those restrictions.
edit on 4/6/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I have no problem saying the idea is good, it just has to be implemented properly. I am not for poorly implemented ideas either. I have no problem with $2/lb lobster. I encourage it. Fiscal responsibility. I am against $10/lb lobster with food stamp money, that is not fiscally responsible.

It seems to me the problem that needs correcting is not the idea that poor people can't have lobster, but that there are those who buy high priced luxury items with food stamps, and they think it's awesome because they are not footing the bill. I see no reason the bill can not say lobster is banned, and have an addendum that says banned items may still be purchased if they are on xx% sale.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

It's odd too that the government wants to restrict the food you can and cannot purchase on their assistance program but the same government also offers subsidies to corn farmers for unhealthy food products like soda. Makes much more sense to me to either subsidize farmers growing real food to make it cheaper, or subsidize the prices in grocery stores to make it a better and more attractive option for everyone.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

There are many times good ideas turn out bad. I like the idea, I am against poor implementation. I think it's possible to word it correctly to limit fraud without being punitive. I don't think this should be a punishment. I think it could be a teaching moment to help families learn how to spend money wisely, and encourage them to buy better foods. Any time the government is involved it's going to get screwed up, but I think we can limit how much.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join