Trump Administration Wants To Decide What Food SNAP Recipients Will Get

a reply to: Aazadan

You're just telling people that their dollars aren't good enough

i believe that may be the problem with the thought you put forth.
food credits are not their dollars but only a subsidy. i think it would be our dollars collectively

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Ive hired tens of thousands employees in my years. Rare that i do more than 2 meetings and more rare than someone moves for the job.

You also live in West Texas, while people make a living there it's not exactly a center of economic activity with cutting edge jobs. People make a living from the types of jobs you offer, but (and I mean no offense here) those jobs really only allow people to tread water. The definition of jobs worth doing that I'm using, is jobs that can offer 30+ years of constant upward mobility through promotions and that come with significant purchasing power. If you can't through the various advancements available (promotion, salary, etc) increase your take home pay by at least 10.5% above the rate of inflation per year which is a doubling of purchasing power every 7 years, in my opinion the job doesn't offer enough upward mobility to be worth doing. However, those jobs do tend to have a bit more hiring scrutiny.

If you're hiring for relatively small jobs from just a local talent pool, you're probably not going to go as indepth.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
i believe that may be the problem with the thought you put forth.
food credits are not their dollars but only a subsidy. i think it would be our dollars collectively

Ahh, so you don't think their money should be their money. You think that because it was taxed from you, you should dictate how it's used.

Do you scrutinize police officers too? Their salary comes from your taxes, do you demand 100% approval of every action they take on and off the job when utilizing that money?

Let them eat cake?

a reply to: Aazadan

Police officers perform a service to society in exchange for a salary. What service do food stamp recipients perform for society?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

Police officers perform a service to society in exchange for a salary. What service do food stamp recipients perform for society?

TheRedneck

1. They don't steal and/or kill to get enough money to eat.

2. They save a fortume in taxpayer money that would otherwise be needed to hire more police for more crime
caused by hunger.

3. They save more taxpayer money that would be needed to house the larger criminal element that would
be caused by hungry people forced to steal so they can eat.

4. They preserve tha United States by not supporting subversion and/or revolution.
- A hungry population is a revolution in progress - A well fed population will stay fat and docile.

a reply to: TheRedneck

They obey the law thereby saving lots of money in the court and justice system

a reply to: AlienView
a reply to: Aazadan

So does everyone else (who's not a criminal). Those are duties, not services. Not everyone goes to work each day to enforce the law. What specific services do food stamp recipients perform in return for their food stamps?

You're actually saying we should pay people to not break the law? Are you serious?

TheRedneck

This can be a good idea. Beats people buying candy and soda with it.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: howtonhawky
i believe that may be the problem with the thought you put forth.
food credits are not their dollars but only a subsidy. i think it would be our dollars collectively

Ahh, so you don't think their money should be their money. You think that because it was taxed from you, you should dictate how it's used.

Do you scrutinize police officers too? Their salary comes from your taxes, do you demand 100% approval of every action they take on and off the job when utilizing that money?

lol I think the money is a last resort and should reflect a desire to not accept it. As in just the basics. Absolutely the government should be able to dictate in this case because we are the government.

If it is their money as in you get what you give then perhaps we should have our own separate accounts. Meaning that you can only get out the amount you put in and if you put in nothing you get nothing. That would miss the point of being able to help as many as we can. We have to dictate as we already do.

Do you ever see those signs in the grocers that say wic approved? We collectively should at least be able to agree on the basic items it takes to sustain a life and offer that. That does not take away choice completely.

You should know very well that leo's are held to very strict standards.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You're actually saying we should pay people to not break the law? Are you serious?

When it's a cost effective way of enforcing the law (and keeping people fed as a side bonus)? Absolutely.

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
This can be a good idea. Beats people buying candy and soda with it.

So what do you do when people buy healthy food, and their 30 day food budget now only lasts 5 days? People who aren't on SNAP already have this issue. Healthy food is too damn expensive compared to junk food and that's to say nothing of the poor who simply don't have access to cooking facilities.

Did you know that in my town, which has a minor homeless population and a massive welfare population (it's one of the lowest income areas in the entire US, with the median income being $13,000 per year), that our fast food restaurants actually give out free food to the homeless every night from 8:30 to 9:30 because they're throwing it away anyways. The homeless get SNAP, but they have no way to cook the food they can buy, so they're instead given the leftovers from Subway, Arbys, Tim Hortons, etc... each night.

I've got a bad habit of looking in other peoples carts stemming from being so self conscious over what I would buy when I was on SNAP, and I've never seen anything that suggests to me that SNAP recipients are eating any more unhealthy than everyone else.

a reply to: Aazadan

I understand that healthier food is more expensive. That's a completely different issue.

My point was that food stamps allows someone to go into a convenience store and buy candy and soda.

Boxes of household staples, such as, bread, milk, cheese etc...IMO, would reduce waste and cost us less as taxpayers.

a reply to: Aazadan

When it's a cost effective way of enforcing the law (and keeping people fed as a side bonus)? Absolutely.

That would be... never.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

our fast food restaurants actually give out free food to the homeless every night from 8:30 to 9:30 because they're throwing it away anyways. The homeless get SNAP, but they have no way to cook the food they can buy, so they're instead given the leftovers from Subway, Arbys, Tim Hortons, etc... each night.

I take my hat off to them! If only more places would follow that example!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

When it's a cost effective way of enforcing the law (and keeping people fed as a side bonus)? Absolutely.

That would be... never.

TheRedneck

No, that would be now. Courts take time and money. Jails take time and money. The legal system takes time and money. Policing takes time and money. All of these institutions are currently over leveraged. Food security is a very cost effective way to keep the crime rate down, because it eliminates a large motivator for crime. It doesn't eliminate it all of course, but it does save us a lot of money.

a reply to: TheRedneck

"You're actually saying we should pay people to not break the law? Are you serious?"


Dead serious - It's a lot cheaper than paying the cost of incarcerating and feeding hungry criminals, some of who would rather be in jail and fed than starving on the street.


11 Facts About Hunger in the US

"1 in 6 people in America face hunger."

"49 million Americans struggle to put food on the table."

"In the US, hunger isn’t caused by a lack of food, but rather the continued prevalence of poverty".

Quote source:
www.dosomething.org...

Excuse me for quoting relieable sources - I can't always trust my judgement - After all I passionately blogged for
Trump in the last election - Believing him when he said he wasn't going to cut social welfare benefits.

But really nothing changes does it.

"The rich get rich and the poor get poorer'

And the Donald has proven to be a true Republican after all hasn't he? - Cut benefits for the poor
and increase benefits for the rich.

Increase the divide between the rich and poor - Divide and conquer - Welcome to the New World Order!

Sounds like the same old world odor* doesn't it ?

*That's not a spelling mistake - odor not order - In any case it stinks!

a reply to: AlienView

I'm sorry... it took me a while to figure out how to reply. I have never had someone seriously suggest that before. But let's look at the possibility a little deeper, shall we?

So, we're going to pay people to not commit crimes. Let's say that actually passed into law. How much is needed? $20k a year should be enough, right? There's 327 million people in the US. At $20k a year, that's 6,540,000,000,000 ($6.54 trillion) per year. Last I heard, we spend about $50 billion on inmates per year.

I think your math is off. $6.54 trillion > $50 billion. A lot '>'.

Oh, but you then say, only the poor, right? Sorry, doesn't work like that. If you say not committing a crime is a service, then we have to pay everyone who doesn't commit a crime. That includes you, me, Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Bill Clinton, DONALD TRUMP, and everyone else who hasn't committed a crime this year.

And then, what do we do about the people we have paid, say, through November who then go out and commit a crime? They already got paid for most of the year... how do you propose we get our money back? Maybe we could do it monthly... less waste when (not if) criminals commit crimes and lose their 'salary.'

By the way... Michael D. Tanner, the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute, said on July 7, 1995, that paying poor people actually increases crime rates.

I believe it is clear that our current social welfare system is a significant cause of juvenile crime and violence in America today.

While we're considering that... I wonder if Nikolas Cruz was just hungry when he killed 17 people in a school in Parkland Florida? Someone should have bought him a Big Mac I guess...

Oh, and let's not forget the inflation aspect. Since everyone who isn't in jail is getting their $20k, the price of food is going to go up. Soon we'll need to have a COLA raise... $22k... $26k... $30k... I wonder how long it will be before everyone is getting $100k a year and still can't afford food?

In other words, it's a ridiculous idea. No, wait... a ludicrous idea... no, no, make that an insanely stoopid idea. Excuse me now while I go get my epi-pen out... I'm allergic to stoopid.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: pavil

Not here. No "hot food." No alcohol. No tobacco products. Sometimes certain vitamins will go on it.

I think some people just don't understand how SNAP works, or maybe it's just different in other states.

TheRedneck

So agree with every, what should be obvious, points you made Red.

Dont know how it is where your at Pavil, here in Phoenix I seen Jack in the Box and KFC with "ebt accepted" signs at their restaurants. Some grocery stores will cook and prepare food and keep them in coolers to make it ebt eligible.

My grandma and other elderlies in my area use to get usda boxes. Wasn't bad with most items. I liked their canned juices, cheese (actually pretty fresh soft and delicious), some canned fruits for casseroles and soups, and with their beans and rice I couldn't tell the difference from better brand or free stuff. Butter came in handy too for cooking only tho. Sometimes they had canned peanuts and boxed raisins made good trail mix. The rest was junked or passed off.