Trump Administration Wants To Decide What Food SNAP Recipients Will Get

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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.

We already pay people not to commit crime. What do you think the welfare system is? It's a legal support structure to keep people from turning to crime for support.

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.

Your payment for not committing a crime is you don't go to jail. You don't suddenly find yourself unemployed because you couldn't get to work. You don't find your car repoed because your paychecks stopped. You don't find all of your belongings confiscated and sold off by your landlord because you went to jail and couldn't pay rent.

People without jobs? They don't have that security. When faced with destitution or crime, most will pick crime. Would you start stealing to feed your hungry kid if you had no money and no income stream?

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.

First of all, Cato isn't credible. Second of all, here's a link for you law.yale.edu...(2).pdf it's even more recent. It shows a strong correlation between regularly staggered payments and crime rates, in fact it makes specific note that just before the next payment (whether welfare or a paycheck) crime spikes as people run out of money. Sufficient regular payments that allow people to support themselves is a good way to reduce crime.

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...

I don't know. Maybe the armed security guard they had on staff was hungry though, and that's why he was too busy to actually deal with a security threat. Or maybe security guards are just ineffective.

originally posted by: wickd_wazeThe rest was junked or passed off.

You don't think it's better for people to buy foods they enjoy or that their diets require instead so that it's not just thrown away?

a reply to: Aazadan

If you want food you can enjoy. Buy it yourself.
If you want assistance with groceries. Be grateful for what you get. You can't be a beggar and a chooser.

a reply to: TheRedneck

"So, we're going to pay people to not commit crimes.........."

OK, I do it too - Your exaggerating to make a point.

But of course I'm not saying that - That would be ridiculous.

I'm saying, plain and simple, that hungry people and people who face starvation will often, and out of desperation,
commit crimes to survive - A hungry population is crime in the making.

Yeah, right they should go our and get a job - But maybe they can't work for any number of valid reasons.
- And if you start forcing people to work for slave wages..........You might be alright with that, some greedy
bosses who can no longer hire enough illegal immigrants, might be alright with that - But I'm not.

Yes, there are people who are abusing the system and will take advantage of any government hand-out
they can get - But you have to assume most people are honest.

And even if you can force government benefit collectors to work if they are able bodied no matter what the job
- You have to ask yourself is this cost effective? - Do you really want employees who are totally unambitious
and will do the minimum amount of work and take their time doing it? - Cheaper to give them their food stamps
and let those who really want to work do the work.

And because this SNAP money goes right back into the economy and is saving the cost of the crime that
might occur if it wasn't available - It is less costly than you might think.

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
You can't be a beggar and a chooser.

Money says I can. Money allows me to get help while making my own choices. You simply want to make a persons choice for them.

a reply to: Aazadan

No. By all means, buy what you want. With your money.
Not taxpayers money.

But to be clear.
I think the proposed idea is a box of staples. Stuff that everyone buys anyway. Alongside cash.

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
a reply to: Aazadan

No. By all means, buy what you want. With your money.
Not taxpayers money.

Once it leaves government hands it's no longer taxpayers money.

a reply to: Aazadan

Says who? That makes no sense.

originally posted by: Ursushorribilis
a reply to: Aazadan

Says who? That makes no sense.

So at what point does it stop being taxpayer money? Is it still taxpayer money after the store has collected it? Is it still taxpayer money when the store uses it to pay their vendors? Is it still taxpayer money when those vendors use it to buy from farms?

a reply to: Aazadan

We already pay people not to commit crime. What do you think the welfare system is? It's a legal support structure to keep people from turning to crime for support.

Is that what you think?

Your payment for not committing a crime is you don't go to jail.

That is NOT what I asked. I specifically asked if you seriously suggested paying people to not commit crimes. You replied yes.

Please pick a position and stick to it. Your just arguing for the sake of arguing now.

When faced with destitution or crime, most will pick crime. Would you start stealing to feed your hungry kid if you had no money and no income stream?

History says differently. There was a much higher rate of poverty during the Great depression than there is today in the US, and the poverty was more abject. There were no social programs to fall back on. Yet, the crime rate was not as high as it is today.

Society has steadily devolved during my lifetime. We are more affluent than ever, yet we have less security and more crime. We're steadily moving in the wrong direction, and you apparently want to step on the gas. I say no, turn around and go back where it's less dangerous to step outside one's house.

First of all, Cato isn't credible. Second of all...

Your link just proves what Tanner said: those consuming social welfare are more likely to commit crimes. So is it true or not? You have two sources, one you call not credible and the other you call credible, both saying the same thing, the exact opposite of the position you took a few posts back. Pick a position.

Maybe the armed security guard they had on staff was hungry though, and that's why he was too busy to actually deal with a security threat. Or maybe security guards are just ineffective.

Or maybe you need more than one security guard to cover a campus with multiple buildings and over 3000 students. Ever consider that?

TheRedneck

a reply to: AlienView

But of course I'm not saying that - That would be ridiculous.

originally posted by: AlienView
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.

Yes, you did say that.

The rest of your post is suggesting I want to get rid of the SNAP program. That is a lie. I only support saving money by delivering food directly instead of paying a middleman (a grocery store) to do it in a less efficient manner.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

So at what point does it stop being taxpayer money?

As soon as it leaves the government's hands.

But it's still charity until it leaves the recipient's hands. Where I come from, charity is appreciated, not squandered so more can be demanded.

TheRedneck

I wonder if this will be as successful as Trump steaks were.

originally posted by: roadgravel
I wonder if this will be as successful as Trump steaks were.

I'm now wondering if this whole post is based on a hoax - False news?

Can you tell me seriously that anyone in their right mind would suggest, for the purpose of saving government money,
set up a program that requires shipping food to peoples home just to limit what those people can eat? - When the
shipping costs would more than increase whatever was saved by limiting what the 'peasants' can eat?

CRAZY! - Nobody in their right mind would suggest this - right

"Trump says he doesn't want a 'poor person' to be in charge of US economy"

"Defending his appointment of a billionaire to promote the country’s economic growth, Donald Trump has said that he does not want poor people to hold economic roles in his administration......."


“Let Them Eat Cake”?

"“Let them eat cake” is the most famous quote attributed to Marie-Antoinette, the queen of France during the French Revolution. As the story goes, it was the queen’s response upon being told that her starving peasant subjects had no bread. Because cake is more expensive than bread, the anecdote has been cited as an example of Marie-Antoinette’s obliviousness to the conditions and daily lives of ordinary people.........
Quote source:
www.britannica.com...


So fellow peasants - don't worry - be happy - With billionaires in control why do you need food stamps?

For the peasants canned Spam should be good enough - Not enough money? - Try dog food

Well I've been doing some thinking on the matter. So since poor people getting to chose what they eat is too much of a privilege. Maybe we could round them up and gas them right? That would solve a lot of problems. But then who would run the dollar stores and Walmart? We all know how easy poor people have it. Sitting around eating lobsters and drinking Mountain Dew all day.

i had a friend try to borrow money from me. i offered to buy him groceries, then all of a sudden that was not good enough.

if someone asks me for money, thats the new trick. offer them groceries.
i told my friend, 'send me a list of what you need, and i will find a grocery store that delivers.'

if they are really strapped for cash, of course i need to buy them food.
if they want more money for drinking and cokaine tho?

Well I've been doing some thinking on the matter. So since poor people getting to chose what they eat is too much of a privilege. Maybe we could round them up and gas them right? That would solve a lot of problems. But then who would run the dollar stores and Walmart? We all know how easy poor people have it. Sitting around eating lobsters and drinking Mountain Dew all day.

There are plenty of fish heads out there and meat scraps.

Makes great soup.

We pay good money for that stuff here.

Know what a fresh Tuna head goes for?!

Feed a family of 8 with just the gills!

God Damn elitists.

Think you deserve wagyu tenderloins and sushi.

originally posted by: AlienView

originally posted by: roadgravel
I wonder if this will be as successful as Trump steaks were.

I'm now wondering if this whole post is based on a hoax - False news?

Can you tell me seriously that anyone in their right mind would suggest, for the purpose of saving government money,
set up a program that requires shipping food to peoples home just to limit what those people can eat? - When the
shipping costs would more than increase whatever was saved by limiting what the 'peasants' can eat?

CRAZY! - Nobody in their right mind would suggest this - right

"Trump says he doesn't want a 'poor person' to be in charge of US economy"

"Defending his appointment of a billionaire to promote the country’s economic growth, Donald Trump has said that he does not want poor people to hold economic roles in his administration......."


“Let Them Eat Cake”?

"“Let them eat cake” is the most famous quote attributed to Marie-Antoinette, the queen of France during the French Revolution. As the story goes, it was the queen’s response upon being told that her starving peasant subjects had no bread. Because cake is more expensive than bread, the anecdote has been cited as an example of Marie-Antoinette’s obliviousness to the conditions and daily lives of ordinary people.........
Quote source:
www.britannica.com...


So fellow peasants - don't worry - be happy - With billionaires in control why do you need food stamps?

For the peasants canned Spam should be good enough - Not enough money? - Try dog food

Gotta put your EBT money together to get the Crystal and beluga.

Ever eat spam?

How about canned corned beef hash?

You can get it halal too if you don't like american stuff.

Sweet feed is nice instead of muesli. $50 for a 100 lbs. Good for the teeth.

Harvest seaweed if near the ocean.

Fruitcakes pay big money for that stuff.

Make your own damn machiado.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

Well I've been doing some thinking on the matter. So since poor people getting to chose what they eat is too much of a privilege. Maybe we could round them up and gas them right? That would solve a lot of problems. But then who would run the dollar stores and Walmart? We all know how easy poor people have it. Sitting around eating lobsters and drinking Mountain Dew all day.

There are plenty of fish heads out there and meat scraps.

Makes great soup.

We pay good money for that stuff here.

Know what a fresh Tuna head goes for?!

Feed a family of 8 with just the gills!

I like fishing I just don't get out as much as I use to. Last spring my buddy and I caught 50 walleye in 4 hours. Last fall I got a couple Chinook and Atlantic Salmon. Get a couple salmon and it a lot of meat. Stuff goes for $16 a pound in the grocery store. I use to catch so much fish I didn't know what to do with it. I was giving gallon bags full of perch filet's away to family members. I have enough hunting and fishing equipment to survive the apocalypse.

originally posted by: wantsome

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

Well I've been doing some thinking on the matter. So since poor people getting to chose what they eat is too much of a privilege. Maybe we could round them up and gas them right? That would solve a lot of problems. But then who would run the dollar stores and Walmart? We all know how easy poor people have it. Sitting around eating lobsters and drinking Mountain Dew all day.

There are plenty of fish heads out there and meat scraps.

Makes great soup.

We pay good money for that stuff here.

Know what a fresh Tuna head goes for?!

Feed a family of 8 with just the gills!

I like fishing I just don't get out as much as I use to. Last spring my buddy and I caught 50 walleye in 4 hours. Last fall I got a couple Chinook and Atlantic Salmon. Get a couple salmon and it a lot of meat. Stuff goes for $16 a pound in the grocery store. I use to catch so much fish I didn't know what to do with it. I was giving gallon bags full of perch filet's away to family members. I have enough hunting and fishing equipment to survive the apocalypse.

LOL, believe it or not, my dream as a kid was to catch a big walleye!