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

Question for any who believe that food stamp purchases should have a limit:

Does that inclination that your "tax dollars" give you a voice in how they are spent also extend to military spending?

Because certainly....I think the nearly $1 trillion spent every year on the military is FAR more wasteful than the steaks consumed by the nations poor.

For perspective, the nation spends about $80 billion a year on SNAP. That is barely 0.0615% of the annual national budget. For the life of me, I cannot figure why we are even talking about something that is less than 1/10th of 1% of the annual budget.

Eventually, Republicans will end up deciding that FOOD shouldn't be bought on food stamps.

I really don't think the average person on food stamps is buying steak, they're figuring out how to get by on less than $20 a day.

a reply to: Puppylove
I guess if you say less than 1/3rd it sounds trivial..lmao.

a reply to: Aazadan

How does cutting someone pay check help them out? All it does is make them poorer.

What do they think they're gonna do with the steak - - - have a big backyard shindig?

We buy steaks because they're flavorful. We slice them thin, saute them, then use them in a rice or noodle dish.

We never use them whole.

a reply to: roadgravel

People who listen to and believe in this trash talk from the wealthy are out of touch or just plain ignorant.

But it's not typically the wealthy mouthing these attitudes. If you will notice, there is a "pecking-order", as I like to call it. People who have barely made it themselves, quite often. The "I've got mine, and you can go to hell and take your hungry children with you, nobody is going to threaten what I have".

I think many of these attitudes come from lower socio-economic brackets. Not from the super-rich, or even middle-middle class.

a reply to: coldkidc

So basically, you wouldn't allow anything above what would keep someone alive. You wouldn't allow them to buy even the most merger items if it would just give them a little happiness?

So at least be brave enough to answer the following questions. Do you apply this type of moral thinking to the following groups:

A. Families of active military (about 25% receive foods stamps).
B. Severely disabled people in hospitals
C. Severely disabled people living at home
D. Children in foster homes
E. Elderly in nursing homes
F. Elderly living at home.
G. Children of parents who are working full-time but do not make enough to afford food

Would you include all of these groups, just some or all?

a reply to: coldkidc

I have never heard that. As someone who used to get a case of strep once a year, the doctor would recommend popsicles, pudding and once I could handle the temperature, broths.

And I'm Canadian. Our healthcare system is the better tested, tried and true predecessor to Obamacare.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It would be easier to put stamps on the few items not approved. Food stamps are not YOUR money, it's someone else's money. It should be treated as such.

Ah

If you don't have money for food and I take you out to dinner, do you order the most expensive item on the menu, or keep it simple?

Me? Personally? Well, I would order the cheapest thing and offer to share it with someone. Usually, restaurant meals are FAR too big for me to eat in one sitting. If no one else was there to share the plate, I would take it home and eat it the next day.

I always look for the cheaper items, always. I am not asking others to act in a manner I wouldn't act. If I ordered lobster I would feel like a complete prick, rightfully so.

You're not asking others to act in a manner you would not. Okay. I get that. I keep a budget, too, and am on a tight leash to do it.

Have you ever asked yourself (or looked into) the reasons that people are in need of assistance just so that they can eat?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Question for any who believe that food stamp purchases should have a limit:

Does that inclination that your "tax dollars" give you a voice in how they are spent also extend to military spending?

Because certainly....I think the nearly $1 trillion spent every year on the military is FAR more wasteful than the steaks consumed by the nations poor.

For perspective, the nation spends about $80 billion a year on SNAP. That is barely 0.0615% of the annual national budget. For the life of me, I cannot figure why we are even talking about something that is less than 1/10th of 1% of the annual budget.

Because it's visible and people are far more likely to lash out at the small thing they can see than the much larger invisible thing they can't.

It's the same logic as when the government partially shut down not too long ago, that the areas shut down were public services that cost little money rather than the behind the scenes stuff that used all the cash.

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: roadgravel


I think many of these attitudes come from lower socio-economic brackets. Not from the super-rich, or even middle-middle class.

It's welfare abuse is a myth pushed by the elite so the angry of the middle class can be directed away from them and towards the poor. There was poster complaining about their 40% tax rate caused by welfare - they had no understanding of how little actually goes towards social services.

I still think this law was just another ploy to push this myth without supporting facts.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Aazadan

How does cutting someone pay check help them out? All it does is make them poorer.

Because there's only a certain amount of work to go around. We've reached the point where not everyone has to work in order to meet the needs and wants of society. Lets say society is 100 people and 1000 work hours are required to meet their needs. With a 30 hour work week 33 people need to work. If you increase the work week to 40 hours, now only 25 people need to work and you've increased unemployment. That is the situation we're in now. The work week was lowered, among other reasons to try and reduce unemployment. Despite the reduction we still have 31% real unemployment. Honestly, the work week these days should be closer to 20 hours. With the massive productivity gains of the past 30 years, and 65 years of the work week remaining where it was, this was a correction that has been looming for awhile.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

For perspective, the nation spends about $80 billion a year on SNAP. That is barely 0.0615% of the annual national budget.

Right?!!! I know!! It's disgusting. And some politicians are right now, actively, in legislative bodies that want to cut ALL OF IT.

Thanks for posting this post that you posted. Good post.

a reply to: Puppylove

I'd rather no one was in this boat. There's no good reason anyone should be other than greed plain and simple. The world is not honestly that scarce on resources, it's all BS.

True, in the US they sometimes pay farmers not to grow crops.

a reply to: Daughter2

Couldn't agree with you more. Kansas spent $40,000 to fish out alleged drug abusers on their assistance programs. Out of the 4,000 tested, only 11 were positive. But let's villify people anyways.

a reply to: Daughter2

welfare abuse is a myth pushed by the elite so the angry of the middle class can be directed away from them and towards the poor. There was poster complaining about their 40% tax rate caused by welfare - they had no understanding of how little actually goes towards social services.

I still think this law was just another ploy to push this myth without supporting facts.

I absolutely agree. I wish we could see it broken down, and someday it might need to be, before people start assaulting the poor in groceries stores! I really think it's such a small amount that goes towards feeding the poor. If the 40% went towards that, there might be an argument. But it's such a tiny fraction of that.

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: Daughter2

Couldn't agree with you more. Kansas spent $40,000 to fish out alleged drug abusers on their assistance programs. Out of the 4,000 tested, only 11 were positive. But let's villify people anyways.

Do they have $40,000???.. I thought they were so broke they had to sell porn.

originally posted by: babybunnies
Eventually, Republicans will end up deciding that FOOD shouldn't be bought on food stamps.

I really don't think the average person on food stamps is buying steak, they're figuring out how to get by on less than $20 a day.

I make $750/month. I get $78/month in food stamps. After paying bills I have $50 left over, if that. That normally goes to my daughter because my ex refuses to pay anything for her care. Even though my daughter gets $25/week from SSI, my daughter's group home allows her to spend it on snacks, so when her electric razor breaks (and she can't use a regular one), guess who ends up using what little funds I have to buy her a new one? I even have a food pantry delivery, and every Thursday I go downstairs to eat dinner in the common room in the apartment with the senior residents. According to food stamps, even though my daughter lives with me on the weekends, I am a single person household. Yet, according to the food pantry, I am a two person household. Thankfully the food pantry helps a lot because my daughter, with her autism meds, literally eats me out of house and home. And yes, I do my darndest to my it last!

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon

They honestly believe that poor people have the incentive to stay poor, and can't fathom why someone wouldn't try to acquire skills to better themselves.

You don't understand? Then you NEVER tried to educated yourself. Most poor are elderly, children or disabled people. For this group, there is no incentive to stay poor.

What you believe is not true.......For most people who benefit from foods stamps, they simply can not work.

It's a shame this false belief would cause you to harm the most defenseless of society.

Are you yelling at me, or the people I was referring to?

a reply to: Spider879

That's what they did in hopes of introducing a new, restrictive bill for their assistance programs with that momentum. Too bad they ended up wasting about 900% more than they saved had they not done the study.