U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2015, 04:44 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
8,090 posts, read 4,716,568 times
Reputation: 2877

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by katzpaw View Post
Walker and the other bastards in Wisconsin have a passed bill banning "luxury" items (Like ketchup, and canned pork & beans) from SNAP.

Addicting Info – Wisconsin GOP Passes Bill Banning Poor People From Buying Shellfish, Potatoes And Ketchup

The list of “disallowed” foods, which you can view here, also includes the following:

Cranberry sauce and pie filling. (Poor people can forget about making dessert for Thanksgiving dinner.)
Creamed vegetables
Baked beans
Pickles
Pork and beans
Frozen veggies that come in packages featuring pasta, nuts, rice, cheese, or meats
French fries and hash browns
Sharp cheddar cheese, Swiss, and fresh mozzarella, shredded and sliced cheeses (except American cheese of course), cheese food, spreads, and products. Even Kosher cheese is banned unless you apply to get a specific check for it which basically could identify who the poor Jewish people are.
Canned peas and green beans
Albacore tuna, red salmon, and fish fillets
Bagels, pita bread, English muffins
White rice and wild rice
Taco shells
Almond, rice, goat, and soy milk.
Brown eggs and any eggs produced by cage-free or free range chickens, which basically helps corporate chicken farms
Several kinds of infant food
Anything in bulk
Anything organic or natural
red and yellow potatoes

Basically, Wisconsin Republicans are making it more difficult for poor people to buy food, let alone enjoy the food they eat.

You are being intellectually dishonest. The list you are referring to, is WIC, not SNAP. WIC and SNAP are two totally different things.

The link you posted links to this PDF file for WIC.

If you go into a grocery store, you should see signs that say "WIC approved". In regards to cereal, it is stuff like "Chex" or "Cheerios", and not fruity pebbles or frosted flakes. WIC is designed to make sure women "eat healthily" for the sake of the child.

WIC is actually a benefit in addition to SNAP. And is basically just fresh fruit/vegetables, milk, healthy cereal, cheese, eggs, and peanut butter. You can still buy whatever you want on SNAP, but it is a program that is intended to make sure pregnant women eat more healthily, and to make sure children also eat more healthily. It by no means is a limitation on what can be bought with SNAP. In fact, with WIC, you practically don't even need SNAP, but you are still given your full benefit amount alongside WIC.


The real problem in my opinion when it comes to SNAP, is that it encourages people to eat a lot of "ready-made" foods, and drink soda. The SNAP stipend isn't that much if you're eating TV dinners, hot-pockets, and frozen pizzas. But if you cook at home with ingredients like beans and rice(which together are a whole protein), and drink water. You won't use even half your monthly stipend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2015, 08:13 AM
 
3,463 posts, read 2,729,746 times
Reputation: 3990
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
A Federal judge ruled that Rick Scott's (Florida) mandatory testing bill was unconstitutional. It was an executive order mandating drug testing for all Welfare recipients. What was so idiotic about it was that the people who cannot even afford food or gas had to pay for the test. If they passed, and the majority did, then they were reimbursed by the taxpayers. I'm not totally against rules and regulations to prevent fraud, but it became a very expensive legal mess.

Court rules Florida
Well, let's hope this one doesn't get past the Senate either! Hey, I am all for cracking down on the drug users and other dead beats on the system but the additional cost to the tax payers to implement both programs for every single aid recipient is astronomical just to catch the very low percentage of those who are actually abusing it.

Wisconsin Assembly passes bills limiting junk food, requiring drug testing for aid recipients
http://www.startribune.com/wisconsin-assembly-passes-junk-food-drug-testing-bills/303686211/

The Republican-sponsored measures face an uncertain future, however. They still must pass the Senate, which last session refused to take up the junk food bill. Also, it would take hard-to-get federal waivers to enact the junk food restriction and drug tests for food stamp recipients.

There are also concerns about whether the state would allocate enough money to pay for the drug tests or the grocery store software needed to track food purchases.

Grocery stores have also balked at the proposal because new software would have to be installed to track spending by food stamp users, which is estimated to cost as much as $55 million.

The federal government funds food stamp benefits. The limitations imposed under the bill would require a federal waiver, something no other state has received for such a proposal.

Eleven states already require drug testing of at least some welfare recipients, according to data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. And four states require drug-testing of at least some people filing for unemployment compensation.

But the idea has run into legal problems. A federal appeals court in December affirmed a ruling that a law in Florida requiring mandatory drug testing of welfare benefit applicants was unconstitutional. And Georgia officials last year put on hold a new law requiring drug testing of food stamp recipients amid concerns about its legality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2015, 08:19 AM
 
3,279 posts, read 6,610,192 times
Reputation: 8308
Poor people should only be given nutraloaf. If you want something that has flavor, you have to work for it like the rest of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2015, 01:17 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,269 posts, read 15,913,499 times
Reputation: 7899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn-fused View Post
But the idea has run into legal problems. A federal appeals court in December affirmed a ruling that a law in Florida requiring mandatory drug testing of welfare benefit applicants was unconstitutional. And Georgia officials last year put on hold a new law requiring drug testing of food stamp recipients amid concerns about its legality.
It's a tough situation. There are many people who abuse the system and probably more who are only trying to eke by on minimum wage earnings or a fixed income.

Imagine you are 89 years old, worked 50 years and fought in WWII. Through no fault of your own, your savings are gone. You need help paying your bills, and you apply for government assistance. Do people think a WWII veteran who never committed a crime in his life should be humiliated like this?

One big problem is the cost. People who already don't have enough are being told to go to a lab and get a drug test. So who pays for it? A high percentage of people who receive assistance from the government cannot drive due to strokes or other illnesses or disabilities. Many are mentally ill. In those cases, does the taxpayer provide transportation or pay for in-home services?

In FL the initial cost to the taxpayers was under $50,000 before the program was halted. That's why I cannot blame FL Governor Scott and the Republicans for the entire mess. To the best of my knowledge, much of the cost is from lawsuits after the ACLU got involved. That's why I don't like labels. I am neither Liberal nor Conservative. I just try to use common sense.

SNAP and WIC are good programs, but they have flaws. Some beneficiaries are lazy and wasteful and others are responsible and just had a run of bad luck. I also believe there are many people who qualify but are too proud to ask for help. I've met a few elderly folks who might qualify for Medicaid assistance or Food Stamps. Several years ago a 91 year old lady said to me "I don't want the government poking its nose in my business."

Now I see she had a point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-05-2015, 03:40 PM
 
4,912 posts, read 2,884,964 times
Reputation: 1251
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-310 View Post
Using my money to pay for stuff I will snoop away.
How about when your money is going to pay for new football stadia? Do you snoop away there too?

http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...tball-stadium/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:37 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top