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.
I cannot answer your questions.
They are to many what ifs.
With really no substantial backing of the scenarios you mention.
In other words, you have no idea. I don't give a rat's backside about all these insults flying back and forth, I thought Conservatives gave a damn about saving money. I'm Conservative, I want to save money, and this doesn't look to be saving any kind of money.
These are not "what ifs", these are reality. The boxes aren't going to appear out of thin air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiffnecked
Prison inmates including illegal aliens will work on federal FEMA farms, already in existence, all across the country growing these crops and raising the livestock. "Back to Work" welfare programs will supply the labor for the packaging and distribution centers. The Feds have already struck a deal with WalMart to utilize their trucking, warehouses and distribution centers to get these goods to the public. in order to prop up the fledging US Postal Service they will provide delivery services to the elderly, crippled and disabled after they've completed a needs based vetting program. Money saver all the way around.
Where are you getting these facts, or are you making up what you think should happen? I've seen no mention of prison inmates doing the work or any "back to work" welfare programs. Also, from what I read, stores like Walmart aren't benefiting at all, in fact, Walmart would be one of the hardest hit retailers from this plan.
How have "the Feds...struck a deal with Walmart" when this hasn't even been voted on? Right now it's a proposal, so why would there be any deal making when it's unknown if it would be implemented? And the fact that you said they would use the U.S. Postal Service for only those who have been vetted...which, people on food stamps are already "vetted", reveals that these are not facts, these are your ideas, and frankly, they aren't going to work.
I realize that many on the right absolutely hate and despise anyone who needs help - and I'm not fond of lifelong welfare recipients either, unless it's due to a disability or their age, but here is what everyone seems to miss in all of this pot banging about "lobsters" (I've NEVER seen anyone on food stamps buy lobster):
Essentially they would still be getting crap food, but now there's the extra cost to package, store, and deliver the food. And they STILL get half of their food stamp money on a card - so you're not going to stop them from buying chips, bottled juice, ice cream, etc. with this plan.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply state that they can't buy certain foods with their cards? They already can't buy hot food, they already can't buy non food, they already can't buy beer, wine, etc. So why not just say, "pop, chips, candy, ice cream, cookies, etc" cannot be bought with food stamps?
Wouldn't that be far less costly than setting up a box program with equally crappy food?
I've been telling people on this forum for years that fresh, healthy food is far more expensive than junk. I keep getting people arguing with me about that, but not once has anyone proven that it is cheaper to eat fresh, healthy food. It's not. That's why a lot of the poor are fatter.
Everything that is cheap is filled with starch or is otherwise fattening. I see a lot of frozen foods, juice in a bottle - which is usually laden with sugar, a lot of beans, rice, and potatoes, bread, and lunch meats. I do not see steak and lobster and beer. GMAFB.
To state that they will eat "healthier" by giving them canned food is ridiculous. It's not any healthier than what they are eating now. And like I said, that poor diet of fats, sugars, salt, preservatives is going to cost you in the long run anyway when they go to the doctor for whatever ails them that was caused by a crappy diet. You also pay for their Medical - so how, exactly, is this saving anyone any money?
As a Conservative, I want to SAVE money - I want more of my own damn money when I get paid.
As for the person asking how it's possible to know how they pay, it's easy to see what they are paying with as the swipe machine is right there, out in the open. An EBT card is very easy to spot. What do people look at while in line? Their shoes? I always look at the interaction going on in front of me. I'm not looking at people to see what they are paying with because I want to trash on them in my mind, I'm looking at people who are in front of me currently checking out because I want them to hurry up so I can get on with it.
Yes, WIC is a good program. As nearly as I can tell, this proposal isn't WIC or anything like it. But if I'm wrong about that, I will withdraw my objections.
I'm so old I once actually qualified for the excess commodity food program. It was terrible. Every month I got a box with dehydrated mashed potatoes, white flour, and dried milk (to this day, I swear they were all made of the same stuff, just textured differently), oily block cheese, corn syrup, and off-brand peanut butter. I understood very well that the point of the program was to give food producers a reliable market for excess and substandard product paid for by the US taxpayer.
OH, Lord...that's terrible. Yeah, just throw some crap at poor people. (Talk about losing weight).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
Trump's budget proposal cuts 237 billion from MediCARE too. So much for that promise.
UnderThe article says with 100% American grown food."
#MAGA
Once again our President Trump is in it for America!
Oh, right. I smell B S. How many times has he been WRONG after making sweeping and unrealistic statements? Just more about doing something he doesn't really understand, but he thinks this will sound good.
Well that certainly would be the case if Trump placed someone in charge of the program who had no experience or sole experience was to fight against healthy foods. It is not as if Trump would appoint a lobbyist for the snack food industry.
Surely, Trump would appoint someone with a degree in nutrition and people would be able to tailor the box they received if they had allergies or intolerances to gluten, or lactose.
Hah, doubtful. Does this sound like something the King would do? I can pretty much tell right now, that it would be the cheapest way to go possible..no thought to real nutrition, intolerances, etc. I think people should be allowed to buy what they want and need, but as mentioned, maybe add restrictions of stuff like candy, soda, chips.
It's funny how everyone imagines in their minds what will be.
Most food consumed in the US is sourced in the US. The primary exception is fruit/ vegetables, especially out of season. The food boxes will not contain fresh, so it's not an issue.
Canned fruit/ vegetables are not necessarily sourced in the US.
The cheesy emphasis on 100% American - grown is just a nod to the base.
Yes. My friend is always pointing out the many items - canned, packaged or produce that is made elsewhere, all in regular markets. He has a thing about it, knowing of the quality and packaging standards of. If one thinks that suddenly a lot of food will be "American Made" and on top of it, provided to the poorest individuals, they are dreaming.
In other words, you have no idea. I don't give a rat's backside about all these insults flying back and forth, I thought Conservatives gave a damn about saving money. I'm Conservative, I want to save money, and this doesn't look to be saving any kind of money.
These are not "what ifs", these are reality. The boxes aren't going to appear out of thin air.
Where are you getting these facts, or are you making up what you think should happen? I've seen no mention of prison inmates doing the work or any "back to work" welfare programs. Also, from what I read, stores like Walmart aren't benefiting at all, in fact, Walmart would be one of the hardest hit retailers from this plan.
How have "the Feds...struck a deal with Walmart" when this hasn't even been voted on? Right now it's a proposal, so why would there be any deal making when it's unknown if it would be implemented? And the fact that you said they would use the U.S. Postal Service for only those who have been vetted...which, people on food stamps are already "vetted", reveals that these are not facts, these are your ideas, and frankly, they aren't going to work.
I realize that many on the right absolutely hate and despise anyone who needs help - and I'm not fond of lifelong welfare recipients either, unless it's due to a disability or their age, but here is what everyone seems to miss in all of this pot banging about "lobsters" (I've NEVER seen anyone on food stamps buy lobster):
Essentially they would still be getting crap food, but now there's the extra cost to package, store, and deliver the food. And they STILL get half of their food stamp money on a card - so you're not going to stop them from buying chips, bottled juice, ice cream, etc. with this plan.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to simply state that they can't buy certain foods with their cards? They already can't buy hot food, they already can't buy non food, they already can't buy beer, wine, etc. So why not just say, "pop, chips, candy, ice cream, cookies, etc" cannot be bought with food stamps?
Wouldn't that be far less costly than setting up a box program with equally crappy food?
I've been telling people on this forum for years that fresh, healthy food is far more expensive than junk. I keep getting people arguing with me about that, but not once has anyone proven that it is cheaper to eat fresh, healthy food. It's not. That's why a lot of the poor are fatter.
Everything that is cheap is filled with starch or is otherwise fattening. I see a lot of frozen foods, juice in a bottle - which is usually laden with sugar, a lot of beans, rice, and potatoes, bread, and lunch meats. I do not see steak and lobster and beer. GMAFB.
To state that they will eat "healthier" by giving them canned food is ridiculous. It's not any healthier than what they are eating now. And like I said, that poor diet of fats, sugars, salt, preservatives is going to cost you in the long run anyway when they go to the doctor for whatever ails them that was caused by a crappy diet. You also pay for their Medical - so how, exactly, is this saving anyone any money?
As a Conservative, I want to SAVE money - I want more of my own damn money when I get paid.
As for the person asking how it's possible to know how they pay, it's easy to see what they are paying with as the swipe machine is right there, out in the open. An EBT card is very easy to spot. What do people look at while in line? Their shoes? I always look at the interaction going on in front of me. I'm not looking at people to see what they are paying with because I want to trash on them in my mind, I'm looking at people who are in front of me currently checking out because I want them to hurry up so I can get on with it.
Be patient many tentative deals and agreements take place behind closed doors that you won't hear about. The government is good about bending rules when it had too. WalMart benefits cause they will be getting paid to provide that service. America save because we will be using infrastructure already in place.
Nothing pisses me off more than assumptions like this. I'm not poor because I am irresponsible. I almost guarantee I budget my money better than you do. I know for damn sure I budget it better than the government does. I'm not poor because I'm irresponsible, I'm poor because I CAN'T FREAKING WORK!!!!
I don't need, nor want someone telling me what I can and can't cook and when. You wouldn't like it either. I can do my own food shopping. At the store. Like everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
No one is chastising you for the financial hardship you are in. And no one is telling you what you can or cannot eat. What this bill is proposing is , if you take assistance this is what you get. Take it or leave it.
I would love to eat crab legs, lobster tails , and filets on a daily basis, washing it down with a $100 bottle of bourbon but guess what, i can't afford it. I eat what i can afford, and in the case of this, it is what you can afford.
Surely, so does the poster too, eats what she can afford. I did not see where she implied she was living "high on the hog" or having alcohol, just wanting to not be so unhealthily limited and able to have whatever foods she can choose from.
I guess the 'meat, poultry or fish' will have to be the canned type.
"I guess the 'meat, poultry or fish' will have to be the canned type."
The idea is NOT to ELIMINATE ALL money.
Therefore they STILL can by that meat your are so concerned about.
If you ACTUALLY know what Trump has proposed , you wouldn't make asinine comments.
Show us where you found REAL meat and fish are going to be replaced with canned meat and fish.
You have NO IDEA what is going to be in these packages.
But, then again if some libs couldn't twist ans distort what Trump says and does, they would have NOTHING to say!
Give them MRE's
If they are good enough for our military personnel, they should be good enough for food stamp recipients.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 02-14-2018 at 05:33 AM..
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.
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.
