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.
It's not going to be implemented, it's the stupidest idea ever. It will never get past the house and if Republicans want to waste budget reconciliation on this then so be it
People who can afford buffet restaurants every day get fat too. I imagine this reflects a good portion of your middle class obesity population, mostly in the south and Midwest.
I see plenty of fat middle class men with money to burn on motorcycles, trucks, boats, beer, chain restaurants, vacations, etc. I like "greasy spoon" type places every so often but what I have seen there is incredible, the amount of food one man can put down. I understand some of the stats for men are inverted, and lower income men (probably not on SNAP) have lower levels of obesity than middle income men.
The relationship we have with food is interesting. I had a friend who was in the obese category. He was an upper income computer geek, smart as they come, but he could not get a handle on the eating. He did pass away at a fairly young age from heart trouble.
While that's likely anecdotally true, the fact is that obesity is correlated to income level, AND, as it turns out... politics. I've already posted the data that the low-income receiving Food Stamps have the highest obesity rate. Pew Research has also indicated that Democrats receive Food Stamps at a rate of 2.2 to 1 compared to Republicans.
Also, I don't think that carrying one or two bags of groceries is difficult for most people
So you want to force people to walk two miles to the grocery store and back and force them to buy only a bag or two at a time, so they have to go back several times a week? Nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
If those foods are so bad, why should we allow anyone to buy them? It seems that the basis of this 'concern' has to do with the idea that we need to make decisions for the poor but everyone else is smarter and only buy nutritious foods. Here is a summary of the findings of a USDA study of food types purchased by SNAP vs non-SNAP households
Interesting. Thanks for those study results. I guess people using SNAP aren't gorging themselves on Ring-Dings as much as some think they are.
As for making decisions for others, it seems some on this thread want to make decisions for everyone ... but themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
I agree with you, this is great for physically disabled. No one knows what it's like to have trouble getting around until it happens to them. Unfortunately, and as usual there are people who can get around who will take advantage of it.
There are people who will try to get around any rule, regulation or law; that's just human nature. But it's certainly a minority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
I have no issue paying for SNAP but only for people who are physically disabled which includes the elderly. People, including myself do have a problem when able bodied people get SNAP, that is when good hearted people feel taken advantage of and it is abuse of hard working Americans who pay their tab.
How do you feel about able-bodied people who are working full-time who qualify for SNAP benefits? Because 60 percent of the people who qualify for SNAP, who aren't elderly or disabled, are working.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Yes, let's make them "suffer" and have to survive without Coke and ring-dings - or 54" flatscreen TVs.
You do like to blather on and exaggerate, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Why do you leftist liberals continue to endorse food stamps and other forms of welfare? It's not my responsibility to subsidize the food intake of other people.
e
I've been ignoring most of your silly posts, but is it my responsibility to subsidize the pavement that you drive or ride on?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
I don't hate poor people.
You're sure trying awfully hard to make us believe you do.
Quote:
And stop,p with the sales tax argument. That's a pittance to what they take out of the system.
You're not paying attention. The majority of people who qualify for SNAP are working; therefore, they pay income taxes and contribute to the system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane
Did you really go there?
Which "there" is pointing out the fact that an awful lot of military families are eligible for SNAP "going"?
I suppose that upsets the little fantasy that everyone who receives SNAP benefits is sitting on the sofa eating HoHos, surfing on their smartphones, watching Showtime, and driving to the grocery store in a new Cadillac SUV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
A) you're implying that I'm Christian. Wrong.
Why do you automatically ASSume that "religious" means "Christian"? That's your inference, not the implication of the person you are quoting. Learn the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust
Any healthy and able person with any kind of transportation to a grocery store and a schedule that allows them to go in person, but still orders delivered groceries is the scum of the earth.
Didn't read the link or the entire thread, didja?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamajane
I don't trust this. I suppose it depends on the delivery fee. I do know that when the idea of Medicaid recipients paying even a small co-pay, like five dollars, or premium comes up all hell breaks loose from the left because everything should be totally free for them. I can't imagine we will burden Poor people with these delivery fees. And again, if the fees exist for this group, the truly poor may not be able to swing it. That isn't really fair now is it.
LMAO, you didn't read your own link. The delivery fee is on the person placing the order and cannot be paid by SNAP.
Medicaid is a whole 'nother story. You're comparing apples and oranges, and failing miserably to make whatever point it is you're trying to make.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Yes, altruism is a key tenet of Judaism.
From your posts? You could have fooled me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
You must be one of those rare liberal Christians.
You don't get out much, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
Are you serious? You are going to present data that is 12 years old to prove me wrong? GIVE ME A BREAK
InformedConsent trots out this ancient data every time, and then misinterprets it. Her posts are better left ignored because she will never understand why she's wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
People talk about helping the poor through charitable donations, but listening to the same people speak about the poor with such disdain and resentment, I find it had to believe they'd be willing to give them one penny voluntarily. They are more likely to give them a kick in the teeth than anything else.
You got that right. They claim to have morals, and then wish ill upon people who are less fortunate. Nice.
No, I'm paying taxes - and a LOT of them - to support the library, and the roads, and send children to school. (Why do you assume I have a schoolchild? I don't.)
And the interview wasn't satire. It was the truth. (Just because a story is revealed about how a welfare mother uses money irresponsibly, you chalk it up to a "satire." Figures.)
I've mentioned many times how the US is one of only two countries which taxes its citizens who live abroad, and how it costs $2500 to give up citizenship.
Wouldn't it be worth it, though? Think about how much time you spend grousing about living in a society and how much your time is worth. Surely the amount of time you'd spend complaining over the rest of your life would be worth way more than $2,500. Even if you only think your time is worth $25/hour, that's only 100 hours. If you are seething about this for 20 minutes per day, then your citizenship revocation would pay for itself in less than a year.
So you want to force people to walk two miles to the grocery store and back and force them to buy only a bag or two at a time, so they have to go back several times a week? Nice.
What I said was (post #64):
"If an elderly and/or disabled person can walk but doesn't drive, and the grocery store is less than a mile or two away, it forces him or her to at least get some exercise. If the necessity of physically shopping for groceries is taken away, I think it would just encourage the person to be even more shut in and possibly 'lazy' then s/he might already be."
And to the above post, I then followed up with (post #94): "Actually, yes, I do think that IF she is capable of doing that with little trouble. I should have said that I am NOT talking about some elderly person who needs a walker or who has a lot of trouble walking due to arthritis or whatever. What I was thinking of when I wrote that was my mother (age 86) who is in very good health and has no trouble walking -- in fact, she participated in 5k runs until she was about 70. (I do admit that my mother is unusual.) I was also thinking of myself and my husband who are in our 60's and often walk four miles or more. Also, I don't think that carrying one or two bags of groceries is difficult for most people, although, of course, you may disagree with that."
Note that I said, "that I don't think that carrying one or two bags of groceries is difficult for most people" and then added that you "may disagree with that", which you have, and that is fine with me.
However, IF people are capable of walking up to two miles to a store and back with little difficulty, then no, I don't think that four trips a week to and from the grocery store is terrible unless as another poster pointed out, we are talking about a person who has difficulty walking, or bad weather, uneven or steep terrain, etc. What I had in mind was just a "no big deal" suburban or urban walk in good weather with the person carrying a bag of groceries weighing five or so pounds in each hand.
I am certainly not talking about some elderly and/or disabled person carrying a case of canned goods or anything like that!
Why do you seem to have such a problem with old people (or anyone, for that matter) getting some exercise if it is not a big problem for them to do so?
It also seems to me that you want to deliberately assign the worst possible motives to anyone who posts something that you don't like, so I am now finished with responding to you (permanently, I think).
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.
I've already posted the data that the low-income receiving Food Stamps have the highest obesity rate. Pew Research has also indicated that Democrats receive Food Stamps at a rate of 2.2 to 1 compared to Republicans.
.
