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 looks to me that telling people on welfare what they can and can't eat is, ironically, a psychic form of junk food for those for whom the Puritan streak runs strong. Banning welfare mamas from buying pork rinds will feel great -- until a minute later, when you get hungry again to dictate to others how to live their lives.
Why support real change, whether offering nutrition classes or simply cutting benefits and forcing welfare recipients to scale down, when you can just arbitrarily ban items? Why cook a fresh, healthy stir-fry when you can order a vat of General Tso's Chicken?
Sounds like you have something in common with the welfare folks after all...
I HAVE actually suggested that FS or ANY welfare for that matter have nutrition (and even basic cooking classes etc) as a prerequiste on a few of the other (MANY) threads in this forum re FS.
WIC recipients have to , why not FS users?
Just to add, when I lived in Australia I actually ran basic shopping/cooking/life skills classes for "welfare" recipients through a local church charity there. Most (not all, but most) are grateful for the opportunity to learn same.
Food stamps are simply a political tool to elect the politicians (Democrats) that push the program. Nothing more nothing less. It's not even debatable anymore.
Don't forget the pols in the farm states, usually Republicans, e.g. Bob Dole et al.
Let's get back to the generic foods. Why would that be bad? We shop at Kroger and they usually have a store brand for everything. And that is usually what we buy. It tastes good. Even the small markets here have generic brands.
The biggest thing I would love to see banned on the FS program would be sweetened drinks. Soda has no value whatsoever. Hell, it's not even thirst quenching. Kool Aid isn't much better.
This is going to sound uber political to some. So be it.
The food stamp program is set up like it is to benefit farmers as well as the recipients. That is something people seem to like to put behind them. The more money people spend on food, the better it is for the farmers. Farmers do grow more than produce, as we discussed previously. (Just thought I'd mention it again so someone wouldn't bring it up again.) Corn is used mainly for animal feed, but also for corn syrup and the old bogeyman, high fructose corn syrup. A lot of Illiniois corn farmers would lose their subsidies, or at least part of their subsidies, if soda were banned. (I used to live in the corn belt of Illiniois, that's why I used them as an example.) Wheat is used for flour. It doesn't matter to the farmer from Kansas is the bread is made from white flour or wheat flour, s/he wants people to use flour. I remember once having a conversation with my DH about Bob Dole, the senator from Kansas, a HUGE supporter of the food stamp program. I said I heard that Dole was genuinely concerned about hunger. DH said, yes, he's concerned about hunger in Kansas farmers.
IF food stamps were restricted to certain items, with the philosophy that reciepients pay cash for foods that "our" brigade here on CD thinks appropriate, food stamp appropriations would go down. The subsidy to the farmers would go down. Capiche?
I'm a capitalist. I don't think farmers should be subsidized by taxpayers. If they aren't capable of supporting themselves by farming, perhaps they shoulldn't be farmers. I think all farm subsidies should be eliminated. Capiche?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
It's really cruel to claim that someone's family doesn't love them just to make a political point. Are you and your wife's parents going to refuse Medicare/Social Security so you can support them?
It wasn't meant to be cruel at all, it was a response to his statement about how his son would treat him. And of course they're not going to refuse to accept payment from a system that they paid into with he expectation of benefitting from it. But if I were able to not pay into it any more, and to get back at least a decent portion of what I have already paid in, I would be happy to give up any future ability to claim benefits.
I'm a capitalist. I don't think farmers should be subsidized by taxpayers. If they aren't capable of supporting themselves by farming, perhaps they shoulldn't be farmers. I think all farm subsidies should be eliminated. Capiche?
You'll have a hell of a time getting any farm belt pol to go along with that.
Quote:
It wasn't meant to be cruel at all, it was a response to his statement about how his son would treat him. And of course they're not going to refuse to accept payment from a system that they paid into with he expectation of benefitting from it. But if I were able to not pay into it any more, and to get back at least a decent portion of what I have already paid in, I would be happy to give up any future ability to claim benefits.
Perhaps it was merely thoughtless, but it was totally inappropriate, and has been reported.
So apparently you're not really going to be supporting your parents and in-laws, just do a little window dressing.
You'll have a hell of a time getting any farm belt farmer to go along with that.
Perhaps it was merely thoughtless, but it was totally inappropriate, and has been reported.
So apparently you're not really going to be supporting your parents and in-laws, just do a little window dressing.
Complete hogwash. We will support our family. Taking the money they were promised when they paid in does not lessen that. As has been demonstrated here, Social Security & medicade are not enough. But I can guarantee we won't allow them to need food stamps.
Complete hogwash. We will support our family. Taking the money they were promised when they paid in does not lessen that. As has been demonstrated here, Social Security & medicade are not enough. But I can guarantee we won't allow them to need food stamps.
Never say never. And it's medicare, not medicaid, though if they're poor enough, there's medicaid/medicare.
mohawkx said, "Absolutely not!!!!!!!!! What part of the question do you find jackassedness?????? If the proponents of food stamp regulation get their way, senior citizens, would be told what they can buy or not buy. BTW, the bulk of food stamp recipients are senior citizens. When you or anyone attacks the food stamp program and how it is administered, you are defacto attacking senior citizens."
This is from a Pittsburg newspaper, but probably typical of the country:
"One in eight Americans and one in four children now count on federal aid to provide some portion of what they eat."
"Increasingly, the people who apply for food stamps through us have never used food stamps before," she said. "And increasingly, they are people who are working or are recently unemployed. Most of them do not receive welfare, and most of the people on food stamps are children."
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 11-21-2010 at 08:49 PM..
I can't believe I am coming over to the food stamp side for a minute, but not everyone has family to take care of them. Just throwing that out there.
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.
brigade here on CD thinks appropriate, food stamp appropriations would go down. The subsidy to the farmers would go down. Capiche?
