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'd love to pay for my food out on my own dime, but dime is what it would be. I'm living on less than $200 a month and food stamps. Let's see you blowhards here put your money in your big mouths and do the same.
And by the way, although I'm unable to work now, I have worked full-time, one way or the other, for 35 years before that. The taxes I paid went to fix roads you people drive on, schools you people send your kids to, and Social Security for your parents. So don't any of you DARE tell me you're paying for my food. I've paid taxes for longer than a lot of you here and now I need the help. If I didn't, I wouldn't be taking it. And believe me, you'll eat your words (pardon the pun) and take help too, to keep your family fed if you have to.
See this is why i hate talking about these issues with people with the mentality of most of you on this thread. Your mentality is politically correct, socially acceptable and is a selective morality. Its acceptable and easy to hate the poor, but what bugs me is often i don't disagree with what most of you say, i agree its unfair to pay for another person to get more food then you who work. But what makes me hate you is SNAP to the poor isn't the only unfair, entitlement or someone else gets more then us who work situation. But listening to you guys talk welfare for the poor is the only one. You justify and rationalize every other entitlement, unfair situation or entitlement to anyone else but the poor. Look at the threads on the forum for proof. To me laziness is laziness, or abuse is abuse. A CEO or corporation can be as lazy as an overweight fat person who doesn't want to work collecting welfare. Its lazy to cut wages, lobby government so you don't have to pay taxes etc to make more profit.
No problem. Thanks for the correction. I agree with your ideas, completely. Let's drill down on narrowing the acceptable food categories allowable on the EBT card. If a lot of the junk was off the table, people may find other options.
It's a win/win. Those that need it, eat healthier and some would stop using the program because their taste doesn't run towards rice and beans.
Hey wait stop Mohawkx why would you agree to that? Does ALackOfCreativity agree on if we the taxpayer are suplimenting a corporations profits with tax breaks and government handouts that the investors or CEOs shouldnt live better then those who work below them or pay taxes? Does he agree that they shouldnt get pay raises during the time we have suplimentted them? Should we tell them what they can buy etc? Lets be real a handout is a handout. Why is it any different if someone is poor or rich?
No problem. Thanks for the correction. I agree with your ideas, completely. Let's drill down on narrowing the acceptable food categories allowable on the EBT card. If a lot of the junk was off the table, people may find other options.
It's a win/win. Those that need it, eat healthier and some would stop using the program because their taste doesn't run towards rice and beans.
Agreed, naturally.
I even think that these are things that should be done before - not merely concurrent - with reducing amounts. First, it gets people used to keeping a better diet and habits without the stress of a tighter budget at the same time. Second - as can be clearly seen here - it's more politically palatable to a wider degree of people. The perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good, and even if that means savings and no longer going over the food budget of the lower-middle class never happens, I could live with that risk even coming from the political right to see the improvement in diet and health that would result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawaiian by heart
Hey wait stop Mohawkx why would you agree to that? Does ALackOfCreativity agree on if we the taxpayer are suplimenting a corporations profits with tax breaks and government handouts that the investors or CEOs shouldnt live better then those who work below them or pay taxes? Does he agree that they shouldnt get pay raises during the time we have suplimentted them? Should we tell them what they can buy etc? Lets be real a handout is a handout. Why is it any different if someone is poor or rich?
It's raining outside where I live. This is just as relevant to the topic at hand that excess CEO compensation is. Not at all. There's a conversation to be had about the problems of executive compensation - they write their own paychecks and boards are either personally friendly with them and/or the impact on the company as a whole isn't enough to get them do something about it, but it's a totally separate and irrelevant conversation to food stamp policy. There's also a conversation to be had about corporate subsidies, but it would be a short one as most people agree they are bad except the recipients and the congresspeople they are bri- I mean, lobbying. Again like executive compensation, it's also an irrelevant discussion.
So "Cutting to the proverbial chase", after all that verbiage, I take it you would kill the entire food supplement program for the poor. That's your solution?
Do I understand you correctly?
Since more than just the poor are using the system we sure need an overhaul. I see you are against people figuring out life on their own, since you put forth every reason for people being poor. Who do you consider poor?
Did you know even rich people can actually have nothing, material things don't pay the bills when things start going south. Depending on anyone for the next meal you will eat is kind of like standing in line for your next bowl of rice........ See where it could go?
Who is to say who is poor and who is choosing to be disabled or unemployed? A lot of people actually hate the thought of working every day.
Since more than just the poor are using the system we sure need an overhaul. I see you are against people figuring out life on their own, since you put forth every reason for people being poor. Who do you consider poor?
Did you know even rich people can actually have nothing, material things don't pay the bills when things start going south. Depending on anyone for the next meal you will eat is kind of like standing in line for your next bowl of rice........ See where it could go?
Who is to say who is poor and who is choosing to be disabled or unemployed? A lot of people actually hate the thought of working every day.
Rich people can have nothing? LOL. That would make them poor.
Yes, many people hate the thought of working, but we do it anyway. So what?
We use government to make it more expensive for these people to keep a roof over their head.
Reminds of the "Little Red Hen." This story must go over the top of people's heads or is no longer read to children so they learn how everyone is to work for the pie, not a selected few.
Bad idea, you would have the same incompetent and corrupt government administer those programs and besides, stealing money from peter to train and feed paul is not charity, its robbery.
And "Job training" for which jobs? Do you think a handfull of politicians would know what careers thousands of people should be trained in?
The correct answer is to end all such programs and let a free market do the rest.
Unfortunately, the government/banker friends also run the markets so it's not free. They aren't likely to leave that alone either. Both JPM, government and other funds invested in JPM (and others) make plenty from investments of the pools of funds for services and the fees. The government is subsidized by people not the other way around.
The federal government takes action against those who misuse the program.
In FY 2012, over 100 analysts and investigators reviewed over 15,000 stores and conducted nearly 4,500 undercover investigations. Close to 1,400 stores were permanently disqualified for trafficking and nearly 700 stores were sanctioned for other violations such as the sale of ineligible items. FNS also works with State law enforcement authorities to provide them with SNAP benefits that are used in sting operations, supporting anti-trafficking actions at the local level. USDA’s Office of the Inspector General also conducts extensive criminal investigations – many resulting from FNS administrative oversight findings and referrals – to prosecute traffickers. In FY 2012, OIG SNAP investigations resulted in 342 convictions, including a number of multi-year prison terms for the most serious offenses, and approximately $57.7 million in monetary results. In FY 2012, OIG devoted more than 50 percent of its investigative resources to prevent SNAP fraud, waste and abuse.
I said ANNUAL AUDITS. Investigations of fraud is not ANNUAL AUDITS.
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.
