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.
As I asked the other poster, how do you know what form of payment a person is using in a grocery store, do you cut in line to get next to them and look over their shoulder?
I already answered this. The swipe thing is out in the open. EBT cards are easy to see. You don't have to try to see it, you just do at times. It's not like we go into a hidden room to pay for our purchases, the person is standing literally feet away from us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado^
They don't just "buy" it, it's the #1 purchase of SNAP recipients.
They are defrauding the American Taxpayer.
Moving forward, I hope they enjoy their hard block of cheese and a glass of water. Justice is sweet!
I get to repeat myself again. Joy. These people are still going to get half of their food money on that card, so they'll continue to buy that pop. That is why I'm trying to tell you all that this is not solving the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
It also makes no sense.
Food stamp recipients can't BOTH be buying a lot more junk food than the rest of us do AND be buying more lobster than the rest of us do.
I mean what kind of meal is that? A giant bag of Cheetos and a 2-liter bottle of soda paired with lobster or filet mignon?????
The imagery made me laugh. These people aren't buying lobsters on their cards, and anyone who says they are is being overly dramatic. But the imagery of someone sitting down to a lobster with a side of Cheetos cracked me up. And then the maître d' coming around to offer their finest of Pepsis...this whole argument is ridiculous.
I voted Trump, I support him in a lot that he has done, but this one is just a dumb idea. It's going to cost more, it doesn't stop people from buying the food that people are complaining about them buying because, as I say for the 3rd time, they are still going to get half of their money on that card, and I believe it has already been tried. In fact, I believe that what made the EBT come about was because it was the most cost effective thing to do compared to what has been done in the past.
But let's continue to pretend that poor people buy lobster and beer on their food stamp cards. I don't like freeloaders who act like they're entitled to my money, but this thread is filled with such stupid comments, and outright lies and exaggerations.
So, let's see where we're at after 595 posts.
It looks like it's down to:
1. Leave the SNAP system alone it's fine.
2. Remove SNAP and give them "Government food" only.
I look at the article that the OP linked and think the hybrid approach that is mentioned in the article is worth looking into. 1/2 of benefit on SNAP card and the other 1/2 in food. Of course that's just a starting point but at least it's somewhere to start to maybe reduce fraud and/or costs to the public.
Maybe this proposal should also be linked to a reduction in aide to foreign countries as well? It's not always our job to feed other countries before we take care of, or at the expense of, our own.
It is clear -- you want the govt. to distribute food to the poor.
Just doesn't seem like smaller govt.
You are correct but it's on a path towards it. Certainly just giving unearned taxpayer money away does not make a society strong and certainly does not shrink gov't.
Impressive statement by Mr. Franklin.
Why not administer the welfare system with volunteers who are on welfare? Food delivery and other aspects of the program? First you are giving them self worth by working and possibly giving them a job skill that can translate into a real job later. No able bodied person should be sitting at home all day collecting a check. As it stands now if they do find work their benefits decrease or end. No incentive to leave the program.
So who are the 'welfare' volunteers...moms with infants? Sometimes it's a good idea to look at the data before you pontificate about people sitting at home all day collecting a check.
I already answered this. The swipe thing is out in the open. EBT cards are easy to see. You don't have to try to see it, you just do at times. It's not like we go into a hidden room to pay for our purchases, the person is standing literally feet away from us.
I get to repeat myself again. Joy. These people are still going to get half of their food money on that card, so they'll continue to buy that pop. That is why I'm trying to tell you all that this is not solving the problem.
The imagery made me laugh. These people aren't buying lobsters on their cards, and anyone who says they are is being overly dramatic. But the imagery of someone sitting down to a lobster with a side of Cheetos cracked me up. And then the maître d' coming around to offer their finest of Pepsis...this whole argument is ridiculous.
I voted Trump, I support him in a lot that he has done, but this one is just a dumb idea. It's going to cost more, it doesn't stop people from buying the food that people are complaining about them buying because, as I say for the 3rd time, they are still going to get half of their money on that card, and I believe it has already been tried. In fact, I believe that what made the EBT come about was because it was the most cost effective thing to do compared to what has been done in the past.
But let's continue to pretend that poor people buy lobster and beer on their food stamp cards. I don't like freeloaders who act like they're entitled to my money, but this thread is filled with such stupid comments, and outright lies and exaggerations.
Some do, there's actual news footage of some doing exactly that although I do believe they are outliers. There are some that sell off their cards for dimes on the dollar to buy other things with cash, argue all you want it's documented and does happen.
There are people who have no real right to have the benefits, that is a fact as well.
One easy fix is to restrict what foods one can buy so the recipient eats better or at least isn't eating junk on other peoples dimes.
Another easy fix is allowing SNAP to be used for basic health items so the recipient can ward off infection,disease and other medical issues that go along with being unsanitary OR give 'em a box of basic items like toothpaste,shampoo etc.
There has to be at least a partial solution somewhere between all or nothing, a solution that's compassionate while being fiscally responsible at the same time.
Children getting free lunches at school should be given healthier choices. Same for food stamp recipients. People who buy things with their own money should have freedom of choice.
If someone does not like well for an able bodied person they can work for getting what they want.
That is bizarre..for a so called conservative to advocate controlling what food a person eats..it sounds like something they would do in Cuba or North Korea. And the real cost of people eating sugary foods and soda isn't in the value of SNAP benefits it's in healthcare costs and those costs are driven up just as much by a middle class person eating crap food as it is by a poor person
That is bizarre..for a so called conservative to advocate controlling what food a person eats..it sounds like something they would do in Cuba or North Korea. And the real cost of people eating sugary foods and soda isn't in the value of SNAP benefits it's in healthcare costs and those costs are driven up just as much by a middle class person eating crap food as it is by a poor person
Except with the person on SNAP the government (we the taxpayers) are paying the costs you list on BOTH ends not just one. Logic is all it takes to figure that out.
THAT is the difference that people are highlighting. Eating large amounts of junk food is obviously not good for anyone and yes, can contribute to higher healthcare costs. If one is paying for said food out of their own pocket vs the taxpayers paying for it (both the food AND the healthcare) is the difference.
You are correct but it's on a path towards it. Certainly just giving unearned taxpayer money away does not make a society strong and certainly does not shrink gov't.
yep that's what I've been saying about Trump's weekly trips to Mar a Lago which have so far cost taxpayers $52,718,504
That is bizarre..for a so called conservative to advocate controlling what food a person eats..it sounds like something they would do in Cuba or North Korea. And the real cost of people eating sugary foods and soda isn't in the value of SNAP benefits it's in healthcare costs and those costs are driven up just as much by a middle class person eating crap food as it is by a poor person
I am not a conservative sorry. I am a libertarian and to the left on most social issues. Plus it was Michelle Obama who changed the school lunch menu. I guess in your opinion she belongs in N. Korea.
We should not control what people buy but have an obligation to have an input in what is handed out for free. If people do not like it they can refuse the freebies and buy whatever they want. Not North Korea.
If the end result is healthier public benefit recipients good. They are more likely to be on the public dole for medical care as opposed to middle class people.
How is this going to save money? Seriously? Another lame-brained plan from gubmit.
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.
