LogFAQs > #879813031

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	First he goes for their healthcare and now he's taking their Food Stamps.
Veedrock- 05/25/17 8:14:17 PM #22:	Food stamps are not the only source of food for struggling families. Children can get subsidized lunches at school and the program extends into summer in a lot of areas (can't find a coverage map admittedly). Food banks and other charitable operations are an option among other things. No they're not going to get a plethora of junk food and candy or those $40 steaks they would splurge stamps on, but they're not going hungry either. Food stamps enable irresponsibility. The money saved on food isn't always going to other necessities or savings, it's going to indulgences like cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets. If people lost their subsidies, they'd have to choose because food and indulgence. It's interesting that liberals are all pro-choice in regards to everything but when somebody makes a wrong choice, they're a victim and need bailed out by taxpayers. Another issue is that stamps aren't always stretched out to last a month either. Families tend to splurge after they get the deposit, especially on junk or luxury items, then they struggle for the rest of the month. If they're going hungry during the last week of the month, is the system really working? I don't think so, but it's a situation that can be ignored because "we tried." Having SNAP be federally funded but run by the states is a broken system. It's not state money so they don't really care, they just give it out. The state needs to be harsher in screening candidates and monitoring them after the fact, rather than simply checking a few boxes for validity. If SNAP gets removed, the ideal response would be for the state or even local governments to step in to replace it, so they're responsible for the costs and as such try to manage those costs effectively. You know who really stands to lose from the removal of food stamps? Big food corporations that market their garbage to low income families so funds funnel their way, and the big vice companies that benefit from low income families saving money on food to spend on their bullshit, since they're actually far more likely to buy things like cigarettes and lottery tickets. --- My friends call me Vee. I'm not your friend, buddy. <cite>Veedrock- posted [p:879813031] in First he g... [t:75375375]...</cite> <quote>Food stamps are not the only source of food for struggling families. Children can get subsidized lunches at school and the program extends into summer in a lot of areas (can't find a coverage map admittedly). Food banks and other charitable operations are an option among other things. No they're not going to get a plethora of junk food and candy or those $40 steaks they would splurge stamps on, but they're not going hungry either. Food stamps enable irresponsibility. The money saved on food isn't always going to other necessities or savings, it's going to indulgences like cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets. If people lost their subsidies, they'd have to choose because food and indulgence. It's interesting that liberals are all pro-choice in regards to everything but when somebody makes a wrong choice, they're a victim and need bailed out by taxpayers. Another issue is that stamps aren't always stretched out to last a month either. Families tend to splurge after they get the deposit, especially on junk or luxury items, then they struggle for the rest of the month. If they're going hungry during the last week of the month, is the system really working? I don't think so, but it's a situation that can be ignored because "we tried." Having SNAP be federally funded but run by the states is a broken system. It's not state money so they don't really care, they just give it out. The state needs to be harsher in screening candidates and monitoring them after the fact, rather than simply checking a few boxes for validity. If SNAP gets removed, the ideal response would be for the state or even local governments to step in to replace it, so they're responsible for the costs and as such try to manage those costs effectively. You know who really stands to lose from the removal of food stamps? Big food corporations that market their garbage to low income families so funds funnel their way, and the big vice companies that benefit from low income families saving money on food to spend on their bullshit, since they're actually far more likely to buy things like cigarettes and lottery tickets. --- My friends call me Vee. I'm not your friend, buddy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1