Current Events > I agree with limiting what types of food can be bought with food stamps.

(+) Yeah! (+)

It always pisses me off when I see people buying family packs of ribeyes or even ENTIRE FUCKING SLABS with their Louisiana EBT cards. Ive seen a woman buy 5 live lobsters, just a few examples.

It doesnt bother me at all what they spend it on. Once it is theirs, it is theirs and they are the only ones who need to care if they spent it terribly.
---

why does buying steak piss you off?
---

You are now tracking this topic.
---

Agreed. I will never forget the day I saw this welfare queen with foodstamps hop in a Ferrari with gold rims.

yes, we should give them shit food with little nutritional value instead
---

It making you mad seems like a bad reason to limit food stamps.
---

Someone I knew who used snap said california regulates what you can buy.

he said he couldnt buy tobacco or alcohol or soda
---

Plan A: Abolish welfare

Plan B: Limit what can be bought, include minimum work requirements, bar 1st generation immigrants for 10 years, and test for drugs.
---

E32005 posted...

Someone I knew who used snap said california regulates what you can buy.

he said he couldnt buy tobacco or alcohol or soda

that makes sense...this whole "you can only buy shitty meat and low quality food!" notion TC is trying to pass is stupid...
---

E32005 posted...

Someone I knew who used snap said california regulates what you can buy.

he said he couldnt buy tobacco or alcohol or soda

You could never buy alcohol and tobacco with EBT in any state. I dont think they should be able to buy high end foods either. Filet mignon, snow crab, etc.

ITT: Anything less expensive than prime rib is junk food
---

SageHarpuia posted...

ITT: Anything less expensive than prime rib is junk food

So where do you draw the line...what is the level of "too good for you" and "on your level"?
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Plan A: Abolish welfare

Plan B: Limit what can be bought, include minimum work requirements, bar 1st generation immigrants for 10 years, and test for drugs.

Either option works for me.

TheVipaGTS posted...

SageHarpuia posted...

ITT: Anything less expensive than prime rib is junk food

So where do you draw the line...what is the level of "too good for you" and "on your level"?

No high end meats or seafood. Id be happy with that.

DontStop4Cops posted...

E32005 posted...

Someone I knew who used snap said california regulates what you can buy.

he said he couldnt buy tobacco or alcohol or soda

You could never buy alcohol and tobacco with EBT in any state. I dont think they should be able to buy high end foods either. Filet mignon, snow crab, etc.

yeah. it would just be so hard for the stores to regulate this in a cost effective way. right now i've seen people snap in front of me in line and it takes forever. not their fault, but it does.

i guess i could see that being a good reason to have premade meals delivered to people on snap instead.

they just partner with amazon pantry and fresh
---

Honestly I'd take 100x as many buying overpriced fresh meat options instead of carts full of chips, soda, and shitty snacks. I've watched people drop 100 on an EBT card for Beef Jerky and Candy. The idea that most are wasteful and overspend on real food is laughable.

Our current food stamp program might as well be a blank check to Pepsi/Coke/Nabiso/Frito-Lays.
---

I saw someone buy NAME BRAND POP TARTS instead of spending 50 cents less for the store brand. THE NERVE!!!!

uwnim posted...

It doesnt bother me at all what they spend it on. Once it is theirs, it is theirs and they are the only ones who need to care if they spent it terribly.

Seriously, saying otherwise just shows what a baby you are.

Thank goodness because most people acted like I was making it up. I grew up in Baton Rouge and I remember seeing the carts piled high with food that my family couldnt afford. Couldnt afford because we were paying for them to eat name brand for free.

A lot of the people taking money are refusing jobs because they want a higher pay. Not okay. You take what you can get.
---

So where do you draw the line...what is the level of "too good for you" and "on your level"?

If it's something that a person who makes similar wages but doesn't qualify for foodstamps can afford without killing themselves then it's fine.
---

No one wants to eat shit food.
---

Darksaber310 posted...

Honestly I'd take 100x as many buying overpriced fresh meat options instead of carts full of chips, soda, and shitty snacks. I've watched people drop 100 on an EBT card for Beef Jerky and Candy. The idea that most are wasteful and overspend on real food is laughable.

Our current food stamp program might as well be a blank check to Pepsi/Coke/Nabiso/Frito-Lays.

thats why i think premade meals would be better. you could adjust for dietary needs plus ensure the funds are used for proper nutrition.

these types of programs are so difficult: On one hand, you want to make sure the taxpayers money is used fairly. On the other, you don't want to be so Orwellian that you are controlling their lives.
---

Then, on top of that, many of those kids are eating four meals per day on Michelle obama.
---

It doesnt bother me at all what they spend it on. Once it is theirs, it is theirs and they are the only ones who need to care if they spent it terribly.

This idea is incredibly unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible.
---

southcoast09 posted...

Thank goodness because most people acted like I was making it up. I grew up in Baton Rouge and I remember seeing the carts piled high with food that my family couldnt afford. Couldnt afford because we were paying for them to eat name brand for free.

A lot of the people taking money are refusing jobs because they want a higher pay. Not okay. You take what you can get.

Yep, Im in south Baton Rouge.

My issue with the government having control over what can be bought is that it opens that list up to the possibility of lobbyists controlling what's on it.
---

No one wants to eat shit food.

Well it's a good thing the program isn't meant to fulfill people's wants.
---

_Rinku_ posted...

uwnim posted...

It doesnt bother me at all what they spend it on. Once it is theirs, it is theirs and they are the only ones who need to care if they spent it terribly.

Seriously, saying otherwise just shows what a baby you are.

Not really. If one is allegedly in enough of an unfortunate financial position to "require" foodstamps, buying expensive delicacies is very bad judgement--and shows either of two things:

1) They actually don't need foodstamps, because $30 worth of steaks would only feed a family of 3 or 4 for one meal, not including side dishes.

2) They have terrible judgement, and apparently need to be directed on how to maximize the quantity and quality of food for their family with their allotted spending amount.

There is absolutely no nutritional excuse to buy expensive delicacies with a foodstamp card. It's completely unnecessary and demonstrates, more than likely, you do not need the card.
---

3deep5u posted...

yes, we should give them shit food with little nutritional value instead

Pretty sure the idea is more so about picking food options that are a good cost/nutrition ratio, given that being on food assistance in the first place implies financial trouble.

A family can stretch lean chicken, rice, lentils, and vegetables far more than going for high end/top shelf cuts that are meant to be more of a treat than a staple. It's really the other end of the argument to people who get upset people buy chips/candy/cookies/soda/etc with food stamps. Should delicacies or luxuries be covered?

Like someone else in the thread mentioned, it would be hard to regulate.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

No one wants to eat shit food.

Well it's a good thing the program isn't meant to fulfill people's wants.

It was meant to sustain a person/small family for a couple of weeks or so.
What they chose to buy is no ones concern
---

One time I saw this guy with a monocle load up his cart with mountain dew and kobe beef before taking off in his shiny silver top hat car.
---

DontStop4Cops posted...

southcoast09 posted...

Thank goodness because most people acted like I was making it up. I grew up in Baton Rouge and I remember seeing the carts piled high with food that my family couldnt afford. Couldnt afford because we were paying for them to eat name brand for free.

A lot of the people taking money are refusing jobs because they want a higher pay. Not okay. You take what you can get.

Yep, Im in south Baton Rouge.

Do you know the area called Central? Thats where I used to live. My family moved and sold our property, but from what I understand, the property flooded in the recent storm.
---

southcoast09 posted...

DontStop4Cops posted...

southcoast09 posted...

Thank goodness because most people acted like I was making it up. I grew up in Baton Rouge and I remember seeing the carts piled high with food that my family couldnt afford. Couldnt afford because we were paying for them to eat name brand for free.

A lot of the people taking money are refusing jobs because they want a higher pay. Not okay. You take what you can get.

Yep, Im in south Baton Rouge.

Do you know the area called Central? Thats where I used to live. My family moved and sold our property, but from what I understand, the property flooded in the recent storm.

Of course, I go all over EBR parish everyday at my job.

It was meant to sustain a person/small family for a couple of weeks or so.
What they chose to buy is no ones concern

This is a ridiculous ideology. You don't just blindly hand people cash and trust them to sort their lives out, that's naive.
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

It was meant to sustain a person/small family for a couple of weeks or so.
What they chose to buy is no ones concern

Right, but the amount on the card can't sustain a person or a small family if they routinely buy things like prime rib or lobster.

If you blow through your SNAP funds in a week when it's supposed to last a month, it's a fair bet you don't need the funds (because you're still financing the rest of the 3 weeks, somehow, presumably) or have poor judgment and can't budget accordingly.

You can make delicious meals like a thai curry chicken/vegetable soup on the most basic of ingredients (one example of many). Per serving, it's cheap. It's nutritious. And it's just as tasty. So "cheap" in terms of cost doesn't have to be bland or shitty for you.

Buying a filet mignon is not a luxury someone in a difficult financial position ought to be springing for, for the same reason they shouldn't be spending money on expensive massages or other things perceived as luxury, until your financial situation improves.

The whole point of SNAP is to be temporary relief. If you alter your budget to now blow it all off on luxury in the first week and continue to spend money on food for the remaining month, you're not improving your financial situation.
---

The only "welfare queens" living off the government are multi billion dollar corporations. Especially with the recent tax reforms.

But sure, let's get mad that the people in the lowest rung of society get to eat and have choice in their food, and on occasion may indulge.

Capitalism, where being unable to provide for yourself is bad and you get no help, but if you're rich and fail you get bailed out and get to try again and again and never have to actually create new jobs.
---

If people aren't satisfied with the food that their free handouts provide... perhaps they should get a job and then they can go buy whatever food they like.

Sorry not sorry, but the notion that people who work for a living are obligated to provide people who DON'T work for a living food that meets their specific criteria is nonsense.

If you don't work, you get the bare minimum. Get a job if you want more.
---

We lived right up Sullivan road from Walmart. The police, at one point, printed an ad in the newspaper telling people not to go to Walmart after dark because people basically turned it into an outdoor nightclub, except a really dangerous one.

They would drink, use drugs, play loud music, fight, shoot each other, and rob customers. That area used to be quiet.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

It doesnt bother me at all what they spend it on. Once it is theirs, it is theirs and they are the only ones who need to care if they spent it terribly.

This idea is incredibly unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible.

Ah, yes. A program that makes up what, 0.3% of the national budget is unsustainable. But decreasing taxes for the ultra rich is. It's just a coincidence that they're currently cutting finding abysmally low amounts of the budget that go towards programs that help people.
---

gunplagirl posted...

The only "welfare queens" living off the government are multi billion dollar corporations. Especially with the recent tax reforms.

But sure, let's get mad that the people in the lowest rung of society get to eat and have choice in their food, and on occasion may indulge.

Capitalism, where being unable to provide for yourself is bad and you get no help, but if you're rich and fail you get bailed out and get to try again and again and never have to actually create new jobs.

That's a false dichotomy though. And for the record, I don't think they shouldn't be able to ever indulge. Just from personal experience working as a cashier many many years ago though, the funds aren't being utilized as efficiently as they could be in most cases.

A smarter system could mean less people actually go hungry. Are you more concerned over whether people have a certain level of luxury? Or an absolute number of people getting the food they require? Because SNAP that only covers cost effective foods, for say 80% of the allocated funds, with room for a few indulgent purchases would allow either broader/wider coverage of people who are eligible, or to reduce how much is paid out for the system.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

Plan A: Abolish welfare

Plan B: Limit what can be bought, include minimum work requirements, bar 1st generation immigrants for 10 years, and test for drugs.

Plan C: None of the above
---

Being from the ghetto, I have never ever seen anyone buy high end shit with food stamps. Brand name snacks, sure. Not any fucking lobster or filet mignon
---

HeyPuff posted...

Being from the ghetto, I have never ever seen anyone buy high end shit with food stamps. Brand name snacks, sure. Not any fucking lobster or filet mignon

Being from the ghetto, I seen ebt people buy groceries and sell them for booze or drugs.
---

Gunplaygirl is not being serious.
---

gunplagirl posted...

SageHarpuia posted...

It doesnt bother me at all what they spend it on. Once it is theirs, it is theirs and they are the only ones who need to care if they spent it terribly.

This idea is incredibly unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible.

Ah, yes. A program that makes up what, 0.3% of the national budget is unsustainable. But decreasing taxes for the ultra rich is. It's just a coincidence that they're currently cutting finding abysmally low amounts of the budget that go towards programs that help people.

So you firmly believe that people who work should be obligated to feed the people who don't want to?

Can you at least slightly understand why working class people don't want to have to pay the burden for the career unemployed?
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

gunplagirl posted...

The only "welfare queens" living off the government are multi billion dollar corporations. Especially with the recent tax reforms.

But sure, let's get mad that the people in the lowest rung of society get to eat and have choice in their food, and on occasion may indulge.

Capitalism, where being unable to provide for yourself is bad and you get no help, but if you're rich and fail you get bailed out and get to try again and again and never have to actually create new jobs.

That's a false dichotomy though. And for the record, I don't think they shouldn't be able to ever indulge. Just from personal experience working as a cashier many many years ago though, the funds aren't being utilized as efficiently as they could be in most cases.

A smarter system could mean less people actually go hungry. Are you more concerned over whether people have a certain level of luxury? Or an absolute number of people getting the food they require? Because SNAP that only covers cost effective foods, for say 80% of the allocated funds, with room for a few indulgent purchases would allow either broader/wider coverage of people who are eligible, or to reduce how much is paid out for the system.

Or, get this, we cut our military budget that is larger than the next several highest budgets of military spending from countries across the world. Then we use that money to actually give everyone universal healthcare, streamline it and medicine so people can actually live and not die of preventable reasons, make college or university cost less, and oh, maybe universal basic income which has been shown in practice to boost the economy because more people will have money to actually put back in to the economy.

It's hardly a false dichotomy. It's literally the facts that people put the blame on those without money, while those who have money can make bad mistakes but get bailed out. There's also studies galore showing that it takes several years of extremely good financial planning and nothing bad happening to get out of poverty.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Or, get this, we cut our military budget that is larger than the next several highest budgets of military spending from countries across the world. Then we use that money to actually give everyone universal healthcare, streamline it and medicine so people can actually live and not die of preventable reasons, make college or university cost less, and oh, maybe universal basic income which has been shown in practice to boost the economy because more people will have money to actually put back in to the economy.

It's hardly a false dichotomy. It's literally the facts that people put the blame on those without money, while those who have money can make bad mistakes but get bailed out. There's also studies galore showing that it takes several years of extremely good financial planning and nothing bad happening to get out of poverty.

Lol, you're preaching to the choir, but I'm more interested in feasible baby steps rather than going for such a hail mary. It's never going to be as simple as rearranging a few things in the budget and then implementing these ideas. You sound like me when I was in undergrad and naive to the world.

For the record, I can make a compelling argument why we spend too much on our military budget. I could do the same for why it's a necessary evil. It's not so simple.
---

As someone who touted the whole "does the US spend too much on military" stance for a while, this reddit post made me reevaluate my stance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5wopim/does_the_united_states_actually_spend_too_much_on/debzcbx/

I'm not necessarily convinced, but it did make me think twice. Give it a genuine read, gunplagirl.
---

Most people use it properly. Kinda cruel to punish everyone for what some people do. Just punish those people.
---