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

(+) Yeah! (+)

r4X0r posted...

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?

So as a member of society, it has been a commonly understood concept that you have an obligation to help provide for others around you. Shanidar 1 is an example from 35,000-45,000 years ago of a disabled person who lived well into adulthood despite being unable to actually contribute to society.

In our capitalist system, there can only be ultra wealthy people if workers are not paid for the proper value of their labor, and the surplus is extracted as profit that goes to those who did not do such work. This system also is flawed because in spite of the fact that automation is supposed to improve the quality of our lives, it only really benefits those who extract the value of labor from others. Then there's the fact that it does not accommodate for those who are unable to work full time or at all, as disabilities of all kinds exist.

Basically? If somebody has an issue with supporting somebody else and they cite capitalism as the reason for their views? They need to shut the hell up, and remove themselves from society until they reevaluate their lives and realize that the progress and uplifting of all members of society should take priority over their own moral hang ups from being born in to a manipulative system that abuses them.
---

Soviet_Poland posted...

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.

Had nothing I wasn't already aware of.

It's still over bloated and larger than necessary, especially in the interest of creating peaceful conditions throughout the world.

If anything, that reddit breakdown is a good example of the ways in which we've become accustomed to the military-industrial complex and can somehow justify spending billions on weapons and super jets that will likely sit in storage for years before being rendered obsolete.
---

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.

She's worried about her narrative.

That said my wife and I got WIC with both our babies. Here is a program that really helps ny using guidelines as to how the dollar amount can be spent so that parents, if irresponsible, still end up using WIC to benefit their children more than themselves. This a program I think is good and EBT could take some lessons from. I don't think EBT should only provide shit food for families in need. But some guidelines would help keep people so intent to abuse the system from doing so.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Had nothing I wasn't already aware of.

It's still over bloated and larger than necessary, especially in the interest of creating peaceful conditions throughout the world.

If anything, that reddit breakdown is a good example of the ways in which we've become accustomed to the military-industrial complex and can somehow justify spending billions on weapons and super jets that will likely sit in storage for years before being rendered obsolete.

Lol you didn't read the follow up posts.
---

When gunplagirl types a wall to disagree with me I know I'm right.
---

thanosibe posted...

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.

She's worried about her narrative.

That said my wife and I got WIC with both our babies. Here is a program that really helps ny using guidelines as to how the dollar amount can be spent so that parents, if irresponsible, still end up using WIC to benefit their children more than themselves. This a program I think is good and EBT could take some lessons from. I don't think EBT should only provide shit food for families in need. But some guidelines would help keep people so intent to abuse the system from doing so.

It's hardly a narrative, it's a genuine concern because unlike you, many will never be able to escape being poor and dependency upon others to support them.

Oh, plus there's those who work but the wages are so low they qualify for and need EBT to survive. For instance, employees at many Walmart locations.
---

gunplagirl posted...

r4X0r posted...

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?

So as a member of society, it has been a commonly understood concept that you have an obligation to help provide for others around you. Shanidar 1 is an example from 35,000-45,000 years ago of a disabled person who lived well into adulthood despite being unable to actually contribute to society.

In our capitalist system, there can only be ultra wealthy people if workers are not paid for the proper value of their labor, and the surplus is extracted as profit that goes to those who did not do such work. This system also is flawed because in spite of the fact that automation is supposed to improve the quality of our lives, it only really benefits those who extract the value of labor from others. Then there's the fact that it does not accommodate for those who are unable to work full time or at all, as disabilities of all kinds exist.

Basically? If somebody has an issue with supporting somebody else and they cite capitalism as the reason for their views? They need to shut the hell up, and remove themselves from society until they reevaluate their lives and realize that the progress and uplifting of all members of society should take priority over their own moral hang ups from being born in to a manipulative system that abuses them.

I think we understand supporting people is good. But supporting people doesn't also have to equate to providing them 5 star meals and delicacies many middle class individuals do not routinely buy themselves.

And without capitalism, we wouldn't be where we are now. Let me know of a nation that is ripe with freedom, prosperity, wealth and technology that doesn't follow a capitalistic model.

And also let me know if you want to move somewhere else. And if so, where?
---

The average EBT benefit is about $125 a month.
If someone wants to buy a crate of lobster and starve the rest of the month, that's his or her prerogative to do so.

There's no point in being angry about it, unless the recipient is sticking a hand out again a couple days later.

Soviet_Poland posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Had nothing I wasn't already aware of.

It's still over bloated and larger than necessary, especially in the interest of creating peaceful conditions throughout the world.

If anything, that reddit breakdown is a good example of the ways in which we've become accustomed to the military-industrial complex and can somehow justify spending billions on weapons and super jets that will likely sit in storage for years before being rendered obsolete.

Lol you didn't read the follow up posts.

I got down to the bush 1421 bit.

Most of our military tech still won't see combat use.
---

SageHarpuia posted...

When gunplagirl types a wall to disagree with me I know I'm right.

That sounds like you just don't have the capacity to actually address or respond to anything I said, and rather than acknowledge the flaws that exist in your arguments, you simply refuse to engage. Of course that would also entail that you have zero interest in actually informing others of your views in an attempt to actually get them to reconsider their own views.

Alternatively (or in conjunction with that), you simply say stuff to bait a response so you can then straw man other viewpoints at a later time.
---

Sorry, I just can't be bothered.
---

gunplagirl posted...

thanosibe posted...

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.

She's worried about her narrative.

That said my wife and I got WIC with both our babies. Here is a program that really helps ny using guidelines as to how the dollar amount can be spent so that parents, if irresponsible, still end up using WIC to benefit their children more than themselves. This a program I think is good and EBT could take some lessons from. I don't think EBT should only provide shit food for families in need. But some guidelines would help keep people so intent to abuse the system from doing so.

It's hardly a narrative, it's a genuine concern because unlike you, many will never be able to escape being poor and dependency upon others to support them.

Oh, plus there's those who work but the wages are so low they qualify for and need EBT to survive. For instance, employees at many Walmart locations.

I actually worked at Walmart back in 2011 for a bit because it paid better than unemployment. And yeah it was a struggle. I donated plasma to supplement my wages. I'm not saying that EBT is a bad thing. Just that it needs to be refined. Like how in the 90's working in a convience store I see five kids come in with a dollar food stamp each, each buy a 10 cent candy and then go to the car for the adult to come in and use that change to buy beer or cigs. No not all people abuse the system. But every step we take to insure government aid is used in the best possible way to benefit the recipients and stop the abusers is good. Even if that means people on EBT have to buy lobster with their own cash.
---

SageHarpuia 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

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

It happens more often than you think.
---

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.

Oh God my ex used to live in the Central area. I went to undergrad at LSU and there was a bunch of foodstamp abuse from what I saw when I was there.
---

Capn Circus posted...

I think we understand supporting people is good. But supporting people doesn't also have to equate to providing them 5 star meals and delicacies many middle class individuals do not routinely buy themselves.

And without capitalism, we wouldn't be where we are now. Let me know of a nation that is ripe with freedom, prosperity, wealth and technology that doesn't follow a capitalistic model.

And also let me know if you want to move somewhere else. And if so, where?

Such luxuries could readily be afforded if the surplus were not allowed to fall in to the hands of individuals. Jeff bezos, richest man in history, is praised while there's regular articles about unsafe and unethical working conditions, such as overworking employees.

One thing people always overlook when they pull that "this isn't possible without capitalism" line is that for millennia prior to capitalism arising? People still would have researched and created things to aid in the advancement of various aspects of life. Even under capitalism, there's always been people who went out of their way to further studies in various scientific fields so as to advance those subjects and society as a whole. If anything, capitalism has held us back in recent decades as demonstrated by the fact that research and the like is so expensive that researchers on the cutting edge of their fields are almost always stuck in an endless loop of seeking funding through grants and the like to continue their research.
---

Someone please shut this girl up.

thanosibe posted...

gunplagirl posted...

thanosibe posted...

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.

She's worried about her narrative.

That said my wife and I got WIC with both our babies. Here is a program that really helps ny using guidelines as to how the dollar amount can be spent so that parents, if irresponsible, still end up using WIC to benefit their children more than themselves. This a program I think is good and EBT could take some lessons from. I don't think EBT should only provide shit food for families in need. But some guidelines would help keep people so intent to abuse the system from doing so.

It's hardly a narrative, it's a genuine concern because unlike you, many will never be able to escape being poor and dependency upon others to support them.

Oh, plus there's those who work but the wages are so low they qualify for and need EBT to survive. For instance, employees at many Walmart locations.

I actually worked at Walmart back in 2011 for a bit because it paid better than unemployment. And yeah it was a struggle. I donated plasma to supplement my wages. I'm not saying that EBT is a bad thing. Just that it needs to be refined. Like how in the 90's working in a convience store I see five kids come in with a dollar food stamp each, each buy a 10 cent candy and then go to the car for the adult to come in and use that change to buy beer or cigs. No not all people abuse the system. But every step we take to insure government aid is used in the best possible way to benefit the recipients and stop the abusers is good. Even if that means people on EBT have to buy lobster with their own cash.

Do you think EBT allotments should be determined by panels on a case by case basis? For instance, taking their employability in to account, rent costs in that area, etc.?
---

maybe this person helped someone move and was going to get paid for it the day after so they decided to treat their family to something special for once by buying steak a meat they couldnt buy very often.

unless you know the entire story you really shouldnt judge
---

DontStop4Cops posted...

Someone please shut this girl up.

Yes, I am a girl. Does it offend you that a woman is posting about the flaws of capitalism?
---

DontStop4Cops posted...

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.

Who cares what they spend it on?

If they want to waste their food $ on lobster dinners, let em

When its the 15th of the month and theyre starving bc of it, its not our fault
---

I do think EBT should not work for snack food like cookies and chips because they have low or no nutritional value so they can pay out of pocket if they want that.

I also think it should be a maximum of 6 months. If you can't get your stuff together in 6 months to be able to pay your bills, you aren't putting in the effort. When I quit my life insurance job, I had a new job not even a month later even though it was December which is generally when places don't hire.
---

ProfDE posted...

I do think EBT should not work for snack food like cookies and chips because they have low or no nutritional value so they can pay out of pocket if they want that.

I also think it should be a maximum of 6 months. If you can't get your stuff together in 6 months to be able to pay your bills, you aren't putting in the effort. When I quit my life insurance job, I had a new job not even a month later even though it was December which is generally when places don't hire.

To qualify for SNAP, if you're an able bodied adult with no kids, you already need to have a job. If you don't have a job, you're disqualified after 3 months.
---

emblem boy posted...

ProfDE posted...

I do think EBT should not work for snack food like cookies and chips because they have low or no nutritional value so they can pay out of pocket if they want that.

I also think it should be a maximum of 6 months. If you can't get your stuff together in 6 months to be able to pay your bills, you aren't putting in the effort. When I quit my life insurance job, I had a new job not even a month later even though it was December which is generally when places don't hire.

To qualify for SNAP, if you're an able bodied adult with no kids, you already need to have a job. If you don't have a job, you're disqualified after 3 months.

At which point about 95% of the people just renew the process and start over.
---

southcoast09 posted...

emblem boy posted...

ProfDE posted...

I do think EBT should not work for snack food like cookies and chips because they have low or no nutritional value so they can pay out of pocket if they want that.

I also think it should be a maximum of 6 months. If you can't get your stuff together in 6 months to be able to pay your bills, you aren't putting in the effort. When I quit my life insurance job, I had a new job not even a month later even though it was December which is generally when places don't hire.

To qualify for SNAP, if you're an able bodied adult with no kids, you already need to have a job. If you don't have a job, you're disqualified after 3 months.

At which point about 95% of the people just renew the process and start over.

And still qualify because
1) they're paying for the benefits
2) they still qualify because their income is not high enough
---

Well, thanks for proving my point. Theres nothing stopping people from receiving unlimited benefits.
---

So what, they should just starve after a certain point?

Any increased scrutiny or limitations on renewal will always affect those with disabilities and those unable to improve their situation. Your obsession with starving them in order to feel like you aren't being used is terrible. Even moreso if you never bother complaining about the massive corporations receiving government money and incentives without having to actually create or move jobs to the US.

Get your priorities straight because the latter also accounts for most of your tax dollars.
---

No, they should get a damn job. Not working and having luxuries in life dont go hand in hand.
---

And as just stated, most who use them for more than a few months at a time have jobs

The problem isn't them, it's the businesses refusing to give them livable wages, or hours, or both
---

Shit food like chips, soda, alcohol, donuts, and candy should definitely be excluded. Steak is fine since it has nutritional value.
---

Quit starting lies etc, Squurtle.

You can't buy booze in the first place anyway when using a SNAP card.

Especially the liars that make stupid comments about lobster.

The idea of limits is okay but steak and lobsters shouldn't be part of the excluded items.

I'd exclude shit like beer, and food which has no purpose except to be really expensive like saffron.
---

You can't even buy alcohol with a food stamps card. Anyone who says otherwise has never worked retail.
---

Frosted_Midna posted...

You can't even buy alcohol with a food stamps card. Anyone who says otherwise has never worked retail.

I didn't think you could, I'm just saying it as a general response to the "they can do whatever they want" crowd.
---

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

Seriously. I never seen that shit in my life lol

People don't buy and cook that shit themselves
---

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.

@SageHarpuia
How so? Unneeded restrictions do nothing but raise costs.
---

gunplagirl posted...

thanosibe posted...

gunplagirl posted...

thanosibe posted...

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.

She's worried about her narrative.

That said my wife and I got WIC with both our babies. Here is a program that really helps ny using guidelines as to how the dollar amount can be spent so that parents, if irresponsible, still end up using WIC to benefit their children more than themselves. This a program I think is good and EBT could take some lessons from. I don't think EBT should only provide shit food for families in need. But some guidelines would help keep people so intent to abuse the system from doing so.

It's hardly a narrative, it's a genuine concern because unlike you, many will never be able to escape being poor and dependency upon others to support them.

Oh, plus there's those who work but the wages are so low they qualify for and need EBT to survive. For instance, employees at many Walmart locations.

I actually worked at Walmart back in 2011 for a bit because it paid better than unemployment. And yeah it was a struggle. I donated plasma to supplement my wages. I'm not saying that EBT is a bad thing. Just that it needs to be refined. Like how in the 90's working in a convience store I see five kids come in with a dollar food stamp each, each buy a 10 cent candy and then go to the car for the adult to come in and use that change to buy beer or cigs. No not all people abuse the system. But every step we take to insure government aid is used in the best possible way to benefit the recipients and stop the abusers is good. Even if that means people on EBT have to buy lobster with their own cash.

Do you think EBT allotments should be determined by panels on a case by case basis? For instance, taking their employability in to account, rent costs in that area, etc.?

Is that not how it done now? If not, yes I think that's how it should work. I know that's how WIC was done when we used it and how our boys qualify for Medicaid now.
---

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.

Of course two BR locals are all for this. Living up to expectations as usual guys.
---

thanosibe posted...

Is that not how it done now? If not, yes I think that's how it should work. I know that's how WIC was done when we used it and how our boys qualify for Medicaid now.

Remember that "would you qualify to immigrate to America under Trump" multiple choice thing a few months ago? That's how they do it in most states, fill out the info, provide proof of income, and then you get the card not long after some beauracrat visually confirms the proof of income aspect. The "you need to reapply to keep enrolled" thing is automatic and has you generally get a phone call or mail, or both.

It's expensive to run a panel that would review and determine how much you get, plus human biases, plus there's the whole "how would somebody with no money who gets told they don't qualify for much or any at all appeal" thing.

The fact you think that's how it is done shows you havenhavent bothered to educate yourself on the matter, yet you can speak with such conviction on why it's a terrible system. Imagine that.
---

It's not like they magically get more money by buying expensive foods. If they splurge, it will end up hurting them in the end. Either they'll have to eat cheap food for the rest of the month, starve, or spend more of their non-SNAP money on food. In any case, they're the one taking the loss, not the government.

If people decide to save money to celebrate something, that's fine.
---

ZeldaMutant posted...

It's not like they magically get more money by buying expensive foods. If they splurge, it will end up hurting them in the end. Either they'll have to eat cheap food for the rest of the month, starve, or spend more of their non-SNAP money on food. In any case, they're the one taking the loss, not the government.

If people decide to save money to celebrate something, that's fine.

Yeah, this is the sensible way to look at it.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

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

The thing is, if they're using SNAP properly then they're ALREADY self regulating to the kinds of foods people are suggesting. If you're buying lots of sodas/prepackaged foods/luxury meats then your SNAP will not last an entire month, maybe not an entire week. If you're buying lots of staple cooking ingredients, fresh veggies, stuff to home cook sweets, etc then your SNAP WILL stretch. So why NOT limit it to the things people should be buying? It wouldn't effect people already doing the right thing and would stop other people from abusing the system
---

"AHM A SINGLE MOTHA AND AHM ENTATeLD TO DESE ERR RIBE EYE STAYKS N MA BROWN SAUSS FOR MA BOI HE GON B A BASKETBALL PLAYER N NEEDS TA EAT NOW GIME MORE FOOD STAMPS"

fire_bolt posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

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

The thing is, if they're using SNAP properly then they're ALREADY self regulating to the kinds of foods people are suggesting. If you're buying lots of sodas/prepackaged foods/luxury meats then your SNAP will not last an entire month, maybe not an entire week. If you're buying lots of staple cooking ingredients, fresh veggies, stuff to home cook sweets, etc then your SNAP WILL stretch. So why NOT limit it to the things people should be buying? It wouldn't effect people already doing the right thing and would stop other people from abusing the system

Buying the wrong thing isnt abusing the system. And it would affect those doing the right thing, theres nothing wrong with say buying your kid a cake for their birthday.
---

FluttershyPony posted...

"AHM A SINGLE MOTHA AND AHM ENTATeLD TO DESE ERR RIBE EYE STAYKS N MA BROWN SAUSS FOR MA BOI HE GON B A BASKETBALL PLAYER N NEEDS TA EAT NOW GIME MORE FOOD STAMPS"

That is literally how they think in south Louisiana.

"They" in quotation marks, meaning people of color

Tc tagged accordingly
---

What the fuck is this girl even rambling about? No one is reading your stupid fucking drivel. Go watch anime or some other weeaboo shit.

TheVipaGTS posted...

why does buying steak piss you off?

It's like he thinks they don't have to stretch it. Like you can say you're out and you'll get more before the next month.

The people being irresponsible with them learn in a hurry that it sucks to do without for the last week because they didn't budget. They typically don't do it again the next month.

You shouldnt be able to buy energy drinks with them. That shit is a waste of money and has zero nutritional benefit.
---

DontStop4Cops posted...

What the fuck is this girl even rambling about? No one is reading your stupid fucking drivel. Go watch anime or some other weeaboo shit.

If you can't handle him at his worst..