Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by Crude, Aug 15, 2011.
People of Food Stamps
What is there to discuss? The system is abused (as is virtually any system) in various levels. This is obviously the extreme. On a much lesser level, I have seen people buying rib-eyes with their food stamps while we were happy to get whole chickens at 39 cents a pound to put dinner on the table growing up, all being paid by my single mother's hard earned money.
Fraud is (and always will be) a problem no matter where you look. I think the answer is harsher punishments, personally.
lol, how about this.
Halliburton's Iraq gravy train - Salon.com
Cost plus contracts not only are insanely corrupt, but they allow great behavoir.
You buy a car on the government dime, drive the brand new car until it is out of gas, then order a new car on government dime. You order 10,000 gallons of gas, steal the gas, sell it on the open market back to the us government, then steal it again. AND on top of that, collect a profit every time you do so.
The only difference between iraq and food stamps, is that food stamps actually help americans. Iraq war only helped the rich get richer and poor stay scared.
Another difference is the food stamp recipients don't make many political campaign contributions.
if those initial rich were Americans, i would say it helped them too. so in turn, the Iraq war actually helped Americans also.
The system never had the proper safeguards in place. Shut it down, start over...if at all.
Again, two wrongs don't make a right. Also, don't sidetrack from the topic at hand
How about a vote? Doesn't that count?
Ok, so let us discuss what the proper safeguards may be. I am certainly all ears on this one. Shutting it down is not the answer. There are people that legitimately need programs like these. The fact that the program can be abused is a poor reason to can it all together.
Alright I have to ask, how?
If the rich got richer, and they were American, by definition, I guess it did "help" Americans. Also by definition, it helped the wrong ones... You see, we don't "help" the people who don't need it. Rather, we do, but we shouldn't.
Depends who counts the votes . We also must only permit you to vote for candidates that reflect the views of those that pay the freight.
all depends on which definition of help one cares to use.
i like #3
I think shutting it down is a valid option. I mean if we pay for housing and medical attention....what else is there? You mean there are people out there that NEED help with food too? So they make no contribution to their well being? Ok, if your handicapped that I could understand. IF your elderly, what did you do with your life that you ended up with nothing?
But if we don't shut down food stamps, a) maybe the solution is to restrict what items you can buy? Soda, beer, cigaretts, prime rib, red bull...that kind of stuff? b) maybe we can put a time limit on how long you get food stamps?
c) maybe we can have people pick up trash on the side of the road to earn their food?
I wish my state would restrict food stamps to use only within the state. If you have money to travel, you logically have money for food right? Recently state officials realize that some millions of dollars were being spent out of state.
I'm not totally against it. I think that if it were to go away people would most likely do fine, but throwing around money is insane and this is reflected by the rampant abuse.
I have to pee in a cup to go to work, why should welfare recipients not have to for "free" money?
The term "welfare recipients" covers quite a range of folks, morals and "need" wise. The cameras always point at the extremes, of course.. a fairly well dressed, overweight woman with several kids, all about 9 months apart in age, in line at the market with an overflowing shopping cart, naming her carton of cigarettes brand to the clerk, etc for example.
Tax payers seethe when they see that on their TVs.
But she's a tax payer, too. Not to mention that the cameras stay away from the boring citizens who are eligible for food stamps for the simple reason that they need the help. And there is a range of those types, too.
It's more complicated than "free money." If it were just that, I'd be mad, too. But it's not. The monitoring part of the system needs to be taken care of, but we need that system.
I think the requirements should be more strict and length of eligibity should be shortened. Welfare was intended to help those who can't get on(back on) their feet. But of course there are those who abuse the the system and welfare pretty much become their source of income and making babies becomes their jobs. People need to be responsible for their own lives; get help when needed but only for (re)construction.
You don't "have to" pee in a cup to go to work. You choose to.
Maybe have a system such as Somalia, low cost to their taxpayers.
Somalia Famine: Food Aid Stolen
The only trade I am skilled enough in to make the money I need to in order to survive calls drug testing a requirement. It is not really a choice for me. You may think it a choice, but it is not
How is it not a choice? You CHOSE not to get any other skills other than ones you now have. And, you CHOOSE not to change employers/careers.
Food stamps for beer, a healthy diet. I think this study maybe bias, look who won the Iron levels.
"Measuring the levels of iron and other metals in beer is not only important because they are essential to the human diet, ..."
Dark beer has more iron than pale beer or non-alcoholic beer
Therefore if you want food stamps you can choose to pee in a cup....
I don't say beer because of the alcoholic content but because there are cheaper choices. A much as I like beer I buy very little because if this. If it's free you are more likely to splurge, right?
No, you are missing the point. He said you "have to" pee in a cup to work. Fact is you don't. You can work, and not pee in a cup. Just not in the field, or with the employer you wish to. Now, I am not going to paint with a broad brush, but, MOST people on foodstamps don't WANT to be. MOST have jobs, and HAVE to be on them. The fact that they "have to" be on food stamps, would mean they are FORCED to pee in a cup. Something that applies to NOBODY else.
You can't buy cigarettes, beer, or red bull with food stamps.
I can hear those evil welfare folks now, after finding that out.. "What? I'm outa here!"
The vast majority of them need the assistance for groceries, etc. The ones who don't need the attention of an agency that can do better than we've seen. But again, the news people don't interview the ones who really need it because that is boring.
That's irrelevant either way. You are working for a living. And you are getting something for nothing. Being drug free ensures you aren't ebaying your food stamps for drugs.
You can buy red bull in most states.