The outrage that I've seen directed towards this kind of idiocy from state governments is of the nature "why should the government tell people what kind of food they can and cannot buy with their aid"... It basically disregards that the entirety of welfare, tax policy, and social benefits programs is precisely directed towards government control what kind of activities and goods that people in the poverty entrapment snare should do.

Much better to go with a reverse income tax with no minimum wage and if people want to quit their jobs at McDonalds and spend $40k/year on caviar, steak, and lobster, then let them... everyone involved would be better off for it. But, stay the f--- out of social engineering through welfare spending.

(04-10-2015 10:13 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:06 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So beef and seafood is now a luxury item. I thought it was just food.

"This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate explained to Fox. “It’s free food; it’s awesome."

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...d-seafood/

If this isn't an example of how some on the right feel about poor people, I don't know what is.

And rightfully so. I'm all for helping for a limited time, but don't tell me an poorer or disadvantages person has a right to eat better than I do if I'm working and busting my ass.

It's not a question of disliking or 'trying to keep poor people down', it's common sense. When you give money to a homeless guy on the street do you give him a $5 or $10 bill or reach to the back and pull out a $100 bill? Help is one thing, but putting someone that needs assistance in a better position than working people is another.

I have a friend who lives on food stamps. They are a family of 5 and they get roughly $400 a month. No one is living better than you are on $400 a month.

…and that $400 a month will go a heck of a lot farther if they don't buy steak and seafood.

In Cincinnati two years ago we had a woman on the News complaining because the EBT was down for a few hours at Walmart and she couldn't buy her son a birthday cake. Now I do think every kid should have a cake on their birthday. But a store bought cake is a luxury. Buy a cake mix and can of icing and make one! It costs about $3 to make one at home versus $8-10 to buy one from the store bakery but it does take more effort to bake your own.

(04-10-2015 10:09 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:07 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:06 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:05 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  This dude's argument is that Catholics will have to go without eating altogether on Fridays during Lent if this legislation is passed.

I want everyone to reflect on this.

My arguement is that if people qualify for food stamps, they should be able to buy food with it.

No one is saying otherwise.

This wouldn't even cut their damn benefits.

In fact, it would give them more money to spend on food they actually NEED.

Who's to say they don't need steak and seafood?

Oh yeah......Republicans.

(04-10-2015 10:20 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:13 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:06 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So beef and seafood is now a luxury item. I thought it was just food.

"This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate explained to Fox. “It’s free food; it’s awesome."

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...d-seafood/

If this isn't an example of how some on the right feel about poor people, I don't know what is.

And rightfully so. I'm all for helping for a limited time, but don't tell me an poorer or disadvantages person has a right to eat better than I do if I'm working and busting my ass.

It's not a question of disliking or 'trying to keep poor people down', it's common sense. When you give money to a homeless guy on the street do you give him a $5 or $10 bill or reach to the back and pull out a $100 bill? Help is one thing, but putting someone that needs assistance in a better position than working people is another.

I have a friend who lives on food stamps. They are a family of 5 and they get roughly $400 a month. No one is living better than you are on $400 a month.

I never said anything about living better, I said "eat better". A family of 5 "living on", as you put it, food stamps shouldn't be buying steaks either. They should be making that $400 go as far as they can. You examples has nothing to do with my position or disproves any opinion that I have.

And who says they aren't? Who claims they are buying steak for that matter?

There are limits on what folks can buy using the WIC program. Why can't there be limits on what folks can purchase using food stamps?

(04-10-2015 10:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:20 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:13 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:44 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  If this isn't an example of how some on the right feel about poor people, I don't know what is.

And rightfully so. I'm all for helping for a limited time, but don't tell me an poorer or disadvantages person has a right to eat better than I do if I'm working and busting my ass.

It's not a question of disliking or 'trying to keep poor people down', it's common sense. When you give money to a homeless guy on the street do you give him a $5 or $10 bill or reach to the back and pull out a $100 bill? Help is one thing, but putting someone that needs assistance in a better position than working people is another.

I have a friend who lives on food stamps. They are a family of 5 and they get roughly $400 a month. No one is living better than you are on $400 a month.

I never said anything about living better, I said "eat better". A family of 5 "living on", as you put it, food stamps shouldn't be buying steaks either. They should be making that $400 go as far as they can. You examples has nothing to do with my position or disproves any opinion that I have.

And who says they aren't? Who claims they are buying steak for that matter?

Why did you bring it up then? The discussion is about spending on luxury food items. We all know not every food stamp recipient goes out and buys steaks and seafood, but there are obviously some that do. If you friend is using his food stamp money wisely that's awesome.

(04-10-2015 10:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  There are limits on what folks can buy using the WIC program. Why can't there be limits on what folks can purchase using food stamps?

W.I.C. has limits so that families can make healthy choices.

Steak is certainly a healthy choice and therefore would not be excluded from food stamps under a similar program.

(04-10-2015 09:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:52 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  If you live on a small fixed income and a food stamp supplement every month, yet spend that money on steak and seafood....then that already explains a lot.

I don't see any pragmatism in spending a SUPPLEMENTAL allowance on anything other than NEEDS. SNAP is in place for folks who NEED it. No one NEEDS steak and seafood. Hell, I'm not on assistance and can't even afford that ****.

Steak can be ground to make hamburgers, meatloaf, tacos, soups etc. etc.

Seafood is sometimes necessary for religious purposes during lent.

Are republicans actually going to deny Catholics on food stamps from purchasing fish during lent?

This is some of the weakest sauce ever used to dip BS in.

(04-10-2015 10:53 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:55 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:52 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  If you live on a small fixed income and a food stamp supplement every month, yet spend that money on steak and seafood....then that already explains a lot.

I don't see any pragmatism in spending a SUPPLEMENTAL allowance on anything other than NEEDS. SNAP is in place for folks who NEED it. No one NEEDS steak and seafood. Hell, I'm not on assistance and can't even afford that ****.

Steak can be ground to make hamburgers, meatloaf, tacos, soups etc. etc.

Seafood is sometimes necessary for religious purposes during lent.

Are republicans actually going to deny Catholics on food stamps from purchasing fish during lent?

This is some of the weakest sauce ever used to dip BS in.

Actually, trying to bann steak from food stamps is weak sauce.

(04-10-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  There are limits on what folks can buy using the WIC program. Why can't there be limits on what folks can purchase using food stamps?

W.I.C. has limits so that families can make healthy choices.

Steak is certainly a healthy choice and therefore would not be excluded from food stamps under a similar program.

So in other words families aren't smart enough to make healthy choices on their own, right?

We're making the argument that some families aren't smart enough to make healthy financial choices with other people's money on their own.

(04-10-2015 09:47 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:06 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So beef and seafood is now a luxury item. I thought it was just food.

"This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate explained to Fox. “It’s free food; it’s awesome."

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...d-seafood/

Even in the 100 level econ classes I took in college, we learned that steak and seafood were generally luxury goods. That can change relative to the expense (i.e. if beef became cheaper than chicken then chicken would then become the luxury good), but chicken always the cheapest form of protein.


I'm a fan of this. People may call it an attack on the poor, but we're not taking food away from them. Being on food stamps should get you basic sustenance. It should get you raw goods too, not prepared foods. It should be an inconvenience in every way possible.

My 89 yo grandma feels that chicken is a luxury item because she grew up only eating beef and only had chicken on special occasions.

(04-10-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  There are limits on what folks can buy using the WIC program. Why can't there be limits on what folks can purchase using food stamps?

W.I.C. has limits so that families can make healthy choices.

Steak is certainly a healthy choice and therefore would not be excluded from food stamps under a similar program.

I think most dietitians would recommend a more healthy (and lower cost) source of protein.

(04-10-2015 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  There are limits on what folks can buy using the WIC program. Why can't there be limits on what folks can purchase using food stamps?

W.I.C. has limits so that families can make healthy choices.

Steak is certainly a healthy choice and therefore would not be excluded from food stamps under a similar program.

So in other words families aren't smart enough to make healthy choices on their own, right?

We're making the argument that some families aren't smart enough to make healthy financial choices with other people's money on their own.

If you are making that argument, then I wouldn't be opposed to that.

However suggesting that people on food stamps should be banned from buying steak and sea food isn't the same argument becuase steak and seafood is by far some of the healthiest food you could buy.

This is why it is so obvious that some republicans just hate poor people. Only they would come up with a plan to deny healthy food from poor people.

I thought fish was suppose to be good for you.

(04-10-2015 10:57 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:47 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:06 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  So beef and seafood is now a luxury item. I thought it was just food.

"This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate explained to Fox. “It’s free food; it’s awesome."

That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...d-seafood/

Even in the 100 level econ classes I took in college, we learned that steak and seafood were generally luxury goods. That can change relative to the expense (i.e. if beef became cheaper than chicken then chicken would then become the luxury good), but chicken always the cheapest form of protein.


I'm a fan of this. People may call it an attack on the poor, but we're not taking food away from them. Being on food stamps should get you basic sustenance. It should get you raw goods too, not prepared foods. It should be an inconvenience in every way possible.

My 89 yo grandma feels that chicken is a luxury item because she grew up only eating beef and only had chicken on special occasions.

I bought 2 NY Strips a month ago. It was the first steak I had in about 8 months.

I grilled a London Broil last night. That is about as expensive cut as I choose to buy now. It BTW is a choice. Steak is simply outrageously price now. Those on food stamps should also choose to leave it in the store.

I have no problem limiting the choices of those that are on the public dole.

(04-10-2015 10:59 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I thought fish was suppose to be good for you.

Fish is fine IMO. There are plenty of reasonable cost choices.

(04-10-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  There are limits on what folks can buy using the WIC program. Why can't there be limits on what folks can purchase using food stamps?

W.I.C. has limits so that families can make healthy choices.

Steak is certainly a healthy choice and therefore would not be excluded from food stamps under a similar program.

So in other words families aren't smart enough to make healthy choices on their own, right?

We're making the argument that some families aren't smart enough to make healthy financial choices with other people's money on their own.

If you are making that argument, then I wouldn't be opposed to that.

However suggesting that people on food stamps should be banned from buying steak and sea food isn't the same argument becuase steak and seafood is by far some of the healthiest food you could buy.

This is why it is so obvious that some republicans just hate poor people[b]. Only they would come up with a plan to deny healthy food from poor people.[/b]

There are plenty of healthy alternatives to an expensive steak or seafood.

Poor people don't driver a Mercedes to work when a Kia will get them there. Same argument here.

(04-10-2015 10:59 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I thought fish was suppose to be good for you.

Don't tell them that. They are trying to spin it into an issue of health.

(04-10-2015 10:55 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:52 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 10:48 AM)VA49er Wrote:  There are limits on what folks can buy using the WIC program. Why can't there be limits on what folks can purchase using food stamps?

W.I.C. has limits so that families can make healthy choices.

Steak is certainly a healthy choice and therefore would not be excluded from food stamps under a similar program.

So in other words families aren't smart enough to make healthy choices on their own, right?

We're making the argument that some families aren't smart enough to make healthy financial choices with other people's money on their own.

When you see kids walking around in Air Jordan's and smart phones while living in the public housing it's not up for debate if they are smart.

The smart thing is not buying $4,000.00 rims on a car and eating at Checkers while your kids have ZERO money for college!

(04-10-2015 11:01 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I bought 2 NY Strips a month ago. It was the first steak I had in about 8 months.

I grilled a London Broil last night. That is about as expensive cut as I choose to buy now. It BTW is a choice. Steak is simply outrageously price now. Those on food stamps should also choose to leave it in the store.

I have no problem limiting the choices of those that are on the public dole.

NY Strip is about the cheapest cut of meat that's worth a damn now, and I think it's about $8/pound.

I usually buy thick cut london broils and cut into steaks when I want more than hamburger. It's nothing but flank steak, but cut thick enough and seasoned well it's pretty good on the grill.