http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...recipients

While I'm not real keen on people with this type of assistance buying steak, seafood, etc., with the assistance, I'm not 100% sure I want the government telling people this is what you'll eat.

(02-13-2018 12:13 PM)gdunn Wrote:  http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...recipients

While I'm not real keen on people with this type of assistance buying steak, seafood, etc., with the assistance, I'm not 100% sure I want the government telling people this is what you'll eat.

People buy a heck of a lot worse than that with EBT cards. All of Quickie Marts take EBT cards.

I maybe confused then.

I smell someone getting fat government contract to fill and ship boxes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It all depends on what sort of charity you want to pay for.

It runs all the way from dropping MRE's by helicopter, to soup kitchens, to handing out free 5-star restaurant cards. You can even give free cigs, charity pot, and new cars if you want.

You can pick any that you want to pay for.

The people who don't get a say are the recipients of the charity. They should be grateful for whatever charity ot is. They can't really get outraged or demand better charity...at least legitimately. It is pretty rude to do so.

So what do we want to pay for? How generous do we want to be?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

The government isnt telling people what to eat. The government is telling people if you need assistance for food, some of the food will be provided and we'll be sure that its food you need to be eating.

(02-13-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I smell someone getting fat government contract to fill and ship boxes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, agri, food processors, and grocers are doing okay under the current system.

The whole concept of EBT is not to get cash to poor people, it is to get taxpayer cash to ADM and Monsanto and Kroger and etc. I'd guess that they hate this idea.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(02-13-2018 12:13 PM)gdunn Wrote:  http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati...recipients

While I'm not real keen on people with this type of assistance buying steak, seafood, etc., with the assistance, I'm not 100% sure I want the government telling people this is what you'll eat.

Through the WIC program the govt already tells people what they can eat, etc. I don't see why SNAP should be any different.

When you require assistance in the form of welfare - your rights to do what you will with the welfare money should be highly restrictive. EBT cards without restrictions encourage people to make welfare a way of life. OTOH, if you make welfare more difficult - like having to go to a distribution center to get your food that the gov't picks for you - you will work your ass off to get off the dole.

I understand some abused the benefit, but I'd rather see Trump continue to focus on incentivising people to get off these things by working than making changes that further restrict those who really depend on the program.

People in genuine need of the program should not be forced to jump through a bunch more hoops to use it. If you need the program you are already very limited in funds, transportation and other areas. And the government has NO BUSINESS dictating what food choices people make just because they are poor.

I really dislike the idea of limiting what people can buy with SNAP. Let them eat their fresh veggies and steaks if that's what recipients are able to prioritize and afford.

(02-13-2018 12:36 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I understand some abused the benefit, but I'd rather see Trump continue to focus on incentivising people to get off these things by working than making changes that further restrict those who really depend on the program.

Those that really need it will still get what they need. The lazy that don't want to deal with any increased inconvenience will find another way. I see the increased inconvenience as an incentive to get people off the govt dole.

I fully endorse limiting the foods people on assistance can buy. I do however want that food to be of good nutrition value. I have no problem with fresh lean meats of value cost, vegetables and fruits being included. I just oppose them being able to purchase high prices meats and gourmet items. I don't think that is unreasonable. If they want TBone and Tuna steaks?...then find a way to pay for them like everyone else.

This is an area I think many conservatives and libertarians are very hypocritical on.

You can't be the defenders of small government and endorse giving the government more and more dictatorship over what food poor people can eat.

There are plenty of other ways to deal with the problems here.

There is an argument to be made that...yes...those who give charity do indeed have a right to dictate what that charity is.

You are poor. I feel bad. I give you a pizza. You get mad and claim that you want a steak and that I have no RIGHT to dictate your food choices. Uh, sorry buddy.

That said, you also have a danger of government choosing people's diets, their exercise programs, and exchanging food for "proper" political behavior. Creating two-classes of rights. Food as a means of control.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(02-13-2018 12:36 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I understand some abused the benefit, but I'd rather see Trump continue to focus on incentivising people to get off these things by working than making changes that further restrict those who really depend on the program.

People in genuine need of the program should not be forced to jump through a bunch more hoops to use it. If you need the program you are already very limited in funds, transportation and other areas. And the government has NO BUSINESS dictating what food choices people make just because they are poor.

So..It is OK for someone that gets $90 per month to spend all of it on a whole prime rib? I have no problem with them buying healthy value cuts of meat and seafood along with fresh vegetables and fruits. I do have a problem with the prime rib....that I don't even buy because it is too expensive. Should they not be forced if necessary..to use OUR money in a responsible manner?

I fully agree with your initial assertion BTW. We need to get people working and off assistance first.

(02-13-2018 12:49 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This is an area I think many conservatives and libertarians are very hypocritical on.

You can't be the defenders of small government and endorse giving the government more and more dictatorship over what food poor people can eat.

There are plenty of other ways to deal with the problems here.

Nope....As a Libertarian....I oppose ALL of this anyway. I want charity to handle it...not the government. I don't however believe that will ever happen again..so..Im talking about reduction of harm to the taxpayer as the closest remedy possible now.

(02-13-2018 12:52 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(02-13-2018 12:36 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I understand some abused the benefit, but I'd rather see Trump continue to focus on incentivising people to get off these things by working than making changes that further restrict those who really depend on the program.

People in genuine need of the program should not be forced to jump through a bunch more hoops to use it. If you need the program you are already very limited in funds, transportation and other areas. And the government has NO BUSINESS dictating what food choices people make just because they are poor.

So..It is OK for someone that gets $90 per month to spend all of it on a whole prime rib? I have no problem with them buying healthy value cuts of meat and seafood along with fresh vegetables and fruits. I do have a problem with the prime rib....that I don't even buy because it is too expensive. Should they not be forced if necessary..to use OUR money in a responsible manner?

I fully agree with your initial assertion BTW. We need to get people working and off assistance first.

This is big brother territory imo. If you are going to give them some funds each month then give it to them. Hovering over every item they purchase in an Orwellian fashion is going way too far. Surely there are much better ways we can go about it.

Well its only half that is coming in the package, not all of it. And because it is coming in a package, naturally, it doesn't include perishable items, which could be purchased with the rest of their funds. I think the evidence shows that these people are very weak at budgeting. If we are going to tell them what to do, maybe that could be one thing-a course on budgeting.

One of the ideas is that they are buying wholesale in bulk instead of the individuals buying at retail in grocery stores, so you can do the same with less $.

Still, I prefer the government do less, not more. Let the people make their own choices and live with them. But I do think a budgeting course may be a good compulsory thing in order to get assistance.

I'm not so much against what items they buy. Granted, if they are trying to support a family each dollar only goes so far. They need to be responsible.

But I digress.

I'm more against making the necessity of being on SNAP too comfortable. This should not be a life-long solution. It should be a temporary stop-gap until people are back on their feet. And as such, it should have timelines and milestones attached that must be met.

I'm all for requiring able-bodied SNAP recipients to select a career path, identify an education plan that will prepare them for that career, complete the career plan and then transition to the work force.