Saw legislation proposed by the republicans in Congress (not sure if it was House or Senate though) that was designed to cut out the ability to buy junk food with food stamps.

The WIC program is very strict about what you can buy, so I don't buy any excuses that it would be too difficult to enforce. I don't really agree with republicans on a lot of things, but I'm a big fan of this proposal.

I'd also like to see other measures for food stamp and welfare recipients that make them less convenient than they currently are.

(09-14-2013 12:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:02 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 09:23 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Damn, that b*tch stood in line for 6 hours and won't get a motherf*cking job to feed her SIX kids? I didn't see one single family in there that can't get out and get a job to make extra money.

Some people have jobs that are far easier that standing in line for 6 hours. Has it even occured to you that it's actually hard to get a job when you have no skills and 6 children?

The question should be...Why did the system allow her to have 6 kids she can not support in the first place? There is nothing we can do about her situation at this point but continue to support her sorry ass. It damn sure should be used as an example of what needs to change in the future.

Would you prefer a system that stops her from having 6 kids? How is that freedom?

I would like a system that quits taking my hard earned money that I work for and giving it to those with the freedom to have 6 kids, where is my freedom in keeping my own money?

(09-14-2013 12:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Would you prefer a system that stops her from having 6 kids? How is that freedom?

No, I'd prefer a system where personal responsibility mattered.

Want 6 kids? Knock yourself out. Unless you can only afford 5. Then I'm not going to stop you. I want you to have enough ******* sense to stop yourself.

(09-16-2013 11:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:44 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Nothing wrong with people having large families.
If they are having kids to obtain additional money for that purpose it is different.

I agree. People should not have the expectation that govt will support their children in the first place. That is the paradigm that needs to change.

Good luck telling ~90% of those people no.

(09-16-2013 11:09 AM)Niner National Wrote:  Saw legislation proposed by the republicans in Congress (not sure if it was House or Senate though) that was designed to cut out the ability to buy junk food with food stamps.

The WIC program is very strict about what you can buy, so I don't buy any excuses that it would be too difficult to enforce. I don't really agree with republicans on a lot of things, but I'm a big fan of this proposal.

I'd also like to see other measures for food stamp and welfare recipients that make them less convenient than they currently are.

I agree. Very strict regulations should be put in place for what can be bought with food stamps. It is likely that if someone is on food stamps they are also on Medicare. People on assistance should be steered toward eating as healthy as possible to reduce the use of health benefits.

(09-16-2013 11:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:09 AM)Niner National Wrote:  Saw legislation proposed by the republicans in Congress (not sure if it was House or Senate though) that was designed to cut out the ability to buy junk food with food stamps.

The WIC program is very strict about what you can buy, so I don't buy any excuses that it would be too difficult to enforce. I don't really agree with republicans on a lot of things, but I'm a big fan of this proposal.

I'd also like to see other measures for food stamp and welfare recipients that make them less convenient than they currently are.

I agree. Very strict regulations should be put in place for what can be bought with food stamps. It is likely that if someone is on food stamps they are also on Medicare. People on assistance should be steered toward eating as healthy as possible to reduce the use of health benefits.

It'd be nice if healthy foods were cheaper...

(09-16-2013 11:13 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 12:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:02 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 09:23 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Damn, that b*tch stood in line for 6 hours and won't get a motherf*cking job to feed her SIX kids? I didn't see one single family in there that can't get out and get a job to make extra money.

Some people have jobs that are far easier that standing in line for 6 hours. Has it even occured to you that it's actually hard to get a job when you have no skills and 6 children?

The question should be...Why did the system allow her to have 6 kids she can not support in the first place? There is nothing we can do about her situation at this point but continue to support her sorry ass. It damn sure should be used as an example of what needs to change in the future.

Would you prefer a system that stops her from having 6 kids? How is that freedom?

I would like a system that quits taking my hard earned money that I work for and giving it to those with the freedom to have 6 kids, where is my freedom in keeping my own money?

Once you pay taxes, it's not yours anymore...it's up to the people we elect to do as they see fit with...sounds like you don't like the system...but guess what? It's not going to change.

(09-16-2013 12:18 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:13 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 12:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:02 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:56 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Some people have jobs that are far easier that standing in line for 6 hours. Has it even occured to you that it's actually hard to get a job when you have no skills and 6 children?

The question should be...Why did the system allow her to have 6 kids she can not support in the first place? There is nothing we can do about her situation at this point but continue to support her sorry ass. It damn sure should be used as an example of what needs to change in the future.

Would you prefer a system that stops her from having 6 kids? How is that freedom?

I would like a system that quits taking my hard earned money that I work for and giving it to those with the freedom to have 6 kids, where is my freedom in keeping my own money?

Once you pay taxes, it's not yours anymore...it's up to the people we elect to do as they see fit with...sounds like you don't like the system...but guess what? It's not going to change.

Thanks for your useless insight, douchebag.

(09-16-2013 12:20 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:18 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:13 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 12:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:02 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  The question should be...Why did the system allow her to have 6 kids she can not support in the first place? There is nothing we can do about her situation at this point but continue to support her sorry ass. It damn sure should be used as an example of what needs to change in the future.

Would you prefer a system that stops her from having 6 kids? How is that freedom?

I would like a system that quits taking my hard earned money that I work for and giving it to those with the freedom to have 6 kids, where is my freedom in keeping my own money?

Once you pay taxes, it's not yours anymore...it's up to the people we elect to do as they see fit with...sounds like you don't like the system...but guess what? It's not going to change.

Thanks for your useless insight, douchebag.

Awwwwwwwww

(09-16-2013 12:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:20 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:18 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:13 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-14-2013 12:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Would you prefer a system that stops her from having 6 kids? How is that freedom?

I would like a system that quits taking my hard earned money that I work for and giving it to those with the freedom to have 6 kids, where is my freedom in keeping my own money?

Once you pay taxes, it's not yours anymore...it's up to the people we elect to do as they see fit with...sounds like you don't like the system...but guess what? It's not going to change.

Thanks for your useless insight, douchebag.

Awwwwwwwww

She looks ok in a tux...

(09-16-2013 11:20 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:44 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Nothing wrong with people having large families.
If they are having kids to obtain additional money for that purpose it is different.

I agree. People should not have the expectation that govt will support their children in the first place. That is the paradigm that needs to change.

Good luck telling ~90% of those people no.

Put restrictions on available items for food stamp purchases just like what is already done with WIC purchases and no one has to tell them anything.

(09-16-2013 12:35 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  She looks ok in a tux...

It fits her better than a dress. Barack looks more fitting in the dress.

(09-16-2013 12:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:20 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:44 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Nothing wrong with people having large families.
If they are having kids to obtain additional money for that purpose it is different.

I agree. People should not have the expectation that govt will support their children in the first place. That is the paradigm that needs to change.

Good luck telling ~90% of those people no.

Put restrictions on available items for food stamp purchases just like what is already done with WIC purchases and no one has to tell them anything.

Imagine the restocking when they go to pay out and the remaining balance that the food stamps won't cover is $120.00 of chips and snacks. There's gonna be some Wally World riots then...

(09-16-2013 12:43 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:20 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:44 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Nothing wrong with people having large families.
If they are having kids to obtain additional money for that purpose it is different.

I agree. People should not have the expectation that govt will support their children in the first place. That is the paradigm that needs to change.

Good luck telling ~90% of those people no.

Put restrictions on available items for food stamp purchases just like what is already done with WIC purchases and no one has to tell them anything.

Imagine the restocking when they go to pay out and the remaining balance that the food stamps won't cover is $120.00 of chips and snacks. There's gonna be some Wally World riots then...

Maybe it'll put a fire under their a$$ and make them look out for themselves. Then again, probably not. Some politician despirate to win will put "food stamps for everyone" as his/her primary campaing slogan and win in a landslide.

Only one thing will ever change the food stamp structure and it's coming soon - ridiculous inflation that gov't red tape can't adjust welfare fast enough to feed people. That's when foodstamps become worthless.

If you don't believe me, then ask yourself - why would any man turn down an opportunity to be the Fed Chairman (the man who prints endless money)? A: He doesn't want stuck with the financial collapse blame.

(09-16-2013 12:46 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:43 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:36 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:20 AM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 11:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  I agree. People should not have the expectation that govt will support their children in the first place. That is the paradigm that needs to change.

Good luck telling ~90% of those people no.

Put restrictions on available items for food stamp purchases just like what is already done with WIC purchases and no one has to tell them anything.

Imagine the restocking when they go to pay out and the remaining balance that the food stamps won't cover is $120.00 of chips and snacks. There's gonna be some Wally World riots then...

Maybe it'll put a fire under their a$$ and make them look out for themselves. Then again, probably not. Some politician despirate to win will put "food stamps for everyone" as his/her primary campaing slogan and win in a landslide.

It's a sad world we live in... The things politicians will do just to buy votes. Stooping to patheticly new lows seems to be on every liberal's agenda.

(09-16-2013 12:50 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  Only one thing will ever change the food stamp structure and it's coming soon - ridiculous inflation that gov't red tape can't adjust welfare fast enough to feed people. That's when foodstamps become worthless.

If you don't believe me, then ask yourself - why would any man turn down an opportunity to be the Fed Chairman (the man who prints endless money)? A: He doesn't want stuck with the financial collapse blame.

He should already know that THAT will be blamed on George Bush.

(09-16-2013 12:58 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  It's a sad world we live in... The things politicians will do just to buy votes.

Alright, I'm with you.

Quote:Stooping to patheticly new lows seems to be on every liberal's agenda.

And now I'm not. Why is it always partisan? Both parties will do anything for votes. Why do you classify this as only a liberal phenomena?

(09-16-2013 01:05 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:58 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  It's a sad world we live in... The things politicians will do just to buy votes.

Alright, I'm with you.

Quote:Stooping to patheticly new lows seems to be on every liberal's agenda.

And now I'm not. Why is it always partisan? Both parties will do anything for votes. Why do you classify this as only a liberal phenomena?

Because the Republican candidate wanted to put a new law into effect for government assistance. Since food stamps is the current topic.