People on food stamps and very little savings usually live from crisis to crisis. It is understandable why they are upset. This is just another crisis.

So, does this government agency not have contacts outside this office? Doesn't somebody know a local food bank to help? If groceries could help families make it through a day or two, wouldn't this "buy time" to find out what happened and fix the situation?

(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.

How parental.

(09-12-2013 11:45 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  There is a theory that when food stamps run out (or there is a food shortage in urban areas), within 72 hours anarchy will prevail and half of the population will be dead... not from starvation, from greed and panic.

Comforting, no?

Can you provide a reference for this theory?

(09-17-2013 07:36 AM)chess Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:45 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  There is a theory that when food stamps run out (or there is a food shortage in urban areas), within 72 hours anarchy will prevail and half of the population will be dead... not from starvation, from greed and panic.

Comforting, no?

Can you provide a reference for this theory?

I think there was movie.

Seriously, I don't think the world would end in 72 hours; however, there would be some pissed off folks since thier free ride just left. There would probably be a few incidents because there are locos amongst every population goup.

(09-17-2013 08:11 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:36 AM)chess Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:45 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  There is a theory that when food stamps run out (or there is a food shortage in urban areas), within 72 hours anarchy will prevail and half of the population will be dead... not from starvation, from greed and panic.

Comforting, no?

Can you provide a reference for this theory?

I think there was movie.

Seriously, I don't think the world would end in 72 hours; however, there would be some pissed off folks since thier free ride just left. There would probably be a few incidents because there are locos amongst every population goup.

The movie was made from a book.

Want a reference "Chess"? Read a book. Search for your own knowledge, as I can't hand you mine.

(09-17-2013 08:59 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 08:11 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 07:36 AM)chess Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 11:45 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  There is a theory that when food stamps run out (or there is a food shortage in urban areas), within 72 hours anarchy will prevail and half of the population will be dead... not from starvation, from greed and panic.

Comforting, no?

Can you provide a reference for this theory?

I think there was movie.

Seriously, I don't think the world would end in 72 hours; however, there would be some pissed off folks since thier free ride just left. There would probably be a few incidents because there are locos amongst every population goup.

The movie was made from a book.

Want a reference "Chess"? Read a book. Search for your own knowledge, as I can't hand you mine.

So, what book is being referenced? What study is being referenced?

You are stating a theory that you feel has merit. Where did you find it, so I can read it, too?

I am about as conservative as anyone, but know without the food stamps program a couple of people that would have about starved to death. One guy just turned 65, his wife died, gets a small social security check, has no heat in the winter, and if not for food stamps would really be suffering. He never even took unemployment in the past even though he could have. Has all sorts of medical problems he just ignores because he doesn't have the money, but will get medicare now, but that only pays 80%.
Sure, am sure there are people abusing the system, but it does help many people that would be in a monumental world of hurt without it.

(09-17-2013 09:22 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  I am about as conservative as anyone, but know without the food stamps program a couple of people that would have about starved to death. One guy just turned 65, his wife died, gets a small social security check, has no heat in the winter, and if not for food stamps would really be suffering. He never even took unemployment in the past even though he could have. Has all sorts of medical problems he just ignores because he doesn't have the money, but will get medicare now, but that only pays 80%.
Sure, am sure there are people abusing the system, but it does help many people that would be in a monumental world of hurt without it.

I don't think the program should be eliminated. I am just for controlling the rapid fraud and lack of oversight related to the program. It has its purpose to help those really in need.

(09-17-2013 09:14 AM)chess Wrote:  So, what book is being referenced? What study is being referenced?

You are stating a theory that you feel has merit. Where did you find it, so I can read it, too?

"Dies the Fire" by SM Stirling

"Anarchy, State, & Utopia" by Robert Nozick

"9 Meals From Anarchy"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...risis.html

Plenty more out there, easily found with the help of Google or Bing.

(09-17-2013 07:33 AM)chess Wrote:  

(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.

How parental.

When you ask the government to be your parent, you get a government that acts like your parent.

(09-16-2013 01:40 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:39 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:26 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:19 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  Then go build your own roads and infrastructure. Stop driving on publicly owned roads.

Circle the part where I said I don't support infrastructure.

You don't want to pay taxes. Thus, stop using any service that taxes pay for.

You think you could spend your money better, then fine. Build your own roads and only drive on them.

Who would've guessed that YOU missed the entire point and went above and beyond to cherry pick your way around it. This is about food stamps, I don't like MY hard earned tax payer dollars going to feed the leeches for their entire life either. The system needs to be revamped. Stop missing the point.

Mmm. This is one of those times where people need to learn lessons the hard way. Here's to hoping you lose your job and are unable to find another, thus causing you to be on food stamps.

No one here is objecting to helping people in valid need. We just object to being robbed by lazy baby making welfare queens. There is a VAST difference...and YOU KNOW IT. Stop being hyperbolic and stick to the topic.

(09-16-2013 02:57 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 02:54 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:40 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:39 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:26 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  You don't want to pay taxes. Thus, stop using any service that taxes pay for.

You think you could spend your money better, then fine. Build your own roads and only drive on them.

Who would've guessed that YOU missed the entire point and went above and beyond to cherry pick your way around it. This is about food stamps, I don't like MY hard earned tax payer dollars going to feed the leeches for their entire life either. The system needs to be revamped. Stop missing the point.

Mmm. This is one of those times where people need to learn lessons the hard way. Here's to hoping you lose your job and are unable to find another, thus causing you to be on food stamps.

I'm working, have been since I was 15. If I lose my job and can't find another right off the bat, that's a different story. But only, ONLY if it's temporary. Again, you missed the point of not wanting to support them for their ENTIRE LIFE. Temporarily is fine, but lifelong is not. However, the company I work for will have to shut down before I lose my job because my B-I-L is the owner, and we deal specifically in inmate telephone systems, so I don't see that happening anytime soon. But, yeah, you can always hope. Thanks for your kindness.

that's not up to you to decide...it's up to the people we elect.

So you support letting able bodied people live off the fruits of others labors? If so...You are seriously insane.

(09-16-2013 02:58 PM)Smaug Wrote:  And the people we elect ARE up for us to decide.

Try to remember who works for whom in this relationship, Drew.

Good luck Smaug...It seems these loons actually believe it is the other way around. They truly love living on a comfortable plantation.

(09-17-2013 07:33 AM)chess Wrote:  

(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.

How parental.

Yep. My parents put restrictions on me when they supported me. Same should apply here IMO.

(09-17-2013 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:40 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:39 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:26 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:24 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Circle the part where I said I don't support infrastructure.

You don't want to pay taxes. Thus, stop using any service that taxes pay for.

You think you could spend your money better, then fine. Build your own roads and only drive on them.

Who would've guessed that YOU missed the entire point and went above and beyond to cherry pick your way around it. This is about food stamps, I don't like MY hard earned tax payer dollars going to feed the leeches for their entire life either. The system needs to be revamped. Stop missing the point.

Mmm. This is one of those times where people need to learn lessons the hard way. Here's to hoping you lose your job and are unable to find another, thus causing you to be on food stamps.

No one here is objecting to helping people in valid need. We just object to being robbed by lazy baby making welfare queens. There is a VAST difference...and YOU KNOW IT. Stop being hyperbolic and stick to the topic.

The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

(09-17-2013 09:22 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  I am about as conservative as anyone, but know without the food stamps program a couple of people that would have about starved to death. One guy just turned 65, his wife died, gets a small social security check, has no heat in the winter, and if not for food stamps would really be suffering. He never even took unemployment in the past even though he could have. Has all sorts of medical problems he just ignores because he doesn't have the money, but will get medicare now, but that only pays 80%.
Sure, am sure there are people abusing the system, but it does help many people that would be in a monumental world of hurt without it.

I have not seen anyone posting here with an objection to helping those in true need.

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:40 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:39 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:26 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  You don't want to pay taxes. Thus, stop using any service that taxes pay for.

You think you could spend your money better, then fine. Build your own roads and only drive on them.

Who would've guessed that YOU missed the entire point and went above and beyond to cherry pick your way around it. This is about food stamps, I don't like MY hard earned tax payer dollars going to feed the leeches for their entire life either. The system needs to be revamped. Stop missing the point.

Mmm. This is one of those times where people need to learn lessons the hard way. Here's to hoping you lose your job and are unable to find another, thus causing you to be on food stamps.

No one here is objecting to helping people in valid need. We just object to being robbed by lazy baby making welfare queens. There is a VAST difference...and YOU KNOW IT. Stop being hyperbolic and stick to the topic.

The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

All I ask is that the system help ONLY those in actually need...not incentive people's bad behavior..and help people return to a normal life if possible. Is that too much to ask for?

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 11:42 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:40 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:39 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 01:26 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  You don't want to pay taxes. Thus, stop using any service that taxes pay for.

You think you could spend your money better, then fine. Build your own roads and only drive on them.

Who would've guessed that YOU missed the entire point and went above and beyond to cherry pick your way around it. This is about food stamps, I don't like MY hard earned tax payer dollars going to feed the leeches for their entire life either. The system needs to be revamped. Stop missing the point.

Mmm. This is one of those times where people need to learn lessons the hard way. Here's to hoping you lose your job and are unable to find another, thus causing you to be on food stamps.

No one here is objecting to helping people in valid need. We just object to being robbed by lazy baby making welfare queens. There is a VAST difference...and YOU KNOW IT. Stop being hyperbolic and stick to the topic.

The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

What? Not sure anyone I know thinks that. The program has a good pupose. It's the tolerated abuse, for whatever reason, that most folks despise about the program.

Let's drop the "welfare queen" talk and get to the heart of the issue. Multi-generational dependence is a problem. Lyndon Johnson saw it as an opportunity, and it has certainly been good to Democrats over the years, but the fact is, it's a problem.

(09-17-2013 11:52 AM)mathenis89 Wrote:  The issue is that conservatives seem to think nearly everyone who is on food stamps is there because they're "welfare queens", when the truth is that it's a small number.

How big or small the number is will vary quite a bit depending upon how you define the term "welfare queen." And if arguably the number should be zero, what difference does it make how large it is, as long as it is not zero?

The problem is very simple. Our welfare system is designed to entrap people in it rather than give them support to help them get out. It's not a safety net, it's a spider web. It could be a safety net, and it should be a safety net. Implicit in that definition is that it is designed to get people out of the system and back on their feet as quickly as possible, instead of trapping people there for three generations.

But then again, if people weren't trapped there, they wouldn't be reliable democrat voters, would they?