SNAP for "real food"

7,190 Views | 106 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by techno-ag
AtomicActuator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ol_Ag_02 said:

AtomicActuator said:

You are really hung up on rice for some reason - you can't live on rice alone, even if you wanted to.


And you're hung up the absolute 1% on people on SNAP that are completely unable to find a way to feed themselves unless the can walk to the corner store and use my money to get a Coke and bag of Funyuns.


I said in my first post I was fine with banning use on junk food and the like. I just don't support limiting it to the most basic of staple foods as many want to.
Jugstore Cowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

The real problem with SNAP as it currently exists isn't that fatty LaTrasha is using her benefits to buy junk food and grape soda. It's that SNAP benefits are used as a secondary currency. If you can use SNAP benefits to buy just about anything, the lady at the weave shop will accept them as payment.

How would they trade them? When I'm at the grocery or drug store, I always see them using cards. And carefully deciding which cards to use for which items. I didn't think they've had actual stamps in decades.
AtomicActuator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ol_Ag_02 said:

AtomicActuator said:

one safe place said:

techno-ag said:

Reagan gave them cheese. You can eat that as is or use in Tanya recipes. That's the way to go.

I would change the program January 1. Those that qualify get 25 pounds of cheese, 25 pounds of beans, 25 pounds of rice, 25 pounds of flour, Can buy anything else (meat, eggs, etc.) or beg others for it, or do without.

Month 2, those 25 pound handouts become 20 pounds. Month 3, 15 pounds until the handouts become 0. If they haven't found work or made other arrangements in five months, they can starve.


They won't starve - they are going to steal. And then we will be paying their rent and three squares a day.


At least in prison they won't be procreating at such a high rate. Call it a long term investment in America.


They will get very short stints for shoplifting. And they will figure out that if they manage to get pregnant while they are out, they will get preferential treatment in lockup, because we don't like punishing unborn innocent children.
Jack Boyett
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

My life experience that tells me that most people are decent, good people just trying to get by.

What's your evidence?

My experience is the same, but I've known 2 grocery store managers in my life and their stories pretty much corroborate the OP's.
Hubert J. Farnsworth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Stop making excuses for these people.
Pizza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AtomicActuator said:

Ol_Ag_02 said:

AtomicActuator said:

You are really hung up on rice for some reason - you can't live on rice alone, even if you wanted to.


And you're hung up the absolute 1% on people on SNAP that are completely unable to find a way to feed themselves unless the can walk to the corner store and use my money to get a Coke and bag of Funyuns.


I said in my first post I was fine with banning use on junk food and the like. I just don't support limiting it to the most basic of staple foods as many want to.


I think it should be limited to sausage...buttered sausage.
Ol_Ag_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

The real problem with SNAP as it currently exists isn't that fatty LaTrasha is using her benefits to buy junk food and grape soda. It's that SNAP benefits are used as a secondary currency. If you can use SNAP benefits to buy just about anything, the lady at the weave shop will accept them as payment.


Yup. We're buying their food so they can buy weaves, smokes, booze, lotto tickets, nails, and weed. I'm flat out tired of Americans stealing from the til while the rest of us sacrifice to pay for it.
AtomicActuator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Turns out I don't actually have to obey you.
one safe place
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AtomicActuator said:

one safe place said:

techno-ag said:

Reagan gave them cheese. You can eat that as is or use in Tanya recipes. That's the way to go.

I would change the program January 1. Those that qualify get 25 pounds of cheese, 25 pounds of beans, 25 pounds of rice, 25 pounds of flour, Can buy anything else (meat, eggs, etc.) or beg others for it, or do without.

Month 2, those 25 pound handouts become 20 pounds. Month 3, 15 pounds until the handouts become 0. If they haven't found work or made other arrangements in five months, they can starve.


They won't starve - they are going to steal. And then we will be paying their rent and three squares a day.

My next suggestion would be to cut off the hand of thieves but unlikely to get that through. Then prison should be more like a work camp, don't work, don't eat.

Seriously, if you punish harshly enough those who steal, eventually the others will get the message.

We need to quit playing nice with leeches and freeloaders and stop being soft on crime.
Hubert J. Farnsworth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AtomicActuator said:

Turns out I don't actually have to obey you.


No ****, but your excuses for the leeches are stupid.
one safe place
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AtomicActuator said:

Ol_Ag_02 said:

AtomicActuator said:

one safe place said:

techno-ag said:

Reagan gave them cheese. You can eat that as is or use in Tanya recipes. That's the way to go.

I would change the program January 1. Those that qualify get 25 pounds of cheese, 25 pounds of beans, 25 pounds of rice, 25 pounds of flour, Can buy anything else (meat, eggs, etc.) or beg others for it, or do without.

Month 2, those 25 pound handouts become 20 pounds. Month 3, 15 pounds until the handouts become 0. If they haven't found work or made other arrangements in five months, they can starve.


They won't starve - they are going to steal. And then we will be paying their rent and three squares a day.


At least in prison they won't be procreating at such a high rate. Call it a long term investment in America.


They will get very short stints for shoplifting. And they will figure out that if they manage to get pregnant while they are out, they will get preferential treatment in lockup, because we don't like punishing unborn innocent children.

We might not like punishing unborn innocent children but they don't mind killing their own unborn innocent children.
AtomicActuator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
one safe place said:

AtomicActuator said:

one safe place said:

techno-ag said:

Reagan gave them cheese. You can eat that as is or use in Tanya recipes. That's the way to go.

I would change the program January 1. Those that qualify get 25 pounds of cheese, 25 pounds of beans, 25 pounds of rice, 25 pounds of flour, Can buy anything else (meat, eggs, etc.) or beg others for it, or do without.

Month 2, those 25 pound handouts become 20 pounds. Month 3, 15 pounds until the handouts become 0. If they haven't found work or made other arrangements in five months, they can starve.


They won't starve - they are going to steal. And then we will be paying their rent and three squares a day.

My next suggestion would be to cut off the hand of thieves but unlikely to get that through. Then prison should be more like a work camp, don't work, don't eat.

Seriously, if you punish harshly enough those who steal, eventually the others will get the message.

We need to quit playing nice with leeches and freeloaders and stop being soft on crime.


Starvation is worse than lethal injection. There is no punishment you can implement that will cause a person to just willingly lay down and starve to death. They will kill and eat you before that happens.

There's a reason you don't really see widespread starvation in societies except in regional famines or in organized genocides.
ThunderCougarFalconBird
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jugstore Cowboy said:

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

The real problem with SNAP as it currently exists isn't that fatty LaTrasha is using her benefits to buy junk food and grape soda. It's that SNAP benefits are used as a secondary currency. If you can use SNAP benefits to buy just about anything, the lady at the weave shop will accept them as payment.

How would they trade them? When I'm at the grocery or drug store, I always see them using cards. And carefully deciding which cards to use for which items. I didn't think they've had actual stamps in decades.
lots of merchants that are much more unscrupulous and usually in on the conduct. It's not exactly hard to figure out.
Jarrin Jay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

Yep, there's a lot of stupid, selfish, and generally nasty people out there, and many of them are broke, often because they are such terrible people.

But they are the exception. Using one idiot to try to say anything about the wider population of SNAP recipients is lazy and meaningless.

But that said, I have no problem with limiting food assistance to foods that are smart choices.

Note also that it can't just be limited to scratch ingredients as some seem to think. Many people lack the skills, time, or facilities to cook scratch meals, not to mention once you get all the ingredients, it can cost a fortune.

But there are plenty of reasonable choices that require less prep in the frozen and canned aisles.


Any cashier at a grocery store or supermarket will tell you those on food stamps are the WORST shoppers by a mile. They buy nothing generic, they don't use coupons, they pay zero attention to the price / unit, they buy the most expensive name brands. Yes that is a generalization but applies to the overwhelming majority.

Back when food stamps were actual paper bills printed by the Treasury kids would come in with a $5 food stamp bill and buy a pack of gum to get USD currency in change, which would then be used to buy cigarettes or a 6 pack of beer.

The various Lone Star and EBT cards have cut way down on outright fraud, but the technology is there to FORCE these people to be better shoppers, no name brand milk or peanut butter or sandwich meats, store brand generic is fine. No sodas, chips of any kind, processed desserts (Hostess, etc.), no candy, not even name brand canned fruits and veggies should be allowed.

And if they aren't agreeable to that we should end the program, which should be done anyway, I don't recall the section of the Constitution where the federal government can take my $$ to help other people to buy food, when I need that $$ for my own family.
AtomicActuator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's reasonable. But we have to be careful with what we mean when we say that "they" can't be agreeable with it.

One idiot (or even 20 or 2000 idiots) with a microphone don't speak for everyone. There will be many in politics who will gladly point to a loud moron and use that as an excuse to take food out of the mouths of millions of grateful struggling families.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AtomicActuator said:

I was asked if "she" could read. And I'm saying this example of a person who lacks cooking skills is likely functionally illiterate, and the stats back that up.


"Hey Siri, show me youtube video on how to cook stuff."

Your assertions are ridiculous. There is no excuse for this.
AgBQ-00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was a cashier at tom thumb back in high school. it was a pretty expensive grocery store in the 90s. those that bought with lonestar cards were the one that typically didn't buy to make things last or to stretch the money. You'd be shocked even back then how many were driving new cars. it has been a scam for the entirety of its existence.
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AtomicActuator said:

That's reasonable. But we have to be careful with what we mean when we say that "they" can't be agreeable with it.

One idiot (or even 20 or 2000 idiots) with a microphone don't speak for everyone. There will be many in politics who will gladly point to a loud moron and use that as an excuse to take food out of the mouths of millions of grateful struggling families.


Insisting that they don't use tax payer money to buy garbage isn't taking food from them. If they are so inadequate they need to be taken care of by daddy government, then let's take care of them and limit their options to things that won't increase their societal dependence even further in the form of long term medical expenses.

Even Mike Obama would agree with this
AtomicActuator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was responding to them saying we should end the program entirely if "they" don't agree.
AggieT
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

My life experience that tells me that most people are decent, good people just trying to get by.

What's your evidence?


Most people don't receive SNAP benefits in perpetuity. The vast majority of ones that do act just like this woman.

My evidence is first hand experience working in a grocery store.
one safe place
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AtomicActuator said:


Starvation is worse than lethal injection. There is no punishment you can implement that will cause a person to just willingly lay down and starve to death. They will kill and eat you before that happens.

There's a reason you don't really see widespread starvation in societies except in regional famines or in organized genocides.

There is no way to know that. So far, nobody has both starved to death and also died by lethal injection, so no wat to compare which is worse.

They will not starve. One they begin to get hungry, they will have to make effort to acquire food. Either by working, begging, seeking help from family or charities, or stealing. If they choose the latter, then the punishment should be severe enough for them to choose one of the other options.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's not hard to square the fact that 1 in 8 Americans is or has recently been on food stamps with, this lady is the average SNAP recipient. I go in public. I think it's nice that you think so highly of SNAP recipients I guess.
Jarrin Jay
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I find it hard to believe that 1 in 8 Americans are on SNAP. IF that is true it just means the bard to get on SNAP is WAAAAAAYYYYYY too low.

It is not the job, role, or responsibility of government to take care of people; there should be ZERO benefits or entitlement programs. Zero, none. People and communities need to figure it out for themselves, that is the only way to truly empower people, teach them a work ethic, and have them be responsible and productive members of society, period. All these "do good we" programs certainly have a few individual success stories, but overall they have hurt more of the people then intended to help and just creates generational dependence.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

Ol_Ag_02 said:

AtomicActuator said:

I also said skills and facilities, not just time.


Can she read? The instructions to cook rice are handily included right there on the bag. And unless they're homeless they've got a stove and pot. Try harder.

Probably not - 21% of US adults are considered functionally illiterate in English, and of course a huge portion of those are going to benefits due to poor job prospects.

Deport
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

There isn't great data on Spanish literacy rates and what the overlap is with that 21%, but it's a safe assumption that many of those 21% are not literate in Spanish, but just fully uneducated and/or with a learning disability.

Deport
AtomicActuator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
techno-ag said:

AtomicActuator said:

techno-ag said:

People taking tax payer money shouldn't be able to vote for more tax payer money.

Are you proposing an amendment or an unconstitutional order/law?

This is the way it always should have been. People have known for centuries republics can be destroyed once citizens realize they can vote for money from the treasury. We're no exception.

That's cool, but you didn't answer my question.
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AtomicActuator said:

Ol_Ag_02 said:

AtomicActuator said:

I also said skills and facilities, not just time.


Can she read? The instructions to cook rice are handily included right there on the bag. And unless they're homeless they've got a stove and pot. Try harder.

Probably not - 21% of US adults are considered functionally illiterate in English, and of course a huge portion of those are going to benefits due to poor job prospects.

Niche market for pics-only cookbooks.
Sooper Jeenyus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

Note also that it can't just be limited to scratch ingredients as some seem to think.

Sure it can. In fact, it SHOULD.

Many people lack the skills, time, or facilities to cook scratch meals,

They can, and SHOULD, learn. How hungry/needy are they?

not to mention once you get all the ingredients, it can cost a fortune

How? If all the ingredients are provided, where's the cost coming from?

This post is bad. And you should feel bad.
AnScAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

Bob Lee said:

AtomicActuator said:

My life experience that tells me that most people are decent, good people just trying to get by.

What's your evidence?


I would just say I'd be willing to bet that I can pick them out in the grocery stores on certain days of the month with some degree of accuracy.


I don't doubt you can pick out some stereotypical snap recipients who look or act like terrible people.

But about one in eight Americans is or has very recently been in the program. It's quite likely that you are also seeing many decent people who you would never guess are on it.

I call BS on this. My wife and I have a ranch south of Freer and I do a fair amount of shopping at HEB in Alice and have yet to lose a game of guess who's paying with their Lonestar card. It's extremely simple to win at you just have to have an above room temperature IQ. Besides me paying for my own groceries and theirs I get even more pissed when I see the same people load their free groceries in a nearly new Mitsubishi, Nissan or Mazda.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

techno-ag said:

AtomicActuator said:

techno-ag said:

People taking tax payer money shouldn't be able to vote for more tax payer money.

Are you proposing an amendment or an unconstitutional order/law?

This is the way it always should have been. People have known for centuries republics can be destroyed once citizens realize they can vote for money from the treasury. We're no exception.

That's cool, but you didn't answer my question.
When you come up with a real one, I'll consider it.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
MemphisAg1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AnScAggie said:

AtomicActuator said:

Bob Lee said:

AtomicActuator said:

My life experience that tells me that most people are decent, good people just trying to get by.

What's your evidence?


I would just say I'd be willing to bet that I can pick them out in the grocery stores on certain days of the month with some degree of accuracy.


I don't doubt you can pick out some stereotypical snap recipients who look or act like terrible people.

But about one in eight Americans is or has very recently been in the program. It's quite likely that you are also seeing many decent people who you would never guess are on it.

I call BS on this. My wife and I have a ranch south of Freer and I do a fair amount of shopping at HEB in Alice and have yet to lose a game of guess who's paying with their Lonestar card. It's extremely simple to win at you just have to have an above room temperature IQ. Besides me paying for my own groceries and theirs I get even more pissed when I see the same people load their free groceries in a nearly new Mitsubishi, Nissan or Mazda.

It's not new. I won the game frequently 45 years ago as a teenager in high school working at a grocery store. I sacked the groceries and carried them out to the car for customers. Many, many cases of people using food stamps and then driving off in a bright, shiny, new car.

The Dems turn a blind eye to it. Those are their voters.
japantiger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
TA-OP said:

There's no reason life skills shouldn't be a part of public education. Cooking, budgeting, etc.

They used to be...they were called Home Economics that all women took and Vocational Agriculture that all men took. It's where I learned to weld, take care of pigs and cows, work on a car, etc...
Mega Lops
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
techno-ag said:

People taking tax payer money shouldn't be able to vote for more tax payer money.
THEY don't vote; the scum Dims manufacture those votes.

UNTIL NEXT TIME!!!

Mas89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AtomicActuator said:

You are really hung up on rice for some reason - you can't live on rice alone, even if you wanted to.

It's among the cheapest food source. Around $20 for 100 pounds of milled rice. So a 5 gallon bucket will feed a family a long time. Add some cheap pinto beans to the snap program also. Support American grown food products and prices by giving excess production to needy families. Just like the original program did before your fools changed the rules. And by the way it was George Bush who changed the pl480 food giveaway to foreign countries into giving them cash instead of our excess production from the USA.

they can raise their own chickens, eggs, and tomatoes.
AtomicActuator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
techno-ag said:

AtomicActuator said:

techno-ag said:

AtomicActuator said:

techno-ag said:

People taking tax payer money shouldn't be able to vote for more tax payer money.

Are you proposing an amendment or an unconstitutional order/law?

This is the way it always should have been. People have known for centuries republics can be destroyed once citizens realize they can vote for money from the treasury. We're no exception.

That's cool, but you didn't answer my question.
When you come up with a real one, I'll consider it.


You are proposing disenfranchising voters in direct opposition to the constitution. So unless you are proposing an amendment, then I have a serious problem with that idea.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.