Bring back the government cheese, peanut butter, powdered milk, and beans.

The theory of "they don't know how to cook" would quickly be shot down if these people were hungry enough.

Qualify them every quarter and count heads, then give them a monthly ration of staples from a plain white cinderblock building with no windows and a gravel parking lot. Hire part time help to hand it out.

The whole damn thing is a Democrat scheme for votes, like 100% of everything they do.

Because they can buy their own "real food." SNAP is for partying man!

I'll trade for your jalapeno cheese.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

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.

---

The original Constitution didnt give everyone voting rights for exactly this reason...

---

And we were smart enough to amend it. So, do we agree your idea is unconstitutional without an amendment?

You don't support and defend the constitution if you don't also support and defend its active amendments.

AtomicActuator said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

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.

---

The original Constitution didnt give everyone voting rights for exactly this reason...

---

And we were smart enough to amend it. So, do we agree your idea is unconstitutional without an amendment?

You don't support and defend the constitution if you don't also support and defend its active amendments.

---

I think, AA, you'll have to give up on this line of reasoning. Or at least convincing anyone it's reasonable.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

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.

---

The combination of rice and beans provide all 9 essential amino acids to make a complete protein. Easy to cook too. That is all a SNAP recipient should be given. Maybe some broccoli.

---

Exactly. I would add chicken thighs to this.

Chicken thighs, rice, and beans are all EXTREMELY cheap to buy and easy to prepare. If someone is busy during the week, then you meal prep.

All liberals do is whine about anything that isn't very easy. Unless you literally hand them things, they ***** and moan. I'm sorry, but expecting humans to actually cook their food is not too much to ask. Throw a bunch of ingredients in a crockpot and have food for the rest of the week. But then we would hear them complain that they don't get enough variety.

These people on food stamps expect to have all the luxuries that others in the 1st world have, which I absolutely reject.

Well don't let me catch y'all talking about the constitution in the future when it suits you.

If you want the 1A and 2A, you also get voting rights, and you don't get to disenfranchise people because they take assistance you offer.

ABattJudd said:

---

This EBT recipient says it's "not cool" that SNAP can now only be used to buy "real food."

I wish Tanya could have seen this. I would have loved to see her reaction.

https://notthebee.com/article/this-snap-recipient-is-angry-that-she-cant-buy-junk-food-in-her-state-anymore-whats-the-point-of-food-stamps-if-its-just-for-real-food?from_social=twitter&fbclid=IwVERFWAOxTN5zcnRjBmFwcF9pZAo2NjI4NTY4Mzc5AAEey4rbyGksHfQHxLocEYty3gdB-4f8t9tqDt2xUvEFjDBwQ-XpR2ygUrlCOjM

---

"Wy dey do dat?"

AtomicActuator said:

---

Well don't let me catch y'all talking about the constitution in the future when it suits you.

If you want the 1A and 2A, you also get voting rights, and you don't get to disenfranchise people because they take assistance you offer.

---

Yes. It should be amended.

Happy?

AtomicActuator said:

---

Well don't let me catch y'all talking about the constitution in the future when it suits you.

If you want the 1A and 2A, you also get voting rights, and you don't get to disenfranchise people because they take assistance you offer.

---

That's the infuriating part. What you don't seem to understand is that IM NOT OFFERING.

But that sure doesn't stop them from taking. Govt is forcing me by threat of violence or imprisonment to provide for these people that are totally capable of providing for themselves. And before you go all bleeding heart again, you said it yourself that 1 in 8 people are on SNAP, that's 40 million people. There's absolutely no possible way that many people are incapable of providing for themselves.

Lathspell said:

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

Well don't let me catch y'all talking about the constitution in the future when it suits you.

If you want the 1A and 2A, you also get voting rights, and you don't get to disenfranchise people because they take assistance you offer.

---

Yes. It should be amended.

Happy?

---

There still seem to be a couple folks here against the constitution, but yeah, that helps.

In fact, as a matter of policy, I'm not really against that idea, but it's wildly unconstitutional without an amendment, which has a near zero chance of being ratified.

It could be abused though by increasing taxes to the point where almost everyone has to be on assistance to live, so the amendment would have to be that if your assistance received is greater than all the combined taxes and fees you pay to the government, then you are temporarily ineligible to vote.

AtomicActuator said:

---

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.

---

Lack time?! I call major bull***** They don't want to make time. They'd rather surf the web on their phone.

Lack skills?! Cutting up a veggie and putting it into a pot to boil or steam is not really a skill. Or microwaving it. Baking a chicken breast is not really a skill.

Lack facilities?! How can they heat up something in a can then?


You used the word "many". The words you should have used was "very few".

Lathspell said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

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.

---

The combination of rice and beans provide all 9 essential amino acids to make a complete protein. Easy to cook too. That is all a SNAP recipient should be given. Maybe some broccoli.

---

Exactly. I would add chicken thighs to this.

Chicken thighs, rice, and beans are all EXTREMELY cheap to buy and easy to prepare. If someone is busy during the week, then you meal prep.

All liberals do is whine about anything that isn't very easy. Unless you literally hand them things, they ***** and moan. I'm sorry, but expecting humans to actually cook their food is not too much to ask. Throw a bunch of ingredients in a crockpot and have food for the rest of the week. But then we would hear them complain that they don't get enough variety.

These people on food stamps expect to have all the luxuries that others in the 1st world have, which I absolutely reject.

---

Great post. I am sick and ****ing tired of liberals who make dumbass excuses to facilitate lazy humans living off the labor of others.

At one time, welfare was a stop gap. Now its a lifestyle because of people like Atomic!

Logos Stick said:

---

Great post. I am sick and ****ing tired of liberals who make dumbass excuses to facilitate lazy humans living off the labor of others.

At one time, welfare was a stop gap. Now it's a lifestyle because of people like Atomic!

---

Yes, that is the part that pisses me off the most. The reason why SNAP and other welfare programs are so terrible is because the govt runs them….The most bloated and inefficient organization in the world. Charity and welfare should be handled by local communities not fed gov. The main reason is that locals will know who really needs a helping hand and who needs to just get off their ass and get a job. At this point, I'd say a solid 90-95% of welfare recipients fall into that latter category.

We should return to the basic discussion. SNAP benefits should be limited to good food, that is fundamental.

Childern and the elderly will benefit the most from good food. The able-bodied SNAP recipients can go pound sand . Able-bodied SNAP recipients are here because they make poor decisions. Food choices, from SNAP, should be not be on their radar.

You might be surprised that I fully agree it should be state-run, not federalized.

But I think that some basic safety nets are a contributor to the dramatic drop in crime, including property crime, we have seen since the 70s:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/property-crime-rate-us

Desperate people are really bad for society and investing in stability pays dividends for us all, even if it's not fair.

I'm just a realist and see that cutting off assistance en masse would be extremely destabilizing, which is very bad for business.

If you've ever watched an episode of 'My 600 Pound Life', you'd witness how this 'growing' segment of our population MAINTAINS their lifestyle through 'disability & SNAP' payments.

REAL food requirements should be a MUST.

When I was in college I worked at a convenience store with a guy from the Philippines that was married with a couple of kids. He told me they spent less than $200 a month on food for his family and at first I didn't believe him. No government assistance. He and his wife would drive to Houston to a big Asian supermarket and buy a huge bag of rice and some basic staples to last a month and only purchased a small amount of fresh produce and protein locally to supplement. Don't give me a sob story that poor people will starve if they are only provided basic staples like rice, beans, milk, cheese, etc. That's BS.

bonfarr said:

---

When I was in college I worked at a convenience store with a guy from the Philippines that was married with a couple of kids. He told me they spent less than $200 a month on food for his family and at first I didn't believe him. No government assistance. He and his wife would drive to Houston to a big Asian supermarket and buy a huge bag of rice and some basic staples to last a month and only purchased a small amount of fresh produce and protein locally to supplement. Don't give me a sob story that poor people will starve if they are only provided basic staples like rice, beans, milk, cheese, etc. That's BS.

---

You don't even need an Asian market. You can buy big 50 lb bags of rice and other things in bulk at Sam's.

AtomicActuator said:

---

Well don't let me catch y'all talking about the constitution in the future when it suits you.

If you want the 1A and 2A, you also get voting rights, and you don't get to disenfranchise people because they take assistance you offer.

---

It is not offered from the decent and hard working people, it is confiscated.

techno-ag said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

When I was in college I worked at a convenience store with a guy from the Philippines that was married with a couple of kids. He told me they spent less than $200 a month on food for his family and at first I didn't believe him. No government assistance. He and his wife would drive to Houston to a big Asian supermarket and buy a huge bag of rice and some basic staples to last a month and only purchased a small amount of fresh produce and protein locally to supplement. Don't give me a sob story that poor people will starve if they are only provided basic staples like rice, beans, milk, cheese, etc. That's BS.

---

You don't even need an Asian market. You can buy big 50 lb bags of rice and other things in bulk at Sam's.

---

Yeah, but …

You are vetted by the Sam's Club membership committee.

Btw …

They have a great price for a pallet of loose bb's and be entertained during the check out process.

AtomicActuator said:

---

You might be surprised that I fully agree it should be state-run, not federalized.

But I think that some basic safety nets are a contributor to the dramatic drop in crime, including property crime, we have seen since the 70s:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/property-crime-rate-us

Desperate people are really bad for society and investing in stability pays dividends for us all, even if it's not fair.

I'm just a realist and see that cutting off assistance en masse would be extremely destabilizing, which is very bad for business.

---

Trump guns and Trump bullets FTMFW

BigRobSA said:

---

AtomicActuator said:

---

You might be surprised that I fully agree it should be state-run, not federalized.

But I think that some basic safety nets are a contributor to the dramatic drop in crime, including property crime, we have seen since the 70s:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/property-crime-rate-us

Desperate people are really bad for society and investing in stability pays dividends for us all, even if it's not fair.

I'm just a realist and see that cutting off assistance en masse would be extremely destabilizing, which is very bad for business.

---

Trump guns and Trump bullets FTMFW

---

Are these lower or higher caliber?

SNAP is a problem, but it's not just greedy poor fat people, it's greedy rich big companies and processed food makers.
There are $116 billion in SNAP to be made every year. Wal Mart alone is estimated to have brought in over $25 billion of that. If you think companies like Wal Mart and the processed food makers that are on their shelves aren't fighting behind the scenes against every limitation on how those dollars can be spent, you're kidding yourself.

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.

---

As someone that has worked in retail: You are 100% incorrect.

techno-ag said:

---

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

---

Made a great grilled cheese sandwich and also Mac and cheese. Was more of a Velveeta than a classic American but wasn't bad.

https://www.history.com/articles/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan


In December 1981, Reagan relented. "At a time when American families are under increasing financial pressure, their government cannot sit by and watch millions of pounds of food turn to waste," he said in a public address. As a result, he said, he'd free 30 million pounds of cheese from the country's stockpile. He created the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, which began handing out the blocks of processed cheese to the elderly, low-income people and organizations that served them.

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

If you think companies like Wal Mart and the processed food makers that are on their shelves aren't fighting behind the scenes against every limitation on how those dollars can be spent, you're kidding yourself.

---

I do a lot of stuff to myself ...kidding isn't one of them.

5Amp 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.

---

Made a great grilled cheese sandwich and also Mac and cheese. Was more of a Velveeta than a classic American but wasn't bad.

https://www.history.com/articles/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan


In December 1981, Reagan relented. "At a time when American families are under increasing financial pressure, their government cannot sit by and watch millions of pounds of food turn to waste," he said in a public address. As a result, he said, he'd free 30 million pounds of cheese from the country's stockpile. He created the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, which began handing out the blocks of processed cheese to the elderly, low-income people and organizations that served them.

---

Yeah, that's an interesting quirk of history. There was a milk shortage during the Carter administration, so the federal government subsidized the dairy industry. Which accomplishec its goal of increasing milk production too much. So the government bought up the excess milk. And nobody wanted to just toss it out and waste food, so they made it into cheese, which has a longer shelf life. And that raised the question of what to do with this government cheese stockpile, and the best idea anyone had was to give it to poor people.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

5Amp 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.

---

Made a great grilled cheese sandwich and also Mac and cheese. Was more of a Velveeta than a classic American but wasn't bad.

https://www.history.com/articles/government-cheese-dairy-farmers-reagan


In December 1981, Reagan relented. "At a time when American families are under increasing financial pressure, their government cannot sit by and watch millions of pounds of food turn to waste," he said in a public address. As a result, he said, he'd free 30 million pounds of cheese from the country's stockpile. He created the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, which began handing out the blocks of processed cheese to the elderly, low-income people and organizations that served them.

---

Yeah, that's an interesting quirk of history. There was a milk shortage during the Carter administration, so the federal government subsidized the dairy industry. Which accomplishec its goal of increasing milk production too much. So the government bought up the excess milk. And nobody wanted to just toss it out and waste food, so they made it into cheese, which has a longer shelf life. And that raised the question of what to do with this government cheese stockpile, and the best idea anyone had was to give it to poor people.

---

I remember an episode of Mork & Mindy where Robin Williams mentioned something about eating "that cheese the President gave us." It was funny because it was a roundabout way of saying they were poor.

I was in line in a gas station yesterday and the girl in front of me bought two Starbucks frappes, one Starbucks energy drink and a bag of chocolate covered pretzels using her EBT card.