Finally some common sense out of DC

RPM371

RPM371

Well-Known Member
ginjawarrior said:
To supply pregnant women the extra nutrients they need with vouchers that are add ons to food stamps?

Cool story bro
Click to expand...
Be obstinate all you want. It's a lame debating tactic, Bro. Nobody but you is saying feed everyone like pregnant women.
RPM371 said:
... if it is a nutritional based program it will have "X" amount of foods per day based on the person(s) in the household.
Click to expand...
I've seen both in action and know what works and what doesn't. WIC works with hardly any room for abuse. SNAP can be run the same way.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
RPM371 said:
Be obstinate all you want. It's a lame debating tactic, Bro. Nobody but you is saying feed everyone like pregnant women.

I've seen both in action and know what works and what doesn't. WIC works with hardly any room for abuse. SNAP can be run the same way.
Click to expand...

I will only ask one question of you.

Do you believe, or know that people in the program never go hungry, are they able to feed themselves and their
families in a healthy way without ever running short on either of the programs?
 
Trousers

Trousers

Well-Known Member
If you think either the republican party or the democratic party is the problem, you are doing exactly what they want you to do.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
RPM371 said:
Not everyone that's on Food Stamps is a lazy, shiftless bum that doesn't want to work. I have no problem extending a helping hand to the needy, but let's use some common sense about it. WIC is a good program that has limited buying choices based on food needs. You want something not on your WIC list, you pay cash. SNAP should be the same way, based on nutritional needs.
Click to expand...
Completely ridiculous idea. I'll tell you why.

Snap is not just about feeding people. It is an economic boon. Foodstamps are one of the most effective stimulus programs in the history of money. Julius Cesar was one of the first to implement something like it, and feeding the needy is incidental. It is about stimulating the economy. For every dollar spent on food stamps, two dollars worth of jobs are created. When you have a consumer economy, you need consumers. When you limit what can be bought with this stimulus money, you limit where that money goes and you limit the jobs it can create.

It isn't like when the gov't spend money on the military and it goes down a black hole. The money that the gov't spends domestically, stays in America, moving around, changing hands. It trickles up. It benefits people in every socioeconomic strata. It benefits the guy that sells food, it benefits the guy that makes food, it benefits the guy that develops gmos, it benefits the guy that makes pesticides, it benefits the guy that drives refrigeration trucks, I could go on but I think you get it.

There are many ways that the gov't can spend tax money, and there are many ways that the gov't can save that money, as well as many ways that the gov't can reduce what taxes it needs to collect. An idea like this does not serve any purpose other than to begrudge someone what ever enjoyment they get from choosing what they want to buy. It does not save the gov't money, it does not save the tax payer money, it only makes the program less of an economic boon.
 
ginjawarrior

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
RPM371 said:
Be obstinate all you want. It's a lame debating tactic, Bro. Nobody but you is saying feed everyone like pregnant women.

I've seen both in action and know what works and what doesn't. WIC works with hardly any room for abuse. SNAP can be run the same way.
Click to expand...
Why do you feel the need to dictate what they buy?
 
RPM371

RPM371

Well-Known Member
ricky1lung said:
I will only ask one question of you.

Do you believe, or know that people in the program never go hungry, are they able to feed themselves and their
families in a healthy way without ever running short on either of the programs?
Click to expand...
I'll be honest and answer, no. Because nobody can guarantee that anyone will never go hungry. But I'd rather see what assistance they get be designated for good nutrition. With a WIC type administration that would maximize the nutritional value.
 
RPM371

RPM371

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Completely ridiculous idea. I'll tell you why.

Snap is not just about feeding people. It is an economic boon. Foodstamps are one of the most effective stimulus programs in the history of money.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you, and that's the monkey wrench that needs to be addressed. The corporations would be against this.
 
Commander Strax

Commander Strax

Well-Known Member
it is not about starving people, it is about provideing FREE nutritious food to people that are unable to provide for themselves.

If you are able to work, then do so. If not then you should not complain that the government wants to GIVE you oatmeal and you want Frosted Flakes
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
RPM371 said:
I completely agree with you, and that's the monkey wrench that needs to be addressed. The corporations would be against this.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you don't understand what I am saying because if anything is obvious, you don't agree.

The only reason why this idea sounds good, is if you want to begrudge people a choice. It has absolutely no other point, but it does have several negative consequences.
 
RPM371

RPM371

Well-Known Member
We could always go back to the free government cheese, rice and beans they used to do before SNAP.
 
ricky1lung

ricky1lung

Well-Known Member
Commander Strax said:
it is not about starving people, it is about provideing FREE nutritious food to people that are unable to provide for themselves.

If you are able to work, then do so. If not then you should not complain that the government wants to GIVE you oatmeal and you want Frosted Flakes
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but then dont you suppose the fed should open food banks with their "approved food" and eliminate
food stamps all together?

Or

Should people have the ability to choose 3 shitty meals instead of being forced to have say 1 maybe 1.5 good meals and suffer
through the next meal?

Living on food stamps
What do you eat on $4.06 a day? Las Vegas Mayor Carolyn Goodman took a local food bank's challenge to live for five days on the food stamp allowance for a single Nevadan. Breakfast was Cheerios, lunch canned soup, and dinner tuna sandwiches or macaroni and cheese. "I didn't get to put any fruit on my meal plan," Goodman said, noting that healthy food tends to be more expensive than processed food. "It's a good thing that I love tomato soup." The government does not track what people buy with food stamps, and the rules allow almost any food or food product that can be cooked or heated at home. "It's just a small help," says Josephine Gonzales, an unemployed single mother. "It's not making our lives luxurious."
Click to expand...

Could anyone here really think they could eat healthy on a food stamp budget?
If you do you are welcome to take the challenge.
 
RPM371

RPM371

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Apparently, you don't understand what I am saying because if anything is obvious, you don't agree.

The only reason why this idea sounds good, is if you want to begrudge people a choice. It has absolutely no other point, but it does have several negative consequences.
Click to expand...
No, go back and look at the part I agreed with you about. It's been turned into an economic boon by the ConAgra's and ADM's. They want to be able to sell anything with SNAP. It's money in their pockets. It's time to take it back and focus on nutrition.

You want something not on the list you're going to have to get it the old fashioned way. That would be the only negative consequence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top