Printable View
I wouldnt give up my pet just because I was on food stamps or govt assistance. You dont just give up your pet because of tough times.Quote:
Originally Posted by BPTactical
However, I wouldnt be asking for food stamps for my pet either. I'd go over to Bonfils and donate some plasma every week to buy a bag of pet food.
People are pathetic though.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Since this thread was bumped...
Trump Budget Would Swap Food Stamps for ‘100% American’ Food Packages
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-american-food
Quote:
The plan is part of an effort to reform SNAP and save a projected $214 billion over a decade. It would give all households receiving more than $90 a month in cash a food-aid package that would "include items such as shelf-stable milk, ready to eat cereals, pasta, peanut butter, beans and canned fruit, vegetables, and meat, poultry or fish," according to the proposal.
I've always wondered why we haven't been doing this the whole time! We pay farmers to destroy food. We then pay "benefit" recipients to buy food at retail prices (Walton family loves that).
Same with housing... How much more effective would Section 8 be if the dollars were spent on government housing and not private properties?
If we're gonna Commie, let's Commie the right way!
I went to Papa Murphys tonight to grab a pizza and I noticed the sign above the door..."We Accept EBT".Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...d88df07ab9.jpg
Absolutely ridiculous that people can buy junk food, candy, soda, chips. snack cakes, sweets, pizza and other garbage.
It should be kept to raw ingredients (flour, sugar, yeast, baking powder/soda, etc so you can cook things from scratch), fruits, vegetables, proteins, dairy, cheeses. The basic food groups.
Crab, lobster and steak no. Frozen dinners and appetizers like wings, fried mushrooms, french fries, tots, mozzarella sticks no.
pork chops, hot dogs, hamburger, beef, chicken, certain fishes, sausage, yes.
I 100% agree with you. But Section 8 will never be that way because too many people get kickbacks from the govt and have their hands in the pie.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would be stupid for a business to not accept EBT.
Raw ingredients only is a terrible idea. If the point of assistance is to actually assist someone, than limiting to raw ingredients is harmful to the purpose of the program.
Most people bitching about stuff like this are very far removed from anything even close to a SNAP program. So it's easy to become jaded and just assume that everyone on any sort of government assistance is just some system abusing lackey, but the world is a tad more nuanced than that.
What's that? Some old lady with Parkinson's whose husband just died and doesn't have any kids needs some help affording food? Well here's some raw sugar and flour, try not to mess up the recipe with those shaky old claws!
Papa Murphy's is likely a bit more nutritious than a lot of junk ebt-er's buy. Reasonably priced, as well.
There are many more ebt capable businesses that deserve your derision far more.
Pick your battles.
Sent from somewhere
7-11 maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by crays
Should that person be on her own? Did she drive to Papy Murphy's? Will she leave the oven on? These are questions we had to address with my grandmother. And no, giving her a ready bake pizza didn't solve the problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
One of the things I've noticed is the line-blurring between people who are legitimately disabled and, like you said, system abusing lackeys.
If these social programs were limited to legitimate need not only would the money go further (to actually address core problems [buying the lady a Papa Murphy's probably doesn't solve all her needs]), we'd also have less tax dollars going in taken from workers, and less frustration from those us who have to support our own families in addition to others.
Of course then we also wouldn't have stores openly advertising EBT because use would be rare.
For people who are able minded/bodied... Yes, give them a cardboard box full of .gov purchased food at the cheapest possible prices. No one starves and there's plenty of motivation to get a job.
It seems to me that any program that it's designed to be easy to use, can also be easy to abuse. Make it too difficult to abuse, and it will no longer be as useful as intended. Adding government to anything usually adds a layer of complication.
indeedQuote:
Originally Posted by Irving
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...tenced-prison/
If the focus were more on the type of people who are able to qualify for the program then I wouldn't waste a second thought on what it was for or how they were using it. The real problem is the people that are currently receiving assistance have ZERO business being on it and it makes it easier to criticize what they spend it on.