re: Should you be able to buy Lobster and Steak with Food Stamps?

quote:

---

But I think local stuff like seafood, meat, etc. should be fine as well as eggs, milk, wheat pasta, beans, fruit, vegetables, etc.

---

If I remember correctly (worked at a grocery store one summer in high school) WIC in Louisiana has restrictions on what you can buy that seemed to work. For instance, you couldn't buy the name brand cheese, but could get the cheaper store brand. I remember having to put back flats of kool-aid drinks, because they weren't covered under the program. Things like that. Seems like it's quite possible to have a program that provides the items necessary to sustain a family without giving the ability to "waste" money on junk food and such.

I know WIC is a smaller program, but it seemed to work.

quote:

---

I think they should do food stamps the way the do WIC. Give them a voucher that dictates exactly what they can purchase. It should consist of a protein like, grains and veggies. I don't want to hear all the b.s. about they have a right to choose for themselves. You have a right to choose for yourself when you are paying for it yourself.

---

frick that. Have you ever been in line behind someone using WIC? Now imagine 50 million people in line buying a shite load more stuff. Keep the card, just put more restrictions on what it can be used for. I really don't mind the steak and seafood but soda, energy drinks, and most junk food should be off limits.

quote:

---

frick that. Have you ever been in line behind someone using WIC?

---

stop shopping at walmart

quote:

---

stop shopping at walmart

---

I mostly shop at the on post commissary. shite, we just got our first Walmart a couple years ago.

quote:

---

Because the USA is better in every way than the country they are coming from. It isn't that hard to understand.

---

Well no shite. But WHY? OPPORTUNITY. Why? Freedom to CHOOSE. Freedom to have input so you have a say in the output. When you have no input you deserve no voice.

quote:

---

We need to elect you for President

---

No thanks. I am too smart, I couldn't take the pay cut, I am guided by moral principles that would not allow me to be elected.

Should only be able to buy essentials and then for meat choices hamburger, ham, turkey, hot dogs, and chicken.

No steak(unless it's sirloin), lobster, shrimp, chips, cola, chocolate, candy, sugar fruit drinks, pre cooked meals (deli food), and limit the amount to be spent on frozen food that needs to be fried.

quote:

---

Should only be able to buy essentials and then for meat choices hamburger, ham, turkey, hot dogs, and chicken.

No steak(unless it's sirloin), lobster, shrimp, chips, cola, chocolate, candy, sugar fruit drinks, pre cooked meals (deli food), and limit the amount to be spent on frozen food that needs to be fried.

---

I'm okay with them being able to choose steak, shrimp, scallops, lobster or whatever. I just want to cap the limit of junk food they get.

I'd rather a government food bank/store with unbranded stables and basics. The voucher would completely cover the basics, per person, fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, rice, beans, pasta, canned goods.

No cookies, candy, luxury items, etc. No brand name cereal - nothing extravagant.

Don't like it or want something else? Get a job.

quote:

---

Beans and Gubment cheese... da don't needs no Lobusters and filas

---

But without the filets, what would you put the cheese on?

Nothing goes better with a brick of American cheese like a center cut filet, butterflied, well done but not burnt with some Heinz 57

quote:

---

you have a percentage or are you "just taking your little sampling of life down there in Louisiana and attempting to say the abuse" is bad everywhere? You are doing the same thing as me, except I'm not demonizing your opinion.

---

If you could admit that your 1% comment was an arbitrary opinion than you wouldn't be getting as many replies.

You already mentioned 47M ppl are on food stamps. I'm not going to bother validating that figure, so let's assume it is accurate. That is like 10-15% of the entire country. There is no way to feasibly budget for that many people and circumstances. Let's forget what they are spending on, can we at least agree that some peoples benefit is probably greater than what they "need" ( at least in relative terms compared with other recipients)? With that level of volume, there needs to be proper controls in place to prevent abuse from occurring in the first place, because there is just no way to effectively police it after the fact.

Also,of course, poverty is a problem not just in the US but worldwide. But, I think it is also important to point out that there is a seemingly increasing amount of people that that are unsupportive of these programs, with a very real clash of classes brewing. Should we just ignore this problem that solving another problem is creating?

And just for perspective, LA has the highest percentage of any state budget from federal funds, which are for these programs, so it is very likely that the abuse is higher here than perhaps anywhere else.