- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SNAP: $15B spent on junk food
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:29 pm to TupeloTiger
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:29 pm to TupeloTiger
quote:
I am a supermarket mgr. and I see the abuse and corruption. One guy came in celebrating that he just got his first EBT/Food Stamps. He got the normal $350.00. He bought $325.00 worth of candy, ice cream, cookies, pies, cakes, Deli food, pastries, donuts, and frozen sweets. He bought no meats, vegetables, produce. I see Diabetes coming for him. Many sell food to other people for 50% on the dollar to go back in for cigarettes and beer. Many return packages of [their] damaged meat to favorable cashiers for cash for cigarettes and beer.
Many will buy a shopping cart full of meat and sell it for cash.
Actually heard one woman say "I can't stand paying cash for food".
Well, welcome to my world, bitch.
0
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:38 pm to HonoraryCoonass
quote:
That's not anecdotal, chief. That's fact. Why are libs constantly confused by this?
Sorry, chief, I wasn't referring to that stat as much as the folks that use stories like a cart full of lobster or a few of the anecdotes in this thread (say, "I hate paying cash for food" unless you think the point of that was to highlight a single person and not broadly define a big segment of the system in an emotional way)
This post was edited on 7/9/17 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:38 pm to Quidam65
Those on snap should have a limited amount of food options from which to choose. All should be healthy staples - meats, veggies, fruit, etc.
You would see the amount of people on snap plummet once the option to buy shitty food was taken away. Michelle Obama always preached about eating healthy foods. Here's a chance for her to actually do something about it
You would see the amount of people on snap plummet once the option to buy shitty food was taken away. Michelle Obama always preached about eating healthy foods. Here's a chance for her to actually do something about it
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:42 pm to NoSaint
quote:
So if you get any government help, your diet and entertainment choices are fully dictated?
Just the part the government pays for.
This isn't hard. The whole rationale for the SNAP program was to provide nutrition for the poor. That's the way it was sold. It would have never passed it when it was proposed, Congresspersons said "And 20 years from now, we will be spending $15B per year on horseshite food and drink for people who we will then pay for their dialysis."
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:42 pm to Alt26
Is this a problem outside of metro southern areas? New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Atlanta, Birmingham, mobile, jackson, etc?
These cities have "unique" problems...
These cities have "unique" problems...
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:43 pm to NoSaint
quote:
So if you file for any welfare, unemployment, food stamps, any housing or healthcare subsidies you are banned from anything with sugar, or entertainment spending?
They should be free to spend any of their cash assistance money on it.
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:45 pm to the808bass
Don't forget the phones!
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:50 pm to rintintin
quote:
Do you not see the difference between buying a coke with food stamps and buying a coke with your own money?
When we are talking about a system where people are seeing money for all kinds of purposes, there's certainly a part of me that isn't losing sleep over how we trace the source of that particular dollar, if we have the appropriate levels of financing going into the persons package.
If they get 100 for food, 100 for housing and earn 200 (just random round numbers) and they have to feed and house themselves and plan to include a coke in their budget, so frickin be it and I don't really care which spot they want to shortchange themselves
Set the benefit level right and set the qualifications right, and a proper expiration and beyond that, have at it dude. Get a coke. I don't need to shame or embarrass anyone extra or force them to live by my standards. I also think allowing an occasional "above the absolute bare minimum to survive" purchase goes a long way to good people getting benefits still feeling human which isn't the worst in trying to get back on your feet.
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:55 pm to NoSaint
quote:
goes a long way to good people getting benefits still feeling human which isn't the worst in trying to get back on your feet.
lol
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:57 pm to NoSaint
quote:
I also think allowing an occasional "above the absolute bare minimum to survive" purchase goes a long way to good people getting benefits still feeling human which isn't the worst in trying to get back on your feet.
I'm going to bet you have nothing behind this statement but emotion.
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:57 pm to RebelExpress38
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/11/21 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 7/9/17 at 1:58 pm to NoSaint
[quote]Sorry, chief, I wasn't referring to that stat as much as the folks that use stories like a cart full of lobster or a few of the anecdotes in this thread (say, "I hate paying cash for food" unless you think the point of that was to highlight a single person and not broadly define a big segment of the system in an emotional way)[/quote/]
If you don't think that attitude prevails, you're kidding yourself
If you don't think that attitude prevails, you're kidding yourself
Posted on 7/9/17 at 2:04 pm to geauxtigersgirl
When is it going to be politically correct to protect the taxpayers??
How is the moral argument that giving away almost limitless food superior to the argument that government should not take away the spoils of labor from the taxpayers to give free things to the few?
How is the moral argument that giving away almost limitless food superior to the argument that government should not take away the spoils of labor from the taxpayers to give free things to the few?
Posted on 7/9/17 at 2:12 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
When is it going to be politically correct to protect the taxpayers??
As long as I'm above the poverty line, I'm just a cow to be milked. My government doesn't give a frick about me.
Posted on 7/9/17 at 2:21 pm to the808bass
quote:
going to bet you have nothing behind this statement but emotion.
It's true- I don't have studies to cite on that one and am going purely on gut reaction that a bunch of you baws would be plenty damn embarrassed if you were fired and needed benefits. I sure would be.
If that's buying your kid a cookie or a coke for yourself- yea, I think having some degree of normalcy helps people through tough times.
Like I've been saying- figure out the right assistance level (minimal but allowing some normalcy), the right qualifications (actual need) and the right expiration (not a forever program for able workers) and worry less about shaming or dictating government involvement from there.
That's super controversial on a conservative board and gets me called liberal in this thread?
This post was edited on 7/9/17 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 7/9/17 at 2:35 pm to NoSaint
quote:guven the generation after generation of welfare dependence, allowing snack food isn't moving people back into the workforce.
I don't need to shame or embarrass anyone extra or force them to live by my standards. I also think allowing an occasional "above the absolute bare minimum to survive" purchase goes a long way to good people getting benefits still feeling human which isn't the worst in trying to get back on your feet.
Posted on 7/9/17 at 2:46 pm to NoSaint
quote:
The difference between a diet being forced on kids vs adults choosing what to buy?
Or is it the difference between kids being told what to buy with their money as opposed to adults buying what they want with your money?
Posted on 7/9/17 at 2:53 pm to NoSaint
quote:
's true- I don't have studies to cite on that one and am going purely on gut reaction that a bunch of you baws would be plenty damn embarrassed if you were fired and needed benefits. I sure would be.
I'd be embarrassed as shite if I had food stamps. Which is a good thing because it would motivate me to better my situation. Protecting people's feelings shouldn't be a part of the equation.
quote:
Like I've been saying- figure out the right assistance level (minimal but allowing some normalcy), the right qualifications (actual need) and the right expiration (not a forever program for able workers) and worry less about shaming or dictating government involvement from there.
Well that's the thing, none of that is being done. If there was more oversight then I don't think people would care as much about what they spend it on. It's the fact that there's very little oversight, and on top of that people are buying shite food with it.
Posted on 7/9/17 at 2:54 pm to tigerfoot
I remember when kids used to make fun of other kids by saying "your momma is on welfare".
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News