Really? Tax dollars going for people to dine out?

[Abbey Marie]

Used to be that the poor were given bulk food items, etc. Then it was decided, I guess, that this wasn't good enough, so food stamps were born, to allow people to go shopping for whatever food they wanted. Now, it appears that at least in some states, people can use their food stamps to go out for a restaurant dinner.

What do you all think of this?


News is circulating that food stamps are being accepted (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2011-09-05/More-restaurants-are-targeting-customers-who-use-food-stamps/50267864/1?csp=hf) in restaurants. The move is gaining momentum, and many supporters are claiming it is all in the name of feeding the hungry. But it seems more like a result of savvy lobbying and policy control by restaurants to increase revenue.
...
Even Yum! Brands is trying (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/90059088?More American restaurants open to diners with food stamps) to get in on the food stamp action. Yum! Brands features restaurants that include Long John Silvers, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. The recession hit everybody hard, and restaurants are trying to get a piece of the $64 billion being paid out as part of the SNAP, or food stamp, benefits.

Normally food stamps cannot be used to purchase prepared foods. But a provision allows states to permit restaurants to serve disabled, elderly and homeless people. Four states allow the process, but the restaurant industry, mainly the quick service segment, is trying to get the program expanded.
...
http://news.yahoo.com/restaurants-aiming-larger-slice-food-stamp-pie-171600306.html

[ConHog]

Used to be that the poor were given bulk food items, etc. Then it was decided, I guess, that this wasn't good enough, so food stamps were born, to allow people to go shopping for whatever food they wanted. Now, it appears that at least in some states, people can use their food stamps to go out for a restaurant dinner.

What do you all think of this?

I hate the idea of this. And to serve the disabled? If you're able enough to go to Long John Silvers you are able enough to grocery shop and cook your own fucking meal. I have no problem with food stamps, but why do people have to take it too far?

[Kathianne]

In IL can't buy hot or prepared foods with food stamps. I thought that is a federal program, shouldn't that be the case all over?

[ConHog]

In IL can't buy hot or prepared foods with food stamps. I thought that is a federal program, shouldn't that be the case all over?

Not really, it is a federally funded program, but they are operated by the individual states.

[PostmodernProphet]

just curious, but what do people who can't afford more than a room without a kitchen supposed to do?.......

[avatar4321]

just curious, but what do people who can't afford more than a room without a kitchen supposed to do?.......

Get a job?

[Abbey Marie]

just curious, but what do people who can't afford more than a room without a kitchen supposed to do?.......

Buy a hot plate and cook cheap meals. I've done it.

[ConHog]

just curious, but what do people who can't afford more than a room without a kitchen supposed to do?.......

As some one else said, Get a job. Anyone who is THAT poor is that poor by choice. Amazing that they have the resources to get their asses to a restaurant huh? Oh , I can't find this study on the internet anywhere but I have seen it suggested that 70% of food stamp users use tobacco products. How much a month is THAT habit costing them?

[J.T]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here.

The purpose is to help them eat, yes? So long as they're buying food, what's the difference if they buy a mcdouble and large soft drink for two bucks versus using that two bucks of food stamps to buy some ravioli? Are we going to argue over white versus brown rice and different brands and argue that they should have bought whatever was cheapest? Or that they should buy whatever is the most helpful (in which case a steak and potato on a friday outweighs a bunch of pasta and spaghetti sauce and loses to some mixed beans and long-grain brown rice).

[Kathianne]

Allow me to play devil's advocate here.

The purpose is to help them eat, yes? So long as they're buying food, what's the difference if they buy a mcdouble and large soft drink for two bucks versus using that two bucks of food stamps to buy some ravioli? Are we going to argue over white versus brown rice and different brands and argue that they should have bought whatever was cheapest? Or that they should buy whatever is the most helpful (in which case a steak and potato on a friday outweighs a bunch of pasta and spaghetti sauce and loses to some mixed beans and long-grain brown rice).

Here's the deal as I see it. Food stamps are to help those that fall below the poverty line, working or not working. Many are working, but not at a level above poverty. Might be a single person working at minimum wage, part-time. Not able to secure full-time position. Might be a couple that is on disability or some other temporary position. Those with kids, well they may qualify if one or both parents are working, getting also WIC, medicare, and cash allowances. Lots of folks qualify for food stamps, not all lazy or milking the system.

The allowance isn't 'generous' enough to allow for much in the way of the costs of fast foods. An adult with a 1/4 pounder, coke, and fries and two kids with a happy meals is about $10. For that same $10 a loaf of bread, 1/2 lb of lunch meat, 1/2 lb of cheese could be bought. Enough with another 3$ in a head of lettuce, bag of chips to make perhaps 3 lunches. Heck even enough for 3 yogurts to round things out.

On the other hand, the restrictions on 'hot foods' preclude roasted chickens, that can be had on special for $3-4. There's enough for a dinner for 2, and 4 sandwiches or a generous cold salad for 4. Some thinking needs to go on with this.

[gabosaurus]

That is truly preposterous! Food stamps should be used to buy FOOD. Not fast food or any other substance. Actual food.
You don't need a kitchen to prepare food. All you need is whatever substance you can obtain.
At the turn of the 20th century, many Americans existed on bread and soup. They couldn't afford anything yet. Yes, they had jobs, which paid them very little.

I know kids whose parents live off food stamps. They buy bread, a roasted chicken and cheap vegetables.
And for those who say "get a job," I ask: What if you are a single mother with kids? Or perhaps disabled or in poor health?

[J.T]

For that same $10 a loaf of bread, 1/2 lb of lunch meat, 1/2 lb of cheese could be bought. Enough with another 3$ in a head of lettuce, bag of chips to make perhaps 3 lunches. Heck even enough for 3 yogurts to round things out.

Or several pounds of long grain brown rice and a few pounds of black and kidney beans. By that reasoning, why are we letting them buy unhealthy things like cheese and chips? Food is food. Just how firmly are you willing to apply your argument? If you want to control just where they buy what foods, why not just give them food instead of food stamps?


On the other hand, the restrictions on 'hot foods' preclude roasted chickens, that can be had on special for $3-4. There's enough for a dinner for 2, and 4 sandwiches or a generous cold salad for 4. Some thinking needs to go on with this.
And then you have specials at KFC where a fuck bucks can feed everyone a large supper with chicken left for lunch for the next day or two. Again, why not simply limit it to food products and leave it the them to budget and decide where to buy what?

[ConHog]

Or several pounds of long grain brown rice and a few pounds of black and kidney beans. By that reasoning, why are we letting them buy unhealthy things like cheese and chips? Food is food. Just how firmly are you willing to apply your argument? If you want to control just where they buy what foods, why not just give them food instead of food stamps?

And then you have specials at KFC where a fuck bucks can feed everyone a large supper with chicken left for lunch for the next day or two. Again, why not simply limit it to food products and leave it the them to budget and decide where to buy what?

Dollar for dollar unprepared food is more economical than prepared food. PERIOD, and that is all that we are worried about when it comes to food stamps.

[Kathianne]

Or several pounds of long grain brown rice and a few pounds of black and kidney beans. By that reasoning, why are we letting them buy unhealthy things like cheese and chips? Food is food. Just how firmly are you willing to apply your argument? If you want to control just where they buy what foods, why not just give them food instead of food stamps?

And then you have specials at KFC where a fuck bucks can feed everyone a large supper with chicken left for lunch for the next day or two. Again, why not simply limit it to food products and leave it the them to budget and decide where to buy what?

If the government wishes to treat food stamp program, call it instead 'keeping folks from starvation', a stipend of rice, noodles, bread, and so many grams/lbs of protein like the school lunch program would be ok.

If though they wish to leave it with some choices, then the restrictions should be reasonable.

It may well be that the best solution is to make it so much grain, protein, etc. is the best way to go.

[J.T]

Dollar for dollar unprepared food is more economical than prepared food. PERIOD, and that is all that we are worried about when it comes to food stamps.

In my experience, I don't save much buying frozen chicken, beans, and rice, compared to grabbing a thirst-buster and a hotdog at the circle-k or a mcdouble and a small order of fries. Then you've the matter of whether one has kids and the time and means to prepare food. Either way, how far are you willing to take your argument? Should they only be allowed to shop at certain stores and buy certain brands? Also, I've occasionally seen rotisserie chickens available for 2 bucks on sale. Compare that to the cost of a raw chicken with butter and electricity to cook it.

[Kathianne]

Dollar for dollar unprepared food is more economical than prepared food. PERIOD, and that is all that we are worried about when it comes to food stamps.

In general you are correct. The one exception I cited, which is the roasted chickens widely available in groceries, Costco, Sam's, etc from 3-4 bucks. Cheaper than buying same size in meat and readily made into lunch or another dinner.

[J.T]

If the government wishes to treat food stamp program, call it instead 'keeping folks from starvation', a stipend of rice, noodles, bread, and so many grams/lbs of protein like the school lunch program would be ok.

If though they wish to leave it with some choices, then the restrictions should be reasonable.

It may well be that the best solution is to make it so much grain, protein, etc. is the best way to go.

The problem with food boxes is one of logistics. Food stamps were opted for because the program is far cheaper to run.

[ConHog]

If the government wishes to treat food stamp program, call it instead 'keeping folks from starvation', a stipend of rice, noodles, bread, and so many grams/lbs of protein like the school lunch program would be ok.

If though they wish to leave it with some choices, then the restrictions should be reasonable.

It may well be that the best solution is to make it so much grain, protein, etc. is the best way to go.

I'd like to see them include some nutrition classes and such, cooking classes even. Teach people to make wise decisions with their eating habits.

[J.T]

In general you are correct. The one exception I cited, which is the roasted chickens widely available in groceries, Costco, Sam's, etc from 3-4 bucks. Cheaper than buying same size in meat and readily made into lunch or another dinner.

How much does it cost to buy hamburger meat, onions, catsup, mustard, pickles, and buns? That's not including electricity or wood to cook it and it assumes one has a home and kitchen (what about homeless persons on food stamps?). I can get a small burger or chicken sandwich at a fast food store.

Again, it doesn't mater how cheap the food is if one can't prepare it because you're living in a car saving paychecks to get an apartment.

[ConHog]

How much does it cost to buy hamburger meat, onions, catsup, mustard, pickles, and buns? That's not including electricity or wood to cook it and it assumes one has a home and kitchen (what about homeless persons on food stamps?). I can get a small burger or chicken sandwich at a fast food store.

Again, it doesn't mater how cheap the food is if one can't prepare it because you're living in a car saving paychecks to get an apartment.

I got your answer about homeless people. They shouldn't qualify for food stamps, nor any other welfare program. If you choose to unplug, take care of yourself, I certainly want the people who are getting MY tax dollars to be locatable if need be.

[J.T]

I got your answer about homeless people. They shouldn't qualify for food stamps, nor any other welfare program.

So when the place you work goes under and you can't pay your bills, you shouldn't be able to eat while you find work? How, exactly, is someone supposed to find and work a job if they're passing out on the floor because they haven't eaten in a week because they don't get their first check for 5 more days?

[Kathianne]

Those that are homeless, I figure that is what J.T is addressing. They should certainly be as covered by food programs as anyone else. I will agree that the current restrictions in IL are harder on them than others. With that said, there are many choices outside of fast food. Entrees that can be nuked at any university union or any well acquainted person with access, of which there are more than a few.

If someone in a park I walked Julia, asked me where they might nuke their dinner, I'd do so for them. Not only that, but give them other food stuffs. Wouldn't you?

[Kathianne]

I got your answer about homeless people. They shouldn't qualify for food stamps, nor any other welfare program. If you choose to unplug, take care of yourself, I certainly want the people who are getting MY tax dollars to be locatable if need be.

What do you mean here? I find it hard to believe you mean what it seems.

[ConHog]

What do you mean here? I find it hard to believe you mean what it seems.


Oh, I DO say what I mean. I do not believe that we should be giving welfare of any sort to anyone who does not have a "home", even if that "home" is a shelter of some sort. Or a friend's house, or whatever. Too much open area for abuse . I doubt there are many that do anyway.

Is that heartless? I don't think so. Those who can't even be bothered to go to a shelter. too bad. There is a point when we as a society have to say "no we're not going to help you if you refuse to also help yourself."

[Kathianne]

Oh, I DO say what I mean. I do not believe that we should be giving welfare of any sort to anyone who does not have a "home", even if that "home" is a shelter of some sort. Or a friend's house, or whatever. Too much open area for abuse . I doubt there are many that do anyway.

Is that heartless? I don't think so. Those who can't even be bothered to go to a shelter. too bad. There is a point when we as a society have to say "no we're not going to help you if you refuse to also help yourself."

Hmm, what if they are working at minimum wage position, though most homeless have lost that?

[ConHog]

Hmm, what if they are working at minimum wage position, though most homeless have lost that?

I would consider a job at a real business to be acceptable in lieu of a home address. Although I prefer a home address to. "The red station wagon on Darby St" just sounds fishy.

[J.T]

Entrees that can be nuked at any university union or any well acquainted person with access, of which there are more than a few.

I don't think non students are supposed to be in the student union making use of student union things, even if one bought something at a grocery story and then took it to the university (if there's one in town)


If someone in a park I walked Julia, asked me where they might nuke their dinner, I'd do so for them. Not only that, but give them other food stuffs. Wouldn't you?

Most people wouldn't. Most people wouldn't even acknowledge they were being spoken to.


Oh, I DO say what I mean. I do not believe that we should be giving welfare of any sort to anyone who does not have a "home", even if that "home" is a shelter of some sort. Or a friend's house, or whatever. Too much open area for abuse . I doubt there are many that do anyway.

Is that heartless? I don't think so. Those who can't even be bothered to go to a shelter. too bad. There is a point when we as a society have to say "no we're not going to help you if you refuse to also help yourself."

The shelter where I live turns people away every night because there is no room.

You don't seem to actually know anything about the subject we're discussing.

[Kathianne]

I would consider a job at a real business to be acceptable in lieu of a home address. Although I prefer a home address to. "The red station wagon on Darby St" just sounds fishy.

So are you cool with allowing the homeless to die off, if NOT working? How about those elderly, especially those who's minds are blown?

[ConHog]

I don't think non students are supposed to be in the student union making use of student union things, even if one bought something at a grocery story and then took it to the university (if there's one in town)


Most people wouldn't. Most people wouldn't even acknowledge they were being spoken to.



The shelter where I live turns people away every night because there is no room.

You don't seem to actually know anything about the subject we're discussing.

First, sorry you live in a shelter, second I probably don't know much about being homeless since I am safely ensconced in my 4,000 square foot home . But I DO know that many people choose to be homeless. That's fine, their choice, but I don't like the idea of some transient collecting monies from our government.

AND I would have no problem with taking some of the money we could save by cutting down on food stamp fraud and waste and using that money to open MORE shelters where they are needed.

[ConHog]

So are you cool with allowing the homeless to die off, if NOT working? How about those elderly, especially those who's minds are blown?

Am I "cool" with allowing those who won't help themselves dying off? No, I am not cool with it, I wish they would help themselves. The elderly and disabled are a different story and I don't expect them to be held to the same standards.

[Kathianne]

I don't think non students are supposed to be in the student union making use of student union things, even if one bought something at a grocery story and then took it to the university (if there's one in town)


Most people wouldn't. Most people wouldn't even acknowledge they were being spoken to.



The shelter where I live turns people away every night because there is no room.

You don't seem to actually know anything about the subject we're discussing.

Unfortunately, most student unions, even those of private universities are open to whomever opens the doors. Somehow I think your claims of shelter is a lie, color me skeptical. Mommy's basement? Sure.

[Kathianne]

Am I "cool" with allowing those who won't help themselves dying off? No, I am not cool with it, I wish they would help themselves. The elderly and disabled are a different story and I don't expect them to be held to the same standards.

Sure you are. Man up and own up. If they can't make enough to survive, die.

[Kathianne]

Unfortunately, most student unions, even those of private universities are open to whomever opens the doors. Somehow I think your claims of shelter is a lie, color me skeptical. Mommy's basement? Sure.

Funny, I'm being called out on flaming here?

[ConHog]

Sure you are. Man up and own up. If they can't make enough to survive, die.

Sweetheart, I have NO problem stating my mind. Manning up as you say. If I didn't care if people died, I would have wrote that. But that's not what I wrote. I simply wrote that if people can't help themselves, then I don't think the government owes them any help. Plenty of private charities out there willing to help the losers of society.

[Kathianne]

Sweetheart, I have NO problem stating my mind. Manning up as you say. If I didn't care if people died, I would have wrote that. But that's not what I wrote. I simply wrote that if people can't help themselves, then I don't think the government owes them any help. Plenty of private charities out there willing to help the losers of society.

Then all I can say is that you're ignorant of what is going on. I'm not a liberal by any means, but can read what's happened with Fannie/Freddie and other issues. Many now homeless are not the dregs, far from it.

[ConHog]

Then all I can say is that you're ignorant of what is going on. I'm not a liberal by any means, but can read what's happened with Fannie/Freddie and other issues. Many now homeless are not the dregs, far from it.

Oh, I'm sure of that, and I am also sure that those people have addresses and are doing things to help themselves. That is NOT the people I am talking about at all. Those are people who , for the most part, have found themselves in a dire situation that I have NO problem helping them out of via my tax dollars. I am talking about the people who absolutely want to do NOTHING for themselves. Yes, call me a cold hearted bastard, if you're able but unwilling to do ANYTHING for yourself, then I don't care if you live or die.

[Kathianne]

Oh, I'm sure of that, and I am also sure that those people have addresses and are doing things to help themselves. That is NOT the people I am talking about at all. Those are people who , for the most part, have found themselves in a dire situation that I have NO problem helping them out of via my tax dollars. I am talking about the people who absolutely want to do NOTHING for themselves. Yes, call me a cold hearted bastard, if you're able but unwilling to do ANYTHING for yourself, then I don't care if you live or die.

Actually many of them do not have addresses, they were those targeted. Working poor, single parents, etc. Those vultures chose well, those without family nets.

[ConHog]

Actually many of them do not have addresses, they were those targeted. Working poor, single parents, etc. Those vultures chose well, those without family nets.

I'd have to see evidence of some mass influx of completely homeless people due to the housing crisis to believe it. I'm talking about people now living in cars, park benches, or something like that. Most of what I have read doesn't seem to indicate that that is the case most of the time. And what did these people do, quit their jobs and such to when they had to default on their home loans? That's pretty stupid on their part.

[Abbey Marie]

All the homeless/no kitchen talk has taken the issue way off track, imo. I doubt that most food stamp recipients are homeless. Perhaps someone has data, but my impression is that most are single moms with kids, the unemployed who do have a place to live, etc. Kind of like the "life of the mother" arguments in favor of abortion. Yeah, bad stuff like that happens, but the overwhelming majority of cases are for convenience.

If I am right, and most food stamp recipients are living in a home of some sort, which would no doubt have at least a rudimentary kitchen, they should not be using our tax dollars for restaurant dining. This is an extravagance that should be restricted to one's own "earned" money.

[ConHog]

All the homeless/no kitchen talk has taken the issue way off track, imo. I doubt that most food stamp recipients are homeless. Perhaps someone has data, but my impression is that most are single moms with kids, the unemployed who do have a place to live, etc. Kind of like the "life of the mother" arguments in favor of abortion. Yeah, bad stuff like that happens, but the overwhelming majority of cases are for convenience.

If I am right, and most food stamp recipients are living in a home of some sort, which would no doubt have at least a rudimentary kitchen, they should not be using our tax dollars for restaurant dining. This is an extravagance that should be restricted to one's own "earned" money.

That is exactly what I said pages ago. It's a red herring. I don't think they will even process your application if you don't have a permanent address.

[J.T]

many people choose to be homeless
So biblical Christians shouldn't get food stamps? Alright, I'll grant you that.

Who here has voiced any objection to requiring persons receiving assistance to demonstrate they are seeking gainful employment or attending school?


Unfortunately, most student unions, even those of private universities are open to whomever opens the doors. Somehow I think your claims of shelter is a lie, color me skeptical. Mommy's basement? Sure.

Wtf are you babbling about? I can find the number for the shelter in town if you want to call them and ask whether they turn people away when they're full.

And good luck finding a basement where I live. You might find a handful of root cellars, but I've not heard of anyone where i live having a basement.



If I am right, and most food stamp recipients are living in a home of some sort, which would no doubt have at least a rudimentary kitchen, they should not be using our tax dollars for restaurant dining. This is an extravagance that should be restricted to one's own "earned" money.
Again, to play devil's advocate, what difference does it make? They're buying food. Will you next demand they buy certain brands at certain stores and only during sales, since you're so upset by what food they decide to buy where?

[ConHog]

So biblical Christians shouldn't get food stamps? Alright, I'll grant you that.

Who here has voiced any objection to requiring persons receiving assistance to demonstrate they are seeking gainful employment or attending school?



Wtf are you babbling about? I can find the number for the shelter in town if you want to call them and ask whether they turn people away when they're full.

And good luck finding a basement where I live. You might find a handful of root cellars, but I've not heard of anyone where i live having a basement.


Again, to play devil's advocate, what difference does it make? They're buying food. Will you next demand they buy certain brands at certain stores and only during sales, since you're so upset by what food they decide to buy where?

Man, you just gotta get your hatred of Christians post in every thread don't you, no matter how illogical or out of place said post is.

[Abbey Marie]

...
Again, to play devil's advocate, what difference does it make? They're buying food. Will you next demand they buy certain brands at certain stores and only during sales, since you're so upset by what food they decide to buy where?

Let's imagine that you see a guy whose clothing is tattered or filthy, and the police forcibly take $100 out of your wallet and give it to him to buy clothes.

You see him go into Barney's and buy a $100 shirt with your money. You'd love a Ralph Lauren shirt too, but you are wearing a $15.99 Walmart shirt, so you can afford to feed your family, and pay the bills.

Perhaps you will admit that at least, the guy could have used the money to buy several items of clothing, so that he won't need another $100 from some other guy for more clothing, that much sooner.

[Kathianne]

Let's imagine that you see a guy whose clothing is tattered or filthy, and the police forcibly take $100 out of your wallet and give it to him to buy clothes.

You see him go into Barney's and buy a $100 shirt with your money. You'd love a Ralph Lauren shirt too, but you are wearing a $15.99 Walmart shirt, so you can afford to feed your family, and pay the bills.

Perhaps you will admit that at least, the guy could have used the money to buy several items of clothing, so that he won't need another $100 from some other guy for more clothing, that much sooner.

That would suck. And we can see that where? Under which programs?

[ConHog]

That would suck. And we can see that where? Under which programs?

It's called an analogy, and was a pretty good one.

[Kathianne]

It's called an analogy, and was a pretty good one.

Really? An real life example, if you please.

[ConHog]

Really? An real life example, if you please.

What? It was an analogy not a true story. There is no requirement for an analogy to have actually have happened.

[J.T]

the police forcibly take $100 out of your wallet...you can afford to feed your family, and pay the bills.

You do know we have a progressive tax system and that those below the poverty line don't have to pay taxes, right?


Perhaps you will admit that at least, the guy could have used the money to buy several items of clothing, so that he won't need another $100 from some other guy for more clothing, that much sooner.

Nice try, but you get a set amount of money for food stamps each month. If you blow it in a week, you don't get any more benefits any earlier. You get told that you should have budgeted your benefits.


It's called an analogy, and was a pretty good one.

Except that it's not, as I show above. I'm going to be nice and assume Abbey speaks out of ignorance and not willful disingenuous.

It's good to see you admit in post 47 that what Abbey made up never happens, though

[Abbey Marie]

It's called an analogy, and was a pretty good one.

thanks. I thought it was pretty obvious. [shrug]

[ConHog]

thanks. I thought it was pretty obvious. [shrug]

It was, JT is just being obtuse, IOW SOP, not sure what Katherinne was thinking.

[Trigg]

People receiving food stamps should not be able to use them at restaurants.

Besides the fact that making your own food is cheaper there is also the fact that food items bought at a store are not taxed, restaurant food is.

As for the person who said it's cheaper to buy McD's than everything that goes on the sandwich, that's true if you're making ONE hamberger.

Obviously after you've bought the makings of a burger, you have the stuff for multiple meals. Buns don't come one to a package, you get four. Ketchup doesn't come in packets, you're buying a bottle.

[J.T]

making your own food is cheaper
As is buying store brands. Ought we to make it illegal to buy name rands with food stamps?

there is also the fact that food items bought at a store are not taxed, restaurant food is.

So some of the money goes back to the government as a result of their decision. What's the problem?

[Kathianne]

It was, JT is just being obtuse, IOW SOP, not sure what Katherinne was thinking.

What I was saying is that there aren't programs where people are acting honestly that have any resemblance to the analogy attempted above. Indeed, IF food stamps were used for fast food often, the person/family would find themselves out of food money well before the end of the month.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's a bad idea to have restaurants accept them. Common sense though says that to equate McD's and Lawry's Prime Rib is what is going on with the analogy.

[ConHog]

What I was saying is that there aren't programs where people are acting honestly that have any resemblance to the analogy attempted above. Indeed, IF food stamps were used for fast food often, the person/family would find themselves out of food money well before the end of the month.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's a bad idea to have restaurants accept them. Common sense though says that to equate McD's and Lawry's Prime Rib is what is going on with the analogy.

Okay, I'm with you. And your point is well taken. However, MOST folks who are on food stamps are there at least in part due to their own poor decision making skills. So the trade off should be , okay we will help you but we will also help you make better decisions. Spending your allotment on fast food every night for two weeks, then being out of food for two weeks is NOT good decision making, so we won't let you do it. Can we agree on that?

And of course JT's remarks about limiting people to certain brands of food is just dumb.

[Abbey Marie]

And if through poor decision-making they do run out of food early, either their kids suffer, or another charity has to step in, further depleting resources that could be used for others in need. Foolishness.

[J.T]

And of course JT's remarks about limiting people to certain brands of food is just dumb.

What's dumb about it? You want to control where they buy what sort of foods based on whether you think they could be more thrifty. Why not demand they buy at the cheaper stores (Walmart, no Whole Foods) and brands so they don't waste all their money on fancy labels?


And if through poor decision-making they do run out of food early, either their kids suffer, or another charity has to step in, further depleting resources that could be used for others in need. Foolishness.

Exactly, they should only be allowed to shop at Wal-Mart and they should only be allowed to buy what's on sale unless they have a coupon. No name brands and only in bulk. And only foods approved by the government based on nutritional value/ounce. They must be accompanied by a specially trained government official whenever they buy groceries to enforce these regulations. We simply cannot risk these people to budget their benefits on their own, right?

[ConHog]

What's dumb about it? You want to control where they buy what sort of foods based on whether you think they could be more thrifty. Why not demand they buy at the cheaper stores (Walmart, no Whole Foods) and brands so they don't waste all their money on fancy labels?



Exactly, they should only be allowed to shop at Wal-Mart and they should only be allowed to buy what's on sale unless they have a coupon. No name brands and only in bulk. And only foods approved by the government based on nutritional value/ounce. They must be accompanied by a specially trained government official whenever they buy groceries to enforce these regulations. We simply cannot risk these people to budget their benefits on their own, right?



Are you at all capable of adult conversation without resorting to ridiculous hyperbole?

No one has suggested that we go all militaristic about things.

[J.T]

Why are you so afraid of your own position? Your argument is that we have to control what they buy and where and not let them buy hot food because they can't be trusted to budget their benefits. The moment we accept your premise, it's obvious that we must have a government agent with them or enforce a system that forbids the purchase of name brands so they don't waste their benefits when cheaper options are available. Why are you so scared to stand by your own argument?

[Missileman]

I'm of the opinion that they need to do away with food stamps and go back to food banks stocked with basic necessities.

[ConHog]

Why are you so afraid of your own position? Your argument is that we have to control what they buy and where and not let them buy hot food because they can't be trusted to budget their benefits. The moment we accept your premise, it's obvious that we must have a government agent with them or enforce a system that forbids the purchase of name brands so they don't waste their benefits when cheaper options are available. Why are you so scared to stand by your own argument?

The only place where we must accept that is in your childish mind. Us adults realize that limiting them to unprepared food is not limiting them to unprepared food of a certain brand or store.

[ConHog]

I'm of the opinion that they need to do away with food stamps and go back to food banks stocked with basic necessities.

You would still need some sort of "stamp" system to trade for the staples in order to keep track of who took what , unless you are saying just give anyone as much as they want....

[Missileman]

You would still need some sort of "stamp" system to trade for the staples in order to keep track of who took what , unless you are saying just give anyone as much as they want....

Sure, but there would be just the one place to cash them in.

[ConHog]

Sure, but there would be just the one place to cash them in.

The only problem with that is that then we would have to actually provide that place in every county in the US. And pay someone to work there.

[J.T]

I'm of the opinion that they need to do away with food stamps and go back to food banks stocked with basic necessities.
Three things have to be addressed:
1) The cost of the program will necessarily go up with you begin buying, transporting, and disbursing food directly
2) The logistics of doing so
3) Homeless persons with no means of storing or preparing the food


The only place where we must accept that is in your childish mind. Us adults realize that limiting them to unprepared food is not limiting them to unprepared food of a certain brand or store.

Wow, you're really stupid. Making a law isn't the same as enforcing it, either.

You claim they can't be trusted to budget their benefits- that's the sole argument you've made. It follows once we accept that premise that we cannot trust them to decide what brands and products to buy or to determine which stores have the best price- all that would be budgeting, which you said they cannot be trusted to do on their own. Hence the government must enforce a budget and ensure only cheaper brands and products can be purchased, lest they waste their money on Smuckers instead of Wal-Jelly and run out of benefits at which point 'either their kids suffer, or another charity has to step in, further depleting resources that could be used for others in need', as Abbey put it

[J.T]

You would still need some sort of "stamp" system to trade for the staples in order to keep track of who took what , unless you are saying just give anyone as much as they want....

Hey, dumbfuck, how are you viewing this site? Do you know what a database is? Did you know the government already knows how to make one and already tracks benefits using one?

[ConHog]

Hey, dumbfuck, how are you viewing this site? Do you know what a database is? Did you know the government already knows how to make one and already tracks benefits using one?


More childish insults?

Yes I know what a database is, I also know that if there isn't a way of logging info into that database (aka a foodstamp) then a database is worthless.

Or you do really think that anyone could make a database of internet users without having some way of tracking IPs?

[J.T]

More childish insults?

Yes I know what a database is, I also know that if there isn't a way of logging info into that database (aka a foodstamp) then a database is worthless.

Or you do really think that anyone could make a database of internet users without having some way of tracking IPs?

Hey, dumbfuck ever heard of an ID card? Did you know the government already has a system in place for verifying one's identity?

Are you a wetback? Because most Americans already know what an ID card is- you kinda need one if you're working over the table.

[Missileman]

The only problem with that is that then we would have to actually provide that place in every county in the US. And pay someone to work there.

Okay, so we wind up with a few less people unemployed, we get to eliminate the fraud and abuse of food stamps, and we get a program that delivers exactly what it was designed for...to keep people from going hungry. As for expense, I'm not sure what they used to pay for those blocks of cheddar, but you could make a hundred sandwiches from one. It might actually turn out to be cheaper in the long run.

[Missileman]

3) Homeless persons with no means of storing or preparing the food


How do you suppose the homeless get along currently in the 46 states where you can't buy a McDLT with food stamps?

[J.T]

How do you suppose the homeless get along currently in the 46 states where you can't buy a McDLT with food stamps?

They go to a store and buy food when hungry as opposed to buying large sums of food to be stored and prepared later.

[Missileman]

They go to a store and buy food when hungry as opposed to buying large sums of food to be stored and prepared later.

Then why do you think it necessary to let them go to a restaurant?

[ConHog]

Hey, dumbfuck ever heard of an ID card? Did you know the government already has a system in place for verifying one's identity?

Are you a wetback? Because most Americans already know what an ID card is- you kinda need one if you're working over the table.


Sorry, I forgot who I was "debating " with. You're dismissed.

[J.T]

Sorry

You're forgiven. I'm used to you being a fucking retard. Any more stupid question, or do you understand how we can look people up on the computer when they come in to collect?


Then why do you think it necessary to let them go to a restaurant?

As I said, to play devil's advocate, why not? The only objections that have been raised are:
1)They can't budget. This, of course, raises the question of why we let them shop without a government agent with them.
2)It'll be taxes and some of the money will be recovered. Nobody explained how that's a problem, exactly.

[Missileman]

You're forgiven. I'm used to you being a fucking retard. Any more stupid question, or do you understand how we can look people up on the computer when they come in to collect?



As I said, to play devil's advocate, why not? The only objections that have been raised are:
1)They can't budget. This, of course, raises the question of why we let them shop without a government agent with them.
2)It'll be taxes and some of the money will be recovered. Nobody explained how that's a problem, exactly.

My objection is purely economic. You can buy more food in the supermarket for the same amount of money you'd drop at the restaurant. The goal of the program is to fill bellies, not stimulate pallets.

[J.T]

My objection is purely economic. You can buy more food in the supermarket for the same amount of money you'd drop at the restaurant. The goal of the program is to fill bellies, not stimulate pallets.

And the exact same argument applies: you can buy more food if you buy only off-brands and/or things on sale or that you have a coupon for. If you want to force thriftiness and believe these people cant be trusted to budget their benefits, why let them buy Smuckers instead of store brand jelly if it just means they run out of benefits sooner?

[Missileman]

And the exact same argument applies: you can buy more food if you buy only off-brands and/or things on sale or that you have a coupon for. If you want to force thriftiness and believe these people cant be trusted to budget their benefits, why let them buy Smuckers instead of store brand jelly if it just means they run out of benefits sooner?

Why indeed? I have no problem making food stamps only good for generics/store brands.

[Abbey Marie]

What's dumb about it? You want to control where they buy what sort of foods based on whether you think they could be more thrifty. Why not demand they buy at the cheaper stores (Walmart, no Whole Foods) and brands so they don't waste all their money on fancy labels?



Exactly, they should only be allowed to shop at Wal-Mart and they should only be allowed to buy what's on sale unless they have a coupon. No name brands and only in bulk. And only foods approved by the government based on nutritional value/ounce. They must be accompanied by a specially trained government official whenever they buy groceries to enforce these regulations. We simply cannot risk these people to budget their benefits on their own, right?

If they are spending their own money, I really couldn't care less what or where they buy. If my tax dollars being used, I care very much.
The question is, why don't you care? Not a taxpayer? On food stamps yourself?

[J.T]

So you have no argument, only lame attempts at personal attacks?

[Trigg]

If they are spending their own money, I really couldn't care less what or where they buy. If my tax dollars being used, I care very much.
The question is, why don't you care? Not a taxpayer? On food stamps yourself?

He claimed that he was homeless in another thread.

[Trigg]

As I said, to play devil's advocate, why not? The only objections that have been raised are:
1)They can't budget. This, of course, raises the question of why we let them shop without a government agent with them.
2)It'll be taxes and some of the money will be recovered. Nobody explained how that's a problem, exactly.

This has nothing to do with them not being able to budget. The fact is, it's a waste of money to let the stamps be used in a restaurant.

Prepaired food is taxed, why, if a person has a limited amount to spend on food, should they be allowed to waste it on restaurants.

If people want to waste their own money on restaurants, have at it, but if it's MY tax money going to pay for their date night, than I have a problem with it.

OH, and I'm one of those people buying store brand instead of name brand because it's cheaper, no one is handing me money.

[Abbey Marie]

He claimed that he was homeless in another thread.

Pretty cool wireless under that bridge, I guess. :rolleyes:

[Trigg]

Pretty cool wireless under that bridge, I guess. :rolleyes:

my thoughts exactly.

[J.T]

This has nothing to do with them not being able to budget.
Then why is that the entire argument that's been made in this thread- that they'll fail to budget and tun out of benefits and requite re more assistance sooner?

The fact is, it's a waste of money to let the stamps be used in a restaurant.

they're spending the money on food. Isn't that the point?


Prepaired food is taxed

So your objection is that, through their decision-masking, some of the money is recovered?

[ConHog]

Then why is that the entire argument that's been made in this thread- that they'll fail to budget and tun out of benefits and requite re more assistance sooner?
they're spending the money on food. Isn't that the point?


So your objection is that, through their decision-masking, some of the money is recovered?


No, my objection is that dining out is more expensive AND it is supposed to be a luxury enjoyed once in awhile when a person can afford it. PERIOD.

[Trigg]

Then why is that the entire argument that's been made in this thread- that they'll fail to budget and tun out of benefits and requite re more assistance sooner?
they're spending the money on food. Isn't that the point?


So your objection is that, through their decision-masking, some of the money is recovered?

You're being deliberately obtuse

[Trigg]

He claimed that he was homeless in another thread.


JT neg-repped me and accused me of lying in this post.

I refer his post #27




The shelter where I live turns people away every night because there is no room.


If you're not homelss than why do you live at a shelter?????






.

[ConHog]

You're being deliberately obtuse

That is JT's stock and trade because without it he is incapable of debate.

[J.T]

J
If you're not homelss than why do you live at a shelter?????

I don't live in a shelter, liar.

How pathetic that you have to resort to sad rumours and lies.

[Trigg]

I don't live in a shelter, liar.

How pathetic that you have to resort to sad rumours and lies.

post #27

maybe you shouldn't post lies then. :lame2:

[chloe]

Used to be that the poor were given bulk food items, etc. Then it was decided, I guess, that this wasn't good enough, so food stamps were born, to allow people to go shopping for whatever food they wanted. Now, it appears that at least in some states, people can use their food stamps to go out for a restaurant dinner.

What do you all think of this?

I'm against it.

[ConHog]

I don't live in a shelter, liar.

How pathetic that you have to resort to sad rumours and lies.

WTF? YOU are the one who said you lived in a shelter you pathologically lying dope.

[J.T]

post #27

What about it?


WTF? YOU are the one who said you lived in a shelter

Liar, I never said any such thing.

Why do you feel the need to lie all the time?

[ConHog]

I don't think non students are supposed to be in the student union making use of student union things, even if one bought something at a grocery story and then took it to the university (if there's one in town)


Most people wouldn't. Most people wouldn't even acknowledge they were being spoken to.



The shelter where I live turns people away every night because there is no room.

You don't seem to actually know anything about the subject we're discussing.


What about it?



Liar, I never said any such thing.

Why do you feel the need to lie all the time?



Right there in your very own words you claimed to live in a shelter. That is homeless. Lying moron.

[chloe]

I don't think non students are supposed to be in the student union making use of student union things, even if one bought something at a grocery story and then took it to the university (if there's one in town)


Most people wouldn't. Most people wouldn't even acknowledge they were being spoken to.



The shelter where I live turns people away every night because there is no room.

You don't seem to actually know anything about the subject we're discussing.

You usually see homeless shelters turning people away more in the winter months then the summer months.

[chloe]

My real dad has been homeless off and on my whole life, sometimes he's lived in a car and sometimes a park. He used to "dumpster dive" for food usually near resteraunts and grocery stores. Gross I know but you'd be surprized what gets thrown out. :laugh2:

[J.T]

Right there in your very own words you claimed to live in a shelter. That is homeless. Lying moron.

:lol:

Oh, I see what the problem is now. I forgot you're retarded. Consider the following sentences:
The library where I live lets you renew your books twice.

The city council where I live is a bunch of full of idiots.

The power company where I live is reliable enough, though we still lose power sometimes when it hails.

Would you assume I live in the library, in the hall where city council meets, and inside the offices of the local power company?

Here, this appears to be about your level: http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Grades-Instructional-Fair/dp/0742417697/


You usually see homeless shelters turning people away more in the winter months then the summer months.
True it's far worse duering winter, but it's not limited to only the winter months. I'll grant that it's probably not every single day and so I should have said 'all the time' or 'often' to be more accurate, but my point remains valid.

[ConHog]

:lol:

Oh, I see what the problem is now. I forgot you're retarded. Consider the following sentences:
The library where I live lets you renew your books twice.

The city council where I live is a bunch of full of idiots.

The power company where I live is reliable enough, though we still lose power sometimes when it hails.

Would you assume I live in the library, in the hall where city council meets, and inside the offices of the local power company?

Here, this appears to be about your level: http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Comprehension-Grades-Instructional-Fair/dp/0742417697/


True it's far worse duering winter, but it's not limited to only the winter months. I'll grant that it's probably not every single day and so I should have said 'all the time' or 'often' to be more accurate, but my point remains valid.



I'm retarded? You're the idiot who wrote a terribly constructed sentence that didn't convey what they meant. But oh yes, it is everyone who misread its fault and not your own.

[J.T]

You're the idiot who wrote a terribly constructed sentence that didn't convey what they meant.

While you're attacking my sentences, you might want to correct that one. ;)

[Abbey Marie]

While you're attacking my sentences, you might want to correct that one. ;)

J.T., give this a whirl next time:

"The shelter near where I live..."

Or

"The shelter in my neighborhood...".

It did sound like you were saying you lived in a shelter. Clarity is important. :salute:

[fj1200]

True it's far worse duering winter...

That's why you have to get in line early eh?

[logroller]

:lol:

Oh, I see what the problem is now. I forgot you're retarded. Consider the following sentences:
The library where I live lets you renew your books twice.

The city council where I live is a bunch of full of idiots.

The power company where I live is reliable enough, though we still lose power sometimes when it hails.

Would you assume I live in the library, in the hall where city council meets, and inside the offices of the local power company?


Sorry JT; you neglected to properly use a compound subject. I can tell you, having just explained this to my 9 yr old daughter on her homework this last week, that the modifier 'where I live' refers to the subject with which it is conjoined, some physical location or state; which can further modify another subject--- making it a compound subject.

Were you to rephrase, it should read: 'In the (location) where I live, ...'. Or simply omit 'where I live', and let one assume you're speaking solely that which you are familiar.

By accepting another's criticism you give them cause to accept yours. You've certainly dished out your fair share of criticism; you need to be adult enough to take it a bit of it yourself. Simple say :' Oops--HAHA.', no need to cast insults in defense of your mistakes; and there's certainly no need to provide further examples of your mistake-- it doesn't change the fact you were wrong. If you seek to save face, just say you typed too quickly and didn't proofread-- . Humility is strength, not a weakness.

[ConHog]

Sorry JT; you neglected to properly use a compound subject. I can tell you, having just explained this to my 9 yr old daughter on her homework this last week, that the modifier 'where I live' refers to the subject with which it is conjoined, some physical location or state; which can further modify another subject--- making it a compound subject.

Were you to rephrase, it should read: 'In the (location) where I live, ...'. Or simply omit 'where I live', and let one assume you're speaking solely that which you are familiar.

By accepting another's criticism you give them cause to accept yours. You've certainly dished out your fair share of criticism; you need to be adult enough to take it a bit of it yourself. Simple say :' Oops--HAHA.', no need to cast insults in defense of your mistakes; and there's certainly no need to provide further examples of your mistake-- it doesn't change the fact you were wrong. If you seek to save face, just say you typed too quickly and didn't proofread-- . Humility is strength, not a weakness.

I know right? We've all done that. I had one a few weeks ago where I did that and someone asked me about it and my response was "oh yeah duh I feel stupid now" we had a good laugh and went on with the thread. JT however is incapable of admitting to any fault.

Part of the reason he is now on ignore. The only person I have ever done so to. Just tired of his dishonesty and hate.

[Gaffer]

Sorry JT; you neglected to properly use a compound subject. I can tell you, having just explained this to my 9 yr old daughter on her homework this last week, that the modifier 'where I live' refers to the subject with which it is conjoined, some physical location or state; which can further modify another subject--- making it a compound subject.

Were you to rephrase, it should read: 'In the (location) where I live, ...'. Or simply omit 'where I live', and let one assume you're speaking solely that which you are familiar.

By accepting another's criticism you give them cause to accept yours. You've certainly dished out your fair share of criticism; you need to be adult enough to take it a bit of it yourself. Simple say :' Oops--HAHA.', no need to cast insults in defense of your mistakes; and there's certainly no need to provide further examples of your mistake-- it doesn't change the fact you were wrong. If you seek to save face, just say you typed too quickly and didn't proofread-- . Humility is strength, not a weakness.

Well said sir. We all make these errors in writing things. Only JT is too immature to laugh and correct himself.

Now may I point out something you do frequently that makes me grit my gums (as I have no teeth). Your use of the word rather over whether. As an example you write "you can do it rather you want to or not". I have to go back and reread it and substitute the proper word "whether" in my mind. Makes my gums sore. :poke:

I too have JT on ignore. He's boring and stupid. Not a good mix.

[J.T]

Sorry JT; you neglected to properly use a compound subject.
There's no compound subject. 'Where I live' modifies 'shelter'. The the predicate 'turns people away..' has only one subject: the shelter

http://webster.commnet.edu/sensen/part2/twelve/compound.html

http://webschool.wash.k12.ut.us/language/lessons/compoundsentences.html

[logroller]

I know right? We've all done that. I had one a few weeks ago where I did that and someone asked me about it and my response was "oh yeah duh I feel stupid now" we had a good laugh and went on with the thread. JT however is incapable of admitting to any fault.

Part of the reason he is now on ignore. The only person I have ever done so to. Just tired of his dishonesty and hate.

I really appreciate JT's presence, (he's brought my about on the abortion, 1st trimester thing), I just wish he (everybody really, including myself) would stay focused on the issue and not get sidetracked by squabbling over petty misunderstandings and personal disagreement. I like to have fun here, at times this has been at the expense of another (eg flaming)-- But we all need to remind ourselves that this is an adult site, so I don't see a point in calling somebody a liar, as the likely response "no I'm not, you are" is a stereotypical childish behavior. If somebody contradicts oneself, just quote post the contradiction, ask for clarification and/or move on-- no need for commentary-- Res ipsa loquitur.

[ConHog]

I really appreciate JT's presence, (he's brought my about on the abortion, 1st trimester thing), I just wish he (everybody really, including myself) would stay focused on the issue and not get sidetracked by squabbling over petty misunderstandings and personal disagreement. I like to have fun here, at times this has been at the expense of another (eg flaming)-- But we all need to remind ourselves that this is an adult site, so I don't see a point in calling somebody a liar, as the likely response "no I'm not, you are" is a stereotypical childish behavior. If somebody contradicts oneself, just quote post the contradiction, ask for clarification and/or move on-- no need for commentary-- Res ipsa loquitur.

I've given up on JT. Made a real effort, was spit on for my troubles. Screw the dishonest piece of crap. He has NO interest in getting along with you, me, or anyone else.

[J.T]

this is an adult site


http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smiley_faces/boobies-smiley-face.gif

[logroller]

http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/smiley_faces/boobies-smiley-face.gif




http://youtu.be/-UbB-Q1Xunw