Missouri Lawmakers Don't Want Food Stamp Recipients To Buy Steak

a reply to: Daughter2

Let's not pretend that the government not buying your "steak & lobster" is hurting the poor.

If you want steak & lobster then buy it yourself like everybody else does.

Food stamps are there to keep you from starving not fund your "today is a special occasion so I'm gonna eat steak" days.

If it was up to me it'd pay for bread, milk, rice, beans, pasta, peanut-butter, cheese, raw produce, chicken, ground beef, and some limited condiments and that's it.

a reply to: coldkidc

Which can make survival near impossible for lots of people in different circumstances.

a reply to: coldkidc

I guess it's a good thing then that it isn't up to you.

Your kid gets sick with a bad fever and cold. By your standards then a mom or dad can't get the kid some soup and other things good for sick children that don't fall under your stringent guidelines.

Your kid gets sick with strep throat. Even though it isn't healthy, the only thing your kid can handle swallowing are freezies and popsicles. Too bad, can't give your kid what will make them feel better, but here try some cheese.

a reply to: coldkidc

That is a generalization that does NOT represent what is really going on. Food Stamp abuse in NOT a crisis in the US. That said, I've often seen steak on sale at a very reasonable price. I know of several seafood markets that accept EBT.

Do you have a clue who ultimately profits from Food Stamps?

do you have any experience spending time with people who are on food stamps? Have you ever been on food stamps? I was on welfare for three years when I first became a single father with two small children. I could buy steak, soda and lobster until the money ran out (by the first day) but couldn't buy toilet paper, toothpaste, diapers, cleaners, etc.

My solution to being on welfare is to make it so you only get to eat what is healthy for you (If you want cookies you can make them from scratch) but you can buy essentials also. But all of that stuff should be provided in government run stores. You don't get to shop anywhere you want, you have to go to government stores. you simply hand your health care card to the grocer and he fills your cart with only things that have been ordered by a doctor in order to maintain good health. My scenario may seem extreme but really what kind of argument is it that people should have a right to food that makes them ill so they can become an even bigger burden on the system? You don't have a right to become morbidly obese on the government dole. If you don't like it then that is your incentive to get off welfare. Make your own living and then you can eat all the junk you want.


a reply to: caladonea

a reply to: AdamuBureido

Thanks for the indepth info on that aspect of the Reconstruction era ,especially the bit about eleminating taxes for the wealthy and passing it on to the poor,sounds very familiar indeed...

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

I guess it's a good thing then that it isn't up to you. Your kid gets sick with a bad fever and cold. By your standards then a mom or dad can't get the kid some soup and other things good for sick children that don't fall under your stringent guidelines. Your kid gets sick with strep throat. Even though it isn't healthy, the only thing your kid can handle swallowing are freezies and popsicles. Too bad, can't give your kid what will make them feel better, but here try some cheese.

Soups fine, add it to the list...
Try ice-cubes

a reply to: bottleslingguy

What kinds of food items specifically do you think should be in those government run stores?

When I see these type posts, I always get a chuckle out of republicans accusing Dems of wanting a "nanny state".

It's so ironic, and clear who are the "nannies" wanting (or needing?) to dictate everything right down to what a person can choose to eat. Brings new meaning to the term "control freak".

Because a child happens to be born into a poor family, even if both parents are working, but yet the income is low enough they still qualify for food stamps, or even if they are not working at all, even if the mother is the town's crack-ho - you want to decide that:

The child may not experience having a turkey at Thanksgiving; or a chocolate bar from his mother at Valentines Day? Nothing in the Easter Basket, except hard boiled eggs. Can the mother purchase a pkg. of dye, or are you opposed to that too? Seriously, I want to know. Does she have your approval to do that? Should she need your approval? Maybe she can draw a smiley face on it with a pencil? That should be good enough for them. Like Mrs. George Bush said about Katrina victims living in the filth in the Super Dome, THEY are used to living that way, so it's no big deal. (All yours to decide by the way.) You must strip them of all the little details in life that make us all ... individuals. Those decisions are all, best made by you.

Want to dress them all in some type uniform, so they are easily identified? That way you will know who is benefiting out of the twelve cents from your pay check (or whatever ridiculously small amount it is) that goes towards that particular funding. You deserve to know that too, right? The denunciations can become truly public.

No Easter ham? Not even one a year? Oh my goodness but you are heartless and cruel nannies.

*A person can have a good mind, but without a good heart to go with it, the person has far to go to be whole. The worst part is not to even recognize that a part of you as a human being is very flawed, in lacking compassion and empathy. It's just short of sociopathic, or misanthropy, don't you think? Something to work on, not parade around in a crown of pride. (False pride.) Greed is not something to be proud of, nor is depriving other humans of one of the simplest of pleasures in life. Eating something you like.

Nor is your deciding that's it's OKAY for you to make those decisions on behalf of another person.
It's not okay.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Corporate welfare could be a problem depending on how one looks at it.

But I think the amounts might be more even. Not 10 or 20 times more.

Do you have some charts?

edit on Apr-06-2015 by xuenchen because: ;;[_"o"_];;

Ok, you're right. It was a slight hyperbole on my part.

The defintions get a bit murky, what tax cuts and loopholes do you count for example? Do you count EITC etc? Anyways you get around 280 billion in corporate welfare in 2013. Welfare itself was 96 billion. So about 3x as much to corporations as to individuals.

originally posted by: stormson
the poor cant manage money cause theyve never had any to manage! want to spur the economy, give a poor person a thousand dollars and watch it get spent. more often than not on bills. thats the one thing bush got right. give the poor the money and it will get spent. give the rich the money and they will hoard it.

It's easy to attack the poor. I wonder how many of the people with money that attack the poor have ever even contemplated having to live a life where your daily food is rationed just so that you can make sure there's some left at the end if the week, since there's no buying any extra. How many are kept up at night by an empty stomach. And how many really think it's ok to be made to feel like absolute scum for buying some food in the first place.

As far as the lack of money goes, in my town at our only grocery store, right next to it is a payday loan company. You can sit outside and watch people go in and get a payday loan, then go right next door to the grocery store and spend it. It's really depressing.

a reply to: coldkidc

So you think it should be up to one person (ostensibly, you) to decide what the dietary needs of the nations EBT recipients are?

What kind of qualifications would this person need to do this job? How many of these "dietary deciders" would we need? And what would it cost?

I don't think it would be any cheaper, if we are being honest, than just letting the have their steak.

Besides....aren't there enough ways we could avail ourselves of the system to positive benefit? Rather than trying to leverage the system into (more) class warfare?

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: Daughter2

Let's not pretend that the government not buying your "steak & lobster" is hurting the poor.

If you want steak & lobster then buy it yourself like everybody else does.

Food stamps are there to keep you from starving not fund your "today is a special occasion so I'm gonna eat steak" days.

If it was up to me it'd pay for bread, milk, rice, beans, pasta, peanut-butter, cheese, raw produce, chicken, ground beef, and some limited condiments and that's it.

It's the false idea that people on welfare are living it up on steak on lobster that hurts the poor. This law was passed to further the myth that poor people eat well on welfare.

If they did ban it most likely it would just prevent the poor from buying clearance/sale meats and seafood.

Are you really ok on giving disabled and children the bear minimum to keep alive? The little girl growing up on welfare can only eat a few items her entire life.

Do you actually believe the myth that welfare people are just lazy or are you actually ok with just providing disabled and children just enough to keep them alive?

They could start by changing the law regard a full work week back to 40 hours. Many working people got their week cut by 25 percent this year. How do lawmakers expect workers to do better by making earning position worse.

People who listen to and believe in this trash talk from the wealthy are out of touch or just plain ignorant.

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

I guess it's a good thing then that it isn't up to you. Your kid gets sick with a bad fever and cold. By your standards then a mom or dad can't get the kid some soup and other things good for sick children that don't fall under your stringent guidelines. Your kid gets sick with strep throat. Even though it isn't healthy, the only thing your kid can handle swallowing are freezies and popsicles. Too bad, can't give your kid what will make them feel better, but here try some cheese.

Soups fine, add it to the list...
Try ice-cubes

Good luck giving ice cubes to a small toddler who will choke on them. Most doctors recommend popsicles. Here's the thing, once those food stamps are in that person's hands, they are theirs to spends as they see fit. Most spend it wisely. Very few actually abuse it. Let's face it, once government thinks they can tell ONE group what they can and cannot buy, how long before government is telling YOU what you can and cannot buy? Do we really need MORE government? That in itself can be ripe for abuse. Just think about it.

I definitely agree that food stamps shouldn't be able to by just anything. I've worked at different stores and the main things bought are candy, soda, potato chips.

Wic is a better example of what food should be able to be bought, when funded by tax dollars. An unhealthy diet just perpetuates problems.

My father used to work at a jail. He said statistics shown the number one the in common with most in mates was a below average diet.

Also, ask any dietician or doctor if those foods are promoting a healthy lifestyle, mentality, etc.

I'm not as against meats, but I still think if you're on food stamps, you should get just enough money to afford produce, whole cereals, etc.

I would be against widespread aid like food stamps altogether, but with how messed up the inequality is, a huge any of people need this help.

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Well, the first problem with these government stores of yours is accessibility. I live in a small town in the middle of nowhere. We're not going to get one of those stores, and even if we do is it going to be in walking distance for me? How about in walking distance for someone else who lives on the other side of town? Accessibility alone kills the idea.

The second problem is what do you define as healthy? Steak is healthy, as is lobster, even chocolate and wine are healthy in moderation. Other things, when eaten to excess are quite unhealthy. I can buy the cheap bread that costs $1/loaf but a diet of bread isn't exactly good for you.

Lets flip your argument around. Your dietary choices can negatively impact your health insurance company, by making them pay out more for your health care in the long run. At some point or another they will be covering you financially. Does this mean they should get a say in what items you choose to eat now or in the future?

a reply to: coldkidc

Ice cubs don't cut it. If someone is sick with strep throat, they aren't consuming foods and will be lacking the calories and energy needed to help fight the illness off. At least with a popsicle they are getting some sugar to fuel them. That is also why doctors will recommend energy drinks when sick with the flu because that is a situation where you need additional electrolytes and sugar.

I could come up with a thousand hypotheticals and it will turn out the same. Eventually the whole grocery store will be added back on.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They've put that list together a long time ago & more than once...remember the "food pyramid" then the "revised food pyramid" and whatever they have now, not to mention the "recommended daily allowances"?

Bet the FDA would be able to plug a list together in about a week with no new research required...we've already paid for it.

Besides, I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that lists steak & lobster as a "dietary nutritional necessity"

originally posted by: roadgravel
They could start by changing the law regard a full work week back to 40 hours. Many working people got their week cut by 25 percent this year. How do lawmakers expect workers to do better by making earning position worse.

People who listen to and believe in this trash talk from the wealthy are out of touch or just plain ignorant.

The length of the work week changes nothing. We can provide for everyone with a 25 hour work week. Increasing it to 40 simply puts some back at 40 hours while placing others at 0 hours. In other words it creates a stark division between those who have a lot and those who have nothing which in turn makes the problem worse.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Sugar feeds strep - it's a terrible thing to give them.

Probably should use your government subsidized Obamacare and ask the doc what to do.