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

a reply to: macman

What charity? How well have you looked over it with a fine toothed comb to see how much of it is actually going to what you donate for?

I just want to make sure you're not getting ripped offed or scammed. Lot's of charities use their money very questionably. Not that I'm against charity, just against the charities that don't do as they should.

a reply to: macman

That's wrong in every way, and shows you know nothing about food stamps. The amount of food stamps people recieve fluctuates wildly and has been going down steadily for awhile now.

It's not money that's not worth as much, it's quite literally less money. As in people in the exact same situation who hasn't changed going down from say 175 per month to 145 as an example. That's not money be worth less than it was, it's less money. And this keeps occurring despite that the dollar is also worth less than it was before.

originally posted by: Spider879
Stop looking for a job and start creating your own, you may or may not succeed but if you are armed with the education that you have you stand a better chance than those who don't, but you are gonna say this how do I get start-up money and I'll tell you an old ethnic secret.

I'm working on it, but it takes time. The goal actually is to have my own company by the time I graduate, who knows if that will happen though, making video games is usually a multi person business I have to do it all on my own due to the financial situation (hence the reason I've been in school so long, I can literally do it all so I don't have to rely on hiring others which is the only real start up cost I would have). Here's the problem though, in my industry 90% of businesses fail. That means that even if it works for me and I'm one of the lucky 10, it's hardly a viable solution because it didn't work for so many others.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Aazadan

Insurance is voluntary.
N. Korea does this to just about all of its people, as they don't have the freedoms to work.
And, if all things being equal, and the cost is the same, and the goal is to feed people, why all the fuss to instead of handing people a card, they are given the food they can eat.

Really? Health insurance is voluntary? Car insurance is voluntary? Both have legal requirements.

The answer to the other part of your question is that the person purchasing an item gets to choose what they're purchasing. Not you. As pointed out earlier, you are also getting food subsidies, ironically enough you're probably even getting more than me since you're purchasing so much more food. I also pay taxes. Does that mean I should mandate what you eat?

It's amazing how you're normally for the smallest government possible, yet in this thread you're arguing for over reaching government control, just because it can attack a group you hate.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

So, let me get this straight.

A political party, which is supposed to be for smaller Govt, makes a statement about restrictions placed on a Govt welfare program is now Tyranny?

I'm not sure if you know what smaller government is. What is being argued for is larger government.

originally posted by: thelastastronaut
Why don't these people focus on getting themselves jobs? I agree that food stamp recipients shouldn't be buying 'luxury' foods, but it's not something that should be strictly enforced. I also think welfare/food stamp recipients should be drug tested. I can't tell you how many times I've been to a grocery store and seen people with 2 carts of name brand junk food, but they have expensive clothing on, their nails and hair are done up and then they wheel this free food out to their Escalade. Meanwhile, I have to try and be thrifty so I can afford daycare and other family expenses. Makes me sick. The system sucks and people need to help themselves and not rely on the government for handouts. They CAN get themselves jobs, but they probably make more money not working and pumping out kids every other year.

62% of food stamp recipients work. The overall labor force participation rate is 59%. Food stamp recipients do work, they in fact are more likely to work than people who don't get any assistance.

originally posted by: macman
What I suggested, would probably have a cost savings to the tax payer.
And....would remove the transaction charge, going to the banks everyone hates....and it feeds people with actual food.

We could accomplish the same thing without growing government by clamping down on the fees the banks charge to manage the accounts. $5 for a card, $1.50 per transaction? I think this is one of the few areas where we both agree, these charges are completely ridiculous. Why not reduce it to the same rate as ATM charges? Free cards and 0.5% swipes? 0.5% would be 50 cents per person per month on average so $6/year*100 million recipients=$600 million for the account. The banks could cover it for that much I'm sure.

Another reason to go this route over your proposed route is physical goods require a lot of overhead and purchasing, distribution, and so on. You lose the economy of scale the grocery store gets, and you need to set up locations in every town for people to get their goods. Then, you have to account for the needy people having limited transportation which further increases costs.

It would work much better to just give the banks more difficult terms to manage the program.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Puppylove
The Govt is not there to be mommy and daddy to people. It is not there to take from one to give to another.

If you have a feeling to help people, why don't you go and do it? Or do you just rely on Govt doing that for you as well?

Umm... taxing and spending is pretty much the definition of government or in other words take from one to give to another. I do go out and help people too. My town has a huge homeless population. I always carry coupons for free fast food with me, when a homeless person asks me for some money for food I give them one or two.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Puppylove

More people are NOT in favor of paying into welfare.

Most people aren't in favor of paying into welfare but they're very much in favor of there being a welfare system despite it's many flaws. Newsflash: People like services, they don't like paying for them. Welcome to human nature.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Puppylove

Not really.

As more people are hooked onto welfare, the funds it consumes are higher.
The numbers of people on welfare are growing. Funds have to come from somewhere and Govt isn't willing to cut elsewhere. So, the natural thing is an increase in taxes.

Except government has been cutting welfare while the numbers of recipents are growing. This is drastically shrinking payouts. Like I pointed out with my own food stamps in 3 years I've gone from $200/month to $42/month with zero change in income, and an increase in the household expenses they consider like rent and utilities. Taxes haven't been going up, all the Republicans in congress signed no tax increase pledges and they've kept their word. So we can't increase taxes, which means we can't increase spending, yet more people need help. The programs are getting attacked from three different directions and that's because the eventual goal is to collapse them to prove they don't work and shouldn't exist (which is about to happen).

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Puppylove

It sure is. When you make around $50k per year or higher.

Welcome to my world.

If you're getting back more from the government than you pay in, doesn't that mean you're one of those welfare recipients you hate so much? There's plenty of threads around here pointing out where the well off get a bunch of money from the government despite the fact they clearly don't need it. It's generally considered on the same level as corporate welfare. Thanks for pointing out to all of us what type of person you are. Gotta attack the poor because they're taking money that the government could be giving to you instead.

originally posted by: macman
Oh this will truly be grand....let's here this newly devised Law of the Land not bound by the Constitution or BoRs.

Well that wasn't what I said. You seem to see what you want. They are all bound by the constitution but, there is a body of laws that govern the nation and the public assistance laws are in there.

The word right doesn't just apply to those listed in the BoRs.

a reply to: NavyDoc

You tacitly agreed to it when you decided to call yourself a citizen of the USA. Don't know when that happened. If it didn't happen before, it no doubt went into effect when you joined the forces.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Nobody said he wasn't.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NavyDoc

You tacitly agreed to it when you decided to call yourself a citizen of the USA. Don't know when that happened. If it didn't happen before, it no doubt went into effect when you joined the forces.

That another citizen has claim to the fruits of my labor. Nonsense. There is no law nor rule nor implicit agreement that someone else isentitled to what I earn. That some people who want it claim it does not make it so. We can discuss the merits of we as a society supporting our less fortunate, but they are not entitled to it in any way shape or form.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: macman
Oh this will truly be grand....let's here this newly devised Law of the Land not bound by the Constitution or BoRs.

Well that wasn't what I said. You seem to see what you want. They are all bound by the constitution but, there is a body of laws that govern the nation and the public assistance laws are in there.

The word right doesn't just apply to those listed in the BoRs.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do "public assistance?"

a reply to: NavyDoc

Again, tell me how, I as a taxpayer who fell on hard times for a few months am stealing your money when I paid taxes same as you, and have paid much more than I received in benefits? I really want to know.

You all keep ignoring that you aren't the only one paying taxes, and that people benefiting are taxpayers same as you.

a reply to: NavyDoc

If there isn't, take it to court and see how far you get.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Guess you don't like reading either.

I never said it was in the constitution.

The laws below the constitution may also, but not always, establish rights and responsibilities.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: NavyDoc

Again, tell me how, I as a taxpayer who fell on hard times for a few months am stealing your money when I paid taxes same as you, and have paid much more than I received in benefits? I really want to know.

You all keep ignoring that you aren't the only one paying taxes, and that people benefiting are taxpayers same as you.

And you keep ignoring the fact that you are not the only one taking welfare and that many of your peers just don't go on it for a few months. Also you ignore the fact that we also pay in for unemployment insurance which is also a tax that is more like the "investment" you are talking about and designed for the temporarily out of work status and you also ignore the fact that what is taken from you is used to pay off someone else and when you need it, it is taken form someone else to pay you in a huge ponzi scheme.

And, none of that justifies laying claim on the fruits of another's labor

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NavyDoc

If there isn't, take it to court and see how far you get.

That make no sense. You can't go to court for something that doesn't exist.

a reply to: Puppylove

Don't you worry, I have done my due diligence.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NavyDoc

Guess you don't like reading either.

I never said it was in the constitution.

The laws below the constitution may also, but not always, establish rights and responsibilities.

However, the Constitution clearly states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

This means that a law that empowers the federal government to do something that is not clearly given to the federal government is unconstitutional--the patriot act is a good example.

a reply to: NavyDoc

So they are not taking your money and giving it to another?

Of course you can sue if they are doing this and they have no right.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The SCOTUS already decided what the general welfare cause implies and you have to live by that decision no matter how wrong you might think it is.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NavyDoc

So they are not taking your money and giving it to another?

Of course you can sue if they are doing this and they have no right.

They certainly have no right. However, you and I both know that governments often enforce immoral and unjust laws with force and your point is a bit spurious. Just because they can do something and throw you in jail if you resist neither makes it right nor moral.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: NavyDoc

The SCOTUS already decided what the general welfare cause implies and you have to live by that decision no matter how wrong you might think it is.

The SCOTUS also supported Jim Crow and Dred Scott. I assume you agree with both those then?