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

a reply to: macman

All the more reason to remove foreign aid to countries, boot the UN, stop handing over money to Corporations.......right?

Right.

Exactly right.

I mean..to feed just one starving child would be the bestest.

Do you have children?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Just because they can do something and throw you in jail if you resist neither makes it right nor moral.

I'm not arguing right or moral, I'm saying that is the way things are.

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

My point has always been that it doesn't matter what you agree or disagree with, you don't have a say, beyond the ballot box.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And that is the issue. Just a little bit here, just a little bit there.

Being a business owner you know exactly what that means. The state wanting just a 2% increase for this. The county pushing for 3% for something else. The Fed taking 5% more from here.

To make sure we are clear: this isn't 1%. Its not even 1/10th of a percent. This is 6/100 of a percent.

I have never had my businesses financial health determined by that much. In fact, that is a miniscule amount of what we DO give away to charity. And when we are done, we don't go tell the charity how to spend that money.

The whole thing is the issue. As for just $2.25, it is small, but it is the fact of the matter that the money is supposed to feed people food. Not give them money to spend on cookies.

Cookies are food.

But, like I said...if the only reason that a stink is being raised is to make a point....over $2.46 a year.....when its already a small portion of SNAP recipients that are a problem to begin with....

My $10k a year in charitable contributions does a hell of a lot more then SNAP ever could.

And that is commendable. But your arguing about $2.46 of your tax money? You would save more money each year if you recycled paper towels.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Just because they can do something and throw you in jail if you resist neither makes it right nor moral.

I'm not arguing right or moral, I'm saying that is the way things are.

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

My point has always been that it doesn't matter what you agree or disagree with, you don't have a say, beyond the ballot box.

Ballot box and soap box are two bastions of a free society. Yes, I agree that we are screwed and eventually as more and more people ride on the cart and less and less people pull the cart the cart will stop.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And that is the issue. Just a little bit here, just a little bit there.

Being a business owner you know exactly what that means. The state wanting just a 2% increase for this. The county pushing for 3% for something else. The Fed taking 5% more from here.

To make sure we are clear: this isn't 1%. Its not even 1/10th of a percent. This is 6/100 of a percent.

I have never had my businesses financial health determined by that much. In fact, that is a miniscule amount of what we DO give away to charity. And when we are done, we don't go tell the charity how to spend that money.

The whole thing is the issue. As for just $2.25, it is small, but it is the fact of the matter that the money is supposed to feed people food. Not give them money to spend on cookies.

Cookies are food.

But, like I said...if the only reason that a stink is being raised is to make a point....over $2.46 a year.....when its already a small portion of SNAP recipients that are a problem to begin with....

My $10k a year in charitable contributions does a hell of a lot more then SNAP ever could.

And that is commendable. But your arguing about $2.46 of your tax money? You would save more money each year if you recycled paper towels.

Well yes, but this isn't a charity. This is taxpayer dollars that we are forced to pay. As such, taxpayers certainly have a right to voice how it's spent.

If a charity wastes what I give them on steak and lobster, I can simply not give. The federal government, not so much.

Dude - do you not pay taxes? Willingly?

Do you own a home and pay interest on the mortgage? Do you pay property taxes and insurance mixed in with your mortgage payment? Do you spend money at local shops?
Do you spend money at 'corporate' shops? Then you pay taxes. ( Unless you are in Montana, where they have no sales tax.)

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Well yes, but this isn't a charity. This is taxpayer dollars that we are forced to pay. As such, taxpayers certainly have a right to voice how it's spent.

Should the person who has no idea on the intricacies of the spending get to voice their concerns and have them listened to? Or should it be up to the government to better properly educate? Like I said before, it's easy to attack the poor. They're called lazy jobless mooches yet 62% of people who get food stamps work while only 57% of people who don't work (average labor force participation of 59%). They're called drug addicts while 9.2% of the population uses drugs but only 2% in Florida and 0.5% in Kansas were found to use drugs when testing welfare recipients.

What is your opinion on foreign aid? Do you understand the diplomatic negotiations that go into such things such as the potential military access or corporate contracts it secures? Or do you just see "they're taking my money" and not want to pay?

What about the people that say they want to opt out of funding the military?

Do you know why charities for the most part result in so little given out and are largely ineffective? It's because when voluntary people like to put themselves first, furthermore they like to only help the people like them. Inevitably this means that because the poor have so many to help and so little to give, there is very little help possible among the people like them.

If people only gave voluntarily to the groups they personally support, there wouldn't be funding for anything. If you want proof of this, just look at how many support the gas tax. Do you think people have the collective wisdom to even do something as vital as pay for our roads? All indications are we don't.

Taxing and using that money to fund things despite the protests of the taxed, is largely a very good policy.

Instead let me propose a different question to you. We are apparently feeding 50 million Americans by spending $2.34 on food stamps. If you apply this to the rest of the population it stands to reason we could feed 300 million for $14.04 each. We could then triple the food pay outs and make it $42.12 each. Every single person would eat like a king for that amount annually, if fed at the same efficiency as SNAP. How much is your grocery bill again?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Ballot box and soap box are two bastions of a free society.

True but at the ballot box you hand your say over to someone else and then you are left with nothing but the soap box to complain about how inept your representative is. Every now and then, especially since the internet boom, people get on their soap box and say things like "I pay taxes so I have a say in how it is spent" and that just isn't true.

Yes, I agree that we are screwed and eventually as more and more people ride on the cart and less and less people pull the cart the cart will stop.

I think they already strapped a motor on that sucker and only have people pull because it gives their life meaning.

Pulling the cart in this day and age is a pale shadow of what pulling the cart meant a couple hundred years ago. Hell, it doesn't even compare to pulling the cart 50 years ago.

a reply to: macman

So, because I make more then $50k a year, I should stop being upset that a portion, a large portion of that is taken from me.

$50K? What percentage are you paying?

Have you measured it against the uber-rich tax rates? (Yours is higher, by the way. Is that okay with you?)

Because the uber-rich have tax shelters abroad, and are only taxed for pennies on 'capital gains'.

You and I (and my household) don't have any of those 'uber-rich' loopholes to take advantage of. Do you think that is reasonable?
I think it is not.

But, perhaps I am misunderstanding you entirely. I just don't see how Americans can withhold food and shelter and clothing from those less fortunate just so they can buy another jet, another yacht, another $2000 coat, or $500 sweater........but then again, yeah, you know, this is a "Christian" nation.

????

No. This is a Capitalist nation.

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I thought you were very eloquent and respectful in making your points.
You had some valid ones.

I agreed with you on some but, then somehow the work "redneck" comes out and it gives the appearance that you feel only Southerners, or Democrats (?), or poor rural farmers are the one's who feel the system could be being abused.
It just seems that sometimes on these threads if someone has a differing opinion, they must be an uneducated Southerner.

If that is NOT how you meant it then, apologies...for how it was taken...

Oh dear, no. I asked because on this particular thread I hadn't noticed any "regional" mud-flinging. I know what you mean though. I was on a Michael Brown thread, and a person on there made the *assumption* that the shooting occurred in Mississippi rather than Missouri. Old stereotypes are hard to live down.

As for "redneck"-- not a word I use often. I know how offensive it is and I need to banish it from my vocabulary. But to me, it's not a geographical designation either. In my mind a "redneck' is someone with behaviors and thinking that is, er, "unrefined", shall we say. You know, the person who spits on the sidewalk, and uses the 'n' word, and junk like that.

So, are we good?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

But to me, it's not a geographical designation either. In my mind a "redneck' is someone with behaviors and thinking that is, er, "unrefined", shall we say. You know, the person who spits on the sidewalk, and uses the 'n' word, and junk like that.

And, you know what?

My husband is an educated country-boy who embraces the term 'redneck' and says that it stands for chivalry, honesty, dignity, and championing of the oppressed.

"Redneck" is not interchangeable with "White Trash".

ETA: he is employed and doing very well. An IT guy. A senior engineer.
As far from "white trash" as a person can get.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Lol! Never heard that definition of redneck before, but okay! It's odd though. I think 'redneck' as more of a mindset, political thing. I guess we get these little mindsets on what is what at some point. I try not to say 'white trash' at all. : )

Anyway! I didn't mean to derail the thread with that. The conversation has a good flow, I think.

I have some things I want to add; but it will have to wait until later this evening.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Well yes, but this isn't a charity. This is taxpayer dollars that we are forced to pay. As such, taxpayers certainly have a right to voice how it's spent.

Should the person who has no idea on the intricacies of the spending get to voice their concerns and have them listened to? Or should it be up to the government to better properly educate? Like I said before, it's easy to attack the poor. They're called lazy jobless mooches yet 62% of people who get food stamps work while only 57% of people who don't work (average labor force participation of 59%). They're called drug addicts while 9.2% of the population uses drugs but only 2% in Florida and 0.5% in Kansas were found to use drugs when testing welfare recipients.

What is your opinion on foreign aid? Do you understand the diplomatic negotiations that go into such things such as the potential military access or corporate contracts it secures? Or do you just see "they're taking my money" and not want to pay?

What about the people that say they want to opt out of funding the military?

Do you know why charities for the most part result in so little given out and are largely ineffective? It's because when voluntary people like to put themselves first, furthermore they like to only help the people like them. Inevitably this means that because the poor have so many to help and so little to give, there is very little help possible among the people like them.

If people only gave voluntarily to the groups they personally support, there wouldn't be funding for anything. If you want proof of this, just look at how many support the gas tax. Do you think people have the collective wisdom to even do something as vital as pay for our roads? All indications are we don't.

Taxing and using that money to fund things despite the protests of the taxed, is largely a very good policy.

Instead let me propose a different question to you. We are apparently feeding 50 million Americans by spending $2.34 on food stamps. If you apply this to the rest of the population it stands to reason we could feed 300 million for $14.04 each. We could then triple the food pay outs and make it $42.12 each. Every single person would eat like a king for that amount annually, if fed at the same efficiency as SNAP. How much is your grocery bill again?

Beauty of a post Aazadan, well said and completely sane.....
Head nod and a Star for the above.

Regards, Iwinder

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Lol! Never heard that definition of redneck before, but okay! It's odd though. I think 'redneck' as more of a mindset, political thing.

I'm a "townie", grew up in a college town, my dad owned a small business.......
and I had the same 'perception' of redneck as you describe.....

turns out (now that I have listened for 10 years)....... that it's inaccurate.

But, like you say - we'll discuss it later.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Puppylove

It is the topic of the thread....so it gets my attention.

Show me a thread talking about all the other BS that the Govt wastes money on and I am there with the biggest bells you can find.

What's that sound?? Wait, I think I hear bells ringing....

Government waste thread 2009

originally posted by: Puppylove
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.

Not to mention inflation and cost of food continuing to rise, so your dollar, or food stamp, buys less food than it would have in the past.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Whoa! When I said I had some things to add later, I meant add to the thread topic.

I've read various definitions and accounts of how the term "redneck' came to be. So, done. I don't use the term 'white trash' ever, so never said the two were interchangeable.

When I used the term, I didn't give any thought whatsoever to your husband, if you somehow think I've offended him, or his definitions. I thought his definition was kinda cute like Jeff Foxworthy or somebody, but not looking to debate it, and consequently derail the thread.

I looked into some historical facts about "food stamps" and thought I would maybe discuss some of that later.

Gotta go pick my nephew up from practice and feed him.

Peace,
liw

a reply to: caladonea

I do agree that there's nothing wrong with splurging for a celebration. However, I have personally know people who make purchases like that regularly, and I honestly feel like that is abusive to the point of the system. Of course not everyone does it, but there are those who truly take advantage of welfare when they have the capability not to. That is a problem.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Absolutely! We are good!

My S.O is a redneck, well sort of, not so much anymore.

I suppose I felt offended and didn't want you to lose sight of your valuable points by getting frustrated and throwing mud.

Thank you for responding and clarifying...peace!

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

When I used the term, I didn't give any thought whatsoever to your husband, if you somehow think I've offended him, or his definitions. I thought his definition was kinda cute like Jeff Foxworthy or somebody, but not looking to debate it, and consequently derail the thread.

Ah, no. I don't think you've offended him......
I was just trying to add to the dialogue about what the terms mean.



No worries.
There's no 'havering' or 'waffling' on this end.

As for 'kinda cute', well - yeah, sorta.....
but

no - it's a very sincere and adamantly held worldview - that the oppressed need representation and championing.