- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Did you say "slippery slop" intentionally?
no, but I wish I did
Did you say "slippery slop" intentionally?
so limiting your ability to purchase kool-aid with aid dollars is akin to making you eat gruel in a work house?
LOL~!!!!
Restricting SNAP to certain foods would do no real good. Culturally it would be a nightmare trying to determine what foods to ban from SNAP purchases.
What it amounts to is people wanting to dictate to other people what they can and cannot eat.
If you want people to eat healthy give them the proper education then. Afte all its not hard to bake cookies using the basics.
Giving someone a can does them no good if they don't know what to do with it. Clearly we need to certify people in can opening as part of the snap program ...
Your argument is makes no sense, mate and is nothing more than an attempt to make an issue needlessly complex by placing unreasonable demands on it
No one suggested people be limited to beans ....
Yes, that many people will ignore basic logic and common sense to push a political agenda. Don't worry, with the quality of your arguments, it will be hard to forget
That sounds political, or at least politically that is how will be how it will be viewed.It's not about a list of banned items so much as a simple delineating between single-ingredient items and processed/packaged items.
Then there isnt any excuse for your plan, it will easily be refuted by pointing out that the same type of food can be ate using Snap.You can make virtually anything using ingredients listed in my proposal.
many will argue that you are just trying to make it harder for people using SNAP which will never fly as a policy.The likely health benefit is actually incidental. The point of a food assistance program is to mitigate any hunger or starvation risks. I think my proposal accomplishes it better than our current shopping spree model.
there is absolutely no basis for such a slippery slop argument
What about WholeFoods and other specialty stores?
If they are more expensive than your average store then no.They they shouldn't be allowed to take EBT.
Then there isnt any excuse for your plan, it will easily be refuted by pointing out that the same type of food can be ate using Snap.
Really? ANd no dangers of a nanny state at all?
At the very least healthy foods.
I don't disagree, but that will cost more.
We need a better solution.
The better solution is to tell these assholes to **** off every time they start up with this crap. It doesn't have anything to do with health or even saving money-- they just want to make poor people more miserable because it makes them feel better about their own lives.
The better solution is to tell these assholes to **** off every time they start up with this crap. It doesn't have anything to do with health or even saving money-- they just want to make poor people more miserable because it makes them feel better about their own lives.
But its subjective how much people eat and what they can eat, or want to eat. And people that use SNAP can chose to do what you are suggesting on their own. Hell even people without SNAP can chose do to what you are suggesting but they dont because there is nothing wrong with some prepared food. Most people dont but basic ingredients to make bread or even pancakes. There is nothing wrong with living in the modern age. This isnt little house on the prairie. And we are not all Quakers.The point of my proposal isn't to control what people eat. It's to meet the goal of the program more efficiently and common sensibly.
As a adult do you make all of your food by scratch with just the basic ingredients? Are you implying that its childish to use foods that have been combined together? Seriously think about what you are saying, because it appears that you expect people on SNAP to be treated as if they live in the 1800's.It doesn't interfere with personal choice and it isn't overly protective. Nannies would prepare food for the wee ones, whereas adults would buy ingredients and make food for themselves and their families. If anything, our current system is more of a nanny, for viewing adult level responsibilities as way too much to expect from adults just because they don't happen to have a lot of money.
But its subjective how much people eat and what they can eat, or want to eat. And people that use SNAP can chose to do what you are suggesting on their own. Hell even people without SNAP can chose do to what you are suggesting but they dont because there is nothing wrong with some prepared food. Most people dont but basic ingredients to make bread or even pancakes. There is nothing wrong with living in the modern age. This isnt little house on the prairie. And we are not all Quakers.
As a adult do you make all of your food by scratch with just the basic ingredients?
Are you implying that its childish to use foods that have been combined together?
Seriously think about what you are saying, because it appears that you expect people on SNAP to be treated as if they live in the 1800's.
I'm not suggesting people need to raise their own livestock, just that it's completely unnecessary and wasteful to pay the corporate markup for food they prepare.
Not all. More than the average person, but then again I also pay for 100% of mine.
It's childish to think an adult wouldn't be able to make food and thus can't be burdened to do so.
Making meals does not equate to "living in the 1800s." If starvation prevention is the objective, then availing the basic staples and ingredients found in all the corporate processed and marketed food is more than enough. In fact it can reduce costs while increasing food security. The downsides (because let's admit every option has downsides) are that it's not as convenient as the corporate processed food, and it would end the corporate welfare aspects of SNAP.
So what you are really upset about is the food industry, by that I mean corporations. Its sounds like you just want to sget rid of corporations and their food products. Sorry SNAP isnt the place to play political games, awe the irony.
Two words will solve this problem...Soylent Green.
Instead of stamps, just send packets of delicious(?) Soylent Green to all those that need it.
no it really doesn't and I already provided one example
Didn't see your example, though one example probably wouldn't settle anything. Overall healthy food cost more. Looking at variety and volume, I'm fairly sure that would mean being more expensive.
I just want to point something out that some seem to be missing...
A lot of people getting food stamps are working as many hours as they are allowed by their employer. Some of them are people whose industry was outsourced; now they're working part time at Dollar General for about minimum wage because that is all they could find.
A lot of people getting foodstamps are elderly, in poor health and unable to work.
In brief, a lot of people on food stamps are NOT on there because they are lazy shiftless bums, but because their circumstances put them there against their will.