Trump to Cut Food Stamps

[grip]

Hes right, and theres no need for hyperbole. He clearly doesnt hate people out of work. SNAP is wasteful, unneccesary, and illegal. The federal govt should not be taking money from me and buying food for my neighbor. Especially when that neighbor is perfectly capable of working and there are jobs available, before, now, and after this virus. In the 90s we had something called welfare to work, which got millions of people off welfare and into jobs so they could be self sufficient. And since then, its been eroded to where we now have more people than ever dependant on the govt.

Such that when an emergency comes along, we have to spend trillions bailing everyone and everything out. Billions that I will have to pay for since I actually work and save my money and can take care of myself. All Trumps rule does is reduce abuse by setting higher standards of eligibility.

I, completely, disagree with everything you said.

 

[vegas giants]

Life sucks and it is unfair, too bad. You are embarrassing yourself with sentiment. Why should I care about the poor? I care about my family first, then my friends, then my neighbors, then my community. Your sentiments mean nothing to me, an embarrassment as you put it, to those who have worked and risked for what they have. I'm not begging for anything, least of all someone else's tax dollars. Talk to me about politicians like Bill DeBlasio, Andy Cuomo, Sheldon Silver, all big spenders of tax money who have done well lining their own pockets. And Silver, a convicted felon walks free because of democrat corruption. There's you story. Deny it.

Perhaps you favor eliminating all welfare and social programs.....yes?

 

[OldFatGuy]

Perhaps you favor eliminating all welfare and social programs.....yes?

No. There are always those who genuinely need assistance. Some of whom will never be able to support themselves, and philanthropies have not ever fit the bill. Certainly some social programs benefit us all at different times in our lives, from public schooling to medicare, among others. There is a major difference between sincere efforts to better America for Americans, and programs like Mayor Bill DeBlasio's ThriveNYC multi $ program at taxpayer expense that was supposed to provide assistance for the mentally unstable, many of whom inhabit our streets, but only provided a grandiose office for his wife Charlene who heads the program.

Still as a citizen, it is my obligation to help the less fortunate if I am able, and to demand through my representation in this democratic republic that responsible use of my taxpayer money is effected. Reasonable taxation (another conversation entirely) is part of the laws of the land, and if equitable, justifiable. Expenditure is always subject to corruption.

With all due respect, please try to answer the question posed, not respond with a straw man query designed to emote, politicians who are full of crap and truly seek to line their own pockets one way or another? Social programs are not the issue, greedy self serving politicians is the issue.

There will never be wealth equity in this nation or any other, regardless of economic systems. The struggling common man will always be a presence, as will the wealthy elite and the poor with almost nothing, for no particular reasons other than birth for the most part, and the occasional individual who manages to climb the ladders when others fall by the wayside for no discernible reasons.

As an individual who is honest, I will always place myself and my family first, and anyone who says differently is a liar. Therefore untrustworthy.

 

[jonny5]

I, completely, disagree with everything you said.

<debate forum

 

[grip]

<debate forum

You're so wrong on every level that it would be pointless for me to explain. I'd have a chance with someone who I don't absolutely, diametrically oppose.

 

[vegas giants]

No. There are always those who genuinely need assistance. Some of whom will never be able to support themselves, and philanthropies have not ever fit the bill. Certainly some social programs benefit us all at different times in our lives, from public schooling to medicare, among others. There is a major difference between sincere efforts to better America for Americans, and programs like Mayor Bill DeBlasio's ThriveNYC multi $ program at taxpayer expense that was supposed to provide assistance for the mentally unstable, many of whom inhabit our streets, but only provided a grandiose office for his wife Charlene who heads the program.

Still as a citizen, it is my obligation to help the less fortunate if I am able, and to demand through my representation in this democratic republic that responsible use of my taxpayer money is effected. Reasonable taxation (another conversation entirely) is part of the laws of the land, and if equitable, justifiable. Expenditure is always subject to corruption.

With all due respect, please try to answer the question posed, not respond with a straw man query designed to emote, politicians who are full of crap and truly seek to line their own pockets one way or another? Social programs are not the issue, greedy self serving politicians is the issue.

There will never be wealth equity in this nation or any other, regardless of economic systems. The struggling common man will always be a presence, as will the wealthy elite and the poor with almost nothing, for no particular reasons other than birth for the most part, and the occasional individual who manages to climb the ladders when others fall by the wayside for no discernible reasons.

As an individual who is honest, I will always place myself and my family first, and anyone who says differently is a liar. Therefore untrustworthy.

So hungry children....this is about food stamps to feed them...
should be ignored.


Not me....I think every hungry child in America should be fed.



Every single one

 

[jonny5]

You're so wrong on every level that it would be pointless for me to explain. I'd have a chance with someone who I don't absolutely, diametrically oppose.

Im not sure why you are on a debate forum. But ok, if you just want sheep to echo your rhetoric, Ill move on.

 

[grip]

Im not sure why you are on a debate forum. But ok, if you just want sheep to echo your rhetoric, Ill move on.

I'm sure not here to argue extreme, partisan, sticking points. That's an effort in futility, lesson learned.

 

[Vadinho]

I hate the food stamp program because it gives people on welfare too many bad choices. Food stamps can't be used for booze and cigarettes, and can't be used for most non food items. But they allow people to buy food from fast food restaurants, ice cream, candy, snack foods--and all sorts of CRAP.

People on welfare should be given assistance that limits their choices. Many are on welfare because of bad choices, so why give people the liberty to make more bad choices? Food assistance should ony be for staple food items---most which people would need to cook themselves if possible. Why allow a welfare person to buy some $8 frozen dinners when they could buy a few bags of rice, some fresh vegetables, and some fresh meat or chicken. Learning how to handle life should be part of the goal with welfare assistance, not allowing people to line up at a 'pig trough and get their slop.

Do you feel the same way about wage earners buying the same lousy food? I think you made a good point but expand it a bit more. Why are we allowing our food industry to even make this crap?

 

[OldFatGuy]

So hungry children....this is about food stamps to feed them...
should be ignored.


Not me....I think every hungry child in America should be fed.



Every single one

It is not a question of want, but of reality. There is no reason as far as available food for any child in this nation to go hungry. Easy to speak about, but what are doing to make it happen other discussing the problem here? Self righteous indignation feeds no one.

SNAP is only for those with an address. Welfare in most states now also requires an address and a bank account for direct deposit.

Raising the issue of starving children is nothing more than an appeal to emotions and sentiment. It addresses nothing systemic.

Right now we have a greater problem. Children dependent upon school breakfasts and lunches, with schools closed. Do tell what you are doing to feed these children, because this is a problem never addressed by SNAP. Impress me with your actions, not empty words.

Am I, or you, responsible for those who made the wrong moral choices, knowing the hazards, and indulged in that first alcoholic drink, snort of coke, meth or heroin, and wrecked their lives, and the lives around them? Don't tell me they are diseased, I reject that upfront. I am in no way responsible for supporting people who failed themselves with entirely preventable outcomes to their decisions, decisions of no self respect.

Trump's administration is proposing reducing snap benefits for all those working, not making a living wage from their employers. Companies like Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, etal. Is he wrong to force those companies into a position whereby they must pay a livable wage? Should the American taxpayer continue supporting those companies regardless of whether or not they use their services? Superficial headlines are not enough for understanding any story, least of all emotionally tinged political stories.

Years ago two nuns sat everyday at the bottom of the main escalator entering into Grand Central Station in Manhattan. They sat there, wordless with reed baskets in their lap. Many tossed loose change into those baskets, and some dropped bills of all denominations. Then after about 25 years, a reporter for the NY Herald Journal, now long gone, discovered they were not nuns, but two women posing, with $hundreds of thousands banked, WS equity portfolios and living in two luxury apartments. Technically, they broke no laws, and disappeared from the public eye, unscathed. Some years later, the two charming old ladies, in their late 40's, were busted in Florida, milking rich old men they charmed, and running fake charities to feed starving children. Both received relatively small fines and moved out of state. The only thing really learned about them, they were sisters sharing the same mother, a well known Madam from Denver.

 

[OldFatGuy]

So hungry children....this is about food stamps to feed them...
should be ignored.


Not me....I think every hungry child in America should be fed.



Every single one

BTW, you are not getting away with another straw man argument instead of answering the question posed about corrupt politicians.

 

[vegas giants]

It is not a question of want, but of reality. There is no reason as far as available food for any child in this nation to go hungry. Easy to speak about, but what are doing to make it happen other discussing the problem here? Self righteous indignation feeds no one.

SNAP is only for those with an address. Welfare in most states now also requires an address and a bank account for direct deposit.

Raising the issue of starving children is nothing more than an appeal to emotions and sentiment. It addresses nothing systemic.

Right now we have a greater problem. Children dependent upon school breakfasts and lunches, with schools closed. Do tell what you are doing to feed these children, because this is a problem never addressed by SNAP. Impress me with your actions, not empty words.

Am I, or you, responsible for those who made the wrong moral choices, knowing the hazards, and indulged in that first alcoholic drink, snort of coke, meth or heroin, and wrecked their lives, and the lives around them? Don't tell me they are diseased, I reject that upfront. I am in no way responsible for supporting people who failed themselves with entirely preventable outcomes to their decisions, decisions of no self respect.

Trump's administration is proposing reducing snap benefits for all those working, not making a living wage from their employers. Companies like Walmart, Home Depot, Amazon, etal. Is he wrong to force those companies into a position whereby they must pay a livable wage? Should the American taxpayer continue supporting those companies regardless of whether or not they use their services? Superficial headlines are not enough for understanding any story, least of all emotionally tinged political stories.

Years ago two nuns sat everyday at the bottom of the main escalator entering into Grand Central Station in Manhattan. They sat there, wordless with reed baskets in their lap. Many tossed loose change into those baskets, and some dropped bills of all denominations. Then after about 25 years, a reporter for the NY Herald Journal, now long gone, discovered they were not nuns, but two women posing, with $hundreds of thousands banked, WS equity portfolios and living in two luxury apartments. Technically, they broke no laws, and disappeared from the public eye, unscathed. Some years later, the two charming old ladies, in their late 40's, were busted in Florida, milking rich old men they charmed, and running fake charities to feed starving children. Both received relatively small fines and moved out of state. The only thing really learned about them, they were sisters sharing the same mother, a well known Madam from Denver.

Most school districts are still feeding children. They show up for breakfast and lunch just as before.


People like you and trump play politics while little kids go hungry.


Raise minimum wage laws then. Oh no we cant have that either. Just more politics. Because the rich need another tax cut


Feed every child in America first....before one dollar of my taxes is spent on anything else.


A small child cant eat politics

 

[Court Jester]

Do you feel the same way about wage earners buying the same lousy food? I think you made a good point but expand it a bit more. Why are we allowing our food industry to even make this crap?

What people choose to buy with their own money I have no opinion on. Free country eat what you like. My issue is with TAXPAYER supported food programs; where other working people are supporting these programs. It's a very simple principal actually; anyone who gets something as social welfare has to follow guidelines set forth to assure the monies being spent by taxpayers are being put to the best use. The WIC program already does something like this in as much as the food which is purchased by these women on welfare is specifically spelled out. For example a pound of domestic cheese may be on the WIC voucher. Not a pound of cheese puffs, or a jar of cheeze whiz---actual cheese. Because unlike food stamps they want to assure the welfare mother is actually buying healthier and nutritious food options---nothing less, nothing more. The welfare mother doesn't get to make all of her own choices. Clearly a good thing as most who ended up in that predicament did so due to poor choices already.

Food stamps needs to work the same way. No fast food or junk food/snacks options allowed.

 

[OldFatGuy]

Most school districts are still feeding children. They show up for breakfast and lunch just as before.


People like you and trump play politics while little kids go hungry.


Raise minimum wage laws then. Oh no we cant have that either. Just more politics. Because the rich need another tax cut


Feed every child in America first....before one dollar of my taxes is spent on anything else.


A small child cant eat politics

That is not true. Less than 30% of the school districts in the nation that are closed are feeding those dependent upon those meals. Now do tell how those locked down children get to those meals? What a load of outright BS!

In other words, you will not address the original question posed, that of corruption, and are basically full of crap as you yank at heart strings and do nothing yourself.

 

[vegas giants]

That is not true. Less than 30% of the school districts in the nation that are closed are feeding those dependent upon those meals. Now do tell how those locked down children get to those meals? What a load of outright BS!

In other words, you will not address the original question posed, that of corruption, and are basically full of crap as you yank at heart strings and do nothing yourself.

I don't believe your numbers. In most cities they designate one or two schools for the hungry kids to go to. Its certainly how we do it here.


But some kids are going hungry. Its criminal. And you and trump want to add to their numbers

 

[Vadinho]

What people choose to buy with their own money I have no opinion on. Free country eat what you like. My issue is with TAXPAYER supported food programs; where other working people are supporting these programs. It's a very simple principal actually; anyone who gets something as social welfare has to follow guidelines set forth to assure the monies being spent by taxpayers are being put to the best use. The WIC program already does something like this in as much as the food which is purchased by these women on welfare is specifically spelled out. For example a pound of domestic cheese may be on the WIC voucher. Not a pound of cheese puffs, or a jar of cheeze whiz---actual cheese. Because unlike food stamps they want to assure the welfare mother is actually buying healthier and nutritious food options---nothing less, nothing more. The welfare mother doesn't get to make all of her own choices. Clearly a good thing as most who ended up in that predicament did so due to poor choices already.

Food stamps needs to work the same way. No fast food or junk food/snacks options allowed.

I find it interesting that you only care about our diets if the person is on food stamps. I agree that we should care about our diets but wonder why you draw the line where you do. And just so you fully grasp the macro issues you raised, neither you of I pay for their food stamps. Taxes do not pay for what our government spends.

 

[Tbird19482]

Most school districts are still feeding children. They show up for breakfast and lunch just as before.


People like you and trump play politics while little kids go hungry.


Raise minimum wage laws then. Oh no we cant have that either. Just more politics. Because the rich need another tax cut


Feed every child in America first....before one dollar of my taxes is spent on anything else.


A small child cant eat politics

a lot of places in some states they are delivering Breakfasts and lunches to the homes of the kids they know need it, and when this began if your kids needed it and were not getting it you could call and have your name put on a list
have a nice day

 

[Court Jester]

Most school districts are still feeding children. They show up for breakfast and lunch just as before.


People like you and trump play politics while little kids go hungry.

Isn't the responsibility of the parents to feed their own kids? Isn't that the way it is suppose to work? People decide to procreate and shouldn't THEY be responsible? Why do you feel it is someone else's responsibility to feed your kids? I feed my own kids. And it starts with NOT procreating unless you are able to care for your own.... including yourself. Just on the basis of personal pride wouldn't most people want to be independent of having someone else figuring everything out for them. Isn't that why we grow up and leave our parents' home; to be independent, self sufficient, an asset to society, and not just a ward to be taken care of by society? When did people decide they could still have pride and yet not be responsible for themselves or their own?

Raise minimum wage laws then. Oh no we cant have that either. Just more politics. Because the rich need another tax cut

Yeah sure, just demand another entitlement. Make the small business owners who actually have skin in the game and provide the jobs end up having to pay people more money---and for what? Non skilled work that doesn't merit a raise in pay. Minimum wage jobs were NEVER meant to sustain people. They used to be for part time kids after school, 2nd wage earners in the home, or just retired people looking for a few extra bucks.

Feed every child in America first....before one dollar of my taxes is spent on anything else.


A small child cant eat politics

PARENTS feed your kids, you made them, they are YOUR responsibility.

BTW, every time I see these so called poor starving kids that the school district feeds breakfast and lunch to, I don't see too many who look like they are "under fed". I see a lot fat guts hanging over jeans that are too tight as they all stroll down the street looking down at their $500+ smart phones. Maybe those kids could miss a few more meals--- that and get some more exercise.

 

[vegas giants]

Isn't the responsibility of the parents to feed their own kids? Isn't that the way it is suppose to work? People decide to procreate and shouldn't THEY be responsible? Why do you feel it is someone else's responsibility to feed your kids? I feed my own kids. And it starts with NOT procreating unless you are able to care for your own.... including yourself. Just on the basis of personal pride wouldn't most people want to be independent of having someone else figuring everything out for them. Isn't that why we grow up and leave our parents' home; to be independent, self sufficient, an asset to society, and not just a ward to be taken care of by society? When did people decide they could still have pride and yet not be responsible for themselves or their own?




Yeah sure, just demand another entitlement. Make the small business owners who actually have skin in the game and provide the jobs end up having to pay people more money---and for what? Non skilled work that doesn't merit a raise in pay. Minimum wage jobs were NEVER meant to sustain people. They used to be for part time kids after school, 2nd wage earners in the home, or just retired people looking for a few extra bucks.




PARENTS feed your kids, you made them, they are YOUR responsibility.

BTW, every time I see these so called poor starving kids that the school district feeds breakfast and lunch to, I don't see too many who look like they are "under fed". I see a lot fat guts hanging over jeans that are too tight as they all stroll down the street looking down at their $500+ smart phones. Maybe those kids could miss a few more meals--- that and get some more exercise.

I think kids should be fed. If their parents dont do it the government should. Foos stamps is the cheapest way to achieve this


Feed every kid....then build aircraft carriers

 

[Court Jester]

I find it interesting that you only care about our diets if the person is on food stamps. I agree that we should care about our diets but wonder why you draw the line where you do. And just so you fully grasp the macro issues you raised, neither you of I pay for their food stamps. Taxes do not pay for what our government spends.

You keep missing a basic point and that is that "beggars can't be choosers". The "line" is drawn between those who are responsible for themselves and those who are not.

Bottom line: it shouldn't be the role of government to manage anyone's life or their choices. But at the point where a person is incapable of managing their own life and asks for or accepts assistance, then they don't get to drive the boat anymore.

 

[vegas giants]

You keep missing a basic point and that is that "beggars can't be choosers". The "line" is drawn between those who are responsible for themselves and those who are not.

Bottom line: it shouldn't be the role of government to manage anyone's life or their choices. But at the point where a person is incapable of managing their own life and asks for or accepts assistance, then they don't get to drive the boat anymore.

God forbid some poor kid eats a cheeto

 

[Court Jester]

I think kids should be fed. If their parents dont do it the government should. Foos stamps is the cheapest way to achieve this


Feed every kid....then build aircraft carriers

Since I the taxpayer am paying for this stuff I prefer the aircraft carriers. Not only do they serve what the actual function of the federal government is intended to be, which is assuring for our defense. But they also employ a lot of workers who in turn provide for their own families, pay for cars, houses, food, educations---and add to the all important tax base which our society depends on for the very government which provides for that defense.

Spend the money on bailing out people who have failed in their lives and where does that get us but further down the road to becoming another 3rd world country.


moral hazard: lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences.

 

[Court Jester]

God forbid some poor kid eats a cheeto

I don't care if he eats the whole bag including the wrapper as long as I didn't have to pay for it.

 

[vegas giants]

Since I the taxpayer am paying for this stuff I prefer the aircraft carriers. Not only do they serve what the actual function of the federal government is intended to be, which is assuring for our defense. But they also employ a lot of workers who in turn provide for their own families, pay for cars, houses, food, educations---and add to the all important tax base which our society depends on for the very government which provides for that defense.

Spend the money on bailing out people who have failed in their lives and where does that get us but further down the road to becoming another 3rd world country.


moral hazard: lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences.

Ok you hate poor kids who never did anything wrong.


Noted

 

[OldFatGuy]

I don't believe your numbers. In most cities they designate one or two schools for the hungry kids to go to. Its certainly how we do it here.


But some kids are going hungry. Its criminal. And you and trump want to add to their numbers

Do tell how those locked down children are getting to those designated schools. There are no school buses taking them to dine anywhere. Are they walking? How is this magic happening. Show me the schools that were prepared for remote eating. More magic? School systems completely unprepared for remote learning, with children too poor to eat and obviously too poor to own computers at home, magically remote feeding those same children. Yup, SNAP is the answer.

What is criminal, is using the image of hungry children to avoid facing up to a question you are afraid to answer. You can't blame Trump for your own BS.

Don't dare tell me what I want, because you don't have clue as to what you want. Woe, the starving children. BS.

The self appointed expert advocacy groups in this country claim 1 out of every 5 children live "food insecure" lives, meaning they struggle with hunger and malnutrition in the course of a year. Got to love that phrase "food insecure." Kind of like using redneck as an excuse for bigotry, even tho using the word redneck is bigoted. That translates as 20% of American children. Yet, less than 12% of Americans live in poverty. The numbers don't jive. Now, of course, we can have kids from rich families who are malnourished, eating all the wrong foods, and that is included in that phrase "food insecure." Plumps up the "food insecure" numbers, along with the reality that so many children are obese. Obese starving children. More Magic.

How can there be starvation in this country when we waste as a nation approximately 80 billion pounds of food which equates to more than $161 billion annually, approximately 219 pounds of waste per person and 30-40 percent of the US food supply? And right now, with the claim that farmers and ranchers are destroying livestock, and harvest because meat processing plants are partly shut down because of Covid 19, even more waste. Mind boggling, isn't it? And nobody wants government cheese.

Let me clue you in. There are no starving Americans. No starving American children. There are malnourished people, including children, but not because they can't get enough to eat. SNAP reductions may cause some problems for some people, but they are not likely to significantly increase the numbers of malnourished children. And I agree, no child should go to bed hungry, or malnourished, but you have no answers to the problems, just political slogans and BS. Trump isn't the excuse or the villain in this story that you claim him to be. That is merely your partisan crap at work. I'm not excusing him, but he is not responsible for the systemic problems of this nation that have existed under every administration. "A chicken in every pot." A promise from one of out greatest presidents. Never fulfilled. "We will build a Great Society." Another unfulfilled promise to eliminate poverty by a great domestic president who was overshadowed by the horrors of an insane war. What ya gonna do?

The best intentions cannot eliminate poverty and all that goes with it. That doesn't mean we surrender to it, but that we must recognize political partisanship and slogans offer no solutions. We are a can do nation. We must show with real life actions what we can do. And merely throwing money at a problem doesn't resolve that problem. We need better answers for all of us.

No more straw man arguments from you. No more acceptable avoidance of questions posed. No more emotional and sentimental appeals will be tolerated. And if I had realistic answers to these problems, I'd be shouting them from rooftops.