Food Stamps

[paints]

The food stamp budget is less than 1 percent of the total budget. 
It costs the average taxpayer 10 cents a day.
It's not a welfare program.  It's a nutrition assistance program that comes under the farm bill, run by the USDA.
Most of the people who use food stamps are working. 

Food stamps feed people who would otherwise go without.  And if occasionally someone buys something that's not nutritious, in your view, so what? 

10 cents a day doesn't give anyone the right to be a bully.

So, what do you think about Michelle Obama's lunch policy? We've got teachers potentially being fined for giving out candy because it doesn't promote healthy food choices. Is she being a bully?

It's not just her policy. 
The USDA has been working on getting nutritious, healthy food into schools since 1966, with the Child Nutrition Act.
Setting standards and guidelines for schools is necessary for the health of our children.
Pushing institutions to raise standards and do better is not bullying.  It's what any mother who loves her children would do.

But in the grocery store, commenting on what an individual puts in their cart, as if you have the right to dictate their choices, is bullying. 

As I mentioned, it didn't just raise standards, it restricted what could be sold or given out in schools. Can't sell soda/candy in vending machines anymore. Sure sounds like dictating ones choices.

No one is judging what others put in their cart or dictating their choices, it's just how they pay for it. They can still by anything with their own money. Food stamps are only meant as a supplement to a portion of a the food costs.

If the government giving you something for free but placing restrictions is now considered bullying, I think this might be a new low for the hypersensitive and entitled.

I didn't say the government is bullying anyone. That was your statement.

Telling Coke that, no you may not profit at the expense of a childs' poor choices, is not bullying.
It's backing parental choice for their children.

And no matter how you slice it, 10 cents a day doesn't give you the right to comment on someone elses' food choices.  No matter how they pay for it, it's none of your business.

The food stamp program is one of the most studied and regulated programs that exist in the federal government. 
The fraud rate is less than 3%, with most of that being the retailer, not the person using the stamps.

And, if you know anything about using food stamps, you'll know that it has always restricted what can be purchased with stamps.  Food.  Period.


 

[hawkeye3210]

The food stamp budget is less than 1 percent of the total budget. 
It costs the average taxpayer 10 cents a day.
It's not a welfare program.  It's a nutrition assistance program that comes under the farm bill, run by the USDA.
Most of the people who use food stamps are working. 

Food stamps feed people who would otherwise go without.  And if occasionally someone buys something that's not nutritious, in your view, so what? 

10 cents a day doesn't give anyone the right to be a bully.

So, what do you think about Michelle Obama's lunch policy? We've got teachers potentially being fined for giving out candy because it doesn't promote healthy food choices. Is she being a bully?

It's not just her policy. 
The USDA has been working on getting nutritious, healthy food into schools since 1966, with the Child Nutrition Act.
Setting standards and guidelines for schools is necessary for the health of our children.
Pushing institutions to raise standards and do better is not bullying.  It's what any mother who loves her children would do.

But in the grocery store, commenting on what an individual puts in their cart, as if you have the right to dictate their choices, is bullying. 

As I mentioned, it didn't just raise standards, it restricted what could be sold or given out in schools. Can't sell soda/candy in vending machines anymore. Sure sounds like dictating ones choices.

No one is judging what others put in their cart or dictating their choices, it's just how they pay for it. They can still by anything with their own money. Food stamps are only meant as a supplement to a portion of a the food costs.

If the government giving you something for free but placing restrictions is now considered bullying, I think this might be a new low for the hypersensitive and entitled.

I didn't say the government is bullying anyone. That was your statement.

Telling Coke that, no you may not profit at the expense of a childs' poor choices, is not bullying.
It's backing parental choice for their children.

And no matter how you slice it, 10 cents a day doesn't give you the right to comment on someone elses' food choices.  No matter how they pay for it, it's none of your business.

The food stamp program is one of the most studied and regulated programs that exist in the federal government. 
The fraud rate is less than 3%, with most of that being the retailer, not the person using the stamps.

And, if you know anything about using food stamps, you'll know that it has always restricted what can be purchased with stamps.  Food.  Period.


 

Considering the government is only one who can place restrictions on the use food stamps, not sure how I can be the bully. I've never commented on what others put in their cart. In fact, I haven't even gave an opinion whether one should be allowed to use them on soda/candy. Only suggested that taxpayers have the right to an opinion.

The 10 cents a day argument is joke written by someone who clearly doesn't understand tax law or it's application. He starts his argument by subtracting the SS/Med off the Federal Income Tax. That's wrong. The SS/Med tax is collected in addition to Federal Income Tax, so there is no to subtract it. So taking that 3.7% times the total bill of $3820 would be about $0.39/day or $141.43/year.

But that propaganda assumes a married taxpayer with $50,000 in income with a child and leaves out the fact that the spouse must not have worked for that example to work. A single taxpayer with no kid with those same facts is looking at about twice that. And that still leaves out state funding.So, in reality the average taxpayer is actually paying hundreds of dollars a year on fund stamps. They have a right to an opinion.

But, despite your believe that it's no ones business, the USDA has "how to improve nutrition among program participants" on its agenda for the next Farm Bill in 2017. These restrictions could very well become a reality when the SNAP program is renewed.

[paints]

The food stamp budget is less than 1 percent of the total budget. 
It costs the average taxpayer 10 cents a day.
It's not a welfare program.  It's a nutrition assistance program that comes under the farm bill, run by the USDA.
Most of the people who use food stamps are working. 

Food stamps feed people who would otherwise go without.  And if occasionally someone buys something that's not nutritious, in your view, so what? 

10 cents a day doesn't give anyone the right to be a bully.

So, what do you think about Michelle Obama's lunch policy? We've got teachers potentially being fined for giving out candy because it doesn't promote healthy food choices. Is she being a bully?

It's not just her policy. 
The USDA has been working on getting nutritious, healthy food into schools since 1966, with the Child Nutrition Act.
Setting standards and guidelines for schools is necessary for the health of our children.
Pushing institutions to raise standards and do better is not bullying.  It's what any mother who loves her children would do.

But in the grocery store, commenting on what an individual puts in their cart, as if you have the right to dictate their choices, is bullying. 

As I mentioned, it didn't just raise standards, it restricted what could be sold or given out in schools. Can't sell soda/candy in vending machines anymore. Sure sounds like dictating ones choices.

No one is judging what others put in their cart or dictating their choices, it's just how they pay for it. They can still by anything with their own money. Food stamps are only meant as a supplement to a portion of a the food costs.

If the government giving you something for free but placing restrictions is now considered bullying, I think this might be a new low for the hypersensitive and entitled.

I didn't say the government is bullying anyone. That was your statement.

Telling Coke that, no you may not profit at the expense of a childs' poor choices, is not bullying.
It's backing parental choice for their children.

And no matter how you slice it, 10 cents a day doesn't give you the right to comment on someone elses' food choices.  No matter how they pay for it, it's none of your business.

The food stamp program is one of the most studied and regulated programs that exist in the federal government. 
The fraud rate is less than 3%, with most of that being the retailer, not the person using the stamps.

And, if you know anything about using food stamps, you'll know that it has always restricted what can be purchased with stamps.  Food.  Period.


 

Considering the government is only one who can place restrictions on the use food stamps, not sure how I can be the bully. I've never commented on what others put in their cart. In fact, I haven't even gave an opinion whether one should be allowed to use them on soda/candy. Only suggested that taxpayers have the right to an opinion.

The 10 cents a day argument is joke written by someone who clearly doesn't understand tax law or it's application. He starts his argument by subtracting the SS/Med off the Federal Income Tax. That's wrong. The SS/Med tax is collected in addition to Federal Income Tax, so there is no to subtract it. So taking that 3.7% times the total bill of $3820 would be about $0.39/day or $141.43/year.

But that propaganda assumes a married taxpayer with $50,000 in income with a child and leaves out the fact that the spouse must not have worked for that example to work. A single taxpayer with no kid with those same facts is looking at about twice that. And that still leaves out state funding.So, in reality the average taxpayer is actually paying hundreds of dollars a year on fund stamps. They have a right to an opinion.

But, despite your believe that it's no ones business, the USDA has "how to improve nutrition among program participants" on its agenda for the next Farm Bill in 2017. These restrictions could very well become a reality when the SNAP program is renewed.

I will agree that the taxpayer has a right to an opinion.
Voice that opinion to the person who writes the laws, NOT to the person who is in such a bind that they need help to feed themselves.

Attacking the low man on the totem pole, the person with the least amount of power, is bullying.
And no one has the right to do that. Period.

[hawkeye3210]

I have never said anything to the low man totem pole. This topic isn't saying anything to the low man on the totem pole. The OP just asked opinions. Opinions were given. This nonsense about being a "bully" seems like some rush to be offended. Hypersensitivity at its finest.

[DwanaMR]

I have never said anything to the low man totem pole. This topic isn't saying anything to the low man on the totem pole. The OP just asked opinions. Opinions were given. This nonsense about being a "bully" seems like some rush to be offended. Hypersensitivity at its finest.

Hi Hawkeye.  You're spot on with paints but I don't think she gets it.  It's startling how progressives like paints get so outraged at the comments of private citizens yet see no bullying or coercion whatsoever in gov't forcing people into its desired actions or behaviors.  Talk about sheeple!

[o2bnocn]

To be honest, I kind of can't believe that energy drinks are covered on it. I don't really have a problem with anything being covered except the energy drinks.

[paints]

My point is simply this: No one has the right to make another person feel "lesser than."

Have you ever heard the expression, "strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel?"
That's what this is.

Directing your outrage at the person who has the least is a cheap shot. 

[danmo783]

I was on food stamps one time when I was on unemployment and there were nothing but part-time jobs for high-schoolers taking minimum wage. I never used it to buy any junk food. I bought the cheapest things I could that were healthy. I didn't abuse the system to score massive junk food to throw at a bunch of kids to get them quiet... lol.

[hawkeye3210]

My point is simply this: No one has the right to make another person feel "lesser than."

Have you ever heard the expression, "strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel?"
That's what this is.

Directing your outrage at the person who has the least is a cheap shot. 

Your "point" isn't relevant to the topic. I know it probably makes you feel good about yourself, but no one has suggested anything to contrary of your point.

[DwanaMR]

My point is simply this: No one has the right to make another person feel "lesser than."

Have you ever heard the expression, "strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel?"
That's what this is.

Directing your outrage at the person who has the least is a cheap shot.

Paints, in this post you really nailed the difference between liberals and conservatives, though I doubt that was your intention.  You, like most liberals, reject holding "the least" accountable for their actions.  You're like Mama Keller, who refused to discipline her daughter Helen because of her handicaps.  Conservatives, on the other hand, are like Annie Sullivan, who held Helen to the same standards as everyone else.  Which woman did the most for Helen Keller?  Her indulgent mother, or her no-nonsense teacher?  We know the answer.  So, calling out irresponsible food stamp recipients is perfectly fair.  It's the bigotry of low expectations that's the real cheap shot.

[paints]

My point is simply this: No one has the right to make another person feel "lesser than."

Have you ever heard the expression, "strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel?"
That's what this is.

Directing your outrage at the person who has the least is a cheap shot.

Paints, in this post you really nailed the difference between liberals and conservatives, though I doubt that was your intention.  You, like most liberals, reject holding "the least" accountable for their actions.  You're like Mama Keller, who refused to discipline her daughter Helen because of her handicaps.  Conservatives, on the other hand, are like Annie Sullivan, who held Helen to the same standards as everyone else.  Which woman did the most for Helen Keller?  Her indulgent mother, or her no-nonsense teacher?  We know the answer.  So, calling out irresponsible food stamp recipients is perfectly fair.  It's the bigotry of low expectations that's the real cheap shot.

And yet, for all her teaching, Helen Keller was a socialist. 

So tell me, dwana, do you call out irresponsible bankers and businessmen with the same level of outrage that you direct at the food stamp recipient?

[linderlizzie]

This seems to be hotly debated subject. I love debate; however, many of the respondents to the question posited are acting like politicians attacking their opponents to gain favor for themselves. 

Please FCers, don't be attacking one another with your viewpoints. Just state your case and let others state theirs. I love intelligent discussion, but abhor people bashing one another. Don't play the shame game. 

Food stamps is probably a necessary evil since charities can no longer help all the people who need helping. And personally, I believe there is abuse in all situations where the government gives out free stuff. It's a fact of life. That's my take on it and I hope it doesn't offend anyone. However, being offended is a fact of life too. No sense taking your ball home and not playing at all.

[DwanaMR]

Oh yes, paints, I know Helen Keller was a socialist, but that wasn't my point.  My point, which you conveniently ignored, was that she would never have been educated, or even learned simple table manners, had it not been for her teacher who, unlike her mother, passionately rejected using Helen's handicaps as excuses for failure and bad behavior.  Again I ask you, what did Helen Keller the most good?  Your kind of "oh you poor baby" low expectations, or Annie Sullivan's conservative "you're gonna learn and behave like everyone else" high expectations?

And as for bad bankers and businessmen, I'm appalled by all wrongdoing regardless of the offender's race, class, or sex. Unlike liberals, I do not believe in a two-tier system of morality and accountability.  Rather, I believe the Bible's command to judge all people fairly, with no favoritism for the rich nor the poor (Lev. 19:15; Exodus 23:2-3; Deut. 1:17).  It's a revolutionary idea; maybe you should try it sometime.

[paints]

Helen Kellers' parents hired Anne Sullivan.  She didn't just show up on her own.  So Kellers' parents clearly weren't as irresponsible as you paint them.

Nor are most food stamp recipients. 
And as was the case with Helen Keller, education is what makes the difference. 
Educate people as to what foods are better for health, and then leave them alone to make their own choices.

 

[DwanaMR]

Helen Kellers' parents hired Anne Sullivan.  She didn't just show up on her own.  So Kellers' parents clearly weren't as irresponsible as you paint them.

Nor are most food stamp recipients. 
And as was the case with Helen Keller, education is what makes the difference. 
Educate people as to what foods are better for health, and then leave them alone to make their own choices.

Paints, I didn't say Helen Keller's parents were irresponsible.  I said her mother was indulgent, and she was.  And my point was that it was Anne Sullivan's no-nonsense attitude, not her mother's indulgence, that saved Helen.  Anne Sullivan held Helen to a standard and expected the most from her.  That's the lesson.  The poor are not helped by excusing their bad behavior.  They should be held to account like everyone else.  And if they're on the gov't dole, then there are certain rules they have to follow.  People are free to buy any kind of food they want, so long as they're using their own money.  But when your food dollars come from the taxpayers, what you buy is the taxpayers' business because we're paying for it.