Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 02-25-2010, 03:19 PM
eric84
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As mentioned, some people get food stamps but some how have money for cigarettes and booze. And I don't think this is a small minority, from my experience its a majority. Why are we paying for people to drink and smoke? That is definitely not a necessity and no one should be given assistance for those things, which is exactly what this is doing.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-25-2010, 03:47 PM
rearnakedchoke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

this whole food stamp thing is weird to me ... i don't even know if we have them up here in canada ... any canadians know if we have an equivalent to food stamps?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-25-2010, 04:26 PM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.B. View Post
Drug testing people on government aid is a good idea in theory, but it's just not realistically worth it.

First of all, where do you draw the line? Can a person not have booze in their system if they are on food stamps? A majority of the people who are actually addicts abusing the system are alcoholics, not users of hard street drugs like crack, heroin, or meth.

Second, the majority of people on food stamps are NOT drug abusers. It may seem that way in some neighborhoods, but overall they are a small number of people in the system and we would end up spending more money on testing everyone then we would save money by weeding out a handful of people who abuse the system.
I agree I think the government should implement mandatory Depo shots to the women who have been on the system and keep having children and also the girls that get abortions and Medical (California's equivalent to Medicaid) pays for the procedure!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-25-2010, 07:43 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric84 View Post
As mentioned, some people get food stamps but some how have money for cigarettes and booze. And I don't think this is a small minority, from my experience its a majority. Why are we paying for people to drink and smoke? That is definitely not a necessity and no one should be given assistance for those things, which is exactly what this is doing.
If I recall correctly, you can't use that money for cigarettes or booze, so we aren't paying for them to drink or smoke.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Foxy View Post
I agree I think the government should implement mandatory Depo shots to the women who have been on the system and keep having children and also the girls that get abortions and Medical (California's equivalent to Medicaid) pays for the procedure!
I thought folks wanted a smaller government with less power. Why stop there, why not forcibly sterilize anyone the government deems unfit? Hello Big Brother.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-25-2010, 07:51 PM
County Mike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
why not forcibly sterilize anyone the government deems unfit? Hello Big Brother.
That's a good idea. Make them come into an office to get their welfare checks, food stamps, etc. Before they can get their check, they have to take a shot that sterilizes them for about a month. Not permanent, just a month. If they want the following month's check, same deal. Repeat until they get a job and no longer need assistance.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-25-2010, 08:02 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric84 View Post
As mentioned, some people get food stamps but some how have money for cigarettes and booze. And I don't think this is a small minority, from my experience its a majority. Why are we paying for people to drink and smoke? That is definitely not a necessity and no one should be given assistance for those things, which is exactly what this is doing.
How can you say it's the majority? What proof do you have of that?

I helped run a charity for years back in Illinois that dealt directly with the poorest people in our community, and 95% of the people we helped were on some form of government aid. Sure, there are plenty of addicts who abuse the system, and they are pretty easy to spot, but they are hardly the majority. The majority of people in the system are older people who are disabled or can't get a job, single moms with way too many kids, and families where the husband lost his job. Not to mention, most people in the system don't get enough assistance to cover the monthly cost of groceries, so they are forced to use their own personal income or go to other resources, such as charities like the one my grandparents started.

As for people having extra money for smokes and booze, it may not be a necessity, and if I had family that was on food stamps I would certainly be putting my extra money into other avenues, but I am not going to verbally stone the people who do that as long as they are still providing for their families first. It's dehumanizing enough for most of these people to even be on food stamps, they don't need people like me who have been blessed enough to not need government assistance criticizing them when we don't know each person's individual situation.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-25-2010, 09:13 PM
logrus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
I thought folks wanted a smaller government with less power. Why stop there, why not forcibly sterilize anyone the government deems unfit? Hello Big Brother.
Naaa, they are probably looking for another thing to cry about. What better then being taxed to support the 1.5 billion it would cost to test them every year.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-25-2010, 10:03 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Better solution. Do away with food stamps and only offer food. When I was a kid we lived on food stamps for a while and also got food from the government food program (I'm sure lots of other people remember the government cheese, peanut butter, etc. that used to be handed out).

If someone needs food, then they can go in at any time to collect a predetermined amount of food based on how many adults and children they have to feed for one week. They can only choose from the foods offered and get no money, certificates, credit cards, or stamps of any kind. They only get actual food (breads, milk, eggs, cheese, pastas, peanut butter, canned meats, cold cuts, butter.... or they could be prepackaged MRE style meals)

Of course, the food could theoretically be traded for alcohol or drugs, but it wouldn't be nearly as valuable. Because it doesn't need to be really high quality food. Just enough to keep people sustained while they seek employment or other methods of income. In other words, the food should not be so good that people would be willing to live off of it for more than a few weeks.

Also, this should be solely the jurisdiction of State governments. The Federal government should have no part in providing food for its citizens.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-25-2010, 10:15 PM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Better solution. Do away with food stamps and only offer food. When I was a kid we lived on food stamps for a while and also got food from the government food program (I'm sure lots of other people remember the government cheese, peanut butter, etc. that used to be handed out).

If someone needs food, then they can go in at any time to collect a predetermined amount of food based on how many adults and children they have to feed for one week. They can only choose from the foods offered and get no money, certificates, credit cards, or stamps of any kind. They only get actual food (breads, milk, eggs, cheese, pastas, peanut butter, canned meats, cold cuts, butter.... or they could be prepackaged MRE style meals)

Of course, the food could theoretically be traded for alcohol or drugs, but it wouldn't be nearly as valuable. Because it doesn't need to be really high quality food. Just enough to keep people sustained while they seek employment or other methods of income. In other words, the food should not be so good that people would be willing to live off of it for more than a few weeks.
That is a great idea Nate.

I was thinking about another option that could help cut back on some of the people applying for help when they don't REALLY need it also...

Most charities, like the one I was involved in, get money from the government to help people. Before these people come into the DES office to apply for aid, they should have to provide proof that they have reached out to at least 3 local charities for assistance. We are already giving tons of money to these charities for that reason, so the people should be exercising those options first before getting on welfare/food stamps.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-25-2010, 10:47 PM
atomdanger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Better solution. Do away with food stamps and only offer food. When I was a kid we lived on food stamps for a while and also got food from the government food program (I'm sure lots of other people remember the government cheese, peanut butter, etc. that used to be handed out).

If someone needs food, then they can go in at any time to collect a predetermined amount of food based on how many adults and children they have to feed for one week. They can only choose from the foods offered and get no money, certificates, credit cards, or stamps of any kind. They only get actual food (breads, milk, eggs, cheese, pastas, peanut butter, canned meats, cold cuts, butter.... or they could be prepackaged MRE style meals)

Of course, the food could theoretically be traded for alcohol or drugs, but it wouldn't be nearly as valuable. Because it doesn't need to be really high quality food. Just enough to keep people sustained while they seek employment or other methods of income. In other words, the food should not be so good that people would be willing to live off of it for more than a few weeks.

Also, this should be solely the jurisdiction of State governments. The Federal government should have no part in providing food for its citizens.
Good idea.
A lot less people would bother signing up for actual food.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.