Food in Lieu of Food Stamps?

#101
#101
ClearwaterVol said:
I see several benefits to implementing a WIC style program in lieu of food stamps.

1. Health of the recipients. After all, I am paying for their medical care, as well.
2. It can actually generate business where business is necessary. Surplus of corn? Give it out.
3. LG claims that it is a paternalistic need to control those pesky black folks. I don't view it that way. I have lived through times where I had two jobs to scrape by and make ends meet. Uncle Sam still garnished 25% of my check. Watching people that weren't working and were eating better than me was demoralizing. You see some person with a grocery cart full of sodas, chips and meat while I was figuring out if I could make a week's worth of spaghetti with 1 pound of ground beef. It's not paternalistic to want to make the system be a stop gap and not a way of life. Not all people that get food stamps behave this way, but I'd wager the ones that would b!tch about this plan do.
Click to expand...

All of this makes sense and is more than reasonable.
 
#102
#102
ButchPlz said:
He's basically saying that he's the one that believes the only people on food stamps are black.

Racist dems strike again!
Click to expand...

It's a good thing that I'm the one with the poor understanding basic government and history and not LG, right???
 
#103
#103
ClearwaterVol said:
I see several benefits to implementing a WIC style program in lieu of food stamps.

1. Health of the recipients. After all, I am paying for their medical care, as well.
2. It can actually generate business where business is necessary. Surplus of corn? Give it out.
3. LG claims that it is a paternalistic need to control those pesky black folks. I don't view it that way. I have lived through times where I had two jobs to scrape by and make ends meet. Uncle Sam still garnished 25% of my check. Watching people that weren't working and were eating better than me was demoralizing. You see some person with a grocery cart full of sodas, chips and meat while I was figuring out if I could make a week's worth of spaghetti with 1 pound of ground beef. It's not paternalistic to want to make the system be a stop gap and not a way of life. Not all people that get food stamps behave this way, but I'd wager the ones that would b!tch about this plan do.
Click to expand...

Nicely done. You're the second most reasonable poster in this forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#107
#107
lawgator1 said:
The savings are illusory. Same money in, same money out.

It makes sense from purely the paternalistic view of saying, well, if we are going to pay for it, then we are going to make sure you eat healthy. One can debate the wisdom of that. I can see both sides. But the reality is that such is a superficial argument. More simply, it appeases the "Too many black folk are scamming and abusing the system" base, and so its in there. Even if it doesn't save a dime. Heck, even if it ends up costing more, there's a segment of that base that would be okay with it.

Meh, no big deal. The whole package is doomed anyway.
Click to expand...

Did Pelosi, Waters or Wasserman-Schultz already go on MSNBC about this, tell how racist it would be to give out healthy food and give you your talking points?

Dang, that was fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#108
#108
AM64 said:
I think it's corn running the show. The corn lobby has corn replacing sugar, gasoline, and god only knows what else. The revolt won't come until corn prices make whiskey prices untenable.
Click to expand...

I was raving and ranting about this when I was a stoned 15 year old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#111
#111
I guess I'm not being very clear. That or reading comprehension here is even more abysmal than I thought (which is a sad comment).

OBJECTIVELY, I see the merit in the proposal. Whether it would work, I don't know. Buy I get the theory of it.

At the same time I see the OBJECTIVE logic of it, I'm not so naive as to think that the logic of it is the SUBJECTIVE motive for this WH to propose it.

I don't think they are proposing it because it's a good idea on the merits. They are doing it because they know their base sees it as striking a blow against entitlement mindset. Even if it really doesn't accomplish anything, it's a nanny nanny boo boo exercise to them.
 
#112
#112
lawgator1 said:
I guess I'm not being very clear. That or reading comprehension here is even more abysmal than I thought (which is a sad comment).

OBJECTIVELY, I see the merit in the proposal. Whether it would work, I don't know. Buy I get the theory of it.

At the same time I see the OBJECTIVE logic of it, I'm not so naive as to think that the logic of it is the SUBJECTIVE motive for this WH to propose it.

I don't think they are proposing it because it's a good idea on the merits. They are doing it because they know their base sees it as striking a blow against entitlement mindset. Even if it really doesn't accomplish anything, it's a nanny nanny boo boo exercise to them.
Click to expand...

And it's only the Republicans, especially this administration that would do such a thing! Bastages!
 
#113
#113
lawgator1 said:
I guess I'm not being very clear. That or reading comprehension here is even more abysmal than I thought (which is a sad comment).

OBJECTIVELY, I see the merit in the proposal. Whether it would work, I don't know. Buy I get the theory of it.

At the same time I see the OBJECTIVE logic of it, I'm not so naive as to think that the logic of it is the SUBJECTIVE motive for this WH to propose it.

I don't think they are proposing it because it's a good idea on the merits. They are doing it because they know their base sees it as striking a blow against entitlement mindset. Even if it really doesn't accomplish anything, it's a nanny nanny boo boo exercise to them.
Click to expand...

#1 you are speculating the motive
#2 if the program has positive results who cares what the motive was?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#114
#114
lawgator1 said:
I guess I'm not being very clear. That or reading comprehension here is even more abysmal than I thought (which is a sad comment).

OBJECTIVELY, I see the merit in the proposal. Whether it would work, I don't know. Buy I get the theory of it.

At the same time I see the OBJECTIVE logic of it, I'm not so naive as to think that the logic of it is the SUBJECTIVE motive for this WH to propose it.

I don't think they are proposing it because it's a good idea on the merits. They are doing it because they know their base sees it as striking a blow against entitlement mindset. Even if it really doesn't accomplish anything, it's a nanny nanny boo boo exercise to them.
Click to expand...


On this board, the only poster I ever see- and I mean EVER see- that takes the 'nanny nanny boo boo' approach is you. It's rich that you're deciding you don't like something you 'objectively' agree with because the President hurts your wittle itty bitty feelings.

It's never about anything but posting like a spoiled and frustrated 16 year old to you. Trolls and sh*tposters are funny, but you're just sad. We all comprehend the crap you spew, it's just reaching the point of exhausting. It's no wonder the electoral county-by-county maps show an increasingly smaller blue presence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#117
#117
lawgator1 said:
I guess I'm not being very clear. That or reading comprehension here is even more abysmal than I thought (which is a sad comment).

OBJECTIVELY, I see the merit in the proposal. Whether it would work, I don't know. Buy I get the theory of it.

At the same time I see the OBJECTIVE logic of it, I'm not so naive as to think that the logic of it is the SUBJECTIVE motive for this WH to propose it.

I don't think they are proposing it because it's a good idea on the merits. They are doing it because they know their base sees it as striking a blow against entitlement mindset. Even if it really doesn't accomplish anything, it's a nanny nanny boo boo exercise to them.
Click to expand...

Striking a blow against the entitlement mindset IS a good idea, even on its merits. No? Less entitlements means less the middle class is paying out.

Are you saying the base doesn't care about the merits, and only sees this as a partisan issue? That's pretty arrogant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#122
#122
ButchPlz said:
On this board, the only poster I ever see- and I mean EVER see- that takes the 'nanny nanny boo boo' approach is you. It's rich that you're deciding you don't like something you 'objectively' agree with because the President hurts your wittle itty bitty feelings.

It's never about anything but posting like a spoiled and frustrated 16 year old to you. Trolls and sh*tposters are funny, but you're just sad. We all comprehend the crap you spew, it's just reaching the point of exhausting. It's no wonder the electoral county-by-county maps show an increasingly smaller blue presence.
Click to expand...




ButchPlz said:
My guess?

People will begin self-selecting out since they will be less able to sell benefits for cash.

EDIT: Or have more incentive to get off of assistance because they're tired of beans, rice, government cheese, and canned goods.
Click to expand...


Alrighty then.
 
#123
#123
Grand Vol said:
What does Kenya or our former President that was born there have to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Good question. But libs always use John Maynard Keynes as the god of reason for their spending programs, and if they fail it's always because we didn't spend enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#124
#124
AM64 said:
It's the Keynesian mindset. If it didn't work, it's because somebody didn't waste enough of our tax money.
Click to expand...

Keynes' philosophy is so bastardized. Keynes said save during booms and spend during busts. It's actually not a bad idea, except in practice we demand or don't care that our politicians spend during booms and we never save. Both sides have their pet projects and special interests. Compromise doesn't mean a little give and take, it means both sides get what they want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#125
#125
rjd970 said:
White House wants to deliver food to the poor, Blue Apron-style - Feb. 12, 2018

Claims it can save $130 Billion. Not sure I believe that given the boxes will have to be created, packaged and delivered. I'm sure there will be specific needs with food allergies and what not, creating opportunity for liability if a mistake is made.

It's not a bad idea, but if we aren't saving any more money, it just looks like another layer to a program already rife with fraud and abuse. Also says receipients are still getting benefit vouchers. This may actually cost more in the end.
Click to expand...

The savings would come from buying in bulk. So the savings would be difference in what the farmer is paid and the grocery store charges you. I imagine cutting the middle man out like that would save a lot of money.

I also imagine grocery stores will be irate and fight this anyway possible
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top