Posted on 08/15/2012 4:25:02 AM PDT by massmike
I’m fine with that. Retailers shouldn’t be forced to accept welfare payments. We’d be better off if fewer did.
But, I wouldn’t support the government monitoring this stuff, which I get the feeling is what she was asking for. She should be able to decide for herself, but using government to monitor the junk food intake of welfare brats is a waste of time.
SnakeDoc
Indeed it should.
SnakeDoc
Whoopie-Pie-fil-A
I remember going downtown monthly to get the government cheese,....The retired cops and firemen in Erie,PA used to show up on free cheese days in Barrila’s bar. They would map out where six would go to the distribution points, at what time and which bars/restaurants they would sell the cheese to. At that time, you couldn’t buy a cheeseburger without welfare cheese. One restaurant even had a “Welfare Cheeseburger on it’s printed menu.
In Massachusetts, we've recently had a big brou-ha-ha over EBT cards being used for beer, cigs, strippers, manicures, etc., etc., etc. like you wouldn't imagine. Even our Democrat super-majority General Court tried to curtail the abuse, and our p-o-s Governor actually fought his own party against some of the reforms - the ones he felt were too harsh for the gimme crowd.
So in essence, we kind of are talking about beer, cigarettes, face lifts, boob jobs, and yes, pies. Luxury items, in other words. And what this lady is saying is hey, I make a luxury item. If you're on EBT, you shouldn't be buying my stuff on the taxpayer's dime.
HOUSTON..........”We rarely get cash,” said Keidrick James, a Randy’s manager, who estimates “99.1” of the company’s customers are Lone Star Card holders.
Randy’s drivers sell what the company bought from grocery behemoth Sysco Foods. Frozen meat and breaded shrimp. Catfish nuggets and chicken tenders.
But junk food is the big seller.
“Exactly,” James confirms.
Pop Tarts, Famous Amos and Oreo cookies. Honey buns, candy bars and corn dogs. Laffy Taffy and cheesecake. Pickles are the only vegetable listed on a Randy’s menu.
But in the nation’s fourth-largest city, a place trying to forget it was once named the nation’s fattest, where there are about 4,000 convenience stores and an ongoing grocery war in the city’s better neighborhoods west of downtown, it doesn’t seem like there’s a shortage of high caloric and, some would argue, junkier foods.
And the mobile food truck model is a striking one, especially as several states consider taxes on sugary snacks or have sought - as Texas unsuccessfully tried - to restrict food stamp clients from buying junk food.”.....
Food is the purpose of food stamps. Pie is food.
I’m with you on the rest. In fact, that there are problems with these losers spending welfare money on strippers, booze, mainicures, etc. is exactly the reason the government shouldn’t waste time nitpicking which food people buy. There are clearly bigger problems.
I think any business owner should have the ability to refuse to accept foodstamps, though. Let freedom ring.
SnakeDoc
When I give my children money to spend, I continue to monitor how they spend it.
People on welfare are more like children than free citizens.
I also would not allow them to vote. If you cannot govern your own affairs, you have no business governing others.
First, their EBT amount is in excess of what my family spends on groceries, so they won't starve.
Second, most don't rely on EBT to eat. Its gravy on top of their undeclared income. People in "poverty" have a nack for spending 150-200% their reported income.
Third, many sell EBT cards for cash at a discount. This allows the buyer to purchase $600 of lobster/steaks at a cost of $300. The black market EBT for cash would dry up a bit if you could only purchase staples.
Fourth, attaching a stigma to being on the dole is a good thing. Only being able to purchase certain cheap foods would serve that purpose well.
Fifth, people working hard to purchase hamburger get pissed when the EBT buyer in front of them loads up on expensive foods that they can't buy. It makes them feel like chumps and has the opposite effect as #4.
I don’t disagree. Most should get less, or no, benefits. End them completely for all I care. Many ought to be audited to check for undeclared income. Cracking down on resales is a major problem. Stigma is essential — though you can’t force those without conscience to feel bad.
I agree most welfare queens are about as resonsible as children. I disagree that the government ought to parent them to the extent that we decide their menu.
If they’re selling cards, or are living more luxuriously than earners, or are defrauding the system by hiding income, or whatever ... freaking cut their benefits off.
The government just shouldn’t be in the business of monitoring what people eat. It won’t be too long before they extend that monitoring to all of us — for our own good, of course. If we have to go so far as to have some bureaucrat monitoring their dessert intake ... just end it altogether.
SnakeDoc
Hmm.
Government not wasting time nitpicking which food people buy, and in fact not "wasting time" nitpicking what people buy, period, with EBT cards, is exactly why EBT card waste is so widespread.
You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth here.
No, I’m not.
People should not be able to use welfare for anything and everything. They should be able to use it on food. That is a fairly clear distinction.
I just don’t think we need bureaucrats monitoring what anybody is eating. I don’t think the government needs to be that empowered.
Honestly, I don’t think it’d be long before the government decides we all need monitoring, for our own good and because they need to control healthcare costs. Michelle’s gestapo. They’d already have the bureaucrats for it ... since they’ve been monitoring the “vulnerable” welfare brats.
And, all the stupid welfare brats would vote for it because, “why not monitor the rich like you’re monitoring us?”
More over-empowered buraucrats digging deeper in more people’s lives is just a bad idea. Monitor for fraud or misuse ... not bad diet.
SnakeDoc
She di’int build that! Or even bake that!
But...but...I bought my EBT card at a discount for cash, so the recipient could have drug money...you HAVE to sell me pie! < /sarc >
But, seriously, is ID required along with the card, to be sure that doesn’t happen?
“People on welfare are more like children than free citizens.
I also would not allow them to vote. If you cannot govern your own affairs, you have no business governing others.”
Hear, hear! I’ll go a step further, when you turn to the government to meet the most basic needs, then you should not enjoy ANY constitutional protections (short of being murdered.) Whomever provideth is the shot caller! If someone wants to be be a lazy bum and become a ward of the state, well then they should BE a ward of the state.
I'm not suggesting anything that micro, and I'm one of the last people around here who would empower the government to do anything.
What I'm saying is that EBT would work a whole lot better if the ONLY things you could purchase with an EBT were clearly denoted as food items like produce, meat, dairy, grains . . . the basics. Surely we have the technology these days to do this electronically via bar scanner at the checkout counter.
Also, don't forget that when someone accepts government charity, they de facto subscribe to abide by the government rules surrounding acceptance of that charity. Therefore, government rightfully can, and should, define the rules very clearly about how that charity can be used. I think your fear of government creep is unfounded; rather, it feels like you're imagining the scenario in order to make your argument.
Michelle Obama promised them pie and they intend to have it regardless of who must pay.
There is a clear distinction between oversight of the dependent and the free.
Cracking down on abuse case by case would truly require massive oversight of minutia. My plan is to make the object of theft less attractive, thus removing the incentive for fraud.
By your logic, EBT cards should purchase anything and not be limited to food.
>> There is a clear distinction between oversight of the dependent and the free.
I’m aware that there is a distinction between monitoring the depending and the free — one is within government power, the other is not. I’m not sure most liberal government hacks agree with you, though. Bloomberg, for instance. They’ll monitor the free given the chance ... and they’ll use the system set up for the dependent to do it. Small steps.
>> Cracking down on abuse case by case would truly require massive oversight of minutia. My plan is to make the object of theft less attractive, thus removing the incentive for fraud.
Not sure its possible to make free money less attractive. Buying bad food with food stamps is not fraud. Crack down on fraud. If you’re going to crack down on people for using a “benefit” as intended, you might as well cancel it altogether (which just might work).
>> By your logic, EBT cards should purchase anything and not be limited to food.
Nonsense. Food stamps are supposed to buy food. That’s the point. So, let them buy food with it — including pie — and cook their goose for buying anything else. Logical enough.
SnakeDoc
Where I disagree, is with the notion that Leftists will correlate one with the other. They won't. All my life I've listened to Leftists say that any infringement on vulgar speech is a slippery slope to limiting political speech. But they have had no issue what-so-ever with defending free porn at the library AND passing laws to highly restrict political speech. In short, they observe no standards of consistency.
Not sure its possible to make free money less attractive. Buying bad food with food stamps is not fraud. Crack down on fraud. If you’re going to crack down on people for using a “benefit” as intended, you might as well cancel it altogether (which just might work).
Limiting EBT use, immediately restricts the "free money" issue, as they are no longer easily turned into cash. There is a huge difference in incentive between getting free potatoes and a free TV. Buying Twinkies does not fall under the intent of preventing starvation. I perfectly good making such a distinction.
Nonsense. Food stamps are supposed to buy food. That’s the point. So, let them buy food with it — including pie — and cook their goose for buying anything else. Logical enough.
Actually, the intent is and should be to prevent starvation. There is absolutely no reason to define that as any and every food stuff. As I stated, catching fraud is in EBT cards would take far more intrusion than simply taking away the incentive.
I am not choosing their diet, I am choosing what I am willing to buy for someone else. We already state that EBT cannot purchase beer, so why no soda, etc.?
They don't deserve to make those choices on their own, and have in fact proved themselves incapable of good decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.