Posted on 02/12/2011 5:17:15 PM PST by BenLurkin
This week, state Sen. Michael Rubio will introduce legislation that would prohibit food stamps from being used to purchase "junk food" or prepared meals at fast-food restaurants.
"The question is what should we be using taxpayer funds to purchase," the Bakersfield Democrat said Tuesday. "In my opinion, we should be focusing on what people need, not what they want."
Those needs include foods found in the traditional food pyramid, he said, including breads and cereals, meats, beans, nuts, dairy products and other protein sources, and lots of fruits and vegetables.
Rubio's idea is not yet an official Senate bill. But it came to light Tuesday when he appeared before the Fresno County Board of Supervisors to argue against a proposal that would have allowed disabled and homeless recipients in that county to use food stamps -- now accessed through a debit card -- to purchase restaurant foods.
(Excerpt) Read more at bakersfield.com ...
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=bananas&months=120 Bananas are quite remarkable. They track inversely, more or less, with rice. Rice up; bananas down. Rice down; bananas up. Potatoes are contracted for ~ they are not offered as a commodity.
“Why should the taxpayers provide some of these people “free” food if they are spending their other income on drugs? Let them make the choice.”
Because then we’d be obligated to pay for their drug tx and pay for placing their kids in foster care.
No prepared meals in TX. Could use them when we were were on Hurricane watch. On olden times , you couldn’t buy any snack foods, but now OK.
potato chips are hardly the worst thing on the shelf. Ever read the label on your basic bag of ripples? It should say potatoes, oil, salt.
And the EBT card was to take away the “stigma” that they’re on welfare!!!
Oh Jeez. I don’t see a big problem with this. If you’re going to be on the take from the government then you can’t bitch when they tell you how to spend it. If you want some Fu**ing chips then go to work.
I think it’s real easy:
Rice, corn, or fresh vegetables - really, really, easy.
And anything else - make the boyfriend pay, out of cash in his pocket.
Blame it on FLOTUS!!!
Well, I bought a two pound bag of rice at Walmart the day before yesteday and it was only $2.69. That’s 20 servings for ...uh ...(counting on fingers) about 14 cents per serving.
Easy there, FRiend. Let's not go down the "F" path...
I think the govt. has more important things to worry about. I’m on them (for now) and I buy mainly good stuff with the occasional treat. The only people who should have regulated usage (if at all) are those who are on it more a duration of more than five years. Then find out why and start cutting corners on it.
That'll keep your family set for a day or 2 I suppose.
Rice eaters eat rice.
Buying bulk at Costco/Sams Club/GFS isn’t a bad idea either. Live like a king on paying less than thirty dollars since the portions are huge.
To understand food stamps, you have to start from the beginning, which is American agribusiness. In scale, it approaches the military-industrial complex in enormity.
From 1930 to in some places 1940, the Dust Bowl devastated farmers in the middle of the US from Texas to Canada. Tens of thousands of farms were wiped out. But the amazing thing is that, at the same time, the remaining farmers were so productive, that America had too much food and prices crashed.
Wheat cost 20 cents a bushel, and corn was being burned for fuel, while people elsewhere were starving. So FDR created the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, to destroy vast amounts of excess food, and transport and give away some of it to the starving people.
One of its first acts was to confiscate, slaughter and bury six million pigs. From there, at the point of a gun, it went around the country destroying food everywhere.
And since that time, American agribusiness has been a fascist-economics model of government-private business. Farmers are still paid to not grow food, and billions are spent every year to stabilize farm prices.
Now here’s the zinger: if the government wanted to, for the money it currently pays, every single person in America could have food for free. As things stand right now, instead the government still has to buy enormous amounts of food and store it in warehouses until it rots.
Expensive, temperature controlled warehouses. So if they gave this food to the poor, instead, it would actually *save* money.
Reagan did this with surplus cheese, and it was hugely popular. But how did it affect the market price of cheese? Simply put, it didn’t. This is because the stabilized price for cheese is so high, that the poor didn’t eat a whole lot of cheese.
So, as a lot of people have suggested, how do you get poor people to start cooking and eating healthier, subsidized food?
Well, you probably won’t have much luck if you start with them as adults. Years ago, they had the idea that if kids were given healthy school lunches, they would grow up to like healthy food. While this is eventually true, it took a lot of healthy food thrown into trash cans before kids finally started to eat some.
But there was an unforeseen problem. They might be willing to eat better food, but they did not know how to cook it. Ironically, about the same time, schools stopped teaching mandatory classes in home economics. Because it was “sexist” or something.
Not a good idea. Neither boys nor girls were taught home management skills. So how do you learn to cook, clean, do laundry, etc., if nobody teaches you? In many cases, you don’t.
So a good rule of thumb is that children of families on food stamps need to be enrolled in home economics classes, a modern incarnation of which should be much more comprehensive than it used to be.
I can imagine basic home economics taught even in elementary school, with four years of high school home ec, until the typical ‘C’ student knows how to make at least two dozen nutritious meals that taste good for several people, knows how to shop in grocery stores for maximum value at minimum cost, knows the value of a long term food preparation plan and how to make one, how to can food, store food, keep a hygienic kitchen, etc.
They may still prefer to eat only rice and beans, at least for a while, but at least knowing that other food is out there and tastes good means they probably won’t raise their own kids to only like rice and beans.
A good question.
If society really gave a damn about homelessness we would deal with it. In truth, liberals just want to feel like they are helping the homeless without making any hard choices. San Francisco once gave shopping carts to the homeless and showed them videos on how to dumpster dive for food. How compassionate.
The hard core homeless should be housed in "poor houses". They should be given the basics of life, treated with common courtesy and dignity. They should also be given duties that help support the cost of housing and feeding them. Plant and harvest food, work producing as much as possible of the things they need. Communes for the poor, so to speak.
We have a moral duty to help those truly in need. That duty means that in exchange for seeing that they get the basic needs for living that they put forth some effort to assist us in doing so.
Giving people cash to buy junk food is not giving them "dignity" and it's not teaching them how to "manage money", contrary to the notions of the "Great Society". People don't manage money that is given to them, they manage money that they earn.
Some years ago, in the Chicago projects, the authorities attempted to require that those living in free housing share the duties of maintaining that free housing. Clean windows, paint, mow grass and pick up trash. Jesse Jackson and his cronies staged protests and called it slavery. Liberals were apoplectic. Expecting people to pick up their own garbage in exchange for free food and housing is slavery? Well, that idea went down in flames in a hurry.
Anything less than a complete reevaluation of society's obligations to the needy and how to fulfill those obligations is a waste of time. Cutting soda and junk food from food stamps is fine, but changes nothing.
Go to your church or fraternal organization or community oranisaztion to get the food you need until you can support yourself.
So what? They’ll use their own money to buy beer, chips, etc...
I see it all the time. First person uses foods stamps, then the 2nd family member, in line behind them, uses cash to buy the beer.
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.