For crying out loud -- "compassionate conservatism"?

[tiggersmom2]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
While I wouldn't have said anything to the woman, I agree 100% that I hate to see people buying junk food with their foodstamps.

Just like I hate to see people using foodstamps and then pulling out the cash to buy a 25 pound bag of dog food or kitty litter. If you can't afford to pay for your own food, you sure as hell shouldn't be trying to support a pet.

MTE! Don't forget the people paying for cartons of cigarettes and beer also.

 

[Alice28]

Philosophically I agree with Broken 8 Ball as well. I often see people paying for nothing but junk with food stamps. My opinion would be different if say the mother had bought fruit/veg, meat, cheeses, milk/dairy products AND had some chips and soda as well. Of course we all like some treats now and then, poor or rich. But I see chips, candies, sodas as a luxury and not something to be bought with food stamps, essentially money out of other people's pockets. When I lived in California, there was a tax on convenient type foods; if the computer systems can figure out what's convenient (chips, sugary cookies/cakes, sodas) food, and extra tax us cash paying folk, I think it would be fair to expect people on food stamps to have to pay for those foods out of their own pocket. They are (or at least were) singled out for everyone else to pay extra for; I think it would make sense for purely junk food to be exempt from food stamp purchases. I also know that when our budget is tight and I have a limited amount to spend at the store, those items are not bought, because they do nothing to promote well-being and healthiness for my family. My sister and brother in law need to use food stamps for their family, and I don't look down upon them because I know they try very hard to stay employed, but bro in law has some mental disabilities and sis in law stays home cause they have triplets (!!). I know for a fact my sis in law buys pretty much only meat, dairy and staples with the food stamps and pays cash at WalMart (where it's cheaper) for the occasional "treats." I can respect that.

Just my .02.

 

[emmagata]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Sorry my friend but I believe your mistaken. Once taxes are collected it becomes the money of the federal government. It's no longer your money.

Yes it is. It's still the peoples money. The Gov't is tasked to spend it appropriately on our behalf.

I wonder how many chocolate dougnuts and bags of cheetos we could have bought with YOUR money that we spent on Reagan's recent funeral?

Can't let the man rest in peace, can you.

Hmm.. do I dare ask what dougnuts are. Nope, I don't think I want to know.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Can't let the man rest in peace, can you.

Rhetorical, right?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by emmagata
Yes it is. It's still the peoples money. The Gov't is tasked to spend it appropriately on our behalf.




Can't let the man rest in peace, can you.

Hmm.. do I dare ask what dougnuts are. Nope, I don't think I want to know.

Ah, yes, my spelling (or incorrect spelling) is the point of this thread, I forgot.

Well, at least it won’t be removed from the thread for breaking Dis Board guidelines.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I don't agree with 8 balls logic. You could expand that way of thinking, and say that anyone who always eats junk food is just going to suffer from some form of lingering illness and cost all of us more in the long run through sky rocketing health care, etc. I wouldn't go around preaching something like that. It would make me sound bitter, and resentful. I prefer to be less judgemental.

 

[RobinMarie]

In Connecticut it is very possible to work full time and qualify for food stamps. I would imagine it is the same in other states as well. Food stamps are based on income not on employment status.

While I wish the mother would make better choices, it is my opinion once those food stamps are given without restrictions, it becomes HER choice on what to buy. If you have a problem with what folks are buying then take it up with those who administer the program, not the recipients. I think living in poverty probably stinks and doubt they are planning their next trip to Disney World - so let 'em eat a doughnut in peace!

I'm shocked people agree the woman buying doughnuts should be confronted! Imagine all of the scenarios we could discuss where this thinking would justify aggressive actions to people.

 

[Hagred]

I have often believed (through my own life experience) that people living full, happy lives typically don't have the time or inclination to intrude on other people's lives. If the little 'scene' in the market where one woman was berating another one for what she was buying or feeding her children caught my attention, I'd be looking more disfavorably upon the woman doing the berating.

I'd also be apt to stand up and defend the foodstamp woman. She's minding her own business, doing her shopping, keeping an eye on her kids and paying for her groceries. Out of nowhere comes some crazy woman nitpicking what's in this woman's cart and how she's paying for her groceries.

The bottom line is this: It's not likely that by insulting or browbeating one mother, you're going to solve the entire welfare/foodstamp system. It's much more likely that the one doing the browbeating is taking her unlovely, unsatisfied life out on a total stranger because it makes her feel better.

Yes. I would defend the foodstamp woman - even if she was buying nothing but soda pop with her foodstamps. No one deserves an attack for no other reason than someone just felt like attacking someone else.

 

[Saffron]

It's good to know that another person is proud that they may have humiliated and degraded a woman AND her two small children, just to hear themselves talk, since the woman AND her two small children did nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing that she wasn't "supposed to do". Thank goodness someone was there to set her straight!!! Bravo! Bravo!!

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Sorry my friend but I believe your mistaken. Once taxes are collected it becomes the money of the federal government. It's no longer your money.

I wonder how many chocolate dougnuts and bags of cheetos we could have bought with YOUR money that we spent on Reagan's recent funeral?

OH PLEASE! The same amount we'll be able to buy when we pay for Clinton's funeral I'd imagine!

Just for the record, I heard that I believe it was 2/3's of that funeral was not paid by the government! Of course, I read that here in The Dis, it coulda been wrong. Wouldn't matter to me either way, but was definitely worth mentioning.

 

[AirForceRocks]

What strikes me as odd is that I've often seen people complain about people on foodstamps buying steaks, lobster, etc with their foodstamps, which I have no problem with at all.

But what is the purpose of foodstamps? To ensure that low income people have adequate resources to meet their families' nutrition needs. To that end, I wouldn't have a problem with putting a dollar limit per order on the amount that a food stamp recipient can spend on "junk food". It wouldn't be hard to implement, and it would allow for some "junk treats" while still ensuring that the purpose of foodstamps is met, i.e., providing nutritious foods for needy families.

 

[Pooh Girl 71]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
What strikes me as odd is that I've often seen people complain about people on foodstamps buying steaks, lobster, etc with their foodstamps, which I have no problem with at all.

But what is the purpose of foodstamps? To ensure that low income people have adequate resources to meet their families' nutrition needs. To that end, I wouldn't have a problem with putting a dollar limit per order on the amount that a food stamp recipient can spend on "junk food". It wouldn't be hard to implement, and it would allow for some "junk treats" while still ensuring that the purpose of foodstamps is met, i.e., providing nutritious foods for needy families.

And that sounds like a fair compromise. What I have a problem with is someone thinking it is ok to go up to a stranger and tell them what they should and should not buy b/c it is "their tax dollars".

 

[peachgirl]

These days it's not all that easy to tell if someone is using food stamps. Here at least, it's done with a card that looks exactly like a credit card. It would take a real busybody to know if it was really food stamps vs a credit card.

I really doubt you actually popped off at all, and if you did I'm sure there's a reason why you didn't post what her response was.


This idea that it's ok to accost someone because they're spending YOUR money is ridiculous. Your "cost" for a year's worth of food stamps for that family can probably be counted in pennies. Perhaps you should've just *****ed to her about one bite's worth out of one of those doughnuts, because that's probably what your contribution would've cost you.

Btw, do you berate the cashier's at the store for what they purchase? After all, their salary is paid for by YOUR money, doesn't that make you entitled to tell them what to do?

Funny how in one thread it's a crime to suggest people should insure their children yet in another one it's okay to rip someone up for buying their kid a doughnut....amazing.....

 

[AirForceRocks]

Btw, do you berate the cashier's at the store for what they purchase? After all, their salary is paid for by YOUR money, doesn't that make you entitled to tell them what to do?

While I agree that it's wrong to berate someone as the poster claimed to do, there is a big difference between the foodstamp recipient and the cashier in your example. The cashier is doing something to earn the money, whereas the foodstamp recipient isn't.

 

[Saffron]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
What strikes me as odd is that I've often seen people complain about people on foodstamps buying steaks, lobster, etc with their foodstamps, which I have no problem with at all.

But what is the purpose of foodstamps? To ensure that low income people have adequate resources to meet their families' nutrition needs. To that end, I wouldn't have a problem with putting a dollar limit per order on the amount that a food stamp recipient can spend on "junk food". It wouldn't be hard to implement, and it would allow for some "junk treats" while still ensuring that the purpose of foodstamps is met, i.e., providing nutritious foods for needy families.

I don't have a problem with that at all Brenda. The government can put any types of restrictions on what can be bought, who can have the stamps to buy the items etc.

I have a HUGE problem with someone belittling someone and her children, in front of her children, when she has done nothing illegal etc.

 

[RobinMarie]

AFR:

I agree with you, food stamp programs are to meet help meet nutritional needs for people whose income prevents them from doing that.

Doughnuts are not nutritious (most of us agree).

School lunch and breakfast programs exist so children will receive adequate nutrition to ensure learning is possible.

Doughnuts are on the school free breakfast program.

I can see where some might think doughnuts are perfectly acceptable. Afterall, the school provides it FREE to children so they can LEARN. I would think the food stamp restrictions would be near impossible to implement.

 

[peachgirl]

The cashier is doing something to earn the money, whereas the foodstamp recipient isn't.

You have no idea if that is true or not. Foodstamps are not a benefit of only the unemployed. This mother may very well have a job and still qualify for food stamps.

 

[jennyanydots]

Once the taxes are colected, the money doesn't belong to you as an individual -- it belongs to you as part of the "people", and the woman who receives the foodstamps is equally part of the "people". And once she receives the foodstamps, it's not the property of the "people" but of the individual. We as a collective have not seen fit to restrict the individual's right to use the foodstamps any way she sees fit.

Perhaps we as a collective should insist on regulations for use of the foodstamps. But to berate a woman and publically humiliate her because you, as an individual, disagree with the choices she is making, which "we" are allowing her to make, is rude and disgusting.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by peachgirl
You have no idea if that is true or not. Foodstamps are not a benefit of only the unemployed. This mother may very well have a job and still qualify for food stamps.

Sorry, but you're wrong about that - I absolutely know for a fact that no one 'earns' foodstamps, whether they have a job or not. If the woman is working, she is earning her wages for that job, but she is not earning foodstamps. Foodstamps are a giveaway, pure and simple. That's not to say that I don't think foodstamps should be available, but let's not kid ourselves by saying that if people are working they are 'earning' foodstamps, because that is simply untrue.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by peachgirl
You have no idea if that is true or not. Foodstamps are not a benefit of only the unemployed. This mother may very well have a job and still qualify for food stamps.

I don't think it matters if the woman has a job or not. She did NOT pay for this junk with any money she might receive from that job though. That's the problem.

I also don't think it was appropriate to attack that woman either. I don't think many who have responded thought that was ok.

With the raise in food prices lately, I'm amazed that anyone would be able to buy much junk and still have the funds needed to get through any month with real food. These kids need an apple/orange/banana more than they need Cheetos and it's our legislatures fault for not providing the laws to see that they get it.