goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Institutional Control on May 07, 2013, 07:36:14 AM
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2013/04/food_stamp_recipients_by_county_an_interactive_tool_showing_local_snap_data.html
5% in my county.
-
96,000+, 25%
-
13%
-
13%
-
can't use it at work for some reason, punch in Sarpy Co. NE and post what it says
-
can't use it at work for some reason, punch in Sarpy Co. NE and post what it says
4%
6135 people
$8,221,100 in benefits.
-
can't use it at work for some reason, punch in Sarpy Co. NE and post what it says
4%, or 6,135 people. They received $8,221,000 in benefits or $1,340 per person per year or $112 a month.
-
16%
-
so basically Sarpy Co. is 4% illegal crotch grabbing bird flippers. fantastic.
-
19%
Lee county MS 23 mil
-
96,000+, 25%
Did you move back to the south?
-
Jackson County, MO
14%
-
6% in my home county. Riley was 4%. Shawnee was 13%.
-
i thought Riley would be higher, i've always heard it has a very high rate of poverty
-
Someone do JoCo
-
Someone do JoCo
Do 66208 as well!
Wont work for me at work.
-
JOCO
4%
22,795
$30,416,400
-
Someone do JoCo
Do 66208 as well!
Wont work for me at work.
It only shows you by county. 66208 is in JOCO, right?
-
8% in Miami County KS
-
96,000+, 25%
Did you move back to the south?
lol, yes
-
17%. Fun fact: my city was ranked the number one large city in Illinois in that ranking that said Lawrence was a garbagey crap hole.
-
Posted this in the Science Proves thread, but here it is for posterity in this one too:
Riley County, KS
3,181 people are in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Riley county.
About 4 percent of people in your county are in the program. That proportion has grown 100 percent since 2000. The participants received $4,365,000 in benefits; that's $1,493 per person per year or $124 per person per month.
Douglas County, KS
8,477 people are in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in Douglas county.
About 7 percent of people in your county are in the program. That proportion has grown 130 percent since 2000. The participants received $11,503,700 in benefits; that's $1,493 per person per year, or $124 per person per month.
-
San Diego County, CA
222,621 people are in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in your county.
About 6 percent of people in your county are in the program.
That proportion has grown 106 percent since 2000.
The participants received $322,888,000 in benefits
:sdeek:
-
So far I win. :frown:
-
So far I win. :frown:
Congrats, buddy.
-
San Diego County, CA
222,621 people are in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in your county.
About 6 percent of people in your county are in the program.
That proportion has grown 106 percent since 2000.
The participants received $322,888,000 in benefits
:sdeek:
What's your point? That is like $120 a month per person. Not a huge sum
-
San Diego County, CA
222,621 people are in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in your county.
About 6 percent of people in your county are in the program.
That proportion has grown 106 percent since 2000.
The participants received $322,888,000 in benefits
:sdeek:
What's your point? That is like $120 a month per person. Not a huge sum
Lots of littles add up to a whole lot. But it's really good for the economy!(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHzTSzR6.jpg&hash=afddaf043efcd7bb8ad36ad0768d4f504d4e08c1)
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
-
San Diego County, CA
222,621 people are in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in your county.
About 6 percent of people in your county are in the program.
That proportion has grown 106 percent since 2000.
The participants received $322,888,000 in benefits
:sdeek:
What's your point? That is like $120 a month per person. Not a huge sum
Lots of littles add up to a whole lot. But it's really good for the economy!(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHzTSzR6.jpg&hash=afddaf043efcd7bb8ad36ad0768d4f504d4e08c1)
I get the total is a big number, but what is the solution? Clearly you can't reduce the amount each month because $120 is not easy to eat on as it is and I think we can all agree there should not be starving people in America. So the goal should be to reduce the amount of people on food stamps. How do you do that? I don't know, a good start would be to get them jobs that don't pay the shitty minimum wage that currently exists. I think the minimum wage should be raised to some number that actually allows a parent to be home with their kids more and not have to work 2-3 jobs to crape by. Having said that I also think government assistance should not be a system that exists in perpetuity for individuals. There definitely needs to be some sort of incentive for people to get work and get off food stamps, i.e. a cutoff date perhaps. Combine the two ideas and you, IMO, have started to reduce the amount of money spent on government assistance.
Elect me because clearly I get crap done.
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
Sounds like government getting too involved in the private sector. I'm thinking one of the parties would be against that.
-
8% in Miami County KS
:surprised: where at? j-dub spent all of his formative years bouncing around miami county
-
so basically Sarpy Co. is 4% illegal crotch grabbing bird flippers. fantastic.
:horrorsurprise: SteveDave, you and I are Sarpy County-ians
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
Sounds like government getting too involved in the private sector. I'm thinking one of the parties would be against that.
Yeah, welfare seems pretty private sector-y.
-
Adam Carolla has some interesting thoughts on what would happen if you took away welfare.
-
4% in Johnson County?! eff. I gotta move.
-
so basically Sarpy Co. is 4% illegal crotch grabbing bird flippers. fantastic.
:horrorsurprise: SteveDave, you and I are Sarpy County-ians
because we're complete studs
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
Total BS.
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
Sounds like government getting too involved in the private sector. I'm thinking one of the parties would be against that.
Yeah, welfare seems pretty private sector-y.
If you're a corporation, would you rather pay those people minimum wage, or let the government subsidize them?
-
so basically Sarpy Co. is 4% illegal crotch grabbing bird flippers. fantastic.
:horrorsurprise: SteveDave, you and I are Sarpy County-ians
because we're complete studs
:thumbs:
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
Sounds like government getting too involved in the private sector. I'm thinking one of the parties would be against that.
Yeah, welfare seems pretty private sector-y.
If you're a corporation, would you rather pay those people minimum wage, or let the government subsidize them?
I would prefer tax incentives for expanding my business, which will lower unemployment and expand the tax base and revenues for the government.
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
Sounds like government getting too involved in the private sector. I'm thinking one of the parties would be against that.
Yeah, welfare seems pretty private sector-y.
If you're a corporation, would you rather pay those people minimum wage, or let the government subsidize them?
I would prefer tax incentives for expanding my business, which will lower unemployment and expand the tax base and revenues for the government.
We already have tax incentives for businesses, and the average effective corporate tax rate is 12%.
http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/ (http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/)
The truth is that businesses hire when demand for their product increases. Consumer demand drives the economy. When more people have more money to spend, the economy thrives. This is simple economics. Tax rates are not the problem right now.
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
Sounds like government getting too involved in the private sector. I'm thinking one of the parties would be against that.
Yeah, welfare seems pretty private sector-y.
If you're a corporation, would you rather pay those people minimum wage, or let the government subsidize them?
I would prefer tax incentives for expanding my business, which will lower unemployment and expand the tax base and revenues for the government.
We already have tax incentives for businesses, and the average effective corporate tax rate is 12%.
http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/ (http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/)
The truth is that businesses hire when demand for their product increases. Consumer demand drives the economy. When more people have more money to spend, the economy thrives. This is simple economics. Tax rates are not the problem right now.
We seem to be handing out money at record levels these days. Simple economics don't seem to be working I guess.
Interest rates are super low. Money has never been cheaper, yet the economy still sucks. Blame Bush I guess.
-
john doug/republicans would rather those people starve
It's the libtards that want to keep those people in poverty. If you were to take all of the money doled out for every government welfare program and used it as incentives to work and produce jobs, it would pretty much end poverty, but they would become republicans.
Sounds like government getting too involved in the private sector. I'm thinking one of the parties would be against that.
Yeah, welfare seems pretty private sector-y.
If you're a corporation, would you rather pay those people minimum wage, or let the government subsidize them?
I would prefer tax incentives for expanding my business, which will lower unemployment and expand the tax base and revenues for the government.
We already have tax incentives for businesses, and the average effective corporate tax rate is 12%.
http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/ (http://business.time.com/2012/02/06/the-corporate-tax-rate-is-at-its-lowest-in-decades-is-big-business-paying-its-fair-share/)
The truth is that businesses hire when demand for their product increases. Consumer demand drives the economy. When more people have more money to spend, the economy thrives. This is simple economics. Tax rates are not the problem right now.
People with jobs drive the economy. Even simpler economics.
You can't extort money from one person and give it to another to spend without negative consequences. Just human nature.
-
i thought Riley would be higher, i've always heard it has a very high rate of poverty
College students working part-time jobs are living below the "poverty" line, but if you enrolled as a full-time student with no dependents you are ineligible for SNAP benefits.
A single person would have to be working about 35 hours/week at minimum wage to qualify for SNAP benefits, which if you're willing to work that many hours for minimum wage you're probably Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) enough to need more help than food stamps.
-
I don't know anyone who's on stamps. But then again, I have not asked.
When Mrs. Bones saw this, she immediately said she was not a stamper. I belive her and would know if she was.
FWIW.
-
10%
-
7%, which is less than the rural county where I grew up (8%)
-
Every time I go to Same club some piece of crap is jamming up the line with their vision card that doesn't work or is out of money. These people will try every card on their body (I saw a lady hand over a hotel key card) before the dip into their bankroll (usually several hundred dollars cash), all while I stand there for countless minutes in shock. eff them.
If you don't think there's a better way to help these people, you've flat out given up hope. eff you.
-
I have never seen someone using food stamps
-
I have never seen someone using food stamps
neither have i. strange, since apparently they are so common.
well, i did see a young mother getting milk with WIC or something once. i don't know if that counts.
-
Food stamp people use them during the day when us tax payers are at work.
-
Food stamp people use them during the day when us tax payers are at work.
FSD isn't a taxpayer? :sdeek:
-
I can understand why a child or a moron would think that using food stamps means exchanging something that resembles a postage stamp for food. As for the resident pittards, well I guess I understand that too.
People that don't think, aren't gonna think, and there's nothing you can do to make them.
-
19%
-
THEY AREN'T ACTUAL STAMPS?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
:horrorsurprise: :surprised: :sdeek:
-
THEY AREN'T ACTUAL STAMPS?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
:horrorsurprise: :surprised: :sdeek:
:sdeek: :mind blown:
-
Literally posted right above
I have never seen someone using food stamps
neither have i. strange, since apparently they are so common.
well, i did see a young mother getting milk with WIC or something once. i don't know if that counts.
Y'all are very bad at this
-
I have never seen someone using food stamps
neither have i. strange, since apparently they are so common.
well, i did see a young mother getting milk with WIC or something once. i don't know if that counts.
I'm pretty sure the WIC card is food stamps. I've seen it 4 or 5 times.
-
I have never seen someone using food stamps
neither have i. strange, since apparently they are so common.
well, i did see a young mother getting milk with WIC or something once. i don't know if that counts.
I'm pretty sure the WIC card is food stamps. I've seen it 4 or 5 times.
it was a paper check/coupon looking thing. not a vision card. that's why i didn't know if it counted.
and my reaction wasn't "omg, i can't believe this bitch is mooching off my taxpayer dollars to buy milk for her young kids", it was more like "oh, i'm glad that program is available so her kids can have some milk". she was also white, so maybe FSD wouldn't have cared about it in this instance.
-
:lol:
-
I have never seen someone using food stamps
neither have i. strange, since apparently they are so common.
well, i did see a young mother getting milk with WIC or something once. i don't know if that counts.
I'm pretty sure the WIC card is food stamps. I've seen it 4 or 5 times.
it was a paper check/coupon looking thing. not a vision card. that's why i didn't know if it counted.
and my reaction wasn't "omg, i can't believe this bitch is mooching off my taxpayer dollars to buy milk for her young kids", it was more like "oh, i'm glad that program is available so her kids can have some milk". she was also white, so maybe FSD wouldn't have cared about it in this instance.
Yeah, I don't judge. I'm pretty sure most food stamp recipients either have a job, are elderly, or are children, anyway. I do have some fundamental issues with the way food stamps are handled, though. People who receive the benefits have enough money between their paycheck and the food stamps to get healthy food. People should not be allowed to use food stamps to purchase items that will make them obese.
-
You all are taking the wrong approach to FSD on this issue. The real important thing to note is that FSD shops at Sam's club. I mean my god he must not be :kstategrad:
-
21%, 2nd highest in ca. :gocho:
and i see people buying food with food stamps all the time, btw.
-
21%, or a healthy 140,295 people.
Fortunately, thanks to gentrification, I don't actually have to interact with them. (I let Whole Foods discriminate for me).
-
I view the increase of the use of food stamps as a symptom of a much larger problem, and generally don't fault people for accessing the public assistance they can access.
That being said, public assistance shouldn't come no strings attached and shouldn't be used to buy things that are to the detriment of the health of the buyer (soda, junk food). Allowing that only increases the burden on the public in future when these people have type 2 diabetes and use further public assistance to drain the healthcare system.
In case you're wondering who the problem is, its the guy who chose to make access to this assistance even more abundant and no strings attached, and is a piano on the back of the economy.
-
DYK that you can use food stamps at papa Murphy's?
-
DYK that you can use food stamps at papa Murphy's?
No. :lol:
-
21%, or a healthy 140,295 people.
Fortunately, thanks to gentrification, I don't actually have to interact with them. (I let Whole Foods discriminate for me).
Cairo county?
-
21%, or a healthy 140,295 people.
Fortunately, thanks to gentrification, I don't actually have to interact with them. (I let Whole Foods discriminate for me).
Cairo county?
Well, I used the county where I pay taxes. Cairo would be much higher since basically the entire country is on a bread subsidy.
-
DYK that you can use food stamps at papa Murphy's?
I've seen less people eat Papa Murphy's than I've seen use food stamps.
-
DYK that you can use food stamps at papa Murphy's?
I've seen less people eat Papa Murphy's than I've seen use food stamps.
both zero for me
-
I have never seen someone using food stamps
I have. Was waiting in line at checkout. Woman in front of me whips out the EBT card. They're just credit cards, and the only reason I noticed is that she was having trouble getting it to read. So then I start looking at the conveyor belt. Several two-liters of non-diet, brand name soda (kudos for saving money on the two-liters, I guess), cookies, bags of chips, etc. I was all :curse: And then she said "hold up a sec" and grabbed a rough ridin' candy bar. :curse: :curse: :curse:
Why the eff do we allow people to spend tax dollars on soda and candy? Any time a conservative brings it up, you get this entitled sneer "Why shouldn't I be able to get a birthday cake for my kid's birthday?" What a crock of crap.
-
I have never seen someone using food stamps
I have. Was waiting in line at checkout. Woman in front of me whips out the EBT card. They're just credit cards, and the only reason I noticed is that she was having trouble getting it to read. So then I start looking at the conveyor belt. Several two-liters of non-diet, brand name soda (kudos for saving money on the two-liters, I guess), cookies, bags of chips, etc. I was all :curse: And then she said "hold up a sec" and grabbed a rough ridin' candy bar. :curse: :curse: :curse:
Why the eff do we allow people to spend tax dollars on soda and candy? Any time a conservative brings it up, you get this entitled sneer "Why shouldn't I be able to get a birthday cake for my kid's birthday?" What a crock of crap.
agreed, the government should take more control here.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
-
Up until a couple of years ago, you could take cash out at the Indian casinos in CA with EBT cards.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.
we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.
we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives
we need the gov't to relinquish control and not give them food stamps, thus empowering the people to buy food.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.
we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives
we need the gov't to relinquish control and not give them food stamps, thus empowering the people to buy food.
Yes, get completely out of their lives and allow them to work anywhere they choose and attain heights only limited by their imagination. Freebies only stunt their growth potential.
-
They aren't allowed to work? :sdeek:
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
Why should it matter whether it is "cash benefits" or "food stamps"? It's all tax dollars, and they shouldn't be allowed to piss it away. And regarding the "economists," even if you subscribe to Keynsian theory, the purpose of welfare programs is not to stimulate the economy. It is provide a safety net. Birthday cake, cookies, candy, soda, and Lord knows what else are not a safety net.
we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives
we need the gov't to relinquish control and not give them food stamps, thus empowering the people to buy food.
Yes, get completely out of their lives and allow them to work anywhere they choose and attain heights only limited by their imagination. Freebies only stunt their growth potential.
sans food stamps, the sky is the limit for these individuals
-
Up until a couple of years ago, you could take cash out at the Indian casinos in CA with EBT cards.
Those Indians probably deserve the government money more than the welfare recipients who frequent their casinos, anyway.
-
Honest question: Is anyone still discriminating against native americans? I guess I could believe that it was out there, but I'd be surprised. Is there a father in Pratt who doesn't want his daughter dating them or something? Are there nice JOCO neighborhoods who are upset if they move in?
-
we just need the government to take more control of these people's lives how tax dollars are spent
FYP.
-
Honest question: Is anyone still discriminating against native americans? I guess I could believe that it was out there, but I'd be surprised. Is there a father in Pratt who doesn't want his daughter dating them or something? Are there nice JOCO neighborhoods who are upset if they move in?
The US government is, but I don't know of any people who discriminate against them.
-
Well, that sounds ridiculous and made-up
-
I believe the Washington Redskins are still oppressing the Native Americans.
-
People living on Indian Reservations are not allowed to own land. The US government mandates that the land be communal. Of course, nobody is going to invest in a property that they do not own, so they all live in trailers. They also have a pitiful education system, high crime rates, and poor health care. There is zero economic development because a business cannot enforce a contract on tribal land. Simply eliminating the Bureau of Indian Affairs would do wonders for the Indian Nations, as it would allow them to actually control the land they occupy. Taking it a step further and eliminating the reservations completely would be much better.
-
That all sounds more mismanaged than discriminatory. I assume all native americans are in favor of eliminating reservations and the (cringe-inducingly named) Bureau of Indian Affairs?
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
What's the criteria for "effective?"
-
That all sounds more mismanaged than discriminatory. I assume all native americans are in favor of eliminating reservations and the (cringe-inducingly named) Bureau of Indian Affairs?
They are a sovereign nation, where US courts have no jurisdiction to enforce contracts, yet they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership. Basically, they get the worst of both worlds. Why, if they are a sovereign nation, should it matter whether Native Americans favor eliminating the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs? We should eliminate it because it would be much better for the reservations in the long run. At least then the problems would be the fault of the Indian tribes themselves, rather than the US Government who oversees them. Just allow private ownership of all of the reservation land, limiting the initial owners to members of the reservation. Extend US court jurisdiction onto reservations. Then, the reservation would only exist in name only, and most, if not all of their problems would go away in time.
-
they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership
Wait, what? There is a ton of deeded land on reservations, owned and managed by individuals.
-
they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership
Wait, what? There is a ton of deeded land on reservations, owned and managed by individuals.
Yeah, I should have said most of them. The majority of the land is communal.
-
People think Native Americans are all drunks and/or run a casino.
-
they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership
Wait, what? There is a ton of deeded land on reservations, owned and managed by individuals.
Yeah, I should have said most of them. The majority of the land is communal.
Ya, also my opinion was skewed because I'm most familiar with the Fort Peck Reservation in NE MT. It has a lot of deeded land, maybe 30 or 40%. Not near as much as the Rocky Boys or the Fort Belknap, which is more like 5%. The Crow's though have quite a bunch.
I do agree with you though, they should be able to do what they want.
-
From the Bureau of Indian Affairs FAQ:
Do Indians have the right to own land?
Yes. As U.S. citizens, Indians can buy and hold title to land purchased with their own funds. Nearly all
lands of Indian Tribes, however, are held in trust for them by the United States. There is no general law
that permits a tribe to sell its land. Individual Indians also own trust land, which they can sell, but only
upon the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his representative. If an Indian wants to extinguish
the trust title to his land and hold title like any other citizen (with all the attendant responsibilities such as
paying taxes), he can do so if the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative determines that
he is able to manage his own affairs. This is a protection for the individual.
GMAFB. Yes, let's call them a "sovereign nation" and then put regulations and restrictions on them that we don't put on people outside of that "sovereign nation".
-
People think Native Americans are all drunks and/or run a casino.
This is, sadly, and for the most part, true. I will say the ones I've dealt with running the casinos weren't drunks but were savvy businessmen.
-
Why are Indians sometimes referred to as Native Americans?
The term, "Native American," came into usage in the 1960's to denote the groups served by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs: American Indians and Alaska Native (Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska). Later the
term also included Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in some Federal programs. It, therefore, came
into disfavor among some Indian groups. The preferred term is American Indian.
The Eskimos and Aleuts in Alaska are two culturally distinct groups and are sensitive about being
included under the "Indian" designation. They prefer, "Alaska Native."
Huh. I guess you learn something new every day.
-
If we're playing did you know about Indians...
Can't recall what the agency that dealt with them was called before it was the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but anyway it was very corrupt, mostly white people taking stuff destined for the Indians and selling it for themselves. So the government reorganized it and staffed it with Quakers because they felt they would do their duty with honesty and conviction. This was in the late 1800's.
-
If we're playing did you know about Indians...
Can't recall what the agency that dealt with them was called before it was the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but anyway it was very corrupt, mostly white people taking stuff destined for the Indians and selling it for themselves. So the government reorganized it and staffed it with Quakers because they felt they would do their duty with honesty and conviction. This was in the late 1800's.
Makes sense. We can't let the Indians manage their own affairs. They are all drunks and it's for their own protection, really.
-
I went to an Indian casino once that didn't serve alcohol. The dealer told me, "Native Americans are very anti-alcohol". I said, "Yeah, not the one I was married too."
-
I went to an Indian casino once that didn't serve alcohol. The dealer told me, "Native Americans are very anti-alcohol". I said, "Yeah, not the one I was married too."
What state was this in?
-
One buddy told me it's illegal to sell Indians alcohol in Alaska. Still not sure if I believe him.
-
I went to an Indian casino once that didn't serve alcohol. The dealer told me, "Native Americans are very anti-alcohol". I said, "Yeah, not the one I was married too."
What state was this in?
Oklahoma. It was 3 years ago, that casino now sells alcohol.
-
Certain parts of Alaska that are heavily Native are the equivalent of dry counties. But, like, Natives in Anchorage or Fairbanks or whatever are free to 'pak.
-
One buddy told me it's illegal to sell Indians alcohol in Alaska. Still not sure if I believe him.
a lot of towns and have laws banning all alcohol. I watched the Alaska State Troopers show and they spend all their time busting guys homebrewing "beer" in milkjugs and bathtubs and crap.
-
One buddy told me it's illegal to sell Indians alcohol in Alaska. Still not sure if I believe him.
That's only true if you are trying to sell them alcohol on a reservation that prohibits it.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-06-alaska_N.htm?hiddenMacValue=0&hiddenMacPrintValue=0 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-06-alaska_N.htm?hiddenMacValue=0&hiddenMacPrintValue=0)
-
All of the Indian casinos around me are great. You would think you were in Vegas with good restaurants, bars, shops, high rise hotels, etc. The tribal members are building custom homes on 2-3 acres all over their reservations. They have finally found a way to screw the white man (lots of Asians, too) out of their money. Good for them.
-
There's one development they're trying to push through in Tulsa that would put an Indian shopping center right next to an existing shopping center, only the Indians wouldn't have to charge sales tax.
-
That all sounds more mismanaged than discriminatory. I assume all native americans are in favor of eliminating reservations and the (cringe-inducingly named) Bureau of Indian Affairs?
They are a sovereign nation, where US courts have no jurisdiction to enforce contracts, yet they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership. Basically, they get the worst of both worlds. Why, if they are a sovereign nation, should it matter whether Native Americans favor eliminating the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs? We should eliminate it because it would be much better for the reservations in the long run. At least then the problems would be the fault of the Indian tribes themselves, rather than the US Government who oversees them. Just allow private ownership of all of the reservation land, limiting the initial owners to members of the reservation. Extend US court jurisdiction onto reservations. Then, the reservation would only exist in name only, and most, if not all of their problems would go away in time.
To clarify, if they're sovereign then who gives a crap what they want. The important thing is to make sure their problems are not the U.S. government's problems. But if we unilaterally privatized everything they wouldn't be problems eventually anyways.
-
felix rex, in oklahoma there is still a big problem with indian-hating. but then you realize that the people who hate indians are the same people who hate "n-words, jews, queers, a-rabs, spics, chinks, etc"
i'd say that, in my opinion, the different tiers of hate in oklahoma are as follows:
tier 1 (most hate):
african americans
hispanics
tier 2 (still a lot of hate):
a-rabs
gays
democrats
tiers 3 (hate, but not as much assault):
native americans
jews
asians
-
All of the Indian casinos around me are great. You would think you were in Vegas with good restaurants, bars, shops, high rise hotels, etc. The tribal members are building custom homes on 2-3 acres all over their reservations. They have finally found a way to screw the white man (lots of Asians, too) out of their money. Good for them.
i once met an older woman who was the sole remaining member of her tribe with lands in laguna mountains. she had the whole tribe's property to herself. she just used to pasture her horses.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
What's the criteria for "effective?"
efficient. when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value. basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.
the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
What's the criteria for "effective?"
efficient. when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value. basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.
Ok, efficient. I can agree with that.
But effective, :flush:.
If it were effective it would serve to get people (back) on their feet, off food stamps, healthy and with jobs paying taxes.
-
That all sounds more mismanaged than discriminatory. I assume all native americans are in favor of eliminating reservations and the (cringe-inducingly named) Bureau of Indian Affairs?
They are a sovereign nation, where US courts have no jurisdiction to enforce contracts, yet they are not allowed to manage their own land through private ownership. Basically, they get the worst of both worlds. Why, if they are a sovereign nation, should it matter whether Native Americans favor eliminating the US Government's Bureau of Indian Affairs? We should eliminate it because it would be much better for the reservations in the long run. At least then the problems would be the fault of the Indian tribes themselves, rather than the US Government who oversees them. Just allow private ownership of all of the reservation land, limiting the initial owners to members of the reservation. Extend US court jurisdiction onto reservations. Then, the reservation would only exist in name only, and most, if not all of their problems would go away in time.
To clarify, if they're sovereign then who gives a crap what they want. The important thing is to make sure their problems are not the U.S. government's problems. But if we unilaterally privatized everything they wouldn't be problems eventually anyways.
Sort of, but you are missing the point. The US Government treats them as a sovereign nation when it is convenient, but then goes out of their way to tell the natives what they can and cannot do with their land. It's bullshit that a Native American (a US Citizen) who owns land on a reservation cannot sell that land without getting permission from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and cannot sell that land to anybody who is not a member of the tribe, while I can sell land that I own in the US to a Canadian citizen if I so choose. Either the tribes are sovereign or they aren't. If they are sovereign, the US government should treat them as such and not get involved with their affairs. If they are not, which is better for everyone, then the whole Reservation idea should just be done away with the communal land should be divided amongst those currently living on the reservation, and they should be able to do with it what they please.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
What's the criteria for "effective?"
efficient. when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value. basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.
Ok, efficient. I can agree with that.
But effective, :flush:.
If it were effective it would serve to get people (back) on their feet, off food stamps, healthy and with jobs paying taxes.
Over half of SNAP recipients are children and the elderly.
And 40% of recipients live in households with an income.
-
Okay?
-
those kids should find their own rough ridin' jobs and stop mooching off my tax dollars!!! :shakesfist:
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
What's the criteria for "effective?"
efficient. when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value. basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.
the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
-
Over half of SNAP recipients are children and the elderly.
And 40% of recipients live in households with an income.
I'm guessing they don't hand out the benefits to the kids, right? And I'm guessing nobody can or would check to see how the kids' benefits are being spent, right? And anyway, I'm guessing the government doesn't care if those benefits are spent on really unhealthy, uneconomical crap, right?
So I'm wondering how any of these stats are relevant as to whether we should tighten regulations on how these benefits are spent?
Quick question: why does Michelle Obama's (laudable) healthy eating campaign not extend to food stamps?
-
Over half of SNAP recipients are children and the elderly.
And 40% of recipients live in households with an income.
I'm guessing they don't hand out the benefits to the kids, right? And I'm guessing nobody can or would check to see how the kids' benefits are being spent, right? And anyway, I'm guessing the government doesn't care if those benefits are spent on really unhealthy, uneconomical crap, right?
So I'm wondering how any of these stats are relevant as to whether we should tighten regulations on how these benefits are spent?
Quick question: why does Michelle Obama's (laudable) healthy eating campaign not extend to food stamps?
why doesn't the government just hand out a big ass box of food to the poors every week, amiright
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
hmm
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27517.msg821194#msg821194
-
hmm
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27517.msg821194#msg821194
that's not inefficient, that's a tragedy of the commons. private benefit, public cost. besides, i was explaining the behavior, not defending it. filth doesn't bother me much.
-
hmm
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27517.msg821194#msg821194
that's not inefficient, that's a tragedy of the commons.
it is most definitely both
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! :thumbsup:
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! :thumbsup:
do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
What's the criteria for "effective?"
efficient. when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value. basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.
the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.
Forgive me for being ignorant on how the EBT program works, but if an EBT recipient only buys $0.75 cents of benefit and doesn't use the remaining balance, wouldn't that money go back to the government? Wouldn't that be the taxpayer paying $0.75 for $0.75 of benefit rather than $1 for $0.75 of benefit and $0.25 of cigarettes and booze?
-
One thing I would never want to do is take the booze and cigarettes away from the poors. They need it worse than us.
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! :thumbsup:
do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.
Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?
-
IT'S AN OBJECTIVE STUDY OFF!
-
I hate to get in the middle of this...but please make sure any studies posted are peer reviewed.
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
What's the criteria for "effective?"
efficient. when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value. basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.
the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.
Forgive me for being ignorant on how the EBT program works, but if an EBT recipient only buys $0.75 cents of benefit and doesn't use the remaining balance, wouldn't that money go back to the government? Wouldn't that be the taxpayer paying $0.75 for $0.75 of benefit rather than $1 for $0.75 of benefit and $0.25 of cigarettes and booze?
I think they're just prepaid credit cards.
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! :thumbsup:
do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.
Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-and-obesity-the-facts-and-fictions-of-snap-nutrition/
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! :thumbsup:
do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.
Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?
Well now you've got me curious. Why isn't there more data on this? Turns out, federal rules actually prohibit reporting on which stores (convenience, grocery, etc.) take in the most SNAP, and what the SNAP is spent on. So, the nest I can find are observational studies, like this one, which estimate that roughly $2 billion of SNAP is spent annually on sugary drinks. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079 (http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079)
Still waiting for an answer on why Michelle Obama wants to take vending machines out of the schools and send notes home to parents who aren't packing a healthy lunch, but doesn't say a word about how SNAP is spent?
-
people can have cash benefits on their ebt card as well as food stamps.
btw, economists nearly unanimously agree that that the most effective benefits are those that allow the recipient complete discretion on what they use them for.
What's the criteria for "effective?"
efficient. when you place restrictions on the use of the benefit, you decrease the value of it to the recipient, when you provide it an manner that requires the use of a manner of payment that is carries some stigma, you decrease the value. basically the taxpayer is paying $1.00 to purchase $1.00 of benefit, but instead of passing it along with all of that value intact, they pass it along with in a form that makes it less valuable. like they buy $0.75 of benefit with their dollar instead of the full cash value of it.
the earned income tax credit is the most efficient benefit offered to the poor in the us.
Forgive me for being ignorant on how the EBT program works, but if an EBT recipient only buys $0.75 cents of benefit and doesn't use the remaining balance, wouldn't that money go back to the government? Wouldn't that be the taxpayer paying $0.75 for $0.75 of benefit rather than $1 for $0.75 of benefit and $0.25 of cigarettes and booze?
I think they're just prepaid credit cards.
So the unspent portion just carries over to the next month?
-
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-and-obesity-the-facts-and-fictions-of-snap-nutrition/
That study, sponsored by the same agency that administers the program, focuses only on correlation between SNAP usage and obesity. It ignores how the money is being spent, but if you read further down, you'll find:
So we want to improve SNAP nutrition—where can we begin? It isn’t as simple as just focusing on cost and health. Studies show that people will choose foods that contribute minimal nutritional value, even if those foods cost just a little bit more and are worse for your health in the long run. Eating habits are influenced by a wide variety of factors, including socio-economic and demographic characteristics, ethnic or familial traditions, convenience, advertising, and even biological triggers that make us more prone to eating foods high in sugar, salt, and fat. Thus any reforms made to the SNAP program have to take into account human behavior; changes that seem rational may not actually be effective in increasing nutrition of SNAP clients.
First of all, a report commissioned by the USDA found that simply increasing the SNAP benefits of participants—under the assumption that having more money would allow SNAP users to purchase higher cost nutrient-dense foods—did not result in an increase in the consumption of these foods. Other purchases tend to take precedence over healthy eating, unless income increases significantly. Instead, behavioral economics indicates that financial incentives for healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are more effective. Giving SNAP participants coupons or money back when they purchase produce does result in higher consumption of fruits and vegetables; but even then, SNAP participants do not consume as many fruits and vegetables as recommended by federal guidelines.
A more innovative and successful approach to reforming SNAP may involve changing how foods are purchased. SNAP users offered the option of pre-ordering food baskets (instead of taking trips to the grocery store) bought significantly more healthy foods and fewer unhealthy foods. Giving SNAP participants the option of choosing when their SNAP benefits arrive (e.g., monthly, biweekly, or weekly) can also increase the purchase of healthy foods, as perishable items can be purchased more easily. Studies show that providing SNAP clients with a “suggested” budget for their SNAP benefits (e.g., allocate $40 for leafy green vegetables) can help SNAP users spend their money more wisely. And distributing low-cost bowls and dishes with visual graphics that represent recommended portion size may be a more productive use of SNAP-Ed resources.
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! :thumbsup:
do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.
Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?
Well now you've got me curious. Why isn't there more data on this? Turns out, federal rules actually prohibit reporting on which stores (convenience, grocery, etc.) take in the most SNAP, and what the SNAP is spent on. So, the nest I can find are observational studies, like this one, which estimate that roughly $2 billion of SNAP is spent annually on sugary drinks. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079 (http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079)
$2 billion out of $75 billion in total benefits doesn't seem that bad at all.
-
http://www.snaptohealth.org/snap/snap-and-obesity-the-facts-and-fictions-of-snap-nutrition/
That study, sponsored by the same agency that administers the program, focuses only on correlation between SNAP usage and obesity. It ignores how the money is being spent, but if you read further down, you'll find:
So we want to improve SNAP nutrition—where can we begin? It isn’t as simple as just focusing on cost and health. Studies show that people will choose foods that contribute minimal nutritional value, even if those foods cost just a little bit more and are worse for your health in the long run. Eating habits are influenced by a wide variety of factors, including socio-economic and demographic characteristics, ethnic or familial traditions, convenience, advertising, and even biological triggers that make us more prone to eating foods high in sugar, salt, and fat. Thus any reforms made to the SNAP program have to take into account human behavior; changes that seem rational may not actually be effective in increasing nutrition of SNAP clients.
First of all, a report commissioned by the USDA found that simply increasing the SNAP benefits of participants—under the assumption that having more money would allow SNAP users to purchase higher cost nutrient-dense foods—did not result in an increase in the consumption of these foods. Other purchases tend to take precedence over healthy eating, unless income increases significantly. Instead, behavioral economics indicates that financial incentives for healthy foods like fruits and vegetables are more effective. Giving SNAP participants coupons or money back when they purchase produce does result in higher consumption of fruits and vegetables; but even then, SNAP participants do not consume as many fruits and vegetables as recommended by federal guidelines.
A more innovative and successful approach to reforming SNAP may involve changing how foods are purchased. SNAP users offered the option of pre-ordering food baskets (instead of taking trips to the grocery store) bought significantly more healthy foods and fewer unhealthy foods. Giving SNAP participants the option of choosing when their SNAP benefits arrive (e.g., monthly, biweekly, or weekly) can also increase the purchase of healthy foods, as perishable items can be purchased more easily. Studies show that providing SNAP clients with a “suggested” budget for their SNAP benefits (e.g., allocate $40 for leafy green vegetables) can help SNAP users spend their money more wisely. And distributing low-cost bowls and dishes with visual graphics that represent recommended portion size may be a more productive use of SNAP-Ed resources.
yeah, it's a very nice article.
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! :thumbsup:
do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.
Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?
Well now you've got me curious. Why isn't there more data on this? Turns out, federal rules actually prohibit reporting on which stores (convenience, grocery, etc.) take in the most SNAP, and what the SNAP is spent on. So, the nest I can find are observational studies, like this one, which estimate that roughly $2 billion of SNAP is spent annually on sugary drinks. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079 (http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079)
$2 billion out of $75 billion in total benefits doesn't seem that bad at all.
It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.
-
I'm still confused as to what on earth "efficiency" has to do with whether we should tighten regulations on the use public assistance. "Sure, he spent his food stamps on hookers and blow, but all economists agree that this was way more efficient than if we had restricted the use to beans and rice." What is your point?
doing inefficient things is stupid, even if the inefficiency makes you feel good.
Your logic is impeccable. Doesn't matter if public assistance is spent wastefully, just as long as it is spent "efficiently." Booze and cigarettes for everyone! :thumbsup:
do you have evidence this is a major problem? I mean based on a system-wide study, and not based on your grocery store anecdote.
Nope, though I haven't really researched it, either. Just a lot of anecdotes and common sense. Can you know of some objective studies to the contrary?
Well now you've got me curious. Why isn't there more data on this? Turns out, federal rules actually prohibit reporting on which stores (convenience, grocery, etc.) take in the most SNAP, and what the SNAP is spent on. So, the nest I can find are observational studies, like this one, which estimate that roughly $2 billion of SNAP is spent annually on sugary drinks. http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079 (http://www.doctorslounge.com/index.php/news/hd/32079)
$2 billion out of $75 billion in total benefits doesn't seem that bad at all.
2.6% seems like a lot. What's the percentage difference between the budgets proposed by R's and D's?
-
It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.
Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.
-
You can use EBT cards at fast food restaurants in many states.
-
It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.
Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.
That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.
By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?
-
Can you explain what Michelle Obama's nutrition reforms are, K-S-U-Wildcats!, and how they've been implemented? I'm just curious if this is a real thing or just another case of some person believing the contents of a chain email.
-
It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.
Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.
That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.
By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?
I don't know what goes through Michelle Obama's head, but I'll take a guess anyway. Maybe she wanted reforms that help everyone eat healthy, not just poor people? I mean, the study also showed SNAP doesn't increase obesity - it's a problem with everyone.
Why do you think she hasn't "included SNAP in her nutrition reforms"? :dunno:
-
It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.
Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.
That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.
By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?
I don't know what goes through Michelle Obama's head, but I'll take a guess anyway. Maybe she wanted reforms that help everyone eat healthy, not just poor people? I mean, the study also showed SNAP doesn't increase obesity - it's a problem with everyone.
Why do you think she hasn't "included SNAP in her nutrition reforms"? :dunno:
Because that would piss off a core voting bloc.
-
Forgive me for being ignorant on how the EBT program works, but if an EBT recipient only buys $0.75 cents of benefit and doesn't use the remaining balance, wouldn't that money go back to the government? Wouldn't that be the taxpayer paying $0.75 for $0.75 of benefit rather than $1 for $0.75 of benefit and $0.25 of cigarettes and booze?
it's not that the recipients don't use the benefits, it's that restrictions force them to use them for stuff they don't want or need, or stuff that they want or need less than what they're allowed to use them for. that can lead nebulous inefficiencies (e.g. someone purchases allowed cold food that they don't have want, but consume joylessly) less nebulous inefficiencies (e.g. someone purchases allowed cold food that they don't have time to prepare and end up throwing away after it rots in their refrigerator while they spend scarce cash on prepared food) or concrete inefficiencies (e.g. someone purchases allowed cold food that they sell at half price to a neighbor for cash).
i forget where i heard or saw it, but i recall one specific example of a person that used their entire food stamps benefit on canned beverages, dumped the contents out in the parking lot and immediately traded in the cans for the deposits to convert the benefit into cash, albeit at pennies on the dollar.
-
It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.
Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.
That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.
By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?
I don't know what goes through Michelle Obama's head, but I'll take a guess anyway. Maybe she wanted reforms that help everyone eat healthy, not just poor people? I mean, the study also showed SNAP doesn't increase obesity - it's a problem with everyone.
Why do you think she hasn't "included SNAP in her nutrition reforms"? :dunno:
Because that would piss off a core voting bloc.
Multi-national food conglomerates aren't really a voting bloc so much as a financial block. They're a much larger deterrent to SNAP reform than the peons actually receiving benefits. I'm sure Pepsi, Frito-Lay, Coke etc. have really good estimates of how much SNAP money is spent on their products.
-
By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?
i'm almost certain that part of the answer is that she's neither an elected nor appointed government official.
-
I'm pretty sure any allusion that the government should be "efficiently" makes one a "Nazi" in the eyes of the left.
Ask any Kansas libtard about Sam Brown back for a case study.
-
It's not good when you consider that's just for sugary drinks and doesn't even touch on the percentage that gets spent on junk food.
Well, it's not good. But still not bad or alarming enough to demand some sort of fix that would cost a lot of money.
That's just the "sugary drinks." Again, based on the government study you linked, it looks like there's a much bigger overall problem with people using SNAP to buy junk. Again, this is common sense.
By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?
I don't know what goes through Michelle Obama's head, but I'll take a guess anyway. Maybe she wanted reforms that help everyone eat healthy, not just poor people? I mean, the study also showed SNAP doesn't increase obesity - it's a problem with everyone.
Why do you think she hasn't "included SNAP in her nutrition reforms"? :dunno:
Because that would piss off a core voting bloc.
Multi-national food conglomerates aren't really a voting bloc so much as a financial block. They're a much larger deterrent to SNAP reform than the peons actually receiving benefits. I'm sure Pepsi, Frito-Lay, Coke etc. have really good estimates of how much SNAP money is spent on their products.
I agree that the food lobby is a big part of the problem. The farm bills in general make me sick theyre so full of subsidies and pork and pork subsidies. But there's also a pandering element that cannot be denied.
-
By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?
i'm almost certain that part of the answer is that she's neither an elected nor appointed government official.
:lol:
-
By the way, why do you think Michelle Obama hasn't included SNAP in her nutrition reforms?
i'm almost certain that part of the answer is that she's neither an elected nor appointed government official.
Ok, so SNAP involves tax dollars, but Michelle Obama's school lunch reforms don't.*
*Don't go here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law)
-
Ok, so SNAP involves tax dollars, but Michelle Obama's school lunch reforms don't.*
*Don't go here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law)
Mrs. Obama's role in the legislation you linked was to say it was a good idea.
-
Ok, so SNAP involves tax dollars, but Michelle Obama's school lunch reforms don't.*
*Don't go here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law)
Mrs. Obama's role in the legislation you linked was to say it was a good idea.
And she can't do the same for SNAP reforms? Michelle Obama was a leading advocate for reforming school lunch programs, but she hasn't said a word about reforming SNAP. Your excuse that one is appropriate fodder for a First Lady, while the other is not, just doesn't hold water.
-
I understand why conservatives hate Obama. I don't understand the hate for his wife. I can't see any logic in being angry someone wants to try and get kids to eat better.
-
Ok, so SNAP involves tax dollars, but Michelle Obama's school lunch reforms don't.*
*Don't go here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/13/president-obama-signs-healthy-hunger-free-kids-act-2010-law)
Mrs. Obama's role in the legislation you linked was to say it was a good idea.
And she can't do the same for SNAP reforms? Michelle Obama was a leading advocate for reforming school lunch programs, but she hasn't said a word about reforming SNAP. Your excuse that one is appropriate fodder for a First Lady, while the other is not, just doesn't hold water.
This is one of the most odd ongoing rants I've seen on the birther pit, and that's saying a lot.
-
I understand why conservatives hate Obama. I don't understand the hate for his wife. I can't see any logic in being angry someone wants to try and get kids to eat better.
Probably because the reason isn't logical, it's biological.
-
And she can't do the same for SNAP reforms? Michelle Obama was a leading advocate for reforming school lunch programs, but she hasn't said a word about reforming SNAP. Your excuse that one is appropriate fodder for a First Lady, while the other is not, just doesn't hold water.
i'm not saying anything of the sort. i'm saying she can say whatever she wants, but aside from being afforded media coverage of her opinions by virtue of her marriage, she has no role in the process (of either).
-
I understand why conservatives hate Obama. I don't understand the hate for his wife. I can't see any logic in being angry someone wants to try and get kids to eat better.
FWIW, I don't think that's why they hate her. Sort of a straw man argument there.
-
There are a lot of libtards in this thread who are missing the point. As I explained previously, I think Michelle Obama's campaign for better nutrition is a good thing. I'm simply providing an example of how politics is a contributing factor to the inability to pass common sense reforms to the SNAP program. Michelle Obama, just like most liberals, won't touch SNAP reform with a 10 foot pole. But in the First Lady's case, the contrast is particularly evident because she has campaigned so heavily for better nutrition.
There are a lot of very strong interests aligned against reform. The Democrats oppose it because they don't want to piss off constituents, and some of them honestly believe it is somehow demeaning to regulate how public assistance is spent. Some Republicans join them because they are in the pocket of Big Junk Food, whatever you want to call it, the multi-million dollar lobbying effort to ensure that people can continue to spend their public assistance on the crap they sell. Even the convenience stores and fast food chains have their own lobbyists to make sure they can continue to rake in the SNAP funds, despite their generally higher prices and less nutritious choices.
-
There are a lot of very strong interests aligned against reform. The Democrats oppose it because they don't want to piss off constituents, and some of them honestly believe it is somehow demeaning to regulate how public assistance is spent. Some Republicans join them because they are in the pocket of Big Junk Food, whatever you want to call it, the multi-million dollar lobbying effort to ensure that people can continue to spend their public assistance on the crap they sell. Even the convenience stores and fast food chains have their own lobbyists to make sure they can continue to rake in the SNAP funds, despite their generally higher prices and less nutritious choices.
So, you're pissed at Mrs. Obama because she tried to improve child nutrition without trying to reform a program you say can't be changed because of politics?
-
There are a lot of very strong interests aligned against reform. The Democrats oppose it because they don't want to piss off constituents, and some of them honestly believe it is somehow demeaning to regulate how public assistance is spent. Some Republicans join them because they are in the pocket of Big Junk Food, whatever you want to call it, the multi-million dollar lobbying effort to ensure that people can continue to spend their public assistance on the crap they sell. Even the convenience stores and fast food chains have their own lobbyists to make sure they can continue to rake in the SNAP funds, despite their generally higher prices and less nutritious choices.
So, you're pissed at Mrs. Obama because she tried to improve child nutrition without trying to reform a program you say can't be changed because of politics?
No. Man, reading comprehenshun is low around here. The fact that the First Lady won't mention SNAP, while otherwise crusading for better nutrition, demonstrates the liberals' unwillingness to piss off their constituents.
-
There are a lot of very strong interests aligned against reform. The Democrats oppose it because they don't want to piss off constituents, and some of them honestly believe it is somehow demeaning to regulate how public assistance is spent. Some Republicans join them because they are in the pocket of Big Junk Food, whatever you want to call it, the multi-million dollar lobbying effort to ensure that people can continue to spend their public assistance on the crap they sell. Even the convenience stores and fast food chains have their own lobbyists to make sure they can continue to rake in the SNAP funds, despite their generally higher prices and less nutritious choices.
So, you're pissed at Mrs. Obama because she tried to improve child nutrition without trying to reform a program you say can't be changed because of politics?
No. Man, reading comprehenshun is low around here. The fact that the First Lady won't mention SNAP, while otherwise crusading for better nutrition, demonstrates the liberals' unwillingness to piss off their constituents.
I mean you yourself said no one would touch SNAP reform so I don't think this is really an exclusively liberal problem.
OT: was your spelling of comprehension a joke? If so, nice.
-
God damn moooochelle is ruining the nation! :curse:
-
There are a lot of very strong interests aligned against reform. The Democrats oppose it because they don't want to piss off constituents, and some of them honestly believe it is somehow demeaning to regulate how public assistance is spent. Some Republicans join them because they are in the pocket of Big Junk Food, whatever you want to call it, the multi-million dollar lobbying effort to ensure that people can continue to spend their public assistance on the crap they sell. Even the convenience stores and fast food chains have their own lobbyists to make sure they can continue to rake in the SNAP funds, despite their generally higher prices and less nutritious choices.
So, you're pissed at Mrs. Obama because she tried to improve child nutrition without trying to reform a program you say can't be changed because of politics?
No. Man, reading comprehenshun is low around here. The fact that the First Lady won't mention SNAP, while otherwise crusading for better nutrition, demonstrates the liberals' unwillingness to piss off their constituents.
I mean you yourself said no one would touch SNAP reform so I don't think this is really an exclusively liberal problem.
OT: was your spelling of comprehension a joke? If so, nice.
I didn't say "no one." Various (red) states are attempting to reform SNAP - they just face significant headwinds. I cannot deny that certain corrupt and/or pork barrel Republicans are contributing to the mess, but it certainly doesn't help that virtually all Democrats, due to ideology and/or money would be opposed to SNAP reforms.
-
red states are attempting to reform it because they hate minorities.
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fp.twimg.com%2FAwRMdIvCAAEx9p0.jpg%3Alarge&hash=0f71b73388bd07caaba2728dfa305c19cf0f7917)
-
red states are attempting to reform it because they hate minorities.
I'm going to hazard a guess here and say there are a whole lot more white people on EBT than minorities.
-
Listening to Michelle Obama's fat ass preach about nutrition is akin to listening to Charlie Weis's fat ass preach about conditioning.
KSU is right, government is destroying itself with these programs that ultimately drive healthcare costs ever higher, and it's largely democrats like Michelle Obama who are to blame for wilfully turning a blind eye to the problem to preserve their losery constituency.
-
:sdeek:
-
Michelle Obama has a fat ass?
-
red states are attempting to reform it because they hate minorities.
You know, for a guy who is always bitching about the "bigotry" of others, you sure spew a lot of ignorant hate. It's kinda sad.
-
red states are attempting to reform it because they hate minorities.
You know, for a guy who is always bitching about the "bigotry" of others, you sure spew a lot of ignorant hate. It's kinda sad.
the ol' "stop being intolerant of my racism and homophobia". classic.
-
Is it just me, or are the rest of you also unable to make the leap that since Michelle Obama thinks kids should eat healthier she should be blamed for not reforming something that real politicians won't touch?
-
the ol' "stop being intolerant of my racism and homophobia". classic.
that's not what happened. okcat likes to say stupid things to get a reaction. k-s-u reacted.
-
Is it just me, or are the rest of you also unable to make the leap that since Michelle Obama thinks kids should eat healthier she should be blamed for not reforming something that real politicians won't touch?
That's not the point, as has been explained ad nauseum. Go back and re read the last page or so. Take as much as you need.
-
I mean you yourself said no one would touch SNAP reform so I don't think this is really an exclusively liberal problem.
there's also the part where apolitcal experts agree that the reform k-s-u is arguing for would be stupid.
-
I'm going to hazard a guess here and say there are a whole lot more white people on EBT than minorities.
you're talking to a board that thinks it's not only acceptable, but actually clever, to disparage people as "poors".
-
Is it just me, or are the rest of you also unable to make the leap that since Michelle Obama thinks kids should eat healthier she should be blamed for not reforming something that real politicians won't touch?
That's not the point, as has been explained ad nauseum. Go back and re read the last page or so. Take as much as you need.
Mom: "Hey kids, you've been putting on some weight. Time to go on a healthier diet."
Kids: "Well that sounds good and I can agree to eat healthier, but if you're going to tell us to eat healthier you should also replace our leaky roof yourself."
Mom: "...I'm not a roofer. I don't know how to do that. It's not my job."
Kids: "eff you hypocrite, go replace our roof. Can't tell us to eat healthier without fixing the roof too."
That's what I got from the argument that Michelle Obama can be blamed for not reforming food stamps since she encourages children to eat healthier.
-
I'm going to hazard a guess here and say there are a whole lot more white people on EBT than minorities.
you're talking to a board that thinks it's not only acceptable, but actually clever, to disparage people as "poors".
I mean this in all honesty, but I am (was) too big of a coward to say anything about how much this "poors" crap bothered me.
I have died a thousand deaths on this board.
-
I mean this in all honesty, but I am (was) too big of a coward to say anything about how much this "poors" crap bothered me.
I have died a thousand deaths on this board.
you're not only one of the best posters on this board, but one of the best people.
-
Is it just me, or are the rest of you also unable to make the leap that since Michelle Obama thinks kids should eat healthier she should be blamed for not reforming something that real politicians won't touch?
That's not the point, as has been explained ad nauseum. Go back and re read the last page or so. Take as much as you need.
Mom: "Hey kids, you've been putting on some weight. Time to go on a healthier diet."
Kids: "Well that sounds good and I can agree to eat healthier, but if you're going to tell us to eat healthier you should also replace our leaky roof yourself."
Mom: "...I'm not a roofer. I don't know how to do that. It's not my job."
Kids: "eff you hypocrite, go replace our roof. Can't tell us to eat healthier without fixing the roof too."
That's what I got from the argument that Michelle Obama can be blamed for not reforming food stamps since she encourages children to eat healthier.
Yes, an excellent analogy as only a libtard, or someone with an IQ that is roughly the equivalent of their age, could formulate. I just can't beat this. I officially surrender the internet. :whiteflag:
-
the ol' "stop being intolerant of my racism and homophobia". classic.
that's not what happened. okcat likes to say stupid things to get a reaction. k-s-u reacted.
filling my daily qouta :thumbs:
-
I mean this in all honesty, but I am (was) too big of a coward to say anything about how much this "poors" crap bothered me.
I have died a thousand deaths on this board.
you're not only one of the best posters on this board, but one of the best people.
People respect and listen to chings, too. Probably more than anyone on the board. Except maybe FAN.
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/24/186477854/episode-217-the-art-of-living-at-the-poverty-line?ft=1&f=127413729
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/05/24/186477854/episode-217-the-art-of-living-at-the-poverty-line?ft=1&f=127413729
Looking forward to listening to this at the gym.
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/illegal-immigrant-mother-seven-given-food-stamps-meds-housing-and-social-security-20 (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/illegal-immigrant-mother-seven-given-food-stamps-meds-housing-and-social-security-20)
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/illegal-immigrant-mother-seven-given-food-stamps-meds-housing-and-social-security-20 (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/illegal-immigrant-mother-seven-given-food-stamps-meds-housing-and-social-security-20)
but think of the tax revenue and economic impact of her seven successful children
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/illegal-immigrant-mother-seven-given-food-stamps-meds-housing-and-social-security-20 (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/illegal-immigrant-mother-seven-given-food-stamps-meds-housing-and-social-security-20)
but think of the tax revenue and economic impact of her seven successful children
can't tell if serious
-
When i was down at the zarks I went to a gas station and they had a hand written sign above the soda fountain
"We can no longer accept EBT(Food Stamps) on Soda purchases"
-
http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/illegal-immigrant-mother-seven-given-food-stamps-meds-housing-and-social-security-20 (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/05/31/illegal-immigrant-mother-seven-given-food-stamps-meds-housing-and-social-security-20)
but think of the tax revenue and economic impact of her seven successful children
can't tell if serious
something to think about!
-
When i was down at the zarks I went to a gas station and they had a hand written sign above the soda fountain
"We can no longer accept EBT(Food Stamps) on Soda purchases"
Progress! :dance:
-
STUD
So, it was off to the gourmet section of the grocery store, as Greenslate purchased sushi and lobster with his EBT card. “All paid for by our wonderful tax dollars,” he said, telling Roberts that’s what he typically buys.
“This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing,” Greenslate said. “It’s free food; it’s awesome.”
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/08/10/shocking-fox-news-reporting-interview-unabashed-surfer-receiving-food-stamps
:dance: #rattlife
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/08/16/212645252/episode-480-the-charity-that-just-gives-people-money?ft=1&f=127413729
-
Yglesias agrees w/ sys
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/snap_reform_give_the_poor_money_not_food_stamps.html
-
Yglesias agrees w/ sys
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/snap_reform_give_the_poor_money_not_food_stamps.html
:sdeek:
-
Yglesias agrees w/ sys
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/snap_reform_give_the_poor_money_not_food_stamps.html
I've kind of started to lean that way, myself. It seems like it would lower food prices.
-
Yglesias agrees w/ sys
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/snap_reform_give_the_poor_money_not_food_stamps.html
I've kind of started to lean that way, myself. It seems like it would lower food prices.
But what would it do to alcohol, cigarette, and drug prices?
-
Yglesias agrees w/ sys
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/09/snap_reform_give_the_poor_money_not_food_stamps.html
I've kind of started to lean that way, myself. It seems like it would lower food prices.
But what would it do to alcohol, cigarette, and drug prices?
Who cares?
-
His point about having the option to cut back on food spending to purchase diapers was a very good point.
-
His point about having the option to cut back on food spending to purchase diapers was a very good point.
WIC tho
the car repair was a better example and I admit this statement rubs me the wrong the way
Free poor people from the shackles of food stamps and let people buy what they want with their money.
-
His point about having the option to cut back on food spending to purchase diapers was a very good point.
WIC tho
the car repair was a better example and I admit this statement rubs me the wrong the way
Free poor people from the shackles of food stamps and let people buy what they want with their money.
yes, car repair is better, but it seems like you could eliminate a lot of inefficiency if you combined food stamps w/ WIC and just gave people cash.
-
How much money should we hand out to people? From each according to their ability, To each according to their need?
-
How much money should we hand out to people? From each according to their ability, To each according to their need?
Just convert the food stamp money to cash. Seems pretty simple. :dunno:
-
How much money should we hand out to people? From each according to their ability, To each according to their need?
Just convert the food stamp money to cash. Seems pretty simple. :dunno:
I think if the recipients don't really need the money for food, we don't need to give it to them.
-
How much money should we hand out to people? From each according to their ability, To each according to their need?
Just convert the food stamp money to cash. Seems pretty simple. :dunno:
I think if the recipients don't really need the money for food, we don't need to give it to them.
Reduce the benefit by 15% and then give it to them as cash.
-
http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch (http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch)
-
http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch (http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch)
Racist.
-
http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch (http://www.ksla.com/story/23679489/walmart-shelves-in-springhill-mansfield-cleared-in-ebt-glitch)
:sdeek:
i'm very sure that rich people have never stolen from the american government! :don'tcare:
-
I hope Walmart eats the cost. The Federal government should not have to pay them back when the issue was brought to Walmart's attention and they chose to continue giving their food away. Even asking the government to pay them back is the equivalent of insurance fraud, imo.
-
Interesting study on food stamps (http://freebeacon.com/study-food-stamps-most-rapidly-growing-welfare-program/).
Food stamps have become the second most costly means-tested program behind Medicaid, and its expansion is credited to both Republicans and Democrats.
Tanner traces the modern food stamp program back to President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Food Stamp Act of 1964. Not until the presidency of George W. Bush, however, did the program increase dramatically, and the pace has only accelerated under President Barack Obama.
The 2002 and 2008 farm bills under Bush expanded eligibility in the program to the extent that noncitizens qualify. By the start of Obama’s presidency, there were 31.8 million Americans enrolled, up from 17 million in 2000.
Under Obama, enrollment has surged to almost 48 million. While some chalk up the increase to the recession, Tanner finds little evidence that is the case.
“Increases in both participation and spending were bigger during this recession than in previous ones,” he writes.
During the recession in the early 1980s enrollment only increased by 635,000, and spending rose by $124 million. In contrast, the latest recession saw enrollment jump by 12 million and spending increase by $30 billion.
“SNAP is no longer a program targeted at the poorest Americans who may need some temporary help, but it has become part of an ever-growing permanent welfare state,” the report said.
Nearly 17 percent of recipients have income levels above the poverty line due to weak eligibility standards. Furthermore, a majority of recipients (56 percent) are on the program longer than 5 years, and fewer than 10 percent are on food stamps for six months or less.
-
Nice moderate post, jthtd.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
I don't think that can be right, can it? My family spends around $1000 a month on food, and we're hardly scrimping.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
I don't think that can be right, can it? My family spends around $1000 a month on food, and we're hardly scrimping.
How many are in your family? I really don't think there is any way my family of 2 spends $400 per month on food, but I don't really keep track. It's November 1. I might try to keep track of that this month to see just how ridiculous it is that this lady with enphysema and 3 daughters who live with her but can't work because they have children that they apparently can't leave with their mother and sisters to find a job can't feed themselves on $800 per month.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
Last month, Sewell landed a job as an audio technician.
The job paid $12 an hour, a lot less than the $25 he used to make before he was laid off.
Sewell asked his employer to lower his wages to $9 an hour instead.
Why? He did the math and found that $12 an hour was just enough to cause a reduction in his government benefits, and could cost him and his family its Medicaid coverage for health care.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
I don't think that can be right, can it? My family spends around $1000 a month on food, and we're hardly scrimping.
How many are in your family?
2 adults, 2 kids, 1 baby.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
Last month, Sewell landed a job as an audio technician.
The job paid $12 an hour, a lot less than the $25 he used to make before he was laid off.
Sewell asked his employer to lower his wages to $9 an hour instead.
Why? He did the math and found that $12 an hour was just enough to cause a reduction in his government benefits, and could cost him and his family its Medicaid coverage for health care.
Yeah, the whole article was a whole bunch of losers lined up who really want to get off of the government dole but really don't want to do anything that might actually make that happen.
-
"We buy a lot of beans, rice and potatoes," said Sewell, who lives in Philadelphia. "Towards the end of the month, you're eating all the box stuff, and a lot more pasta with sauce."
The horror. I don't want to live in a country where the poor don't receive enough public assistance to buy steaks and organic produce! Why should they be treated differently? :bawl:
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
Last month, Sewell landed a job as an audio technician.
The job paid $12 an hour, a lot less than the $25 he used to make before he was laid off.
Sewell asked his employer to lower his wages to $9 an hour instead.
Why? He did the math and found that $12 an hour was just enough to cause a reduction in his government benefits, and could cost him and his family its Medicaid coverage for health care.
Yeah, the whole article was a whole bunch of losers lined up who really want to get off of the government dole but really don't want to do anything that might actually make that happen.
We should consider reducing welfare even more and making it uncomfortable to be on it. Maybe there's be less "jobs Americans just won't do." It's worth a shot, right?
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
Last month, Sewell landed a job as an audio technician.
The job paid $12 an hour, a lot less than the $25 he used to make before he was laid off.
Sewell asked his employer to lower his wages to $9 an hour instead.
Why? He did the math and found that $12 an hour was just enough to cause a reduction in his government benefits, and could cost him and his family its Medicaid coverage for health care.
Yeah, the whole article was a whole bunch of losers lined up who really want to get off of the government dole but really don't want to do anything that might actually make that happen.
We should consider reducing welfare even more and making it uncomfortable to be on it. Maybe there's be less "jobs Americans just won't do." It's worth a shot, right?
Well, the article was about food stamp benefits being reduced, actually. This deadbeat family is now going to be living on about $760 per month for groceries instead of the $800 they're used to.
-
http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/01/news/economy/food-stamps-families/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
The benefit -- totaling $800 for four adults -- never lasts Lewis and her family a full month.
Really?
I don't think that can be right, can it? My family spends around $1000 a month on food, and we're hardly scrimping.
How many are in your family? I really don't think there is any way my family of 2 spends $400 per month on food, but I don't really keep track. It's November 1. I might try to keep track of that this month to see just how ridiculous it is that this lady with enphysema and 3 daughters who live with her but can't work because they have children that they apparently can't leave with their mother and sisters to find a job can't feed themselves on $800 per month.
How come the fathers of these recently and soon to be born kids can't help out?
-
I'm sure this cut may hurt some people, but that article did a horrible job of finding people that fell into that category. I'm sure food costs vary depending on where you live and shop, just on groceries my family of 2 adults and 1 kid spends around $500/month. More if you include eating out, drinks, etc
-
for 800$ a family could live off beans and potatoes for years
-
I'm sure this cut may hurt some people, but that article did a horrible job of finding people that fell into that category. I'm sure food costs vary depending on where you live and shop, just on groceries my family of 2 adults and 1 kid spends around $500/month. More if you include eating out, drinks, etc
Yeah. I guess if these people were smart enough to set a reasonable budget for groceries, they probably wouldn't need the help, but I just can't feel sorry for somebody who says $800 per month for groceries just isn't enough. It's enough.
-
I'm sure this cut may hurt some people, but that article did a horrible job of finding people that fell into that category. I'm sure food costs vary depending on where you live and shop, just on groceries my family of 2 adults and 1 kid spends around $500/month. More if you include eating out, drinks, etc
Yeah. I guess if these people were smart enough to set a reasonable budget for groceries, they probably wouldn't need the help, but I just can't feel sorry for somebody who says $800 per month for groceries just isn't enough. It's enough.
Can you buy diapers and other baby stuff with SNAP? Seems like that might come from WIC or another program, but idk
-
I'm sure this cut may hurt some people, but that article did a horrible job of finding people that fell into that category. I'm sure food costs vary depending on where you live and shop, just on groceries my family of 2 adults and 1 kid spends around $500/month. More if you include eating out, drinks, etc
Yeah. I guess if these people were smart enough to set a reasonable budget for groceries, they probably wouldn't need the help, but I just can't feel sorry for somebody who says $800 per month for groceries just isn't enough. It's enough.
Can you buy diapers and other baby stuff with SNAP? Seems like that might come from WIC or another program, but idk
I don't think you can, but I really don't know. I would like to think that CNN would have mentioned expenses like diapers if that was the case, but maybe they just chose not to. :dunno:
-
someone needs to teach those people how to shop and/or cook. that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
also, the media is doing a terrible job of honestly presenting this reduction as the termination of a temporary increase in benefits from the stimulus, rather than a reduction of baseline benefits. but then, they do a terrible job of presenting almost all information to the public.
-
also, the media is doing a terrible job of honestly presenting this reduction as the termination of a temporary increase in benefits from the stimulus, rather than a reduction of baseline benefits. but then, they do a terrible job of presenting almost all information to the public.
yes, this is very annoying
-
someone needs to teach those people how to shop and/or cook. that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
also, the media is doing a terrible job of honestly presenting this reduction as the termination of a temporary increase in benefits from the stimulus, rather than a reduction of baseline benefits. but then, they do a terrible job of presenting almost all information to the public.
By not reporting the facts, the media hopes most people will blame congress, which will happen.
-
By not reporting the facts, the media hopes most people will blame congress, which will happen.
i really think they're just incompetent.
-
By not reporting the facts, the media hopes most people will blame congress, which will happen.
i really think they're just incompetent.
I would like to believe that, but I think they know exactly what they're doing.
-
By not reporting the facts, the media hopes most people will blame congress, which will happen.
i really think they're just incompetent.
I would like to believe that, but I think they know exactly what they're doing.
it's like you've never known a journalism major.
-
If my wife spent $800 a month on groceries i'd cut her credit card in half and do the shopping myself.*
*not really, but that's what I'd say
-
I spend like $800 a WEEK on groceries. (booze is purchased at grocery stores in NE)
-
i spend at least 400 a month and it's just me.
-
i spend at least 400 a month and it's just me.
If I got a card with money on it for groceries, I'd probably spend it all too, seven.
If I was flat broke and trying to feed a family of four, I'd probably figure out a way to do it for $800 a month, which is a rediculous budget for about anyone.
-
the lady had four adults and a child. She should be OK and probably be better educated about how to shop, but $800 isn't like an obscene amount to spend on groceries for that many people.
-
the lady had four adults and a child. She should be OK and probably be better educated about how to shop, but $800 isn't like an obscene amount to spend on groceries for that many people.
Given the circumstances, it's not just obscene, it's pathetic and irresponsible to not be enough money.
Education my ass, you have this much money for this much time, a child could figure it out.
-
the lady had four adults and a child. She should be OK and probably be better educated about how to shop, but $800 isn't like an obscene amount to spend on groceries for that many people.
yeah, it's not obscene. but it's also not at all hard to feed 5 people for a month on that amount.
people don't know how to cook anymore.
-
Many fam of four spends slightly more than that a month, but that includes all shampoo, vitamins, razors, toothpaste, dog food, etc. So, basically everything for the house and those in it. Just cutting out the dogs and buying non food items at walmart rather than the grocery would easily make that work, and we cook a lot and eat good things.
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2
-
a 25 lb bag of flour is about $10.
a 20 lb bag of rice is about $10.
50 lbs of potatoes is about $25.
$750 left over for everything else you want to eat. it's not rough ridin' hard.
-
I guess what's actually irritating about this is the "these people don't know any better" or "they are victims of their circumstances" type of mindset. Like its the fault of society that these people don't give a eff to figure it out for themselves. Society would be better off if these people.starved.
-
do these cards let you buy paper goods, toiletries, etc., or is it just food?
-
a 25 lb bag of flour is about $10.
a 20 lb bag of rice is about $10.
50 lbs of potatoes is about $25.
$750 left over for everything else you want to eat. it's not rough ridin' hard.
I think you can actually get items like that at a food bank too. at least according to BBC World the other day when they were discussing this and failing to mention that it was a temp. bump in benefits.
-
do these cards let you buy paper goods, toiletries, etc., or is it just food?
I would be shocked if you could buy candy at QT on the card(yes you can) but not toilet paper at Price Chopper or WalMart.
-
if other goods are factored in besides food, then it isn't as big of a deal imo.
-
Here is the official government list (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm). It looks like you can buy just about any food item that is not hot and eaten on premises. Steak, king crab legs, and Doritos are OK.
Eligible Food Items
Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:
Foods for the household to eat, such as:
-- breads and cereals;
-- fruits and vegetables;
-- meats, fish and poultry; and
-- dairy products.
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.
In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.
Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco;
Any nonfood items, such as:
-- pet foods;
-- soaps, paper products; and
-- household supplies.
Vitamins and medicines.
Food that will be eaten in the store.
Hot foods.
Additional Information
“Junk Food” & Luxury Items
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.
Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:
Report -- Implications of Restricting the use of
Food Stamp Benefits
Energy Drinks
When considering the eligibility of energy drinks, and other branded products, the primary determinant is the type of product label chosen by the manufacturer to conform to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines:
Energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods
Energy drinks that have a supplement facts label are classified by the FDA as supplements, and are therefore not eligible
Live Animals
Live animals may not be purchased with SNAP benefits.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501
oh boy, K-S-U is going to have an aneurysm after reading that.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501
Oh man, that would be great. I hope they do it so we can all laugh.
-
It will probably work well for them.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25415501
oh boy, K-S-U is going to have an aneurysm after reading that.
The Swiss are voting to expand their welfare state? Why would I care?
-
This would be a fantastic experiment. From one of the most productive societies to the most unproductive in a matter of one generation.
-
This would be a fantastic experiment. From one of the most productive societies to the most unproductive in a matter of one generation.
Their society isn't productive.
-
will the right still want their gun laws if this passes?
-
This would be a fantastic experiment. From one of the most productive societies to the most unproductive in a matter of one generation.
Their society isn't productive.
yes it is.
-
This would be a fantastic experiment. From one of the most productive societies to the most unproductive in a matter of one generation.
Their society isn't productive.
yes it is.
No, it's not.
-
This would be a fantastic experiment. From one of the most productive societies to the most unproductive in a matter of one generation.
Their society isn't productive.
yes it is.
No, it's not.
yes it is.
-
This would be a fantastic experiment. From one of the most productive societies to the most unproductive in a matter of one generation.
Their society isn't productive.
yes it is.
No, it's not.
yes it is.
Ok it is.
-
man, when that guy said that working just to get money was basically slavery... what a great philosophy to live by. :D
-
man, when that guy said that working just to get money was basically slavery... what a great philosophy to live by. :D
fantastic quote.
-
man, when that guy said that working just to get money was basically slavery... what a great philosophy to live by. :D
Why doesn't he just work for free? Then it would be like welfare when he got his paycheck. Boom, mind blown.
-
One small step towards exposing SNAP waste and our bloated entitlement system. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/court-rejects-secrecy-for-food-stamp-numbers-182072.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/01/court-rejects-secrecy-for-food-stamp-numbers-182072.html)
Get ready for lots of arguments about urban "food deserts" and how it actually makes sense to spend food stamps on McDonalds.
-
i think the governments concerns about fraud are misplaced.
The reason that USDA is concerned with disclosing this information is...this redemption information is reviewed by the agency to look for fraud,” Bengford said. “If all the information as to individual retailers who participate in this program were available by store type and the amount of redemptions that they’re bringing in on a yearly basis that would allow individuals who are participating in fraud to use that information to look for outliers—as far as trying to make a determination where the agency might be setting its threshhold as to where there might be a concern that someone could be participating in fraud.”
i wish we could open up the bigger budget issues to this type of scrutiny.
-
i think the governments concerns about fraud are misplaced.
The reason that USDA is concerned with disclosing this information is...this redemption information is reviewed by the agency to look for fraud,” Bengford said. “If all the information as to individual retailers who participate in this program were available by store type and the amount of redemptions that they’re bringing in on a yearly basis that would allow individuals who are participating in fraud to use that information to look for outliers—as far as trying to make a determination where the agency might be setting its threshhold as to where there might be a concern that someone could be participating in fraud.”
i wish we could open up the bigger budget issues to this type of scrutiny.
Wait, we won't release the information because it would allow companies to find fraud?
-
i think the governments concerns about fraud are misplaced.
The reason that USDA is concerned with disclosing this information is...this redemption information is reviewed by the agency to look for fraud,” Bengford said. “If all the information as to individual retailers who participate in this program were available by store type and the amount of redemptions that they’re bringing in on a yearly basis that would allow individuals who are participating in fraud to use that information to look for outliers—as far as trying to make a determination where the agency might be setting its threshhold as to where there might be a concern that someone could be participating in fraud.”
i wish we could open up the bigger budget issues to this type of scrutiny.
Wait, we won't release the information because it would allow companies to find fraud?
The concern is that it would allow individuals who are currently acting fraudulently to do so more effectively. I think they should just release the numbers.
-
i think the governments concerns about fraud are misplaced.
The reason that USDA is concerned with disclosing this information is...this redemption information is reviewed by the agency to look for fraud,” Bengford said. “If all the information as to individual retailers who participate in this program were available by store type and the amount of redemptions that they’re bringing in on a yearly basis that would allow individuals who are participating in fraud to use that information to look for outliers—as far as trying to make a determination where the agency might be setting its threshhold as to where there might be a concern that someone could be participating in fraud.”
i wish we could open up the bigger budget issues to this type of scrutiny.
Wait, we won't release the information because it would allow companies to find fraud?
The concern is that it would allow individuals who are currently acting fraudulently to do so more effectively. I think they should just release the numbers.
They don't want the public to know what the majority of SNAP money is being spent on, like liquor, cigarettes, fast food, and snacks.
-
They don't want the public to know what the majority of SNAP money is being spent on, like liquor, cigarettes, fast food, and snacks.
Unfortunately, I think they're only releasing the percentage by retailer, not what it's actually spent on. But I think we may be surprised (or maybe not) to see how much EBT is being spent at convenience stores and fast food joints, where the food is generally more expensive and less healthy.
That's why I'm sure we'll hear a lot of arguments about "food deserts" (places where grocery stores just don't exist), or how McDonalds is actually cheaper than buying groceries. It would be fun to be a liberal strategist and come up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses. Here's one just off the top of my head: "Well, of course the EBT is being spent on fast food. These people don't have time to shop for groceries and prepare meals because they're too busy looking for work!"
-
They don't want the public to know what the majority of SNAP money is being spent on, like liquor, cigarettes, fast food, and snacks.
Unfortunately, I think they're only releasing the percentage by retailer, not what it's actually spent on. But I think we may be surprised (or maybe not) to see how much EBT is being spent at convenience stores and fast food joints, where the food is generally more expensive and less healthy.
That's why I'm sure we'll hear a lot of arguments about "food deserts" (places where grocery stores just don't exist), or how McDonalds is actually cheaper than buying groceries. It would be fun to be a liberal strategist and come up with all kinds of ridiculous excuses. Here's one just off the top of my head: "Well, of course the EBT is being spent on fast food. These people don't have time to shop for groceries and prepare meals because they're too busy looking for work!"
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fassets0.redbubble.net%2Fassets%2Fclear-d280f94f2cf726fc7e74f24adec63ee4.gif&hash=8f19cad3618e087c84a4ad5e49b0349ad8852292)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/capitalism-vs-democracy.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html
The Obama boys are just raking in the fed money. Sick.