primitives discuss food stamps

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7643858

Oh my.

LoZoccolo  (1000+ posts)        Thu Feb-04-10 11:37 PM
Original message
 
Poll question: Should people recieve cash payments instead of food stamps?

Poll result (102 votes) 

Yes, people should recieve cash payments instead of food stamps.  (14 votes, 14%)
No, people should not recieve cash payments instead of food stamps.  (88 votes, 86%)

gateley  (1000+ posts)      Thu Feb-04-10 11:40 PM
Response to Original message
 
1. No. If I were on assistance, I'd need the Food Stamps. I'd be afraid I'd spend the cash elsewhere. I just know me.

napi21  (1000+ posts)        Thu Feb-04-10 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
 
2. Food Stamps, or a card now, are for FOOD! Cash could be spent on anything.

Including lottery tickets.

Luminous Animal  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-05-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
 
12. And heaven to betsy! 

We can't have poor people spending food on anything now can we. Obviously they are too stupid and irresponsible to handle cash. I mean, Jeesh, just look at them! They're poor!

ThatPoetGuy (823 posts)      Fri Feb-05-10 02:20 AM
Response to Reply #12
 
67. I'm on food stamps, and I'm glad they don't give me cash.

If they gave me cash, I'd be tempted to use it to pay my medical bills. I'd probably go hungry every day.

You've set up a false polarity, where only irresponsibility could cause people to spend on things other than food.

BuelahWitch  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-05-10 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
 
26. YEAH, like soap or laundry detergent or some other luxury!

People should get BOTH. Food stamps to make sure that food is being purchased AND cash payments!

cutlassmama  (1000+ posts)       Fri Feb-05-10 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #26
 
62. AND toilet paper! God forbid any poor person has something to wipe their butts with!!!

cliffordu  (1000+ posts)        Fri Feb-05-10 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
 
19. I traded food stamps for drugs many years ago.

I tried to trade that surplus cheeze but I didn't have any macaroni to go with it, so, no deal.

EFerrari  (1000+ posts)        Thu Feb-04-10 11:51 PM
DOUG'S EX-WIFE, #03 TOP PRIMITIVE OF 2009
Response to Original message

5. This is just ugly. Congrats.

Bluebear  (1000+ posts)        Fri Feb-05-10 12:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
 
10. Really. Is this being proposed somewhere other than his mind?

Forkboy  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-05-10 12:21 AM
THE FORKED PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #5

18. He doesn't seem to like poor people much, but maybe he'll post a reply to counter that.

spoony  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-05-10 03:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
 
79. Has he posted any replies at all?

I don't see any.

Forkboy  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-05-10 03:44 AM
THE FORKED PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #79

80. Nope. Hit and run.

And this will probably get deleted too.

Electric Monk  (741 posts)        Fri Feb-05-10 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #5
 
46. Mission Accomplished?

I predict this thread will continue until eventually locked for being disruptive. Again.

paulsby  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-05-10 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
 
83. this is not nanny statism

nanny statism is telling people what they can and can't do with their OWN money, for instance bans on transfats (a la new york city), or their own time and freedom (like seattle's ban on smoking in any bar, restaurant, building,etc. AND 25 ft from the doorway which effectively makes the entire downtown illegal to smoke in. i hate cigarette smoke, but it's simply nanny state authoritarian crap to tell people they can't smoke in a bar or 25 ft from the door of any business.).

food stamps are an entitlement. limiting uses for entitlements is hardly nanny statism.

it's not their money to do whatever they want with.

it's OUR money, we are giving them for a specific purpose.

nonconformist  (1000+ posts)        Fri Feb-05-10 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
 
78. As someone who has received food stamps (EBT card) in the past.....

I voted "no".

It's a great program, and I was VERY grateful to have it when we were going through some rough times a few years ago. Everything sucked, but at least we had food and my kids weren't hungry. In fact, we had more food in the house than we did when things were really tight but we didn't qualify for any help.

Now, if I'm being perfectly honest, if we had received cash payments in the same amount instead of food stamps, some of that money wouldn't have gone towards food. Some would have been used to buy various household items like toilet paper, and we might have even been tempted to use it to pay our mortgage or other bills to attempt to keep us "afloat" since our issues were temporary.

But that's not what the program is for, it's for food. We are honest people who don't have a drug problem and who used the program as a stop-gap when we fell on hard times. Many, many people just like us use this program as it's intended, and I do believe most people are inherently good and have the best of intentions, especially when it comes to their children.

Still, when people are having financial trouble they're forced to make really tough choices... what to pay, what not to pay, eating nothing but ramen for days on end, etc. This program exists to remove one of those tough choices, and to ensure that you and your children have enough to eat no matter what. I believe that we, as a society, have a responsibility and a vested interest in making sure that the poor, and especially the children, of this country have enough to eat.

Sure, there are some really self-centered assholes out there that abuse programs and deny their children healthy and ample food even when it's available to them, and I (like most of you, I would hope) would rather see some abuse than allow people to knowingly go hungry, but I believe that giving cash in lieu of food benefits would have an ENORMOUS potential for abuse.

And not just by the aforementioned self-centered assholes, but by people who would genuinely think they're making the best decisions in a time of almost impossible choices. If you haven't been there, then you don't know.

I NEVER felt as though we weren't smart enough or honest enough to be trusted with cash... I really didn't. They only thing that would have made me feel like that is if they limited what types of food could be bought on the program. I do think that people that propose that ARE being insulting. There were times when we got candy for our kids. So they hell what? It made them happy during a time that was pretty unhappy. Our phone was shut off, our internet and cable disconnected, our car was repossessed, we lost power a couple of times and our home was in the process of being foreclosed. Obviously there was no "luxury" spending of any kind going on then.

If you think less of us for buying the occasional junkie treat for our kids with an EBT card to bring a smile to their face during all this shit, well then **** you.

[Carl]

BuelahWitch  (1000+ posts)      Fri Feb-05-10 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
 
26. YEAH, like soap or laundry detergent or some other luxury!

People should get BOTH. Food stamps to make sure that food is being purchased AND cash payments!

Pay someone to be poor...that is a whole new definition of stupid.

[JohnnyReb]

 :rotf:DUmmies....to damn stupid to even scam the foodstamp program.

5:10 am this morning I saw a guy buy $20 worth of gas and an 18 pack with a foodstamp card.

[The Village Idiot]

I think so. Could dump a lot of bureaucrats and gov workers if we consolidate all welfare programs into one single monthly cash sum. Dump HUD and everything else.

Say "here's your money, try not to buy drugs with it. Cuz you ain't gettin nothing else till next month".

The taxpayers will benefit from all those bureaucracies being shut down.