"It's a huge list": Iowa GOP bill would ban people on food stamps from buying fresh meat — and more

[Wildswanderer]

I don't know how it works now, but in the past there was definitely a lot of food stamp fraud, with people finding ways to cash in food stamps and buy cigarettes and so on.
Now before somebody jumps all over me, I've been poor and I've been middle class, we've used WIC and given to the needy. So I feel like I can see it from both sides.
If I was in charge of choosing what foods you could get on stamps, I would definitely eliminate the junk, and the overpriced. Lobster is probably not anymore nutritious then lots of other lower priced fish for example. It seems like the best solution would be to allow what has the most nutritional value or the price.

 

[JustGeorge]

I don't know how it works now, but in the past there was definitely a lot of food stamp fraud, with people finding ways to cash in food stamps and buy cigarettes and so on.
Now before somebody jumps all over me, I've been poor and I've been middle class, we've used WIC and given to the needy. So I feel like I can see it from both sides.
If I was in charge of choosing what foods you could get on stamps, I would definitely eliminate the junk, and the overpriced. Lobster is probably not anymore nutritious then lots of other lower priced fish for example. It seems like the best solution would be to allow what has the most nutritional value or the price.

Did you know a lot of people personally who used their food stamps inappropriately?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Charitable to the last...

Charity dosent pay the bills.

Teaching people to survive does.

Remember the Indigenous saying?

"Give a man a fish he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish he eats for a lifetime".

 

[Revoltingest]

Aw, c'mon @Revoltingest. You know it's not only those who won't work who need assistance.

Aw, c'mon Evie, let's not deny that there are
slackers, sad sacks, grifters, & layabouts
in the world, who'd happily just suck at that
government teat rather than contribute.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't know how it works now, but in the past there was definitely a lot of food stamp fraud, with people finding ways to cash in food stamps and buy cigarettes and so on.
Now before somebody jumps all over me, I've been poor and I've been middle class, we've used WIC and given to the needy. So I feel like I can see it from both sides.
If I was in charge of choosing what foods you could get on stamps, I would definitely eliminate the junk, and the overpriced. Lobster is probably not anymore nutritious then lots of other lower priced fish for example. It seems like the best solution would be to allow what has the most nutritional value or the price.

Though you can "see it from both sides," it does seem to me that you are echoing what others have been saying. While America places huge value (so it says) on the value of individual liberty, so many of you seem all too happy to take that away from those you see as "not quite up to snuff."

The Constitution doesn't say "all men are created equal so long as they have enough money." If you think that individual liberty is an important aspect of what America stands for, why assume that means "only for those who can afford it?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Aw, c'mon Evie, let's not deny that there are
slackers, sad sacks, grifters, & layabouts
in the world, who'd happily just suck at that
government teat rather than contribute.

Yes, I agree -- perfectly true. And a problem, sometimes, to weed out.

Now, what about the others who are not slacking, not grifting, not layabouts, but still suffering -- cut them off to get rid of the former?

What's the real goal? Saving money, above everything else? Saving humans, but only the "deserving ones?" Something else?

You know, perhaps more than most here, that sometimes you can't reconcile everything, and have to accept some imperfection in order to achieve an end that you think is "good enough."

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I agree -- perfectly true. And a problem, sometimes, to weed out.

Now, what about the others who are not slacking, not grifting, not layabouts, but still suffering -- cut them off to get rid of the former?

What's the real goal? Saving money, above everything else? Saving humans, but only the "deserving ones?" Something else?

You know, perhaps more than most here, that sometimes you can't reconcile everything, and have to accept some imperfection in order to achieve an end that you think is "good enough."

My approach....
Provide the UUBI to all, even the lollygaggers & loafers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My approach....
Provide the UUBI to all, even the lollygaggers & loafers.

Thank you. Mine too. But don't stop working on ways to nab the latter. It's not easy (how well I know, from being part of senior management in both insurance companies and banks), but progress can be made if we pay attention.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you. Mine too. But don't stop working on ways to nab the latter.

With the UUBI, there's no need
to nab anyone for loafing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thank you. Mine too. But don't stop working on ways to nab the latter. It's not easy (how well I know, from being part of senior management in both insurance companies and banks), but progress can be made if we pay attention.

By the way, @Revoltingest, when I say continue trying to weed out the cheats, I am well aware that there's an expense involved in doing that -- sometimes quite large. But not doing it has a hidden expense, in that when it starts to look easy to cheat, more will go that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

By the way, @Revoltingest, when I say continue trying to weed out the cheats, I am well aware that there's an expense involved in doing that -- sometimes quite large. But not doing it has a hidden expense, in that when it starts to look easy to cheat, more will go that way.

With the UUBI, there are no cheats,
unless one is illegally double-dipping.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

With the UUBI, there's no need
to nab anyone for loafing.

Okay, help me out here -- I don't think I quite understand what you mean by UUBI.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Though you can "see it from both sides," it does seem to me that you are echoing what others have been saying. While America places huge value (so it says) on the value of individual liberty, so many of you seem all too happy to take that away from those you see as "not quite up to snuff."

The Constitution doesn't say "all men are created equal so long as they have enough money." If you think that individual liberty is an important aspect of what America stands for, why assume that means "only for those who can afford it?"

Does individual liberty include unlimited access to free stuff?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Does individual liberty include unlimited access to free stuff?

Where did I imply anything of the kind? I think you want to consider whether, sometimes, you wish to be "charitable" to those in need, or a disapproving and controlling parent, as if you somehow are entitled to run their lives.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, help me out here -- I don't think I quite understand what you mean by UUBI.

I've already forgotten what clever word the 1st "U" was.
Universal Basic income.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The GOP really just hates people. That's their whole platform, now. "F THE PEOPLE!" seems to be their motto. They openly want to end social security, welfare, public assistance, Medicaid, ... anything that keeps people alive in a world that's choking to death from greed, and they want it stopped.

Let the scum work for slave wages or die in the streets! That's the theme of these new econo-fascists.

No. They want people to come off these parasitic programs. Pro independence with confident healthy people capable of taking care of themselves.

It helps economically and socially when self sufficiency out grows the welfare state.

Welfare is intended to be a help in hard times. Not a means of living for generations of families on the take.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Where did I imply anything of the kind? I think you want to consider whether, sometimes, you wish to be "charitable" to those in need, or a disapproving and controlling parent, as if you somehow are entitled to run their lives.

Lol, it's free stuff we are talking about here. Restrictions aren't running thier lives, it's applying common sense rules like we should with literally every product, so that we don't waste resources.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I've already forgotten what clever word the 1st "U" was.
Universal Basic income.

Okay. We had some small experiment with that in Canada, and I believe I read something about such trials elsewhere. I confess, I haven't followed up on those, and don't know what the results have been (or how those results may have been evaluated).

My own thought is this: most people really do want to get ahead, to do better, to provide more for their families. That is why I am a strong believer in capitalism -- entrepreneurs of every sort add wealth not just to themselves but to the economy overall. Capitalism is the only economic system, in my view (as a very poor economist) that creates wealth.

With a UBI, I think that would still be true -- if the the UBI provided "just enough" to make ends meet. Most people would still be willing to put in the effort to strive for more. Hell, I'm 75, and can afford to retire, yet I still work 5 days a week, because I'm trying to make sure my partner, 13 years my junior and handicapped, has enough to live his whole life in dignity.

And some would not. That's unfortunate, but I think the overall model makes that, if not optimal, at least affordable.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Lol, it's free stuff we are talking about here. Restrictions aren't running thier lives, it's applying common sense rules like we should with literally every product, so that we don't waste resources.

If you suppose that all resources can be used with 100% efficiency, you've forgotten the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[fantome profane]

I've already forgotten what clever word the 1st "U" was.
Universal Basic income.

Unicorn. Don’t ask why, you wouldn’t understand.