"Mommy, I am tired of eating chicken and rice all the time. Could we get steak and lobster for just once?"
I didn't say it was from working. It doesn't matter whether it's from working or not. The food stamps are his and he can do what he wants with with them. I just find it odd for supposed conservatives to want to intervene in how this guy spends his own food stamps. He qualified for them, and received them. That should be the end of it for those that value personal freedom and responsibility. For those that favor regulation and restriction then I understand why they might want to have an authority tell this man he can't buy lobster and steak.
It isn't dishonest to buy lobster and steaks on food stamps. We don't know what kind of budgeting this guy has done. It's up to him. If he misses other meals because of this purchase that's too bad. He might. If not, then good for him being able to budget it that way. The bottom line is he qualified for food stamps and spent them. How he spent them may end up being bad for him, but it doesn't hurt anyone else. The thing about freedom and giving people responsibility is that nobody gets to tell them how to manage their own affairs unless they endanger others. The bottom line is that you aren't hurt by a guy buying lobster and steak with food stamps. Your family is OK and not endangered. Yet you get all upset and want to tell somebody else what they can and can't do. I just don't understand, and it goes against my idea of liberty. I guess we just disagree.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poor-people/ "White people spend a lot of time of worrying about poor people. It takes up a pretty significant portion of their day."
The general idea is that if you're able to buy steak and lobster on food stamps, yet not starve, then you probably don't need the food stamps in the first place. And, as somebody else so plainly put it earlier... I have zero problem with people wanting to put stipulations on how their tax money is spent.
I think there is a difference in complaining about how tax dollars are spent, and having the govt. oversee a person's budget. If you don't want tax dollars to go to food stamps, then argue that case. But once they go to food stamps, what those stamps are spent on isn't really anyone's business. It's up to the food stamp client to oversee their own budget. How they do that should be up to them. I don't like my tax dollars funding some of the military missions overseas. I think the money used to buy plenty of needless weapons systems which cost more than this guy's steak and lobsters are a waist. I can vote for people who want to cut defense spending, but unless there is fraudulent waste I don't really have a right to argue with them on every specific of how each dollar is spent. It just strikes me as odd how upset people are about not being able to micromanage some stranger's budget when they aren't hurt by what he's done.
i agree. but i think the majority of people that have a problem with this is because we have no way to dictate how our money is allocated other than for voting in frugal representatives. Even then you need to amass a majority of them. I think the real problem is the people on the dole cry so loud when you slap them off the nipple that the country wont change until the system implodes.
How does someone forfeit their ability/right to request how their taxes are spent once it passes into the hands of someone/something else? The military is a good example; a lot of my taxes go to the military, but I can still ask that the military not use those resources on things I disagree with. And if the military continually wastes my money, I can elect people who will fix that. Same with food stamps, I can vote for people who can change the food stamp program to suit what I feel is appropriate. There is nothing wrong with that. You have every right to argue how your money is spent, down to the last dime.
My problem is that they spent 1/5 of their food stamps on ONE MEAL. What are they going to do for the other 60 meals? Between a family of five, they will have to eat dirt poor for the rest of the month, and if they spent 1/5 of it on one meal, I'm betting the rest of it won't last them. This family has no financial responsibility, and I feel that is a problem with many of the poor. This is a prime example of that. That's why this family buying $140 worth of luxury meal items is deplorable. Until they gain some sense of financial responsibility, they will continue to milk and abuse the system. Giving money to the poor won't solve their problems. Teaching them how to not be poor will.
Silly Donut. You should read between the lines here. This person isn't buying the premium meats for themselves, they're buying them as barter for crack/meth. Duh.
Government assistance should cover cable tv with HD and all movie channels package, most expensive cell phone on market + data plan, high end electronics, jewelry, gambling and guns for life. You tax payers are so selfish -probably racist too.
Agreed. Agreed. For example, I would also limit what foods folks can buy with the Lone Star Card here in TX. I see people buying the most irresponsible crap with that card.
But they aren't complaining about how their taxes are spent. They are complaining about how this guy budgets his food stamps. It's different to say too much tax money goes to food stamps, or not enough goes to food stamps, than to say once you get food stamps you aren't allowed to spend them any way the regulations require.
I am. And I assume most other people are, too. How this guy budgets his food stamps determines how our taxes are spent.
I agree it seems like poor budgeting on the guys part. It seems like a bad decision. I didn't mean to say that he did a great thing buying steak and lobsters. It's just I think that's his business, and not something I need to be upset about. I would also love to see some kind of training go to this family on how to budget their money. But the bottom line is that ultimately it's his decision on how to spend the money. If he does it foolishly, then so be it.
It's not his money, so it's not his business. He can decide how he wants to spend it within the parameters we set for him. If he wants free reign over his budget, he can spend his own money.
It's micromanaging. The taxes are spent on food stamps. The food stamp expenditure are spent however the client wishes. He can use them wisely and thriftily or foolishly. Either way the same tax dollars are spent. The tax dollars are spent on the food stamps which are neutral. What the individual does is up to the individual. Would it be better to just buy the guy's groceries for him so someone else could choose what he eats?
But he is spending it within the parameters. He is allotted a certain amount of money. How he spends that money is up to him.
Not really, setting aside certain food items/classifications which qualify for purchase under food stamps isn't some huge nit-picky undertaking requiring a lot of oversight. Hell, we already do that with this program by not letting people buy alcohol, cigarettes, etc. This is the huge disconnect you're having. It's your money. It doesn't magically stop being your money once it turns into food stamps, or bullets, or anything else. If I don't want my money being spent foolishly, then I have the right to demand that it not be, and if I were you, I'd demand that your money not be wasted as well. Red herring alert.
That's the whole point of this thread, to illustrate that the system/parameters should be changed. And people have every right to demand that change when it is their money. I don't know why you seem to think that people don't have a right to cast a vote on how their tax money is alloted/spent, be it by the military, or by food stamp freddy.
