Black Hair Media Forum Homepage
BHM BHM BHM
Summer Hair Takeover Specials
Forum Home Forum Home > Lets Talk > Talk, Talk, and More Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - House Votes to Cut Food Stamps by 4 Billion
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login
Perfect Hair Collection
 

House Votes to Cut Food Stamps by 4 Billion

 
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 13>




The Best Human Hair Available with No Service Match

Author
 Rating: Topic Rating: 5 Votes, Average 3.40  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
petiteone29 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Jan 02 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 40571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote petiteone29 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:06pm
I didnt realize awakengod was HIM. That explains alot now.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
maysay1 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Jul 02 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 90108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote maysay1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:18pm
Originally posted by petiteone29 petiteone29 wrote:

Hmmm... Im still not understanding how cutting out certain foods will save money. If someone gets 300 in stamps and spends 50 of that on "luxury" foods and then they are told that those foods are no longer eligible, they would most likely still need and spend the 50 on healthier food. So in the end the same 300 gets spent.

It's about getting more meals for the same amount of money. I'd rather that $50 be spent on potatoes, frozen veggies, and eggs rather than soda and honey buns. Most people aren't (and can't) sustain themselves on honey buns and coke, but they can get several meals out of some potatoes sauteed with frozen veggies.

Originally posted by petiteone29 petiteone29 wrote:

I guess what im saying is how would we determine how much healthy food is enough to feed a family?I don't think the government is adding extra stamps in the original amount to cover the cost of junk food. They give them that amount based on income and family size. Also would the funds be distributed in the form of vouchers or something like WIC with specific items and amounts listed?





We'd determine it the same way we determine the standards for WIC, school breakfasts and lunches, hospital menus, prisoner menus and the like. We already know what/how much humans need to meet bare minimums.




Edited by maysay1 - Sep 20 2013 at 2:19pm
Back to Top
Naturalchick30 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Apr 16 2012
Location: Somewhere
Status: Offline
Points: 70840
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Naturalchick30 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:19pm
Originally posted by CherryBlossom CherryBlossom wrote:

Originally posted by mizzsandra00 mizzsandra00 wrote:

That brotha is broke......from that painting in the background to that off brand polo to that turrible lining.....talking about investing.....you aint even token nicca material.......to the seat you go.




Back to Top
Random Thoughts View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Aug 10 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 119379
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Random Thoughts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:21pm
Originally posted by petiteone29 petiteone29 wrote:

Hmmm... Im still not understanding how cutting out certain foods will save money. If someone gets 300 in stamps and spends 50 of that on "luxury" foods and then they are told that those foods are no longer eligible, they would most likely still need and spend the 50 on healthier food. So in the end the same 300 gets spent. 

I guess what im saying is how would we determine how much healthy food is enough to feed a family?I don't think the government is adding extra stamps in the original amount to cover the cost of junk food. They give them that amount based on income and family size. Also would the funds be distributed in the form of vouchers or something like WIC with specific items and amounts listed?





(Correct me if I'm wrong but) I believe she is saying that by eliminating certain items, then a family is forced to buy more actual food, which lessens their hunger. So in your example, instead of them getting $300, they would get $250, but by them not being allowed to buy "junk", they'll still be getting the value of food that they were spending with $300. This does assume that junk was being purchased though.


Edited by Random Thoughts - Sep 20 2013 at 2:22pm
Back to Top
AwesomeAries View Drop Down
VIP Member
VIP Member
Avatar

Joined: Aug 25 2012
Status: Online
Points: 76750
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote AwesomeAries Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:22pm
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

Yeah, I made a few songs, but this is getting irritating, people need to take, because nothing is freely given. You need to manipulate, The Prince  by Machavelli opened my eyes and made me more successful.




You sound crazy as hell
Back to Top
maysay1 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Jul 02 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 90108
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote maysay1 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:26pm
Originally posted by Random Thoughts Random Thoughts wrote:



I get your point. Was just curious which foods/snacks counted as "extra".

I guess my main rub is the system of punishing the poor for national debt, and the implication that poor people's behavior should controlled to the point of eliminating pleasure,  i.e a kid getting some apple juice/chocolate milk at snack time, or an elderly woman on a fixed income buying some butter peacan ice cream every once in awhile.

Restricting cheap koolaid packages or dessert doesn't necessarily translate to another meal for the people that aren't necessarily health conscious to begin with. I can understand the comparison to WIC to an extent, but think there are enough differences (food budget for a baby vs food budget for an entire family, ranging from child to senior) that separate the two issues.

I just don't think food programs is where budget issues start. Just seems like more tacked on war on the poor initiatives.

Fair points all around though.



I actually agree with all of this, especially the bold, on a philosophical level. But philosophy and finances are two different things.

The more radical view would be to get rid of SNAP in its current incarnation and just provide meals that are paid for by the government (like school breakfast and lunch, but for everyone)...like a combination food bank/soup kitchen/cafeteria. We could certainly do that in a much cheaper way. But folks would be up in arms talking about how it's all kinds of wrong and inhumane to do such a thing.

It's not going to happen, but I think it's a valid solution that should be considered.
Back to Top
yurika975 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Mar 08 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 26583
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (6) Thanks(6)   Quote yurika975 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:30pm
This is crazy. The biggest lie regarding these programs is that people automatically picture a black woman as the epitome of Welfare. When in actuality the truth is much paler. And much richer. Corporate welfare is the reality but people focus and scream about these stamps. I think more programs in schools on teaching how to cook and eat for health. Also having community gardens is a winner. My grandmother grew most everything to feed herself, husband and nine kids.
Back to Top
petiteone29 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Jan 02 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 40571
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote petiteone29 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 3:27pm
Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Originally posted by petiteone29 petiteone29 wrote:

Hmmm... Im still not understanding how cutting out certain foods will save money. If someone gets 300 in stamps and spends 50 of that on "luxury" foods and then they are told that those foods are no longer eligible, they would most likely still need and spend the 50 on healthier food. So in the end the same 300 gets spent.

It's about getting more meals for the same amount of money. I'd rather that $50 be spent on potatoes, frozen veggies, and eggs rather than soda and honey buns. Most people aren't (and can't) sustain themselves on honey buns and coke, but they can get several meals out of some potatoes sauteed with frozen veggies.

Originally posted by petiteone29 petiteone29 wrote:

I guess what im saying is how would we determine how much healthy food is enough to feed a family?I don't think the government is adding extra stamps in the original amount to cover the cost of junk food. They give them that amount based on income and family size. Also would the funds be distributed in the form of vouchers or something like WIC with specific items and amounts listed?





We'd determine it the same way we determine the standards for WIC, school breakfasts and lunches, hospital menus, prisoner menus and the like. We already know what/how much humans need to meet bare minimums.




ok I get what you are saying. I just think that trying to control what people eat isnt fair. It would be ideal if people spent the stamps wisely though. I see people misusing their TANF benefits all the time. Buying weave at the beauty supply store, cigs,beer, club outfits at rainbow etc instead of buying pampers and paying their rent. To me that is more of a concern. Atleast the person buying some steak and ice cream with their stamps is eating which is what stamps are meant for. 
Back to Top
kfoxx1998 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Jul 06 2008
Status: Online
Points: 115298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (14) Thanks(14)   Quote kfoxx1998 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 3:36pm
Originally posted by Random Thoughts Random Thoughts wrote:


I get your point. Was just curious which foods/snacks counted as "extra".

I guess my main rub is the system of punishing the poor for national debt, and the implication that poor people's behavior should controlled to the point of eliminating pleasure,  i.e a kid getting some apple juice/chocolate milk at snack time, or an elderly woman on a fixed income buying some butter peacan ice cream every once in awhile.

Restricting cheap koolaid packages or dessert doesn't necessarily translate to another meal for the people that aren't necessarily health conscious to begin with. I can understand the comparison to WIC to an extent, but think there are enough differences (food budget for a baby vs food budget for an entire family, ranging from child to senior) that separate the two issues.

I just don't think food programs is where budget issues start. Just seems like more tacked on war on the poor initiatives.

Fair points all around though.



Ima just go on and say it sounds Orwellian.   I'm no more ready to have republicans dictate food choices than I am vaginas.  This idea is literally dangerous in the hands of the wrong people.  Treating niccas like children again.  Like they decided what to feed the slaves and the slaves had to make a meal out of it, hence chittlins and the like.

The tiny bit of taxpayer dollars that are spent on kool-aid and sugar (a very, very cheap drink mind you) is minuscule in comparison to corporate welfare.  This whole thing is completely ridiculous. 




Edited by kfoxx1998 - Sep 20 2013 at 3:38pm
Back to Top
kfoxx1998 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member
Avatar

Joined: Jul 06 2008
Status: Online
Points: 115298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote kfoxx1998 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 3:37pm
Originally posted by SamoneLenior SamoneLenior wrote:


what about sushi?



Bless you for cracking me the hell up in this pitiful ass thread LOLCryLOL


Back to Top
Get Longer Healthier Faster Growing Hair
House of CB London
Get Healthier Stronger Longer Hair
The Elite Hair Care Sorority
Electric Cherry Hair
Hair Extensions Wefted Hair Wigs and More
Human Hair Wigs
Wefting Training
FAB Hair Premium Hair Extensions
Dependable Quality Hair
Switch Up your Look with a protective Style
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 7891011 13>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down