Print Page | Close Window

House Votes to Cut Food Stamps by 4 Billion

Printed From: Black Hair Media Forum
Category: Lets Talk
Forum Name: Talk, Talk, and More Talk
Forum Description: In this Forum, the talk is about everything that can be talked about.
URL: http://Forum.BlackHairMedia.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=364529
Printed Date: Oct 23 2018 at 7:44pm


Topic: House Votes to Cut Food Stamps by 4 Billion
Posted By: blaquefoxx
Subject: House Votes to Cut Food Stamps by 4 Billion
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 9:25am

House votes to cut $4 billion a year from food stamps

A social worker with the Cooperative Feeding Program displays a Federal food stamps card that is used to purchase food, Feb. 10, 2011 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

A social worker with the Cooperative Feeding Program displays a Federal food stamps card that is used to purchase food, Feb. 10, 2011 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. / Joe Raedle/Getty Images


The House has voted to cut nearly $4 billion a year from food stamps, a 5 percent reduction to the nation's main feeding program used by more than 1 in 7 Americans.

The 217-210 vote was a win for conservatives after Democrats united in opposition and some GOP moderates said the cut was too high.

The bill's savings would be achieved by allowing states to put broad new work requirements in place for many food stamp recipients and to test applicants for drugs. The bill also would end government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults without dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely.

  • http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603571/house-republicans-pushing-for-major-food-stamp-cuts/" rel="nofollow - House Republicans pushing for major food stamp cuts

The major cuts were designed to satisfy House conservatives who rejected more moderate reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) earlier this year, but with millions of Americans still struggling to recover from the recession, Democrats balked at the GOP bill.

The bill will likely never see the light of day in the Democratic-led Senate, but even if it somehow made it through the Senate, President Obama has promised to veto the legislation.

"These cuts would affect a broad array of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, including working families with children, senior citizens, veterans, and adults who are still looking for work," the White House said in a statement on the bill.

The cost of SNAP has more than doubled since 2008, coming to nearly $78 billion last year. In 2007, the percentage of American households that lacked sufficient access to food stood at 11.1 percent, but it increased to 14.6 percent in 2008 as the recession hit. That figure has remained virtually unchanged since then, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in September, with 14.5 percent of households that were "food insecure" in 2012.

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



Replies:
Posted By: AwesomeAries
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 9:32am
Didn't read but the poor always suffer first
America always does this sheit


Posted By: AwesomeAries
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 9:33am
I hope this doesn't affect seniors


Posted By: Naturalchick30
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 9:35am
This won't end well...


Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 9:41am
Yes, lets cut food stamps when many households are receiving them due to the current employment environment that has employers hiring people for PT work to save $$. Great thinking congress.

And what are single mothers/parents supposed to do with their children while they volunteer in the community in order to keep their food stamps? Childcare is expensive.

Man I wish the poor had fancy lobbyist to lobby for them like big business...


Posted By: QueenBee
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 9:43am
Originally posted by AwesomeAries AwesomeAries wrote:

I hope this doesn't affect seniors
 
Sad...my mom's elderly neighbor (grandma's friend "Ms. Jean"  gets $88 each month.  It was recently reduced to $76.  My mom ends up sending her plates by my grannie after she cooks.  My mom was clowning "Ms. Jean" granddaughter has 5 kids.  On SNAP/WIC benefits and has NEVER bought her grandmother groceries.  Really,  you can't make your grandmother $100 worth of groceries. 
 


Posted By: AshBash89
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 9:47am
I don't see this bill getting past the Senate. 


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:02am
This is great news, now they can finally go to work and actually "spend" hard earned cash on food.
 


Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:03am
I can't wait for President obama to use his veto power. I saw the congress lady below video yesterday . Clap Most of the people using stamps or white or non blacks  . I know a Arabic family that owns the local Shell gas station .

Congresswoman Uses Steak, Vodka, And Caviar To Hammer Republicans On Food Stamp Cuts

“They received almost $200 for a single meal only for themselves. Yet, for them the idea of helping fellow Americans spend less than $5 a day makes their skin crawl.” posted on

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski" rel="nofollow">
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski" rel="nofollow - Andrew Kaczynski BuzzFeed Staff posted
http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/democratic-congresswoman-uses-steak-vodka-and-caviar-to-hamm&t=Congresswoman%20Uses%20Steak,%20Vodka,%20And%20Caviar%20To%20Hammer%20Republicans%20On%20Food%20Stamp%20Cuts" rel="nofollow -
-  
-
http://twitter.com/share" rel="nofollow - t
javascript:;" rel="nofollow -
-
-  
javascript:;" rel="nofollow -
-
- Congresswoman Uses Steak, Vodka, And Cavia...
 
http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/democratic-congresswoman-uses-steak-vodka-and-caviar-to-hamm&t=Congresswoman%20Uses%20Steak,%20Vodka,%20And%20Caviar%20To%20Hammer%20Republicans%20On%20Food%20Stamp%20Cuts" rel="nofollow -  
-  

Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier decided to make an unconventional pitch on the House of Representatives floor Thursday to defend food stamps. Speier used a cooked steak, a bottle of vodka, and a can of caviar to point out members of Congress who had large numbers of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients in their districts but opposed the program. The congresswoman pointed out many of the same members of Congress took trips around the world with large stipends for food and lodging.

“In my district, California 14, we have about 4,000 families who are on food stamps, but some of my colleagues have thousands and thousands more,” Rep. Speier said. “Yet, they somehow feel like crusaders, like heroes when they vote to cut food stamps. Some of these same members travel to foreign countries under the guise of official business. They dine at lavish restaurants, eating steak, vodka and even caviar. They receive money to do this. That’s right, they don’t pay out of pocket for these meals.”

Speier went on, using particular examples of members of Congress who went on sponsored trips and spent large amounts of money on food and lodging.

“Let me give you a few examples: One member was given $127.41 a day for food on his trip to Argentina. He probably had a fair amount of steak,” she said.

“Another member was given $3,588 for food and lodging during a six-day trip to Russia. He probably drank a fair amount of vodka and probably even had some caviar. That particular member has 21,000 food stamp recipients in his district. One of those people who is on food stamps could live a year on what this congressman spent on food and lodging for six days,” she added.

“Another 20 members made a trip to Dublin, Ireland. They got $166 a day for food. These members didn’t pay a dime. They received almost $200 for a single meal only for themselves. Yet, for them the idea of helping fellow Americans spend less than $5 a day makes their skin crawl. The families of veterans, of farmers, of the disabled, of the working poor are not visible to them, not even when they are their own constituents.”

In a previous article, BuzzFeed http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/these-republicans-who-want-to-limit-food-stamps-represent-a" rel="nofollow - pointed out many of the Republican members of Congress leading the charge to limit the food stamp program represented large numbers of food stamp recipients.

A quick BuzzFeed search found that the member of Congress who took the trip to Argentina who spent $127 was Rep. Frank Lucas of Oklahoma and the trip was http://clerk.house.gov/GTImages/MT/2012/500008514.pdf" rel="nofollow - sponsored by the Franklin Center for Global Policy Exchange. The member of Congress who http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130917/OPINION01/309170047/?odyssey=nav%7Chead&nclick_check=1" rel="nofollow - took the trip to Russia was Rep. Steve King of Iowa. The 20 members of Congress who went to Dublin http://blogs.rollcall.com/moneyline/members-of-congress-fly-away-free-to-dublin-on-372k-744k-trip/" rel="nofollow - can be found here. The trip, sponsored by the Franklin Center for Global Policy Exchange, had an estimated budget of $450,000 to $750,000 according to Roll Call.



Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:07am
That article India!Heart


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:08am
They went to college and became represenatitives, ain't no shame in their game, they put in the hard work, but the others nah, they ain't dig in to get luxuries like that.


Posted By: Naturalchick30
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:18am
Plenty of people work while receiving benefits..


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:19am
Originally posted by Naturalchick30 Naturalchick30 wrote:

Plenty of people work while receiving benefits..
 
They better be going to school and getting training for better jobs.


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:25am
Of course the cuts are made against the poor and children instead of raising taxes against the rich, the sugar industry or even the tobacco industry.

Attack those without power who can't fight you. Thumbs Down


Posted By: HaitianDiva64
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:29am
Awaken you sound dumb as hell


Posted By: GoodGirlGoneGr8
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:30am
This is sad.

When I got laid off last year, I went to DSS and applied for food stamps. I was awarded $150 upfront (emergency food stamps) and $14 every month for 6 months.

My monthly expenses exceeded what I was bringing home in unemployment, and I still didn't qualify for crap.

I think seniors and singles will suffer the most.

"Middle-class", childless individuals end up getting the shorter end of the stick when things like this are done...


Posted By: HaitianDiva64
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:31am
I bet you everything I have all the rich jewish families of foodstamps/welfare their monies will stay untouched


Posted By: Prazol60
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:31am
Don't fret, he'll be rejoining us down in TTT Jr soon.


Posted By: blaquefoxx
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:33am
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

This is great news, now they can finally go to work and actually "spend" hard earned cash on food.
 

You're a fuccin idiot


Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:35am
Speaking of insanity, watching house rethugs (and 1 democrat) celebrating at a klan rally after voting to defund Obamacare...even though the bill won't pass in the senate and Obamacare will still be law.LOL


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:46am
Originally posted by HaitianDiva64 HaitianDiva64 wrote:

I bet you everything I have all the rich jewish families of foodstamps/welfare their monies will stay untouched


and white.  Black people on the other hand will have to pass a test and pay a 'food stamp tax' or some sh*t to keep benefits.

Fortunately this is a waste of time until they take over the Senate.  Unfortunately, that may be coming soon.


Posted By: GoodGirlGoneGr8
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:47am
Something just doesn't sit right with me when I hear stories about the President celebrating his birthday hosting a $40K per plate dinner party when people in this country can't afford food...


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:47am
We are going to pay taxes however I prefer to subsidize food programs for the needy than to fund self given raises to gov officials. 
I really want to support our government but I can't get behind this, food prices are so high and many people are out of work or working part time. 
There seems to be no love for the working poor who are trying to make ends meet.


Posted By: BrownQtee
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:50am
Originally posted by GoodGirlGoneGr8 GoodGirlGoneGr8 wrote:

Something just doesn't sit right with me when I hear stories about the President celebrating his birthday hosting a $40K per plate dinner party when people in this country can't afford food...
 
An absolute shame. The distribution of wealth in this country is absolutely insane.


Posted By: .hott.pink.
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 10:54am
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

This is great news, now they can finally go to work and actually "spend" hard earned cash on food.
 

Trolling or nah?


Posted By: Naturalchick30
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:01am
Originally posted by GoodGirlGoneGr8 GoodGirlGoneGr8 wrote:

Something just doesn't sit right with me when I hear stories about the President celebrating his birthday hosting a $40K per plate dinner party when people in this country can't afford food...


Gurrrll...


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:02am
Originally posted by blaquefoxx blaquefoxx wrote:

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

This is great news, now they can finally go to work and actually "spend" hard earned cash on food.
 

You're a fuccin idiot
 
Explain why? We don't live in a sociolist nation, we live in a capitalistic country. Now, get that in your thick hard headed head.


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:04am
Originally posted by .hott.pink. .hott.pink. wrote:

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

This is great news, now they can finally go to work and actually "spend" hard earned cash on food.
 

Trolling or nah?
 
No, why this is really good. Maybe this will force people to create businesses or go to higher education.


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:05am


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:08am
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:



Perfect.  I am now 100% positive that you are a dumb ass.


Posted By: HaitianDiva64
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:09am
Lord have mercy. Are you reading what you are typing?


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:13am
Yes, I'm reading what I'm typing and this is great news. Now if we can get the military budget down and my taxes down it's all peachy.


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:15am
But you ladies can call me outta of my name all you want, but that just shows what kind of character you possess.


Posted By: HaitianDiva64
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:20am
Why should black ppl be shamed into using public assitance when EVERY other race uses it as well. Ppl act like poor blacks WANT public assistance. No one wants to need that shat. But when rent, food, education is doubling every year while pay rates stay the same... uncle sam better pay up.

The poverty rate in ny went from 17percent to around 22 In about 5 years


Posted By: HaitianDiva64
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:24am
And how are ppl opening their own businesses or seeking higher education when they can't even afford food or shelter?   I


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:24am
Originally posted by HaitianDiva64 HaitianDiva64 wrote:

Why should black ppl be shamed into using public assitance when EVERY other race uses it as well. Ppl act like poor blacks WANT public assistance. No one wants to need that shat. But when rent, food, education is doubling every year while pay rates stay the same... uncle sam better pay up.

The poverty rate in ny went from 17percent to around 22 In about 5 years
 
Well, we live in a world where it's dog eat dog, so you better eat that other dog first before you get devoured. Satanism 101.


Posted By: HaitianDiva64
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:26am
K


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:29am
Originally posted by HaitianDiva64 HaitianDiva64 wrote:

And how are ppl opening their own businesses or seeking higher education when they can't even afford food or shelter?   I
 
Education is first free and there are grants, and scholarships and plus the military. I did it, so you can do it as well and I grew up in lower middle class and went to school with guys who were buying 200 dollar jordans, newest clothes, while I would wear kswisses for like 25 dollars and I went to school and got my education and read outside of class while they were busy having sex, selling dope, drinking, coming to class high, not caring about nothing. But I struggled and I made it!!!
 


Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:41am
Originally posted by GoodGirlGoneGr8 GoodGirlGoneGr8 wrote:

Something just doesn't sit right with me when I hear stories about the President celebrating his birthday hosting a $40K per plate dinner party when people in this country can't afford food...
Are you talking about the fundraiser dinner birthday party during the second term for election ? President obama was fighting Romney rich evil .
 
The bash, advertised in campaign emails sent out in http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Michelle+Obama" rel="nofollow - Michelle Obama ’s name comes as the President desperately tries to keep up with http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Mitt+Romney" rel="nofollow - Mitt Romney ’s fundraising. The challenger has topped the incumbent’s efforts the last two months



Posted By: **Sk!TtLeS B**
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:49am
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

[/QUOTE]

Why do you keep coming back to BHM? Nobody likes you. You're an insufferable dumbass who needs to reevaluate his personality flaws and/or disorders before attempting to interact with people. Seek help, and leave us the alone. 


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:59am
Originally posted by **Sk!TtLeS B** **Sk!TtLeS B** wrote:

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:


Why do you keep coming back to BHM? Nobody likes you. You're an insufferable dumbass who needs to reevaluate his personality flaws and/or disorders before attempting to interact with people. Seek help, and leave us the alone. 
 
There are a few that like me on this forum. So I don't know why you are tripping, just simply scroll pass my posts if they bother you so much. Sleepy
 
I have no personality flaws nor disorders so get in line on the haters bus.


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 11:59am
TROLLING TO BECOME RELEVANT!! 


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:01pm
I already said my piece, I'm done with this topic.
 
 
 
 
 
Can't say one got dayuum opinion and rile up everyone.


Posted By: **Sk!TtLeS B**
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:11pm
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

Originally posted by **Sk!TtLeS B** **Sk!TtLeS B** wrote:

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:


Why do you keep coming back to BHM? Nobody likes you. You're an insufferable dumbass who needs to reevaluate his personality flaws and/or disorders before attempting to interact with people. Seek help, and leave us the alone. 
 
There are a few that like me on this forum. So I don't know why you are tripping, just simply scroll pass my posts if they bother you so much. Sleepy
 
I have no personality flaws nor disorders so get in line on the haters bus.

to the first bolded: I highly doubt that. You have no redeeming qualities. 

to the second bolded: So that's why you make several usernames a year for a forum that keeps banning you? One of which was you impersonating woman? Okay.


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:17pm
Originally posted by **Sk!TtLeS B** **Sk!TtLeS B** wrote:

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

Originally posted by **Sk!TtLeS B** **Sk!TtLeS B** wrote:

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:


Why do you keep coming back to BHM? Nobody likes you. You're an insufferable dumbass who needs to reevaluate his personality flaws and/or disorders before attempting to interact with people. Seek help, and leave us the alone. 
 
There are a few that like me on this forum. So I don't know why you are tripping, just simply scroll pass my posts if they bother you so much. Sleepy
 
I have no personality flaws nor disorders so get in line on the haters bus.

to the first bolded: I highly doubt that. You have no redeeming qualities. 

to the second bolded: So that's why you make several usernames a year for a forum that keeps banning you? One of which was you impersonating woman? Okay.
 
BBpants for one.
 
How is that a personality flaw or disorder? I was having fun with that account.  Please explain...
 


Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:18pm

Racist white folk love to troll BHM .



Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:21pm

Me

 


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:25pm
I respect the opinions of others even when I can't agree with them however I'm never down for ridiculing those less fortunate. 
Many educated people who have fallen on hard times due to the present state of our economy have had to turn to food stamps. I'm not independently rich and have paid into this system for years so if I should ever need assistance, it should be available to me with ridicule from uncaring fools.

Many people who think they're doing good maybe only a pay check away from disaster.


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:28pm
Originally posted by Katrenia Katrenia wrote:

I respect the opinions of others even when I can't agree with them however I'm never down for ridiculing those less fortunate. 
Many educated people who have fallen on hard times due to the present state of our economy have had to turn to food stamps. I'm not independently rich and have paid into this system for years so if I should ever need assistance, it should be available to me with ridicule from uncaring fools.

Many people who think their doing good maybe only a pay check away from disaster.
 
Too fcukin bad, you take it, not hope for it. You have to be ruthless in this world and unforgiving and cruel. Why do you think the wealthy live so good, it's because they are wolves, not sheep. So you better take it today and quit being someone's lap dog. I rather be a demon than a angel any day.


Posted By: india100
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:29pm
Shocked What the heck happen to make you come back with such disgust at your own people and all this talk about being a god ? I recall thanking you for your military service and respect for black women under one of your names if i have the correct person . You made a few love songs for members right ?


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:31pm

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.



Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:32pm
Tax payers recently paid for government bail outs (welfare for the rich), the new racism is determined by economics.


Posted By: TheAwakenGod
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:36pm
Then we better start controlling economics, invest!! Blacks spending money is over 1 trillion, so we should be investing and using that capital that we gain to invest in businesses, a family can hustle for a few years working together side by side and have a come up with a business and work with people outside the united states.
 
I got contacts in Japan I'm about to use to do a import and export business. I want to be wealthy and do what I want and take what I want.


Posted By: GoldieLocks
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:36pm
The cuts are extreme, but I do believe they should act on who should be the ones receiving the benefits. The mandated drug test and work requirements (setting aside the special circumstances some may fall into) would help to decrease the amount of individuals who are abusing the system.

Some people do direly need these benefits, but we have to find some way to weed out the people who are just trifling and parasitic to our society.


Posted By: mommykat
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:37pm
Originally posted by AwesomeAries AwesomeAries wrote:

I hope this doesn't affect seniors


This all day...
I cant with this administration...


Posted By: Katrenia
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:40pm
Originally posted by GoldieLocks GoldieLocks wrote:

The cuts are extreme, but I do believe they should in act on who should be the ones receiving them. The mandated drug test and work requirements would help to decrease the amount of individuals who are abusing the system.

Some people do direly need these benefits, but we have to find some way to weed out the people who are just trifling and parasitic to our society.

I agree 100%
Many scams in this system, internal scammers also. Social workers were caught selling activated food stamp cards.


Posted By: mommykat
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:42pm
Did he make the Band yet?

It was nice when it was all females...


Posted By: petiteone29
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:44pm
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

This is great news, now they can finally go to work and actually "spend" hard earned cash on food.
 



You sound very ignorant . I'm sure you got someone in your family on foodstamps. An elderly relative or someone who needs it. Everyone on foodstamps isn't lazy. Im not sure if you have a degree and a good career or not but don't put your faith in that. Here today gone tomorrow. You can become someone who needs government assistance too. And honestly I hope your words come back and bite you in your butt. 


Posted By: petiteone29
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:51pm
[QUOTE=GoodGirlGoneGr8]Something just doesn't sit right with me when I hear stories about the President celebrating his birthday hosting a $40K per plate dinner party when people in this country can't afford food...[/QUOT



 Obama ain't no better than any other presidents. He just black. I don't trust none of them.


Posted By: nitabug
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 12:51pm
Originally posted by HaitianDiva64 HaitianDiva64 wrote:

Awaken you sound dumb as hell
he likes the attention. Miley Cyrus syndrome...by any means necessary


Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:02pm
Meh, cutting $4 billion doesn't bother me. We could increase the $ available for recipients without increasing the budget if we made some items ineligible for purchase (like juice/soda/non-water drinks and prepared/packaged desserts).


Posted By: petiteone29
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

Yes, I'm reading what I'm typing and this is great news. Now if we can get the military budget down and my taxes down it's all peachy.


There goes that every man for himself mentality. Let them other niccas suffer as long as you get to keep your lil pocket change. I gotcha.Clap


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:07pm
Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

Originally posted by Katrenia Katrenia wrote:

I respect the opinions of others even when I can't agree with them however I'm never down for ridiculing those less fortunate. 
Many educated people who have fallen on hard times due to the present state of our economy have had to turn to food stamps. I'm not independently rich and have paid into this system for years so if I should ever need assistance, it should be available to me with ridicule from uncaring fools.

Many people who think their doing good maybe only a pay check away from disaster.
 
Too fcukin bad, you take it, not hope for it. You have to be ruthless in this world and unforgiving and cruel. Why do you think the wealthy live so good, it's because they are wolves, not sheep. So you better take it today and quit being someone's lap dog. I rather be a demon than a angel any day.


Not only are you a dumb ass, you're a fake and a phony.  When we talked about yt ppl were a sheep who wanted peace and love and to return to the land of kemet.  Now that your dumb ass thinks eliminating food stamps is going to hurt black folks you're a wolf and everybody needs to be ruthless and let capitalism reign supreme.  Yup, a wolf in sheep's clothing.   And you're confused about being called a coon huh?

I am so anti-ban but you sir can GTFO.  Figure out who the fck you are and try again.  Good day sir!LOL


Posted By: EasterBell
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:16pm
So, out of all the bickering with Awaken.. No one posted the "I'm a coon" gif that features him.. I know one you has it..LOL


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:21pm
Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Meh, cutting $4 billion doesn't bother me. We could increase the $ available for recipients without increasing the budget if we made some items ineligible for purchase (like juice/soda/non-water drinks and prepared/packaged desserts).


I've heard this argument before but have never understood it. Maybe you can explain it to me better. Why should juice or sugary snacks be ineligible for purchase?


Posted By: EasterBell
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:24pm
LOLLOL


Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:28pm
Originally posted by Random Thoughts Random Thoughts wrote:

Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Meh, cutting $4 billion doesn't bother me. We could increase the $ available for recipients without increasing the budget if we made some items ineligible for purchase (like juice/soda/non-water drinks and prepared/packaged desserts).


I've heard this argument before but have never understood it. Maybe you can explain it to me better. Why should juice or sugary snacks be ineligible for purchase?


Real scholars have explained it more eloquently than I ever could but here's my opinion: if a person is suffering from hunger and therefore needs food assistance, then that assistance should first and foremost address the person's needs, not wants.

Since we have limited money, none of that money should be wasted on drinks (water is pretty much free) or on extras like dessert. When we all of sudden wipe out the national debt then I'll be cool with paying for the extras. But until then, I don't see the point of spending money on koolaid and haagen daaz when that money could provide several more meals.

And this is coming from experience. I survived many years on oatmeal, potato/cabbage soup, pb & j's, apples and water. I'm most concerned with as many people as possible having the basics so that no one is going hungry. Gives no f*cks about folks who want to spend $ we don't have on luxuries.


Posted By: blaquefoxx
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:28pm
Oh and I forgot to add that this is a proposed 10yr plan. So 40 billion in cuts...


Posted By: mizzsandra00
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:30pm
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.


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:35pm
Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Originally posted by Random Thoughts Random Thoughts wrote:

Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Meh, cutting $4 billion doesn't bother me. We could increase the $ available for recipients without increasing the budget if we made some items ineligible for purchase (like juice/soda/non-water drinks and prepared/packaged desserts).


I've heard this argument before but have never understood it. Maybe you can explain it to me better. Why should juice or sugary snacks be ineligible for purchase?


Real scholars have explained it more eloquently than I ever could but here's my opinion: if a person is suffering from hunger and therefore needs food assistance, then that assistance should first and foremost address the person's needs, not wants.

Since we have limited money, none of that money should be wasted on drinks (water is pretty much free) or on extras like dessert. When we all of sudden wipe out the national debt then I'll be cool with paying for the extras. But until then, I don't see the point of spending money on koolaid and haagen daaz when that money could provide several more meals.

And this is coming from experience. I survived many years on oatmeal, potato/cabbage soup, pb & j's, apples and water. I'm most concerned with as many people as possible having the basics so that no one is going hungry. Gives no f*cks about folks who want to spend $ we don't have on luxuries.


What about things like chips, cake mix, and doughnuts? Do you believe they should be on the ineligible list?


Posted By: EasterBell
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:36pm
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.
LOLLOLCryCry


Posted By: Naturalchick30
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:38pm
Originally posted by petiteone29 petiteone29 wrote:

[QUOTE=GoodGirlGoneGr8]Something just doesn't sit right with me when I hear stories about the President celebrating his birthday hosting a $40K per plate dinner party when people in this country can't afford food...[/QUOT
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">
</span>
<span style="line-height: 1.4;"> Obama ain't no better than any other presidents. He just black. I don't trust none of them.</span>


This


Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 1:41pm
Originally posted by Random Thoughts Random Thoughts wrote:



What about things like chips, cake mix, and doughnuts? Do you believe they should be on the ineligible list?


I think SNAP should be designed more like WIC. For better or for worse, we've decided that certain things do not contribute to the nutrition of a mother and child and therefore they are not available through WIC.

It should be the same for SNAP. It's not necessarily about chips or donuts per se, but sodium/added sugar/trans fats per serving. There are things that are widely recognized as unsafe (and believe me I know that presents an issue because things like cholesterol and saturated fat have been vilified for decades based on faulty science).

My point is I want to feed as many people as possible. I know that if absolutely necessary I can survive on $30/week on food and still eat enough calories. No I won't have chips and donuts and apple juice and popsicles, but I won't be hungry. And to me, that's the goal.


Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Originally posted by Random Thoughts Random Thoughts wrote:



What about things like chips, cake mix, and doughnuts? Do you believe they should be on the ineligible list?


I think SNAP should be designed more like WIC. For better or for worse, we've decided that certain things do not contribute to the nutrition of a mother and child and therefore they are not available through WIC.

It should be the same for SNAP. It's not necessarily about chips or donuts per se, but sodium/added sugar/trans fats per serving. There are things that are widely recognized as unsafe (and believe me I know that presents an issue because things like cholesterol and saturated fat have been vilified for decades based on faulty science).

My point is I want to feed as many people as possible. I know that if absolutely necessary I can survive on $30/week on food and still eat enough calories. No I won't have chips and donuts and apple juice and popsicles, but I won't be hungry. And to me, that's the goal.


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.



Posted By: petiteone29
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:03pm
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?





Posted By: BrownQtee
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:03pm
Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Meh, cutting $4 billion doesn't bother me. We could increase the $ available for recipients without increasing the budget if we made some items ineligible for purchase (like juice/soda/non-water drinks and prepared/packaged desserts).
This reminds me...
 
I was in Vegas this past weekend ..My girls and I having a good time..chillin at the pool bar with some drinks..
 
This white man..I guess you could call him attractive by normal standards...6ft +, covered in tattoos, bangin' body..this fool trying to look smooth..licking his lips..all that sh*t.
 
Pulls out a damn EBT card to pay for drinks. I was dumbfounded...like huh????? My girl said as long as it isn't a "processed" food item. That sh*t has GOT to stop.LOL


Posted By: petiteone29
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 2:06pm
I didnt realize awakengod was HIM. That explains alot now.


Posted By: maysay1
Date 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.




Posted By: Naturalchick30
Date 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.






Posted By: Random Thoughts
Date 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.


Posted By: AwesomeAries
Date 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


Posted By: maysay1
Date 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.


Posted By: yurika975
Date 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.


Posted By: petiteone29
Date 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. 


Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date 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. 




Posted By: kfoxx1998
Date 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




Posted By: carolina cutie
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 3:43pm
Originally posted by **Sk!TtLeS B** **Sk!TtLeS B** wrote:

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

Originally posted by **Sk!TtLeS B** **Sk!TtLeS B** wrote:

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:


Why do you keep coming back to BHM? Nobody likes you. You're an insufferable dumbass who needs to reevaluate his personality flaws and/or disorders before attempting to interact with people. Seek help, and leave us the alone. 
 
There are a few that like me on this forum. So I don't know why you are tripping, just simply scroll pass my posts if they bother you so much. Sleepy
 
I have no personality flaws nor disorders so get in line on the haters bus.

to the first bolded: I highly doubt that. You have no redeeming qualities. 

to the second bolded: So that's why you make several usernames a year for a forum that keeps banning you? One of which was you impersonating woman? Okay.
Don't forget impersonating a woman who had been raped. Class act.

Originally posted by TheAwakenGod TheAwakenGod wrote:

I got raped............Cry



[URLhttp://forum.blackhairmedia.com/united-nations-rape-study_topic364227.html][/URL]


Posted By: afrokock
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 3:45pm
lol

y'all still giving AWackson the time of day?



Posted By: HaitianDiva64
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 3:59pm
They need to start with letting us grow our on garden enough to feed a fam. Isn't that illegal in oakland and other places?? They want us fat and dependent. I agree with maysay. But the only reason the gov doesn't go that route is cause thwy want us to sip kool aide and send kids to school with chips and cookies.

Even the free school lunches are unhealthy and nasty, talking bout it costs much more to prepare and serve salade and fruit than burgers and pizza


Posted By: Az~Maverick
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 4:09pm
And what supposed to come out of the money from these cuts? Build more prisons? Smh Sleepy


Posted By: petiteone29
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 4:19pm
Originally posted by Az~Maverick Az~Maverick wrote:

And what supposed to come out of the money from these cuts? Build more prisons? Smh Sleepy


right!!yall think they are going to actually put that money towards something that benefits us? we wont see a dime of that. no schools will be built, no jobs, no nothing. id rather my tax money provide someone struggling with a little small luxury like rocky road ice cream than go to some republican's caviar.


Posted By: HaitianDiva64
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 4:23pm
But I think maysay os saying a lot of ppl are seeing it as luxuries that tocky road ice cream becomes somebody's meal


Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 4:30pm
Originally posted by petiteone29 petiteone29 wrote:


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. 


You know what actually isn't fair? Children, the disabled and the elderly going hungry because of other people's selfishness.

If for whatever reason a person ends up needing to be fed by the community, they should be thankful that the world is actually fair enough to provide them with nourishment. I can't get behind spending $10 on some ice cream and cake when that same $10 dollars can buy a sack of rice and a sack of beans that will provide 10+ meals instead.


Posted By: petiteone29
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 4:33pm
Originally posted by HaitianDiva64 HaitianDiva64 wrote:

But I think maysay os saying a lot of ppl are seeing it as luxuries that tocky road ice cream becomes somebody's meal

I understand that totally but at the end of the day we cannot and should not control what someone is eating. Not everyone is feeling their carts with "luxuries". Yet everyone will be treated like irresponsible children just because they need a little help.


Posted By: maysay1
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 4:39pm
Just to be clear, I'm not assigning value judgments to people's choices (like irresponsible or bad or whatever). I just look at my own experience with my own budget and how I have CONSTANTLY deny myself simple ish because it's not a necessity.

All I'm saying is, we don't have unlimited money. We need to cut somewhere. Let's feed as many people as we possibly can in a dignified, humane, and respectful manner. We do that with WIC, we do that in prisons, we do that in schools, we can do it in the SNAP program.

Seemingly "down" liberal activists will try to disguise the issue by saying "it's not fair to control what poor people eat" or "everyone needs luxuries to stay sane". But guess who benefits from SNAP money being used on non-essential foodstuffs? Pepsico, Yumco, Kraft, and all the food companies who then line the pockets of the politicians (on the left and right).

So instead of poor people recognizing and choosing a path that is financially and physically healthier for them, they are convinced to maintain their relationships with these companies under the illusion of having "a choice". Even though that choice is contributing to the financial and physical and emotional breakdown of their community.


Posted By: BBpants
Date Posted: Sep 20 2013 at 7:26pm
Originally posted by kfoxx1998 kfoxx1998 wrote:

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. 




Thanked!!


Posted By: NARSAddict
Date Posted: Sep 21 2013 at 12:55am
Originally posted by QueenBee QueenBee wrote:

Originally posted by AwesomeAries AwesomeAries wrote:

I hope this doesn't affect seniors
 
Sad...my mom's elderly neighbor (grandma's friend "Ms. Jean"  gets $88 each month.  It was recently reduced to $76.  My mom ends up sending her plates by my grannie after she cooks.  My mom was clowning "Ms. Jean" granddaughter has 5 kids.  On SNAP/WIC benefits and has NEVER bought her grandmother groceries.  Really,  you can't make your grandmother $100 worth of groceries. 
 


Damn?  She only gets that much? Wow...This puts things into perspective.


Posted By: NARSAddict
Date Posted: Sep 21 2013 at 1:05am
Originally posted by Random Thoughts Random Thoughts wrote:

Originally posted by maysay1 maysay1 wrote:

Meh, cutting $4 billion doesn't bother me. We could increase the $ available for recipients without increasing the budget if we made some items ineligible for purchase (like juice/soda/non-water drinks and prepared/packaged desserts).


I've heard this argument before but have never understood it. Maybe you can explain it to me better. Why should juice or sugary snacks be ineligible for purchase?



Those items are nutritionally void.  True they keep well but they are doing damage to the body, essentially creating a costly medical bill in the future.


Posted By: Lady ICE
Date Posted: Sep 21 2013 at 1:09am
Originally posted by Naturalchick30 Naturalchick30 wrote:

Plenty of people work while receiving benefits..
yep. ive seen this a lot.so many ppl out here are suffering/complaining. ive run into a few ppl like that a few more who cant work cause of an illness...and heres the sad part..ppl..are getting 16 bucks and less sometimes for the whole month.


Posted By: NARSAddict
Date Posted: Sep 21 2013 at 1:10am
After reading some of the enlightening post made by a couple people, if the House want to cut funding for food stamps, they might as well stop subsidizing corn and stop paying certain farmers not to grow nothing (they still have that program right?).



Print Page | Close Window