- Joined
- Oct 5, 2008
- Messages
- 11,651
- Reaction score
- 842
What? Just go out on your dock or on your boat and fish.
Can't do that in much of the world.
What? Just go out on your dock or on your boat and fish.
Well, I only speak for myself, but you're definitely wrong that nobody is making that argument. Anyway, most of the recipients are kids so it's not like bringing kids up is invalid.Nobody is making that argument. You are.
A lot of those businesses will close up shop once this goes through.
Why would you keep your business in the hood with no one left to sell to?
You're just a target to be robbed at that point.
https://civileats.com/2014/10/09/youll-never-guess-where-food-stamps-are-in-highest-demand/the Center for Rural Affairs (CFRA) illustrates quite a different reality:
The percentage of eligible people relying on SNAP is higher in rural areas than it is in urban areas. CRA found that nearly 86 percent of eligible rural residents receive SNAP benefits, compared with nearly 73 percent of eligible urban residents.
What’s wrong with the government distributing food? Or contracting it out?Well, I only speak for myself, but you're definitely wrong that nobody is making that argument. Anyway, most of the recipients are kids so it's not like bringing kids up is invalid.
Your question obscures the main objective which is to cut funding to the program, but the idea is stupid because it will almost certainly end being much more expensive for the government or result in lower benefits being dished out. It also works to further degrade folks who rely on food benefits.What’s wrong with the government distributing food? Or contracting it out?
We should just force the poor to eat each other!
Blah blah blahYour question obscures the main objective which is to cut funding to the program. The idea is stupid because it will almost certainly end being much more expensive for the government. It also works to further degrade folks who rely on food benefits.
If you're not interested in a conversation why the fuck do you even bother? You also clearly didn't even read what I wrote.Blah blah blah
If this works and Is cheaper what’s wrong with it
The government is going to ship people food. Think about that for a second.Dunno if it's been posted yet but this is amazing
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.pol...02/12/food-stamps-trump-administration-343245
"White House OMB Director Mick Mulvaney on Monday hailed the idea as one that kept up with the modern era, calling it a "Blue Apron-type program" — a nod to the high-end meal kit delivery company that had one of the worst stock debuts in 2017 and has struggled to hold onto customers. Mulvaney said the administration’s planwould not only save the government money, but also provide people with more nutritious food than they have now."
Dunno if it's been posted yet but this is amazing
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.pol...02/12/food-stamps-trump-administration-343245
"White House OMB Director Mick Mulvaney on Monday hailed the idea as one that kept up with the modern era, calling it a "Blue Apron-type program" — a nod to the high-end meal kit delivery company that had one of the worst stock debuts in 2017 and has struggled to hold onto customers. Mulvaney said the administration’s planwould not only save the government money, but also provide people with more nutritious food than they have now."
What’s wrong with the government distributing food? Or contracting it out?
They’ll kill the poor! What about little billy?!
Same old argument to anything
Why not feed them expired MREs? I'm sure the military needs to get rid of some crap they have in stock. Poor people would eat a lot better and they could potentially earn some money on Youtube doing reviews. Not to mention they would get their cigarettes for free. It's a win win situation!
hi and well met, cincy -
part of me - the totalitarian, do-gooder part of me - likes this idea.
i like the idea that, if you're going to use my money to feed yourself, i get to have some say in the matter; i like that the government will force you to at least eat healthily, thereby mitigating the cost it takes to administer your healthcare (which is also probably subsidized).
so, yes, i get it.
the other part of me, though, doesn't like this "one size fits all" approach.
also, there is a whiff of a "nanny state on steroids" to all of this that makes me queasy, you know?
finally, there's something vindictive about this proposal. i mean, why not just give the poor nutriloaf?
that's all the poor need to eat, afterall.
- 6 slices Whole Wheat Bread, finely chopped
- 4 ounces Non-dairy Cheese, finely grated
- 4 ounces Raw Carrots, finely grated
- 12 ounces Spinach, canned, drained
- 4 ounces Seedless Raisins
- 2 cups Great Northern Beans, cooked and drained
- 4 tablespoons Vegetable Oil
- 6 ounces Tomato Paste
- 8 ounces Milk, powdered, instant nonfat/skim
- 6 ounces Potato Flakes, dehydrated
this whole idea seems kind of humiliating, to be honest.
- IGIT
You’re not interested in convo. You’re interested in the what about Little billy comments. Stay focused and I won’t point it outIf you're not interested in a conversation why the fuck do you even bother? You also clearly didn't even read what I wrote.
That’s because you hate JewsDont lie, you know you get erect at the thought of beating up and killing poor, disadvantaged people you tough man.
I already addressed your stupid point and you said "we'll you're arguing that not others". I pointed out that was false. Did you forget this already? Plus you clearly punted on a real response to the last one.You’re not interested in convo. You’re interested in the what about Little billy comments. Stay focused and I won’t point it out
hi and well met, cincy -
part of me - the totalitarian, do-gooder part of me - likes this idea.
i like the idea that, if you're going to use my money to feed yourself, i get to have some say in the matter; i like that the government will force you to at least eat healthily, thereby mitigating the cost it takes to administer your healthcare (which is also probably subsidized).
so, yes, i get it.
the other part of me, though, doesn't like this "one size fits all" approach.
also, there is a whiff of a "nanny state on steroids" to all of this that makes me queasy, you know?
finally, there's something vindictive about this proposal. i mean, why not just give the poor nutriloaf?
that's all the poor need to eat, afterall.
- 6 slices Whole Wheat Bread, finely chopped
- 4 ounces Non-dairy Cheese, finely grated
- 4 ounces Raw Carrots, finely grated
- 12 ounces Spinach, canned, drained
- 4 ounces Seedless Raisins
- 2 cups Great Northern Beans, cooked and drained
- 4 tablespoons Vegetable Oil
- 6 ounces Tomato Paste
- 8 ounces Milk, powdered, instant nonfat/skim
- 6 ounces Potato Flakes, dehydrated
this whole idea seems kind of humiliating, to be honest.
- IGIT