Wisconsin lawmakers advance new rules for food stamp users

so the right attacks the first lady for suggesting the schools make healthier meals, then applauds gop for telling people what they can and can not eat in their own homes, oh and feels making people pee in a cup with no probable cause is ok.....

 

Vegetarians on FS is very far and few between......

MO may advocate healthy eating to the kids, but certainly isn't setting any examples of it thru the crappy school lunches out there.... while her daughters eat nothing but the best and healthiest in their schools.

 

No. Kids are often captive eaters, i.e. they can't bring in anything from home and are forced to eat the Ethiopian lunches Moochelle serves up. With regard to food stamps no one is forcing people to go on food stamps which means no one is forcing them to take a pee test, don't like the rules, don't play the game.

 

yes they can bring their own sack lunch if they do not want to eat what the school fixes... simple

and anyone that denies them that mother prepared meal should be arrested for child abuse

so it is exactly the same, many on the right just don't like education or people on welfare so attacks them every chance they get

.

 

I know a local dealer that sells weed for food stamps, I'm going to ask him to send me a picture of his kitchen table.

It's a stack easily 3 ft tall and covers his table.

You don't find this as a problem?

 

Incorrect. People can eat whatever they choose in their own homes, and those people can pay for their own food.

 

That makes more sense, although in my state rent assistance is paid directly to the land lord.

 

Excuse me? Did you just stick an ice pick in your ear and scramble your brains beyond repair or do you REALLY have the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing audacity to sling that bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
Take away seafood? Seriously. In a supermarket, there are working stiffs who can barely afford cans of tuna to make tuna casserole and you're defending the lazy mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ers wearing all kinds of bling, NOT HAVING A (*)(*)(*)(*)ING JOB and showing up at the cash register with expensive lobsters in front of the TAXPAYERS who are struggling to afford that tuna. And your response is SEAFOOD? NUTRITION?

ARE YOU JUST PLAIN STUPID?

If they want to spend a ton of money on lobster, here's a hint: THEY CAN GET A (*)(*)(*)(*)ING JOB AND PAY FOR IT THEIR DAMNED SELVES. QUIT TAKING FOOD OFF THE TABLE OF TAXPAYERS.

'

Here's a better idea: (*)(*)(*)(*) THOSE FREELOADERS. Cut their useless asses off. Make them get (*)(*)(*)(*)ing jobs and EARN that seafood.

I've got an even better idea. MORE STRICT MEANS TESTING for those lazy mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ers. If they are able bodied and can walk CUT THEIR LAZY ASSES OFF.

Period.
End of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing discussion.

 

Meat is not unhealthy.

 

Irony: Rep. Lisa Subeck, a Madison Democrat, said at the hearing the measure overstepped the state government's boundaries. "We are going to spend millions of dollars to jump into people's grocery carts with them to tell them what they can and can't buy," Subeck said. "This isn't real."


A Democrat complaining about government intrusion into citizens' lives! Only when they're spending the taxpayers' money, but still...

 

Now you're just being disingenuous. That is not at all what the article says. Lobster, Crab, and shellfish are luxury foods and among the most expensive things you can buy. Taxpayers should not be buying lobster for people.

I have the balls to say it. I jsut did.

Actions have consequences. They can always move south to Illinois if they want to keep nodding off on smack and operating heavy machinery.

Or you could take the emotional drama out of your argument and recognize that drug-addicted people are generally unreliable employees and in the worst case, pose a genuine liability. So you're just wasting money training junkies to work jobs that they'll probably quit after it becomes just too much trouble to show up for work on time.

Where does it say that? The article simply says premium seafoods are forbidden with public assistance. That makes perfect sense to any rational person.

 

Not going though quote by quote but I'll admit I misread the lobster part; I thought the quote about food being unhealth was part of their reasoning. Instead it turns out that such foods are too good for the poor in their eyes. While I admit I wouldn't be entirely opposed to limiting junk food purchases, I think the government has better things to do than sit down and decide a line item list of what a person can and cannot buy. Wasted time and money. Same with the (*)(*)(*)(*) tests. Clearly pissing everyone who joins a program will cost money and it certainly doesn't help drug addicts to say "hey, you can't use a program to try to better yourself." If someone appears to be visibly under the influence then a drug test is reasonable, but blanket drug tests are a waste.

 

I guess I don't. If he were directly processing the food stamps then yeah I would see that as a problem since weed isn't food, though I guess it could be argued that it is a food additive. Clearly it goes against the spirit of food stamps and why they exist, but is investigating every reported incident of fraud going to save money or cost us more in enforcement? My guess is the later, which is why I don't care so much.

 

He's on social security, that may be a thing. I believe you may be able to get it if you are on unemployment as well. My point is that the average person working a minimum wage job is not going to be able to get food stamps. It's harder than you think. My buddy works for DHS, I doubt he's lying when he tells me it's not a grab bag.

 

Back when it was supposed to suck to be on welfare, the government would give you a block of cheese. That was how you controlled what people got to eat who didn't pay for the food themselves. Yes, lobster is too good for those eat on the largesse of the US taxpayer. You want a lobster? You work for it. Chicken is fine. Hell, *I* can't afford lobster and I have a damn good job.

As far as drug tests, I oppose them in all circumstances except for people on public assistance.

 

What about chicken cordon bleu, turducken, baby back ribs, rib eye steaks, salmon? How far down the list of "this is too good for you" do you want the government to go? Why? They only get the food stamps they are given anyway so what does it matter to you if they buy a lobster one day and survive off cheap lunch meat the rest of the week? Just seems like a petty waste of time to me. As for drug tests it's already been tried and found to cost more than it saves. I also don't see much a point to denying benefits to addicts. It's not like someone is going to quit shooting smack because they can't eat. There's also the whole invasion of privacy deal which I'm pretty much against.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html?_r=0

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

 

I believe the food given to welfare recipients shouldn't be given in the form of a card or stamp.

It should be one 5lbs block of cheese, One 5lbs block of bologna, Ramen Noodles, and Multi-vitamins.

You want better food, get a job. Not for your sake, but for your children's sake.

If they didn't like the food those living in rural areas could add to their diet by hunting for their meals. (I still do this and I can have lobster every night if I would ever want to)

That's more than enough to feed a family of 4 for a week. It's also enough to keep them healthy.

What's the problem with that?

 

I'm curious about something maybe other people can help me out with. Obviously this bill is supposed to make it so people on Food stamps can't buy "crappy" food. So no more cake, no more soda, no more chips. Even for Birthday parties though? No birthday cake, no favorite chips and soda for the birthday boy/girl? Wouldn't this bill say no to those as well because of simply how inefficient it would be to track every single purchase?

 

My understanding is that ramen is unhealthy, so maybe replace it with bread? If the government were to take the route you describe, would we actually save money? If benefits max out at $200 a month, my understanding of the max per person, and also worth noting many get less than that, will buying the bread, meat, and cheese, storing, and distributing it actually save money? My guess is no.

 

Some types of Ramen are unhealthy but this would be government made Ramen. None of the sodium from the additives used in the flavoring.

So it's basically bread, in noodle form.

This would drive motivation for better a better life.

You need the food to be as bland, healthy, and cheap as possible.

 

The bill doesn't say they CAN'T buy crappy food. It says they have to use other cash for that. Maybe the cash they would buy crack with. Maybe the crash they buy all their bling with, or expensive running shoes, or that new flat screen TV. Remember, this program is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up that you can get food stamps even if you have a regular job. It ceased being a nutrition program for the needy 40 years ago. Now it's just money the Democrats throw at the stupid to get their votes.

 

Well, hope that these rules, soon will be in every state! No, really, sad that now, welfare and food stamps recipients are spending governmental benefits to buy luxury things and food, instead of buying really necessary things!

 

That's just it, by saying they have to use other money, the bill is saying they can't buy cake with it. If a person survives on this money the state gives them, at what point does it get to be the state is intruding on the lives of the poor?

 

you cannot buy prepared foods such as fancy cakes. You can buy, however, cake mixes and icing...next???
An what about drug-testing those people eating my food?

 

If it were as you say, perhaps.
Problem is, food stamps don't just go to the poor. In fact, very few food stamp recipients are poor and destitute. A LOT of them are lowly workers who are too stupid and incompetent to earn enough to pay rent and food and transportation.

But let's just assume that none of that matters. You claim that this would intrude on the lives of the poor? The state already does that for everybody else. The state will give you a ticket for not wearing a seat belt, since you want to go down that road of "intruding on one's life."

What this bill is suggesting is that "If you're going to take MY money, there are some strings attached. Don't like it? Don't take my money." And in this instance, the MY money (at least in Wisconsin) is the TAXPAYER'S money.

Don't buy cake with MY money. Don't buy lobster with MY money. Don't buy DOPE with MY MONEY. Oh, and by the way, perhaps you should have to pay for a drug test before you get any of MY MONEY. Hell, we ask state workers who actually EARN MY MONEY to take drug tests.

I see nothing wrong with attaching strings. In fact, perhaps if enough strings are attached, some lazy ass bums might just get their backs up and GET (*)(*)(*)(*)ING JOBS. Their lives would instantly be improved because living on welfare is always the lowest form of life.

- - - Updated - - -

NOW you're talkin!