76 replies to this topic

[Omega]

Elara, on 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

So, your thought would be to limit people on food stamps to less variety than anyone else?

Yes. Are you seeing a problem with that?

Quote

(and your list of foods? Not that healthy)

I can't imagine you're saying that oats, eggs, fresh spinach, beans, and rice aren't "healthy foods". (Insofar as one can easily divide foods into binary classes like that, which I don't buy as a general thing. But for the purposes of this discussion, I think we all know what we're talking about.) Perhaps you mean those alone don't make a balanced diet? I'd certainly agree with that. It was just a rough example. The bigger point was that it should be possible to make a balanced, healthy, cheap diet for the majority of people out of a relatively small number of cheap, widely available ingredients. It would take an actual nutritionist (i.e. not me) to do that, though.

Elara, on 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

If you truly mean only about 10 items at the most, that is really limiting. You can buy fairly cheap, healthy-ish foods and turn it all into a meal, but that would include more than 10 items.

Yeah, ten was absurdly low. Something on the order of several dozens would be necessary.

Elara, on 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

Bad thing is, generally, people now don't seem to know how to cook, and if they are single, have a part-time or even a full-time job and kids, you've made their lives more difficult.

True, there's a down-side. But some healthy foods, at least, require minimal prep. Oatmeal can be microwaved, spinach can be eaten straight out of the bag, beans and rice and eggs can be boiled... perhaps some effort into making these cheap foods microwaveable would also be in order, as an alternative to cooking classes. Hard for a kid feeding themselves to burn down the house with the microwave.

Quote

Because the only people on food stamps, are the able-bodied, lazy ones that don't work. Now, I don't really believe you mean that, but that is how it reads.

I certainly don't mean that the only people on food stamps are able-bodied and lazy. But a for the minority that are able-bodied and lazy, it would help. I think we'd all agree that that minority is a problem, both because they're an unnecessary drain on resources others actually need, and because they make what's a vital program for many look bad.

And it's not just the adults, either. I suspect it would also be a good lesson for children being fed on food stamps. "You want tasty food, you go out and earn money. It's not going to just be handed to you."

Edited by Omega, 06 March 2014 - 06:26 PM.

[Nonny]

Omega, on 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

I certainly don't mean that the only people on food stamps are able-bodied and lazy. But a for the minority that are able-bodied and lazy, it would help. And I think we'd all agree that that minority is a problem, both because they're an unnecessary drain on resources others actually need, and because they make what's a vital program for many look bad.

Now, I can't imagine you're saying that oats, eggs, fresh spinach, beans, and rice aren't healthy? Perhaps you mean those alone don't make a balanced diet? I'd certainly agree with that. It was just a rough example. The bigger point was that it should be possible to make a balanced, healthy, cheap diet for the majority of people out of cheap, widely available ingredients. It would take an actual nutritionist (i.e. not me) to do that, though.

Rice and beans make a balanced protein, as do oats and peanuts, bread and peanuts, various combinations.  I am particularly fond of brown rice, lentils and veg, and I always put a spoonful of unsalted peanuts in my oatmeal or homemade granola in the morning.    

[Spectacles]

http://www.huffingto..._n_3518821.html

Quote

WASHINGTON -- Janina Riley noticed a woman muttering behind her in the checkout line as she paid for food at a Giant Eagle grocery store in Pittsburgh last April.

"I can't believe she's buying that big-ass cake with food stamps," the woman said, according to Riley.

Riley, 19, had just used a government-issued debit card to pay for most of her groceries, which included a cake for her son that said "Happy First Birthday Xavier" in a theme from the movie "Cars." She glared at the women for a second, then decided to confront her.

"I was just like, 'Shut the f*ck up,'" Riley said. "You don't know what I'm doing with these food stamps."

But many Americans do not want to let people on food stamps eat cake. This sentiment is particularly prevalent among conservatives in Congress. Cash register resentment of the sort directed at Riley feeds Republican animus toward the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Quote

Janina Riley said the situation at Giant Eagle didn't escalate after she confronted the mumbling woman. She figured it wouldn't have started at all if the person had known that she was studying to become a nurse, and that she already worked more than 30 hours a week as an aide in a nursing home.

People have to be poor in order to receive nutrition assistance. The maximum gross monthly income for SNAP eligibility in Pennsylvania, for instance, is $2,018 for a household of two, and the family can't own assets worth more than $5,500 (though there are several exceptions, like a single car). Most recipients qualify based on their participation in another means-tested program like Medicaid.

At $10 per hour, Riley's wages leave her poor enough to qualify for $124 a month in food stamps. At the Giant Eagle that day, she used her full monthly benefit to pay for part of her cart full of food and roughly $80 of her own money for the rest.

"Most people do work. It's just we don't make enough money, that's the problem," Riley said. "The biggest misconception is that people on food stamps sit on their butts all day."

She's part of the 30 percent of SNAP recipients who earn money by working, and the 91 percent whose annual incomes are at or below the poverty line. Most recipients are either children, elderly or disabled.

But in the public imagination, hard-working single moms rent a room with king crab welfare queens.

I have never used food stamps, and I have been poor. I think people should work. I have a pretty high personal work ethic and an old-timey proud po' folks aversion to receiving charity. Both have served me well.

But that does NOT mean that I have to begrudge the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor what little assistance they get to have food. Nor does it mean I have to assume the worst about someone in front of me in the grocery store who is paying with a SNAP card. I'm not walking in that person's shoes.

And according to the statistics, most of those people are doing the best they can.

An average of $130 a month in food assistance is incentivizing "laziness"? In what world?

The stupid slacker kid, yeah, but if he gets tired of being all bo-ho, he'll get a real job. Or not.
But he represents a SMALL slice of SNAP users. Using him to smear them all is pretty low. But then, that's Fox and the GOP for ya.

[Thia The Muse]

Omega, on 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

I certainly don't mean that the only people on food stamps are able-bodied and lazy. But a for the minority that are able-bodied and lazy, it would help. I think we'd all agree that that minority is a problem, both because they're an unnecessary drain on resources others actually need, and because they make what's a vital program for many look bad.

And it's not just the adults, either. I suspect it would also be a good lesson for children being fed on food stamps. "You want tasty food, you go out and earn money. It's not going to just be handed to you."

And what about everyone else? Or people who are on Disability and have foodstamps? Should everyone be punished for the actions of a few? So many people in this country are working hard trying to make ends meet and you would, what, deny them a treat like a soda or a doughnut from the bakery? And remember, some people only get about $130 a month on food stamps. That's barely enough for one person.

[Omega]

Punishment is not the goal. I'm not saying there is a goal. I'm proposing an idea and contemplating the effects. Better health is one good effect. More financially efficient use of food stamps is another. Motivations are a third. Negative effects include people having less enjoyable food, costing some additional cooking time, and requiring some exception handling for people with dietary restrictions.

How one weights those things, reasonable people can differ. But I think that's where we stand so far. Personally, I'd say the positives as listed win out. But that's just me.

Edited by Omega, 06 March 2014 - 07:28 PM.

[Elara]

Omega, on 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Elara, on 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

So, your thought would be to limit people on food stamps to less variety than anyone else?

Yes. Are you seeing a problem with that?

Yes, I am. I am on disability, I get $92.00 a month of food stamps. I buy very little junk food (maybe a bag of tortilla chips a month, and some pop), not a big fan of the stuff. I buy food as cheap as I can and make meals from scratch, plus do my own baking. I've cooked since I was a teenager, feeding myself, my brother and my mother. I don't like most prepared foods, so not concerned with them no longer paid for, but to suggest that I don't have the right to the same variety of foods as anyone else? Yes, I have a big problem with that thought.

Omega, on 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Quote

(and your list of foods? Not that healthy)

I can't imagine you're saying that oats, eggs, fresh spinach, beans, and rice aren't "healthy foods". (Insofar as one can easily divide foods into binary classes like that, which I don't buy as a general thing. But for the purposes of this discussion, I think we all know what we're talking about.) Perhaps you mean those alone don't make a balanced diet? I'd certainly agree with that. It was just a rough example. The bigger point was that it should be possible to make a balanced, healthy, cheap diet for the majority of people out of a relatively small number of cheap, widely available ingredients. It would take an actual nutritionist (i.e. not me) to do that, though.

Since you did say in a later post that dietary restrictions should be considered, I will just say that oatmeal (not instant) and rice are bad for me. Don't get me wrong, I eat both, but I also have to be careful or I will find myself with my blood sugar dropping like a rock (hypoglycemic). Plus, some people are allergic to eggs, so your list to me, is not exactly 100% healthy, but again, you amended things, so it could be considered a start for healthy eating.

Omega, on 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Elara, on 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

If you truly mean only about 10 items at the most, that is really limiting. You can buy fairly cheap, healthy-ish foods and turn it all into a meal, but that would include more than 10 items.

Yeah, ten was absurdly low. Something on the order of several dozens would be necessary.

See? Now several dozens is much better than the restrictions you mentioned before. Actually, if you added in all vegetables, some meats, milk, breads (ever try to make a peanut butter sandwich without bread?), sugar (baking and Kool-aid), etc... you are probably at many dozens and a much fairer deal.

Omega, on 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Elara, on 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

Bad thing is, generally, people now don't seem to know how to cook, and if they are single, have a part-time or even a full-time job and kids, you've made their lives more difficult.

True, there's a down-side. But some healthy foods, at least, require minimal prep. Oatmeal can be microwaved, spinach can be eaten straight out of the bag, beans and rice and eggs can be boiled... perhaps some effort into making these cheap foods microwaveable would also be in order, as an alternative to cooking classes. Hard for a kid feeding themselves to burn down the house with the microwave.

I must also say: Spinach? ~gag~ I cook a lot with beans, and whole grain rice is best (to me) if cooked in a broth or some kind of tomato sauce (Minute Rice), something to give it flavor. Which would add to the list of foods to be included.
Don't kid yourself, causing a fire with a microwave can be done. In my experience, it was someone that caught a counter on fire at our high school, while attempting to use the microwave. That was fun.

Omega, on 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Quote

Because the only people on food stamps, are the able-bodied, lazy ones that don't work. Now, I don't really believe you mean that, but that is how it reads.

I certainly don't mean that the only people on food stamps are able-bodied and lazy. But a for the minority that are able-bodied and lazy, it would help. I think we'd all agree that that minority is a problem, both because they're an unnecessary drain on resources others actually need, and because they make what's a vital program for many look bad.

And it's not just the adults, either. I suspect it would also be a good lesson for children being fed on food stamps. "You want tasty food, you go out and earn money. It's not going to just be handed to you."

I agree with able-bodied people working. I worked for years, and despite the little amount we earned, never went on food stamps. I was too proud to do that. Then, single with a son to raise, the last job I worked paid me almost $700.00 a month (2005). That was when I went on food stamps. If I could work now, I would, and dump the food stamps in a heartbeat.

There are work programs here, but I'm not sure how they work (I just know that I don't qualify because of my health).

[Omega]

Elara, on 06 March 2014 - 08:29 PM, said:

Omega, on 06 March 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

Elara, on 06 March 2014 - 05:25 PM, said:

So, your thought would be to limit people on food stamps to less variety than anyone else?

Yes. Are you seeing a problem with that?

Yes, I am. I am on disability, I get $92.00 a month of food stamps. I buy very little junk food (maybe a bag of tortilla chips a month, and some pop), not a big fan of the stuff. I buy food as cheap as I can and make meals from scratch, plus do my own baking. I've cooked since I was a teenager, feeding myself, my brother and my mother. I don't like most prepared foods, so not concerned with them no longer paid for, but to suggest that I don't have the right to the same variety of foods as anyone else? Yes, I have a big problem with that thought.

It's not my intent to take issue with your use of food stamps. I have family on food stamps, probably more family than I even know. I'd just say that the idea of what rights one may have is very different when comparing spending one's earned income vs. what government assistance will or will not provide. The latter will always be more restricted; it's just a question of degree. And since having a "blacklist" isn't really workable, perhaps having a "whitelist" is.

[Avalon]

Implications of Restricting the Use of Food Stamp Benefits

http://www.fns.usda....estrictions.pdf

The first page lists numerous reasons why restrictions beyond the current ones are not only impractical but also not desirable.

Quote

There is no strong research-based evidence to support restricting food stamp benefits. Food stamp
recipients are no more likely than higher income consumers to choose foods with little nutritional
value; thus the basis for singling out low-income food stamp recipients and restricting their food
choices is not clear.

[Spectacles]

^Yep. In a nutshell, that's it.

Rich people don't eat any more or any less responsibly than poor people. And we taxpayers pick up the tab, indirectly, for some of their "business dinners" where much cholesterol--and even alcohol--are consumed in the name of American enterprise.

I have an old high school friend on Facebook--former beauty queen married to once handsome man who is now morbidly obese. But they have a lovely McMansion, two lovely daughters in college, and apparent money to burn, so they're living the American Dream.

There are photos on FB of this guy devouring deep dish pizzas. Now, he's paying for them. But it's like watching someone commit suicide. He's about one deep-dish away from a heart attack or a stroke.

Now, these folks are Rush Limbaugh/Fox News devotees. They hate paying taxes because they think (erroneously) that all their tax dollars go into the dirty pockets of lazy poor people--lazy, Democrat-voting, inferior poor people who are not good Christians like they are. The hypocrisy is painful.

These are people whose minds have become like gated communities. The unwashed and unworthy hordes threaten all they have--and they have a lot.

And they think of themselves as the "builders"--although my friend is a teacher whose salary is paid for by taxpayers. And if her husband doesn't lay off the deep dish pizzas, his expensive heart attack is going to contribute to the cost of everyone's health care. Furthermore, I'm sure that his accountants have found ways for Uncle Sam to defray the costs of his pizzas, bacon cheeseburgers, and Krispy Kremes.

But all of that is OK because these are successful people who have pulled down enough bucks to have a fine house, nice clothes, great cars, and two lovely, well-educated daughters. So we (and certainly they) don't think about how much THEY benefit from the labors of other taxpayers or the premiums paid by others in their insurance pools. We grant them a status of superiority.

Poor folks, we assume there's some lack that's caused the poverty: lack of intelligence, lack of work ethic, lack of self-control. If only they'd _______ they'd not be poor.

In some cases, that's true. In many, though, poverty results from divorce, layoffs, physical and emotional problems that make full-time work impossible, and, until recently, catastrophic illness or accident. Anyone can be poor one day if they aren't careful or lucky.

The only thing that separates the mass of poor from the mass of middle-class and above is money. Yeah, there are some lazy, entitled poor people. There are also some lazy, entitled wealthy people. And when you add up how much each costs the taxpayers--benefits for the poor, salaries and government contracts and tax write-offs for the wealthy--it may be surprising to find that providing $130 a month to someone in SNAP benefits is a helluva lot less than the thousands in salaries and contracts and tax write-offs for the wealthy.

Increasingly over the past thirty years, it has become much harder for hard-working people who are born into the working-class or below to get out of it. Why? Because the jobs they bust ass doing don't pay enough to enable them to anything but subsist. I see people flunk out of community college all the time because they have to work 40 hours a week--and they have to be enrolled full-time to get grants. They've gone to crap schools or have been ignored by teachers who paid more attention to the educations of the obviously college-bound kids. They come to class with burdens that would break most people. Some make it. Many resign themselves to their fate: work your ass off to stay broke for the rest of your life.

These are not stupid people nor lazy people. And we don't need to patronize them because there is no qualitative difference between them and my old beauty queen friend and her successful husband--just money.

Edited by Spectacles, 07 March 2014 - 07:39 AM.

[Lord of the Sword]

Spectacles, on 07 March 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Now, these folks are Rush Limbaugh/Fox News devotees. They hate paying taxes because they think (erroneously) that all their tax dollars go into the dirty pockets of lazy poor people--lazy, Democrat-voting, inferior poor people who are not good Christians like they are. The hypocrisy is painful.

*bolding is mine*

I can't speak for others who are on the right, or independents who lean right, but this isn't what I think at all. What I believe is that all, or most anyway, of our tax dollars goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians. It goes to them, they take what they want, then they have the nerve to cry: "We don't have enough, we need more money. The wealthy have to pay their fair share."

Quote

Furthermore, I'm sure that his accountants have found ways for Uncle Sam to defray the costs of his pizzas, bacon cheeseburgers, and Krispy Kremes.

Now you're just making me hungry.

[Balderdash]

Lord of the Sword, on 07 March 2014 - 08:03 AM, said:

Spectacles, on 07 March 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Now, these folks are Rush Limbaugh/Fox News devotees. They hate paying taxes because they think (erroneously) that all their tax dollars go into the dirty pockets of lazy poor people--lazy, Democrat-voting, inferior poor people who are not good Christians like they are. The hypocrisy is painful.

*bolding is mine*

I can't speak for others who are on the right, or independents who lean right, but this isn't what I think at all. What I believe is that all, or most anyway, of our tax dollars goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians. It goes to them, they take what they want, then they have the nerve to cry: "We don't have enough, we need more money. The wealthy have to pay their fair share."

You have guzzled the koolaid.  Your statement implies that Democrats/Liberals are stealing your money and want to steal more.  And you don't question that ridiculous outlook at all.  Are you rich?  If your not then stop carrying their water, I guarantee that they aren't going to do a damned thing for you.  

It sounds like your set for life, you'll never need health care or help buying food because you've been lucky to have a really good job that will last as long as you need it to and you'll never need unemployment or any help at all from your government.  I know a lot of Conservatives that think like you do, all the while collecting their SNAP benefits, Medicaid/Medicare benefits and lord knows what else they ask the Government for and bellyaching about what they have to pay for for others.  But I guess that those Americans are somehow more entitled.

Quote

Quote

Furthermore, I'm sure that his accountants have found ways for Uncle Sam to defray the costs of his pizzas, bacon cheeseburgers, and Krispy Kremes.

Quote

Now you're just making me hungry.

Well chow down then, don't forget to have a smoke after and the rest of us will pay your bill when it's due.

[Lord of the Sword]

Balderdash, on 07 March 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

You have guzzled the koolaid.  Your statement implies that Democrats/Liberals are stealing your money and want to steal more.  And you don't question that ridiculous outlook at all.  Are you rich?  If your not then stop carrying their water, I guarantee that they aren't going to do a damned thing for you.  

No, I'm not rich...and I damn sure don't carry anyone's water. And not carrying anyone's water INCLUDES not wanting to pay more taxes to pay for someone else. Also, you were the first to say Democrat/Liberal. All I said was corrupt politicians. You assumed I was referring ONLY to democrats and Liberals. I hold no illusions that there are not corrupt republicans. But at least they aren't taxing us more then turning right around and demanding more.

Quote

It sounds like your set for life, you'll never need health care or help buying food because you've been lucky to have a really good job that will last as long as you need it to and you'll never need unemployment or any help at all from your government.  I know a lot of Conservatives that think like you do, all the while collecting their SNAP benefits, Medicaid/Medicare benefits and lord knows what else they ask the Government for and bellyaching about what they have to pay for for others.  But I guess that those Americans are somehow more entitled.

How little you know me. The things you don't know about me could stun a team of oxen in their tracks.

Quote

Well chow down then, don't forget to have a smoke after and the rest of us will pay your bill when it's due.

I NEVER forget to have a smoke after I chow down.

[Balderdash]

Quote

How little you know me. The things you don't know about me could stun a team of oxen in their tracks.

That has to be the most ironic thing that you have ever said.  You come on here and falsely accuse every Democrat/Liberal on here and yet complain about how picked on you are.  And when a legit question is asked, you make fun and belittle, you've got nuthin'.

[othkarwise]

Oh, I just gotta post this. I have a, uh, not really a friend, but someone I've known since high school. We are both in our early sixties now.  This person started scamming the system right out of high school.  She came from a very well to do family. Her step-father was the Superintendent of a large school system.  She was also genius level smart. She did eventually finish college up to a Master degree.  Anyway, through most of her life she faked disabilities to get either work related disability payments or actual government disability checks. Maybe both. I don't know how that works.  She was friends with my best friend from childhood and THAT friend told me that she had been taught by this person how to act "disabled" and they both ended up..still to this day...drawing some kind of disability.  Now, here's the crazier part.  The genius friend with a very good college education, who is living off the government and possibly a past job disablitiy, is a 100 percent died in the wool, right wing, Rush Limbaugh loving (big-time!) Republican.  She suffers no cognitive dissonance from how she lives and what the hell she says she believes in.  Get that Big Government outta my business!!  That might make a dent in her lively hood, but she doesn't seem to care about that.  I guess that is cognitive dissonance. I don't know!  She is also the least caring person I have even known and she is trying to become an Episcopalian priest. OY! Maybe she is suffering from a mental illness.



Then, sadly, I have this other friend who worked any job she could get for years and years.  She had a couple good paying ones but she lost the cartilage in both knees (bone on bone) and eventually could barely walk. Never had the health insurance to get her knees fixed. Maybe she made some mistakes, but now she is living on a little over 600 dollars a month on legit Social Security she got at age 62.  I think she gets less that 100 dollars a month in food stamps.  I also know that when she was a kid, her family had to go on assistance because her father was in bad shape from being in the Bataan Death March in WW2.  No food stamps then.  You had to line up at this building and they gave you a box of cheese, flour, beans ( I tried calling her to ask what else they got-not home) and other staples I don't remember.  They would also buy huge bags of potatoes that farmers would come around and sell in the poor neighborhoods.  You had to buy this huge bag, but it was very cheap.  When you start eating nothing but fried potatoes and beans with cheese, people who have a problem with gaining weight, end up gaining a lot of weight.  That's one of the reasons you see a lot of over weight poor people.  They buy the cheapest, highest caloric foods.  Also, my friend has never forgotten the humiliation of having to stand in line with her mother and two sisters to get this very much needed aid.  Everyone driving by saw you and I do think humiiation was part of the program.  I'm guessing, because I don't any facts at hand, but I think this was one of the reasons they moved from this way of helping people eat who really couldn't afford to, to using food stamps. There might have been things in between, I really don't know. I was fortunate to never have to think about that.  Up to the age of nine, I could have been on one of those programs, but my mom supported us on a job as a waitress and we just didn't eat much. I miss those skinny days.

People, have a heart.  Sure, there is always corruption with anything involving money or power, but going after food stamps is really kind of beneath everyone.  Try and catch people who are major thieves of the program and try not to lower the conversation into the gutter talking about food stamps for seafood.










edited out a rogue sentence

Edited by othkarwise, 07 March 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[Lord of the Sword]

I'm curious. Does anyone know if a person who is on food stamps, do they have to repay that money when they are off it and no longer need it?

[Elara]

Lord of the Sword, on 07 March 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

I'm curious. Does anyone know if a person who is on food stamps, do they have to repay that money when they are off it and no longer need it?

No. Well, technically, yes, they do, by paying taxes. But to actually pay back any and all food stamps they ever used? A person would have no hope of ever getting off the program. The debt could be about as much as paying for a house, depending on if they have children or not in the time they were on food stamps. Who would even try with that debt looming over them?

[sierraleone]

A couple weeks ago I came across this interesting video about poverty and dependency.

Edited by sierraleone, 07 March 2014 - 11:07 PM.

[Lin731]

Lord of the Sword, on 07 March 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

I'm curious. Does anyone know if a person who is on food stamps, do they have to repay that money when they are off it and no longer need it?

How in God's name would they ever pay that back other than by simply being a taxpayer? Should we garnish their $8:00 dollar an hour, 32 hour a week paycheck? I got a great idea, how about we have corporations that pocketed all those "job creator" tax breaks and outsourced the jobs, how about we make them pay THAT back?

[Nonny]

Lord of the Sword, on 07 March 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

I'm curious. Does anyone know if a person who is on food stamps, do they have to repay that money when they are off it and no longer need it?

It's called "claw back" and, depending on other circumstances, yes, you do, for food stamps and other assistance.  It's the final humiliation when you are fortunate enough to no longer need the "help" and it goes to show that you never got the help in the first place, just a mean-spirited, temporary fix to whatever problem put you in harm's way and unable to earn your own way.  The only thing that that would make it worse would be to have to receive the phony help from a "faith"-based group that proselytized you every step of the way.

[Balderdash]

Lin731, on 08 March 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:

Lord of the Sword, on 07 March 2014 - 09:54 PM, said:

I'm curious. Does anyone know if a person who is on food stamps, do they have to repay that money when they are off it and no longer need it?

How in God's name would they ever pay that back other than by simply being a taxpayer? Should we garnish their $8:00 dollar an hour, 32 hour a week paycheck? I got a great idea, how about we have corporations that pocketed all those "job creator" tax breaks and outsourced the jobs, how about we make them pay THAT back?

Right on!  Now that is a plan.