If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Where are people spending their food stamps?" Obama administration: That's none of your farking business   (politico.com) divider line 245
    More: Fail, food stamps, Obama administration, Chief Judge, payment processor, secrecy, aficionados, Argus Leader, appeals courts  
•       •       •

2435 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Feb 2014 at 3:54 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-01 05:08:40 PM

cameroncrazy1984: So again, why do we care?


Because we have a right to know how our money is being spent.

For example, If I buy a Big Mac, then I have a right to know exactly what a McDonald's manager buys with his or her paycheck.

Because that paycheck is my money, in some symbolic astral sense that does not correspond to any actual economic reality.
 
2014-02-01 05:09:38 PM
I spend a lot of mine on potatoes and corn...down at the liquor store.
 
2014-02-01 05:10:58 PM
Will obama be put on the $300 bill?
 
2014-02-01 05:12:54 PM
No one in this thread has given one reason why this information should not be made public outside of making fun of Republicans.    Just making note of that, carry on.
 
2014-02-01 05:16:15 PM

Hobodeluxe: I think we should do this with everyone who gets paid by the taxpayers.
it's our money right? we should be able to decide what they can and can't buy with it
maybe I don't want some congressman's whore daughter buying birth control
we need to know this stuff people.


You aren't paying money for people to buy things, you are paying them to do a job. You pay teachers to teach your kids, and you do have a right to have input on how they teach your kids.
 
2014-02-01 05:17:25 PM
Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.
 
2014-02-01 05:18:01 PM
Well... it kinda isn't.
 
2014-02-01 05:18:04 PM

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Will obama be put on the $300 bill?


You're one of those guys who thinks they are far more clever than they actually are aren't you.
 
2014-02-01 05:18:16 PM

DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Will obama be put on the $300 bill?


I loved how insane the derpers got when Total Recall (2012) featured legal tender with President Obama's portrait.

www.slashgear.com

Not joking.  Seriously, Google it.  It's...frightening.
 
2014-02-01 05:18:57 PM

DrewCurtisJr: cameroncrazy1984: And we already have fraud agencies that identify those who really don't need the money, and they are better at finding it out than most previous administrations.

So again, why do we care?

Why do you care that someone wants information? If it is to possibly investigate fraud so what?


They're already investigating, so why do I care that someone who is investigating fraud is already getting that information?
 
2014-02-01 05:19:13 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: Remember when the GOP was the party of privacy for people? Good times, good times.


Has Obama has otherwise shown a punctilious concern for privacy until now?

By the way, I forgot to say hello to the NSA today ... Hello, you rat bastard domestic spying assholes!
 
2014-02-01 05:19:15 PM

Fart_Machine: Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.


This is the best suggestion, it gets rid of 90% of the problems people have with the program and creates a better likelihood hat children will actually get the food instead of the EBT card being sold for 50 cents on the dollar.
 
2014-02-01 05:22:41 PM

edmo: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

What's with those people? It's like they eat every day or something.


99.7% of "poor" people in America eat.
 
2014-02-01 05:23:54 PM

Brostorm: No one in this thread has given one reason why this information should not be made public outside of making fun of Republicans.    Just making note of that, carry on.


FOIA is probably one of best laws in our country, but any particular use of it is an affront to the integrity of _____ and is generally just an attempt by --------- to embarrass ________.
 
2014-02-01 05:26:41 PM

cameroncrazy1984: They're already investigating, so why do I care that someone who is investigating fraud is already getting that information?


Who do you mean by "they're"? And why do you care?
 
2014-02-01 05:28:47 PM
This is like saying It's not a violation of HIPPA for health insurance companies to give our your medical information because they aren't the doctors treating you.
 
2014-02-01 05:29:10 PM

Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?

images.sodahead.com


Don't understand why it's bad to demand a full accountability of ALL tax dollars.  Only Derpocrats carrying water for Obama are afraid to reveal what people might be spending their government assistance on.  I want to know that people are buying bread and milk, and rocket motors and plutonium triggers.  Tell me everything.
 
2014-02-01 05:30:40 PM

Generation_D:   Not that bogus racist 80s "Welfare Queen" from Chicago they all love to still straw man the crap out of.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/20/255819681/the-truth-be h ind-the-lies-of-the-original-welfare-queen

the more you know
 
2014-02-01 05:34:03 PM

hasty ambush: [images.sodahead.com image 350x233]

[images.sodahead.com image 350x216]


[www.conservative-daily.com image 480x385]


Number of bin Ladens killed:  1   GOP:  0
Wars ended by Obama:  2  GOP: 0
Wars started by Obama:  0  GOP: Oh please, oh please, oh please
 
2014-02-01 05:35:16 PM

SCUBA_Archer: Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?

[images.sodahead.com image 350x203]

Don't understand why it's bad to demand a full accountability of ALL tax dollars.  Only Derpocrats carrying water for Obama are afraid to reveal what people might be spending their government assistance on.  I want to know that people are buying bread and milk, and rocket motors and plutonium triggers.  Tell me everything.


Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.
 
2014-02-01 05:40:19 PM

Warlordtrooper: This is like saying It's not a violation of HIPPA for health insurance companies to give our your medical information because they aren't the doctors treating you.


not even close. this was a FOIA request for meta data compiled by the DoA. to use your analogy, which is kind of tenuous because the exception in this case is nothing like HIPPA, this would be like health insurance companies disclosing how much money they paid to a particular hospital.
 
2014-02-01 05:42:50 PM

The Life Of Brian: whither_apophis: BravadoGT: Obama doesn't give a a damn what they spend the money on.   He just wants them to remember who sends it to them when it's time to vote.

Screw him! I'm not voting for Obama again.

Why not???

I voted for him 4 times already...and I'm Canadian, eh!

/God bless ACORN


OK, I'll vote for Obama once more, Hillary three times ... and once for Jerry Brown for laughs.
 
2014-02-01 05:43:52 PM

DrewCurtisJr: cameroncrazy1984: They're already investigating, so why do I care that someone who is investigating fraud is already getting that information?

Who do you mean by "they're"? And why do you care?


"They're" meaning the government. And I don't care? Why do you want the information if it's only useful for the people who are targeting fraud?
 
2014-02-01 05:45:32 PM
rzrwiresunrise:

Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.

Zero accountability as usual.  Don't hold Obama to his promises, pass the blame.  It's always the other guy's fault right?

"Most transparent administration EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

/Not a Republican either, sorry.
 
2014-02-01 05:52:54 PM

cameroncrazy1984: "They're" meaning the government. And I don't care? Why do you want the information if it's only useful for the people who are targeting fraud?


Because, believe it or not, sometimes the media or watchdog groups have uncovered fraud or corruption in government or government programs that the government anti-fraud efforts had not.
 
2014-02-01 05:52:56 PM

SCUBA_Archer: rzrwiresunrise:

Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.

Zero accountability as usual.  Don't hold Obama to his promises, pass the blame.  It's always the other guy's fault right?

"Most transparent administration EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

/Not a Republican either, sorry.


No need to apologize; neither am I.

But it's funny how the accountability patrol screams and stomps their feet in threads like these, but either *crickets*  or 'MURICA in threads about military spending.

And in case you didn't notice... this is what I said on the first page. So carry on, cuz I know you ain't talking to me...
 
2014-02-01 05:55:22 PM

Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.


Which they'll put in their Obama Fridges.
 
2014-02-01 05:55:38 PM
Just another excuse by republican conservatrolls to find reasons to cut SNAP and other food assistance programs.
Unless the people who receive such assistance are buying beans, rice, oatmeal and gruel (not even the good name brand gruel, but the generic stuff) they deserve nothing, nada, nyet zilch, zippo, goose egg, zero.
In their minds you should suffer if you're poor, as punishment for being... poor. Which obviously is not enough punishment.
 
2014-02-01 05:59:02 PM

edmo: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

What's with those people? It's like they eat every day or something.


slurmed.com
What is it with you poors? Every other day it's food, food, food!
 
2014-02-01 06:00:46 PM

Etchy333: When discussing food stamps, there are two ways you can go:

1. Criticize the poor for buying food that is too fancy.
2. Criticize the poor for buying food that is not fancy enough.

Solution:  The poor get no food at all!


This is just... sick.
Buy good food without preservatives and crap from somewhere like whole foods, and the c-tards hate it.
Buy crap food but more of it from WalMart, and the c-tards hate it.

Y'know, I'm beginning to thing you're right. NO FOOD! EVARRRRR!!!!
 
2014-02-01 06:01:50 PM

eraser8: DrSansabeltNoShiatSlacks: Will obama be put on the $300 bill?

I loved how insane the derpers got when Total Recall (2012) featured legal tender with President Obama's portrait.

[www.slashgear.com image 600x400]

Not joking.  Seriously, Google it.  It's...frightening.


I called this back in 2008 when I said that the right wing isn't upset that Obama will be spending Federal money, but that he'll become such a beloved and Historic President that one day his face will be printed ON the money!
 
2014-02-01 06:04:32 PM

xanadian: Lsherm: Dancin_In_Anson: Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense

Yeah I remember how stories about $600 toilet seats were spiked by the White House.

Ever see the West Wing episode when Christian Slater explained why a glass ashtray had to cost $400?  It actually made sense.

I'm not sure what the $600 toilet seats do, but I want one.

Imagine sitting in the head, making an entry to the captain's log, when suddenly the ship is under fire.  DO YOU WANT THAT THING TO SPLINTER AND GO INTO YOUR ASS!??  I think NOT


.....you know what? If they ACTUALLY wanted to make this the argument (as opposed to denying it in the face of reality), I'd actually get behind it. Is it a terribly LIKELY scenario? No, but ya know what? I'd ACCEPT it.
 
2014-02-01 06:06:06 PM

JAYoung: How is it that the right wingers have convinced the country at large that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to the poor?
Of course at the same time it is in full effect for the swindlers on Wall Street and the corporate terrorists in West Virginia.


Because they are guilty of being... poor. That's a capital offense in the conservatards' world or capitalism uber alles. There's no greater crime, which is why so many of them are "embarrassed millionaires".
 
2014-02-01 06:08:30 PM

rewind2846: Etchy333: When discussing food stamps, there are two ways you can go:

1. Criticize the poor for buying food that is too fancy.
2. Criticize the poor for buying food that is not fancy enough.

Solution:  The poor get no food at all!

This is just... sick.
Buy good food without preservatives and crap from somewhere like whole foods, and the c-tards hate it.
Buy crap food but more of it from WalMart, and the c-tards hate it.

Y'know, I'm beginning to thing you're right. NO FOOD! EVARRRRR!!!!


Someone wrote an article (wish I could relocate it) where the author had been on food stamps and was buying some regular stuff, and someone behind him was going off about all the stuff being bought. Like he has to take verbal abuse from total strangers and be submissive to them just because he's on assistence.

So, he decided to buy only healthy things like fresh produce and rice. No one's going to give him crap if he's at least trying to eat healthy, right? When he used his EBT card, there was yet another nosy jerkface behind him making smartmouth comments like "I wish I had someone to buy all of those fruits and vegetables for me".

And he came to the conclusion that was obvious: these people aren't throwing a fit about SNAP. They're biatching just because they're DICKS, and they think anyone on SNAP or WIC is beneath them enough that they can treat these recipients like sh*t.
 
2014-02-01 06:09:49 PM

Brostorm: Fart_Machine: Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.

This is the best suggestion, it gets rid of 90% of the problems people have with the program and creates a better likelihood hat children will actually get the food instead of the EBT card being sold for 50 cents on the dollar.


But it adds a lot more bureaucracy to grocery stores and their checkout clerks. I used to work as one and I remember the painstaking details we had to take to make sure that anything that was bought with WIC was on the approved list (which was very small and only consisted of generic items), and were only dispensed as checks meaning that we had to take time to run each check.

If they found a way to make it more efficient, I'd be on board. Otherwise it'll just result in longer lines in the store because a lot more people use EBT than you would think.
 
2014-02-01 06:11:13 PM

rewind2846: JAYoung: How is it that the right wingers have convinced the country at large that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to the poor?
Of course at the same time it is in full effect for the swindlers on Wall Street and the corporate terrorists in West Virginia.

Because they are guilty of being... poor. That's a capital offense in the conservatards' world or capitalism uber alles. There's no greater crime, which is why so many of them are "embarrassed millionaires".


There are Megachurches who push the "Prosperity Gospel" that the more money you have, the more godly you are. So it goes without saying that in using such diseased logic, the Poor are poor because they're Satanic.
 
2014-02-01 06:12:06 PM

Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.





In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached $927 billion per yearI federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.

according to the President's own spending plans, by 2014, welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion per year.

79 Assistance Programs

12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.

Total Cost of the War on Poverty

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.

Welfare Spending: The Fastest Growing Component of Government Spending

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending
. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent over the period. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent over the same period.

Means-tested spending on cash, food, and housing increased more rapidly (196 percent) than Social Security (174 percent). The growth in means-tested medical spending (448 percent) exceeded the growth in Medicare (376 percent).[2] The growth in means-tested aid greatly exceeded the growth in government spending on education (143 percent) and defense (126 percent).
 
2014-02-01 06:14:34 PM

hasty ambush: Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.

In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached $927 billion per yearI federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.

according to the President's own spending plans, by 2014, welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion per year.

79 Assistance Programs

12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.

Total Cost of the War on Poverty

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.

Welfare Spending: The Fastest Growing Component of Government Spending

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent over the period. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent ov ...


In case anyone wanted a citation...
 
2014-02-01 06:15:37 PM

elchip: Voiceofreason01: Generation_D: You know grocery stores and what not probably already know, to great detail.

and watch, most of it'll be on food.

this. I really don't think there's a good reason that kind of info should not be disclosed but at the same time I suspect that a lot of the people interested in getting the info just want to turn it into an excuse for further cuts to SNAP.

Democrats are concerned about bad things happening to people who don't deserve it.

Republicans are concerned about good things happening to people who don't deserve it are brown.


FTFY
 
2014-02-01 06:16:09 PM

rewind2846: Just another excuse by republican conservatrolls to find reasons to cut SNAP and other food assistance programs.


Why is it OK for the government to monitor and investigate program fraud but when a newspaper does it you assume it is for a sinister motive?
 
2014-02-01 06:17:28 PM

rzrwiresunrise: In case anyone wanted a citation...


Heritage is known for their unbiased economic analysis. Everyone remembers when the Bush tax cuts gave us a surplus.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-01 06:17:56 PM

SCUBA_Archer: rzrwiresunrise:

Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.

Zero accountability as usual.  Don't hold Obama to his promises, pass the blame.  It's always the other guy's fault right?

"Most transparent administration EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

/Not a Republican either, sorry.


Of course you aren't my dear, you're what we around here call a Fark Independenttm

bull-chic.com
 
2014-02-01 06:18:05 PM
What's their end game with this? A provision that food stamps only pay for gruel, rainwater, and pine cones?

Let's try that, and see the Deep South flip blue.

I don't think they get that so-called Real Americans use more welfare and food stamps than anyone.
 
2014-02-01 06:19:28 PM

Brostorm: No one in this thread has given one reason why this information should not be made public outside of making fun of Republicans.    Just making note of that, carry on.


Well, let's take a look.  The kefluffle seems to be over a request for details on how much the USDA pays individual companies (food stores) through the food stamp program.  It is NOT about WHAT people are buying, just where they shop.

It appears that the USDA is saying that a provision in federal law that protects retailers' application information from disclosure also bars disclosure of how much the feds pay out to specific businesses.  So there are laws on the books saying some information is not to be disclosed, and the USDA is saying that includes information on how much is paid to individual businesses.

Why would there be restrictions on revealing who gets paid what?  I'm no expert, but just offhand it would flag certain businesses as "food stamp stores" and that's a pejorative.  There are probably other reasons as well; maybe someone here can elaborate.  In a connected article, an attorney defending the USDA said that, among other reasons, they don't want to publicize which places have a greater problem with fraud, or how the USDA tracks fraud, and help enable those seeking to defraud the program.

However, please note that both the USDA, and almost certainly these regulations, predate the Obama administration.  Also note that it was the USDA who is fighting this FOIA request, not the White House.  To claim that this is an Obama thing is a base partisan attack.

Why would that be?  Well, the GOP has been making efforts for a very long time to try to reduce, eliminate or otherwise weaken just about every social program that exists, and this is an opportunity to get some data and then yell loudly that the food stamp program is rife with fraud (and thus should be shut down immediately).  In fact, a form of that argument was part of this dissenting judge's decision, at least the fraud part.
 
2014-02-01 06:21:12 PM

ScaryBottles: SCUBA_Archer: rzrwiresunrise:

Funny how Derpublicans tend to make as little stink as possible about those plutonium triggers, tho. But I feel your concern, your deep deep concern.

Zero accountability as usual.  Don't hold Obama to his promises, pass the blame.  It's always the other guy's fault right?

"Most transparent administration EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR"

/Not a Republican either, sorry.

Of course you aren't my dear, you're what we around here call a Fark Independenttm

[bull-chic.com image 850x850]



Leave him alone. He's probably "more of a Libertarian."
 
2014-02-01 06:23:15 PM

hasty ambush: Nadie_AZ: We don't care how billions are spent for the departments of war and defense, but we care how a mom of 3 spends her $80 a month?

Sounds like a conservative. They hate nickel and dime welfare, but love it in huge gobs.


In FY 2011, federal spending on means-tested welfare, plus state contributions to federal programs, reached $927 billion per yearI federal spending on means-tested welfare came to $717 billion. State contributions into federal programs added another $201 billion, and independent state programs contributed around $9 billion.

according to the President's own spending plans, by 2014, welfare spending exceeds $1 trillion per year.

79 Assistance Programs

12 programs providing food aid;
12 programs funding social services;
12 educational assistance programs;
11 housing assistance programs;
10 programs providing cash assistance;
9 vocational training programs;
7 medical assistance programs;
3 energy and utility assistance programs; and,
3 child care and child development programs.

Total Cost of the War on Poverty

Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $19.8 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all military wars in U.S. history from the Revolutionary War through the current war in Afghanistan has been $6.98 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars).The War on Poverty has cost three times as much as all other wars combined.

Welfare Spending: The Fastest Growing Component of Government Spending

For the past two decades, means-tested welfare or aid to the poor has been the fastest growing component of government spending, outstripping the combined growth of Medicare and Social Security spending, as well as the growth in education and defense spending. Over the 20-year period between FY 1989 and FY 2008, total means-tested spending increased by 292 percent over the period. The increase in combined Social Security and Medicare spending was 213 percent ov ...


Oh, and btw:

nationalpriorities.org

nationalpriorities.org

Both charts found here...
 
2014-02-01 06:28:20 PM

Mrtraveler01: Brostorm: Fart_Machine: Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.

This is the best suggestion, it gets rid of 90% of the problems people have with the program and creates a better likelihood hat children will actually get the food instead of the EBT card being sold for 50 cents on the dollar.

But it adds a lot more bureaucracy to grocery stores and their checkout clerks. I used to work as one and I remember the painstaking details we had to take to make sure that anything that was bought with WIC was on the approved list (which was very small and only consisted of generic items), and were only dispensed as checks meaning that we had to take time to run each check.

If they found a way to make it more efficient, I'd be on board. Otherwise it'll just result in longer lines in the store because a lot more people use EBT than you would think.


There are computer programs that every major supermarket has that does it automatically.
 
2014-02-01 06:38:05 PM

DrewCurtisJr: rewind2846: Just another excuse by republican conservatrolls to find reasons to cut SNAP and other food assistance programs.

Why is it OK for the government to monitor and investigate program fraud but when a newspaper does it you assume it is for a sinister motive?


If I'm the one giving out the money, it's up to me to keep track of where it goes, and to make sure it goes where intended. Same with the federal government. It's what they are SUPPOSED to do.

The newspaper on the other hand is gathering information for a story, a story that will be written to prove a point in accordance with the reporter's purpose and the paper's editorial guidelines. Having dealt with a hometown newspaper that is as conservative as if it were a print version of FNC (the San Diego Union Tribune) for over 20 years, I see no real purpose behind the gathering of such information except to rile up those who believe that those who are poor are in that state because "it's their own damn fault and why should my tax muneez go to help those assholes" and on and on and on... toss in a black or brown face, simmer until tender, serve with a side of hate and ignorance.

tl,dr; red meat for the conservatrolls.
 
2014-02-01 06:50:17 PM

Brostorm: Mrtraveler01: Brostorm: Fart_Machine: Make the program more like WIC.  Problem solved.

This is the best suggestion, it gets rid of 90% of the problems people have with the program and creates a better likelihood hat children will actually get the food instead of the EBT card being sold for 50 cents on the dollar.

But it adds a lot more bureaucracy to grocery stores and their checkout clerks. I used to work as one and I remember the painstaking details we had to take to make sure that anything that was bought with WIC was on the approved list (which was very small and only consisted of generic items), and were only dispensed as checks meaning that we had to take time to run each check.

If they found a way to make it more efficient, I'd be on board. Otherwise it'll just result in longer lines in the store because a lot more people use EBT than you would think.

There are computer programs that every major supermarket has that does it automatically.


I think MO must be in the stone age then because we didn't have the ability to do these automatically.
 
2014-02-01 06:51:25 PM

rewind2846: If I'm the one giving out the money, it's up to me to keep track of where it goes, and to make sure it goes where intended. Same with the federal government. It's what they are SUPPOSED to do.


Yes it is what they are SUPPOSED to do, doesn't mean they always do a good job at it. Are you trying to tell me you've never seen a case of the media finding the government not doing something they were supposed to do properly?

rewind2846: I see no real purpose behind the gathering of such information except to rile up those who believe that those who are poor are in that state because "it's their own damn fault and why should my tax muneez go to help those assholes" and on and on and on... toss in a black or brown face, simmer until tender, serve with a side of hate and ignorance.


Or maybe they might use the information to help expose crooked retailers? Isn't that what the government would want?
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report