How do feel about food stamp users who purchase the more expensive food items, like shrimp, prime rib, lobster tails, etc?

It's an interesting idea, but I can see a few problems right off the bat.

First of all, do we really want to tell people on food stamps what to eat? After all, they don't get extra money to buy junk food -- it comes out of their food stamp allotment just like the rest of the food they buy. If Doritos on the public dime were really a problem, it might be more honest to suggest reducing food stamp benefits altogether. It might be even better if Senator Storms paid attention to her own grocery cart and not other peoples'.

Second, even if you concluded that restricting junk food purchases on food stamps were the right thing to do, you've still got a couple major hurdles to overcome:

- How do you enforce the restrictions? Do you require supermarket scanners to flag foods that can't be paid for with food stamps? Can scanner software do that now? Also, how hard would it be to train supermarket personnel to identify what can and can't be paid for with food stamps? If compliance turns out to be that hard, will food markets even bother with enforcement?

- How do you decide what food can or can't be purchased using food stamps? Is the state department of agriculture going to decide on a healthy foods formulary? Are they going to get it right? I'll be waiting for a post on how bad for you the "healthful" foods really are.

So, no, I'm not terribly thrilled with this idea. If you're worried about poor people using the dole unwisely, then maybe we ought to think about reducing benefits. Enforcing an initiative as patronizing as Senator Storms's strikes me as more trouble than it's worth.

I agree that we shouldn't be encouraging the poor (in wealth and health) to buy junk food, but I think that the food stamp program will become vastly more expensive if we limit them to only what's good for them. When you are feeding a family you need to be sure that you provide enough calories to get them through the day. This is pretty expensive on broccoli and beef.

Because of government subsidies you can get far more calories for your dollar buying a bag of chips vs. the equivalent in apples. Maybe if we got rid of these subsidies this sort of thing would become feasible.

It is the companies that sell the soda, chips, cookies, etc. and their lobbies that fight changes to regulations like these. Follow the dollar!

What happens when this collides with the fast-food lobby's push to allow food stamps to be used across the country at McDonald's, Taco Bell, etc.?

That plan is already in place in several states. Did you know that in California, EBT can be used at Subway, El Pollo Loco and Jack in the Box? Arizona, Florida and Michigan also accept food stamps at many fast food chains.

The same behaviors that make people fat, sometiems, are the same behaviors that keep them poor. In ability to delay gratification, for one. Lack of long-term planning, for another.

"In fact, I stood behind a lady at the grocery store in fancy sunglasses and a leather jacket, jabbering on her iPhone...stopping only to give the cashier her food stamps card."

If you hadn't seen the food stamps card, would you have remembered her at all?

Well, I assume that the grocery stores are compensated for what is bought with food stamps, so the government has to pay for it. When I buy a bag of chips for $3.00 I get about 1200 calories. $3.00 worth of broccoli might get you two pounds of broccoli (maybe about 500 calories). So the person would have to buy more than twice as much broccoli to feed her family.

The things that are calorie dense (carbohydrates, sugars, etc.) are also the cheapest and the least nutritious. So I assume that forcing them to buy the equivalent in healthy food would cost the government even more. I know that personally it costs me a lot to buy healthy food.

I agree that it needs to be changed, but I think it might be really expensive.

Yeah, I know nutrition does not equal calories, but when you're hungry, calories speak louder.

Changing the rules would probably make the poor healthier. I just know from grocery shopping that I can feed more people on junk food than I can on healthy food (meat and veggies). It's messed up.

There seems to be about 1000 calories in a pound of ground beef, which costs about $5. Nutritionally that will probably hold you over longer and get you through a day. It's still more expensive.

What might be another side-effect of this being regulated? The government would get to decide what is healthy, and right now they say whole grains and low fat are healthy, which we know isn't true. The poor would still get diabetes if they went with what the government thinks they should be eating.

EBT cards (food stamps) already have limitations on what you can buy, most notably that you cannot purchase alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and a whole host of other things sold at the grocery mart. You cannot even buy non-food necessities like toilet paper and toothbrushes. Changing the parameters of what is and is not allowed on the card is a relatively simple task, as simple as deleting codes from an "allowed list" or adding them to a "denied list," depending on the software the grocery store uses. It would cost SOME money, of course, but it would not be a ridiculously expensive enterprise.

As far as "calorie density" goes, it's a ridiculous argument. If I buy a head of cauliflower ($3 at my grocery store), roast it with a little butter and salt, it will last me for a week's worth of snacking, precisely because it is low in calories and high in nutrients. If I use the same $3 for a bag of chips, those chips would probably be gone the same night, because they fill your stomach with non-nutrition, making you want to keep eating even after your stomach is full.

The biggest problem with this is that those same people who would declare that you can only buy "healthy" food would say that hearthealthywholegrains must be on the list, no fatty meats, no lard, butter, cream, or whole milk. They'd make people eat soy and white chicken and canola oil. So, I don't think this would be a good idea.
As far as cost goes, it would less expensive for us in the long run if people on the dole were getting good nutrition, because they would have fewer medical expenses, and the good nutrition might help stave off the depression, listlessness, and apathy that comes with malnutrition and poverty. (I say that not as a slight against those in poverty, but as someone who was definitely poor, apathetic, listless, and depressed only a few months ago. I'm still "poor," but I'm happy and working!)

There seems to be about 1000 calories in a pound of ground beef, which costs about $5.

Nonsense.

I buy organic, grass-fed ground beef for $5.49 a pound; but you can buy non-organic at the local Safeway for about half that or less. And this is in San Francisco, one of the more expensive cities in the country. Unlike the junk food calories, the beef will provide necessary nutrients and keep one's family full.

There's no good justification for buying chips when money is tight (and they're a bad idea if you've got money, too!).

I'm not sure what program it is, but I have seen some families on assistance here only being able to buy certain products. Might be a California thing, though.

I'm not sure I like the idea of mandating what people can buy with their SNAP cards, but I've seen a lot of overweight people buying garbage with them. Given the generally poor understanding of nutrition among policy makers, any guidelines for SNAP usage are likely to be ill-advised (OJ, pasta, and skim milk would be in; 80-20 beef, eggs, and full fat milk would be out). Probably best not to legislate too much.

You're fucking kidding right? You really want the government deciding what is and is not healthy for these people to eat and then enforce that via food stamps. These are the same people who came up with and promote that stupid new food plate. What foods do you think the government will allow them? Streaky bacon, pepperoni, and ground beef? Or heart-healthy pastas?

I heart her! On one hand, it doens't matter whether you buy potato chips or spinach with my money every month, my money is still gone. On the other hand, I can't afford prepackaged foods so why should you? Also, plenty of places here in texas sell heat n eat food that they can tecnicaly take food stamps for. Like take n bake pizzas. Uh, no, I am not paying for your take-out pizza.

My SIL has 3 kids and gets nearly $800 a month in food stamps. I have 4 kids and don't spend that. Hhow is it fair that I have to coupon and plan and scrimp, so that she doens't have to? So rather than limiting what they can buy, I'd rather limit who can get it and how much they get. It should be subsistance level eating.

I get grassfed organic freerange beef at our farmers market for $3.50 a lb. It's frozen most of the year, but who cares?

It would not be hard to make foodstamps the same as taxes on food-processed foods are taxed and don't get food stamps. Easy.

I love the idea this lady has, but have to agree on other commenters that you have to look at the realistic application. RPMDaddy pointed out that you'd have to do a great deal of retraining/reprogramming to get it to work. But more importantly, we'd be giving the government more say in what people should be eating. While I agree that a person shouldn't be using their SNAP card for Doritos, on the other hand, I don't want the government to get any more of a foothold in what people put in their shopping carts. Many have pointed out that the government directs people towards carb-heavy diets, whereas science shows low-carb is better for you. So, no, I don't trust them to make that decision.

I dislike how much fiddling our lawmakers are trying to do with my diet. I know what's good for me and what's bad for me. I am a grown-up girl and can make that decision for myself. I don't need taxes on my sodas, banned fast foods, or banning salt from restaurants. It's insulting and it takes away my autonomy.

How soon after the government decides what's too unhealthy to be covered by food stamps does the government decide what's too unhealthy to be sold in stores at all?

Do you require supermarket scanners to flag foods that can't be paid for with food stamps? Can scanner software do that now?

The scanner software already does that with alcohol, tobacco, hot food, and other items not covered by food stamps.

Adding new items to the list would simply be a matter of adding a flag to an existing field in the database.

As a Florida taxpayer who isn't on food stamps I can say that this is just more feel good legislation, designed to appease tea party conservatives, that won't save one dime of taxpayer money. Welcome to government social engineering conservative style.

Junk food is generally cheaper then healthy food, so of course people on food stamps buy more of it. There are exceptions, but they are just that. Exceptions. If a substitute good is cheaper people buy more of it. That’s basic economics.

Finally who do you think is going to determine which foods are allowed and which foods are banned? The lobbyists’ of course!!! Allowing lobbyists’ to dictate peoples’ diet doesn’t sound like a recipe for healthy eating. .

If our legislators in Tallahassee have nothing better to do then obsess over the diet of people on food stamps, then maybe we should look into cutting back the legislative session along with their pay and benefits. Obviously they’ve run out of productive things to do.

IFF, and a very big IF it is, we are going to give foodstuffs to poor people, we should be able to dictate what it is, AND how it is distributed.

The fact that this is run through grocery stores rather than direct is likely to be stupid, because then you are paying for the entire profit margin too.

In the vest of all possible worlds the govt. would hand out staples directly to the person, no retail markup and no middlemen.

will you PLEASE get up off the floor and stop laughing? it's unseemly.

Therein lies our problem. The govt can barely give the money away, and it is frought with waste, and yet, the best system of giving direct, they are probably incapable of.

And then you have to take into consideration the whole logical fallacy that dictating what things they can have, somehow compromises their dignity.

But. How many places in the world does 50# of rice and cooking instructions count as an amazing bounty?

What needs to be revisited is why and how we provide sustenance to the less fortunate. When you put the whole thing on a cash card, it's conveniently out of site out of mind.

Please keep in mind one goal of huge importance: keep government small and simple. You do not want some massive bureaucracy reviewing what kinds of food are acceptable.

momof4 writes: My SIL has 3 kids and gets nearly $800 a month in food stamps. I have 4 kids and don't spend that. Hhow is it fair that I have to coupon and plan and scrimp, so that she doens't have to? So rather than limiting what they can buy, I'd rather limit who can get it and how much they get. It should be subsistance level eating.

Exactly right. $800/month for a family of 4 is overly generous. Half of that, and make sure the family genuinely needs the help. Problem solved.

Living on the dole should be possible, but very uncomfortable. As Amy writes: When you're paying for your own food, you have choices.

My argument for caloric density as a justification is really indefensible, even if that is actually what is going through their heads, but I thought I'd give it a try. :)

@SwissArmyD It is probably much more efficient to have the grocery stores handle distribution, since they are doing it anyway. They are part of the supply chain and they are already paying employees to put things on the shelf and operate the store.

You really want the government deciding what is and is not healthy for these people to eat and then enforce that via food stamps.

Yes. Beggars can't be choosers. If you've got money for any of: junk food, booze, tobacco, drugs, or gambling, you don't need foodstamps.

It's the same crowd that got a case of the vapors when Rick Scott suggested that food stamp recipients should be drug tested.

Now, I will allow that government will probably put the current food pyramid (scheme) on the approved list, and that's not great.

How soon after the government decides what's too unhealthy to be covered by food stamps does the government decide what's too unhealthy to be sold in stores at all?

Oh, ObamaCare will take care of that. Anything thought to be even remotely bad for you will be taxed to hell and back, assuming it isn't straight up prohibited.

Amy will weigh like 127 lbs after the government makes her eat her RDA of grain and carbs...

(I wish I could say I was joking, even half-way, but I'm afraid this is all too true)

McDonald's. Dog food meat. Chemical treatment.

Yuck.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/mcdonald-confirms-no-longer-using-pink-slime-chemicals-171209662.html

"feed more people on junk food than I can on healthy food "

I keep hearing this, to me it is laughable. So is eating out being cheaper than cooking your own. But I have to wonder what they are defining as healthy and junk food, and what they are buying.
If you are looking at calories per $, at about (1500 / $) I think rice tops the list. Part of the reason it is a staple of most of the world and sent out in releif and aid drops. It would still be considered healthier than most "junk" food.

A good question with this would be how much do you spend on food per person per month. I'd have to say mine varies between 150 to 250, depending on how often I eat out. And I'm not trying to budget my grocrey money. So $200 per month of food stamps, is probably more than what I spend in grocery stores.

Let's make another law and regulate sugar.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/01/health/opinion-regulate-sugar-alcohol/index.html

I am possibly the only one here old enough to have seen a block of government cheese. (No, not my family's but at a neighbor's house when I was a kid.) Who do you think is going to distribute more efficiently, a grocery store that has to compete, or the government? That "profit" isn't what you think it is. That cheese was exactly what you think it was.

On to the junk food conundrum. So now, suddenly, people who have made bad decisions all their lives are going to produce tasty, wholesome meals because the government stops them from buying junk food? Is anyone paying attention? We tried this with a captive audience in the schools and got a thriving black market in candy.

This time, it won't be different.

it is, however, an opportunity to meddle in some unfortunate's life and make it a little more demeaning.

"it is, however, an opportunity to meddle in some unfortunate's life and make it a little more demeaning."

Exactly, MarkD. The whole notion that further restricting what food stamp recipients can buy will somehow be For Their Own Good sounds like something we should be resisting. Picture Senator Storms's proposal applying to yourself: That's government intervention I could live without!

And if the goal really is Uplifting the Poor, well, get over to the Mission House. That's what it's there for.

If I pay for your food, you better bet I should get to decide what it is. Don't like it? pay for your own food. And yes, if I allowed the gov't to pay my HEb bill, I wouldn't bitch if they told me what was going in my cart.

Why should I pitch in for those people that eat snacks when I pay for my own food and can't have them.I am not asking them to "eat better" I just want them to buy necessities, Doritos are not a necessity.

How would this play out in reality? I bet orange juice and bread would be on the healthy list. Probably flour, too. How are those things better than chips?

Living in urban areas that do not have a car culture poses its own kinds of challenges to healthy eating. I live in NYC. Without a car, you are limited to local grocery stores, and as much as you can carry in your hands or a small cart. If you're poor, you also likely have a small amount of space in your apartment available for storing groceries, so a Costco membership isn't worth it. My local dollar store doesn't sell vegetables. I'm lucky because I can afford to shop at the stores nearby that have a better selection and quality, but that costs more.

Also, it's not fair to judge someone based on what you see in her cart on one trip to the supermarket. Chips aren't terrible for you if you don't eat them all the time, and they aren't so expensive that we need to deny poor people small pleasures like this just because they're poor.

Cutting off the Dorito supply is pointless if you're actually worried about health, since so many things that seem healthy to people aren't. It's also pointless if you're worried about cost, since it doesn't save any money. It's just a petty way of saying, "That's what you get for being poor."

"Unhealthy, non-staple foods"--how many hundreds of items are going to be on the list? How many experts the government will have to hire to compile and update it?

For all the time and expense, the benefit will be zero. If you want to see the results of government providing what it considers a healthy diet, look at American Indian reservations. They have some of the highest rates of obesity and diabetes in the world.

I don't know whether small mom-and-pop shops have software they can simply reprogram to disallow certain items. Make it too cumbersome to transact with food stamps, and they'll quit taking them (or raise their prices). Some poor people may end up spending cab fare to go to Safeway.

I agree with others that if food stamp recipients are being wasteful, government should just cut the benefits instead of adding regulations vendors will have to enforce.

If you feel bad that poor people don't have Doritos, feel free to hand out $20s outside 7-Elevens.

I'm already basically doing that. Refusing them chips doesn't save me any money at all. I see no value to it other than to be petty and controlling.

I'm tired of seeing all of these young people on welfare bang hot 18 - 20 year old ghetto queens! It's just not right, I pay for their foodstamps but I can't afford to sleep with these hood rats!!

Whenever I try to sleep with Chiniqua she wants to charge me $200! I can't afford that! Therefore I propose that all Florida taxpayers should have the right of prima nocta over anyone on welfare over the age of 18! If they don't like it they can starve! Who's with me?!

What was Sheriff Goosesteppin' Joe Arapahoeieouandsometimesy feeding the prisoners - some sort of ground baloney loaf.

How about 10 pounds of that in lieu of a lifetime on the dole?

That would motivate my ass, that's for sure.

It does chafe a bit to see soda and chips being bought with food stamps. But if soda is disallowed, apple juice would probably not only be allowed but considered healthy. It is likely just as bad, not counting the carbonation.

I think the whole food assistance program is broken. I'llbegotohell if I know how to fix it, though.

Enh, it's all about the distribution efficiency.

You want to save the taxpayers money when it comes to food stamps? Well, then, consider the counterintuitive point that the primary source of waste in the whole deal is that every time we invent some new constraint, it takes ten-thousand bureaucrats to enforce it - because, remember, you can't crack down on the people spending their food stamps on caviar and champagne because you don't know who they are, so you have to check everybody.

The more time and effort you spend on turning money into a non-fungible good that can only be spent in Righteous Ways, then the less efficient the whole process of redistributing it gets because of all the regulatory cruft.

Just give these people money. Sure, some of them will spend it on Doritos and soda. Hell, some of them will spend it on hookers and blow and then starve to death out of sheer stupidity. But as someone whose pocket gets picked to make the whole thing work, that waste is preferable to me than wasting rather more of my money to make sure no-one spends it on anything my Puritan grandmother would have disapproved of.

The question is whether we want to minimize waste, or do we want to use waste as an excuse to control people?

(And yes, you can generalize this a really long way up. People have run the numbers and established that it would almost certainly be revenue-positive to abolish all our national welfare/social security programs and simply mail every US citizen a check every month without regulating, testing, or documenting anything.)

"Just give these people money."

how is it that we OWE them money?

Look, if I lose my job and stop paying my ex? My bahonkus gets THROWN IN JAIL. And they have NO CARE where that money comes from. Want a modification in the orders? it's 8MONTHS till the next court date, and they will likely say no.

Maybe we should re-examine why it is that we give people "food Stamps".

It's terribly, terribly easy to remove any sort of reality from the question, when we can simply say: just give them the money. After all, the money is removed from your paycheck in taxation, and heads into the big black box of government... we don't know where it goes from there.

The problem seems so intractable that no-one wishes to think on it, and it has lasted so long that no-one thinks things could change. It is so closely identified with inner city black communities that nobody thinks a question can be asked without it seeming racist. EVEN THOUGH, there are plenty of of others on the dole, and oh yeah, some are white, some are red, some are brown...

The question needs to be asked, what would these people do, if there was no welfare?

Is giving them money, in the long run and 3rd or 4th generation, ACTUALLY HELPING THEM TO NOT NEED WELFARE?

How much rice can you buy for $4.50 [bag of doritos]? How many MEALS will it make. How HARD is it to make them?

It's easy to give them money since we don't know what to do about it. But after decades of that... who are we actually helping?

"It's the same crowd that got a case of the vapors when Rick Scott suggested that food stamp recipients should be drug tested."

The "case of vapors" is because Rick Scott owns the the majority of the testing facilities. He wasn't doing this to help people, he wasn't doing it to get re-elected; he was doing it to line his own pockets. This is the same Rick Scott who came thisclose to getting nailed for massive medicare fraud.

Yes, people on food stamps *should* be buying good, nutritious food on a budget. But people, this is the government. Providers of TSA, VIPIR, DHS, SOPA, and the Food Pyramid. I have more faith in "poor people" to make smart decisions than I do the government. And while I am somewhat offended by the idea they might be wasting it on unnecessary foods, it is far from the biggest line item that needs to be slashed.

"I have more faith in "poor people" to make smart decisions than I do the government."

I don't have a lick of faith in either one of them. From what I've seen, it is indeed true that most poor people are poor because they consistently, relentlessly make bad decisions. Attempting to help them just leads to frustration because they perceive any help as merely license to further indulge their baser desires. And then, when more of the same is not forthcoming, they are unappreciative to say the least. ("Narcissistic rage", to say the most.)

Yes, there are poor people who are poor through no fault of their own. But guess what? Those people don't usually stay poor. Because they can't stand being poor. They will, maybe with some help, climb their way out of poverty in a few years. On the other hand, people who are structurally poor are poor because they are irresponsible. There is actually nothing you can do for them, and attempts to help just make things worse.

I'd actually prefer if they threw out the food stamps altogether and gave people raw ingredients: flour, sugar, meat, vegetables, etc. They're not working, they have time to cook. Send them to a basic cooking class before they start getting handouts.

If they're going to start regulating what foods they can eat, Florida should just send each recipient a box of government-approved groceries. Simpler that way.

I will say that I'm against people starving to death, being left homeless on the streets, and other such basic needs.

What I want anyone to show me is where basic sustenance, food stamps, or for that matter the USDA appears in the The United States Constitution? I'd even challenge that to the state's constitutions.

There is nothing wrong with private organizations providing charity. When you have a government trying to do it, the charity will be distorted.

Hows about instead of half a dozen computer generated lists on 'banned' and 'approved' items we tell people to use some fucking common sense.

How about the only hing allowed under food stamps are plain items - no processed snack cakes, no premade meals, no candy or soda or juice.

Just staples, raw meat, fruits, veggies, rice, beans, butter, milk/cheese(not fucking pre sliced sae that extra five dolaars and spend it on MORE FOOD RATHER THEN THE CONVENCE OF NOT HAVEING TO SLICE YOUR OWN MOTHERFUCKING CHEESE) and possibly canned goods.

But I'm sorry, a fountain drink, a hot dog, a bad of bbq potatos chips and 3 packages of twinkies should not be allowable with food stamps at your local gas and go.

And niether should Wendys or Taco bell be on the list for food stamps.

Bread and Circuses; Doritos and Nascar.

Although it's rather impolite to look into someone else's shopping cart, let alone remark upon it. Makes me think less of the Senator.

Would anyone notice if all I buy with my EBT card is carrots?
My horses would be devastated.

I know, right? Like how dare an elected offical do something to actually promote responsibility in the welafare progam.

The nerve, she should spend her time doing more valuble things like - requireing nail salon which use fish to eat the dead skin off of feet to be cleaned with bleach after each use, or drafting non binding resolutions praising the bible, or passing laws allowing the managment companies of toll raods to impound fare skippers inside of state that dont even have toll roads

You know, something time wasting and pointless - how dare they acctually do something useful for a change.

I mean if a person of welfare wants to spend their food stamps on a $40 dollar dinner for two at Chilis rather then on enough grocires for a week who are we to judge?

Oh, wait a minute, we're the one FOOTING THE MOTHERFUCKING BILL, arent we? I guess that means we have every right to judge.

Interesting idea. Rather than a banned list, I'd have a not-banned list.

I'd start with the following:

* Vegetables... raw, frozen, canned
* fruits, raw or frozen or dried (not canned)
* nuts and nut butters
* jam and honey
* Meat that is meat without stuff added to it
* Bread
* Pasta, rice, cereal
* Baking ingredients - flour, sugar, salt, herbs, eggs, powder, soda
* milk, cheese, butter, yoghurt (hell, let's include the sweetened yoghurt, everyone deserves a treat now and then)
* beans, canned, dry or fresh

Within that list there's plenty of opportunity for junk food. You can even make a birthday cake if you want to. But you won't be having cake every day unless you're some foodie cook. Yeah there are a lot of junk cereals out there. You can make your own juice or smoothies if you have a blender. You can eat nothing but bread and jam. I think it would still be better.

Couple things to remember...

* Not everyone on food stamps is unemployed
* Poor people often have more expensive grocery bills because of lack of access to grocery stores, and they have to shop at the corner market
* Do you really care if some poor person blows their allowance on lobster one day and then eats nothing but rice for the rest of the month?

Jim P.

Here's where it appears in the constitution:

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law,

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

***

Feeding the poor falls under "general Welfare". Congress absolutely has the right to raise taxes to feed the poor. If you don't like it, lobby, campaign, and vote!

If you want to see how the government would screw it up look up the tax Washington State put on candy, etc. There are some pretty funny examples.

Reese cups and pieces are candy. Reese sticks are not candy. Kit Kat bars are not candy.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127218749

Feeding the poor falls under "general Welfare". Congress absolutely has the right to raise taxes to feed the poor. If you don't like it, lobby, campaign, and vote! -- NicoleK at February 1, 2012 11:03 PM

Bzzzzzz! Wrong answer! The "general welfare" as was used in the was defined as n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. The whole discussion is here but pulling the quote that is pertinent to this conversation:

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

The general welfare is considered as providing the courts, keeping the peace, and allowing you to have your liberty and property. It is not money, food, health care, cars, cell phones, cable TV or anything else.

@SwissArmyD : If you want to kill the notion of welfare programs, that's fine by me, or at least, I don't think the notion should be off the table and I would definitely prefer something a lot closer to that than what we have now.

But so long as we do have them, we should at least do them efficiently.

Or, y'know, admit that the purpose of the program is not what the purpose of the program is claimed to be.

It sounds intuitively right: let the SNAP recipients buy their snack foods with their own money. But guess what, if this works, how soon will Storms become concerned with what people are buying for their kids with their own money?

The Nanny State is a noxious weed that must be uprooted and destroyed wherever it may grow.

I think aa lot of you are assholes and have no Fucking Compassion! I am Disabled from Birth and I WORKED for over 20 years until I just couldn't do it anymore. I Hate being disabled and to make me feel more like shit If I buy a box of cookies once a month is ridiculous. Why not we just KILL off the poor! They don't suffer enough so lets fuck with em on what they can and cant eat too! Lets take the rest of their self esteem required to work if they ever can and just make them feel more like shit. I used to be on the other side of the coin and NEVER was cruel to anyone on welfare except one women in a FUR COAT Driving a Fucking NEW Lexus. As she used the card I noticed 3 or 4 diamond rings and a Tennis bracelet that could have Been sold for FOOD!! All of you that agreed with Miss Attitude Senator can go fuck yourself and so can she. YOU and her should be stricken with poverty to see what its like. Everyone does NOT abuse the system. People who are TRULY disabled should not be made to feel more like shit than they already do!

> They don't suffer enough so lets fuck with em
> on what they can and cant eat too!

We note that your tone is sarcastic.

So... Who pays for this ignoble food? Who pays to give underloved, underfed children snacks which will diminish their fulfillment, their health, and their love of nutrition?

HEAR THIS —

No matter how compassionate the society, no matter how generous it is with those who are flatly unable or essentially disinclined to provide for themselves, the wealth that it passes to them must be created.

You don't have to be disabled (in any respect, not even emotionally [though many are]) to take tremendous pleasure in fantasies of comfort and even pleasure provided for those who are unable to move the lives of those around them forward in appreciated (i.e., profitable) ways.

But the money's gotta come from somewhere.

There's no moral excellence to be harvested in taking it from third parties. Zero.

Those who create value and make their own plans for that wealth will permit only limited intrusions to their finance on behalf of people who aren't known to them. That's not just selfishness, that's not just conservatism, and that's not just human nature... That's just decency.

This country is in hock up to its Goddam eyeballs. You're incorrect: Almost everyone does "abuse the system", and they do it with the language of benevolence and tenderheartedness.

Whatever your capacities: If you tolerated that abuse, either with a sigh or a smirk, you're part of the problem.

Game over.

I like my response better. Wordier; more florid; more correct.

NYAH NYAH!!!

And I do it for free...

...God is dead.

Thanks for the link, Crid. Fascinating - and disturbing.