Fact Check: Congressional debate abou...

Fact Check: Congressional debate about cutting food stamps is less than nutritious

There are 17 comments on the Nanaimo Daily News story from Sep 17, 2013, titled Fact Check: Congressional debate about cutting food stamps is less than nutritious. In it, Nanaimo Daily News reports that:

House Republican leaders say food stamps serve too many Americans and the almost $80 billion-a-year program needs to be slimmed down.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Nanaimo Daily News.

sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#1 Sep 17, 2013
One step is don't give food stamps to those with two houses. Have an out of state neighbor got layed off in his home state but tried collecting benefits here in a different state. They actually gave him some in both states. He complained they wanted too much information including all the property he owned. He used his teenage kids as a tin cup to shake. Complained again when that stopped working.

He bought the property about 10 years ago not sure what to do with it. Depending on who you talk to in the family it was for the schools, to turn it into a rental, a business(zoning says no) and lastly a flip but he was underwater shortly after buying it.

Point being the taxpayers should not have to pay for someone else's ooops/problems especially when they have their own solution. The neighbor could've sold one of his houses. I'll be darned other than unemployment benefits will I pay for someone to maintain two houses. He even had the gaul to complain that he couldn't get subsidies to pay his utilities.

This case burnt me up because I know people renting with kids that had a harder time getting food stamps with one child while unemployed.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Sep 17, 2013
Limiting food stamps to actual food from a grocery store would be a good start.
Mike

Zephyrhills, FL

#3 Sep 17, 2013
Put a two year limit on them and hand them birth control so they stop breeding like rabbits producing litters of feral trayvons and Obama sons
Darkness Falls

Houston, TX

#4 Sep 17, 2013
Issue mandatory 25-year prison sentences without parole for any welfare recipient selling their food stamps for cash. That bullsh*t has got to stop.

“Smart@ss”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#5 Sep 18, 2013
Oh well, I guess more hungry people on the streets is going to be an amazing economic driver.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#6 Sep 18, 2013
Dajokerman wrote:
Oh well, I guess more hungry people on the streets is going to be an amazing economic driver.
Good point, this could have a major impact on the black market buying and selling of EBT cards. The alcohol, tobacco and drug trades could suffer.
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Pennington, NJ

#7 Sep 18, 2013
When I was in college there was a small store across the street that allowed people to use food stamps to buy beer and wine. There were usually people hanging around offering to sell their food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar. They need to eliminate fraud and penalize dishonest merchants.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#8 Sep 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Limiting food stamps to actual food from a grocery store would be a good start.
Too much corruption and overuse by those that don't deserve it, will be the death of the program....maybe that is a lesson, everyone needs....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Sep 18, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>Too much corruption and overuse by those that don't deserve it, will be the death of the program....maybe that is a lesson, everyone needs....
As usual a few bad apples......
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#10 Sep 18, 2013
Let's have mandatory drug tests for anyone receiving a government check. Let's start with all employees of Lockheed, Boeing and all other military industrial corporations. If any employee has any hint of drug use, that contract is cancelled and the money used to eliminate poverty. I would guess in less than 2 months poverty would be eliminated in the USA and food stamps would no longer be needed.

Since: Mar 09

The Left Coast

#11 Sep 18, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual a few bad apples......
OR, a just a few good ones.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#12 Sep 18, 2013
I'm good with the periodic drug testing of those recieveing government assistance....ie, welfare, ebt cards, section 8 housing assistance, etc......
Adale

Worcester, MA

#13 Sep 18, 2013
Can't we go back to the old fashioned way, soup kitchen or the
debtors jail (poor house).

Think of the savings.
Adale

Worcester, MA

#14 Sep 18, 2013
Adale for president. ....2016
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#15 Sep 19, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
I'm good with the periodic drug testing of those recieveing government assistance....ie, welfare, ebt cards, section 8 housing assistance, etc......
Only if it includes all people working on government contracts. They are receiving government assistance just as much as those who receive food stamps, only they receive much much more. If someone loses their ability to obtain food, it is tragic, if someone loses their ability to rip off the nation for billions of dollars it is a good thing.

Additionally I would want protection in case of false positives. What do you suggest should happen if someone is tested and the test indicates a positive for some drug? Do they have to avoid Lemon-Poppy seed muffins for a month before any test, or if random, avoid them forever? If a parent is indicated, do you take the food away from the children, or take the children away.

Who pays for all this testing. I would go along with testing corporations, but I don't want to pay for testing those on welfare or food stamps.

If the conclusion is that many people, who cannot find jobs, no longer have legal access to food, what do you do about the increase in crime? People will simply not starve to death willingly.

There are a huge number of problems with this suggestion. I would prefer to allow jobs to be created and provide opportunity for all.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#16 Sep 20, 2013
Big difference is, those on government contracts are actually WORKING.....
Don Joe

Minneapolis, MN

#17 Sep 20, 2013
Go Blue Forever wrote:
Big difference is, those on government contracts are actually WORKING.....
?? So you would rather have someone working on drugs than someone taking the day off?

Besides, I have see those "working" on government contracts. So many of them just pocket the money and expect the government to cancel the program before they actually have to produce anything. It has worked so many times in the past.

How about if we allow those who are not working, the opportunity to work? That way, they get the money they need to live and for all those capable of working, welfare gets eliminated? Society then benefits from the fruit of their labor.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Food Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
taste of venice 6 hr Mona Day 1
Paleohacks cookbook review does the book useful? 9 hr Sarahxsc478 1
News Flipside Burger & Bar serves up burgers and fam... (Sep '09) 11 hr Norbert of Norview 4
News Free Pizza and Candidate talk today 22 hr Donald Trump 2
News Ruble turning to rubble? No signs of panic in t... Wed John 1
News Shopping for Afro-Caribbean ingredients in Balt... Wed jimi-yank 5
News Scientists trace autism 'pathway' from gene to ... Wed VacTruth dot Com 2
More from around the web