Should certain food items not be able to be bought with food stamps?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Robert

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
772
Location (City and/or State)
Galaxy far, far away...
ascott said:
I also do not think though that a family has to sign their home, auto's and anything else of monetary value over to the state in return for benefits on a temporary basis....again, this is money that comes from taxpayers, and if a person has a steady work history....they should be able to save what they have worked all of their life for.

Again, just playing devils advocate here.

By your example, let's say that a family owns a home valued at $750,000. They have a mortgage for $200,000. They have three cars that are payed off. A classic corvette that the father had from the time he was sixteen that he has restored. Value of the vett for this example is $50,000. They also own two other cars that are payed off valued at $20,000 each. In essence, this family has roughly $640,000 in equity between their home and their cars.

In this example, should this family get government assistance? They have worked hard to obtain this house and these cars. The father had that corvette for almost 30 years! Now they have fallen onto hard times and they cannot make their mortgage payments. Their home is about to be foreclosed. They cannot make the payments to the two private high schools and the private university that their children attend. They are on the edge of being kicked out of their country club.

Should this family receive government assistance? They might only need it for a year while dad gets back on his feet. Or should they sell their home and sell their cars, pull their kids out of private schools, have their oldest transfer to a community college and start over. With $640,000 they could still live a lifestyle better than most, but is it fair? They worked hard for that lifestyle and it isn't anybody's fault that the father lost his job.
 

October

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
493
Location (City and/or State)
San Tan Valley, Arizona
Angela, there's no reason to apologize. I understand that you thought I was pointing you out, and got what you thought I deserved. We agree on many points. EBT and assistance is a touchy subject. I get denied, while supporting 3 other adults who would literally be living on the streets, while the lady in front of me doesn't speak English and just dropped $600 on junk food. I've had acquaintances who have literally, to my face, stated that they hope they get laid off so they can collect 3(?) years on unemployment. I have distant family members who collect god-awful amounts of disability for hyped up cases of depression, while my sister with Down Syndrome gets a very very small amount of SSI. I'm a fat girl and make every possible change in diet to make sure my kids don't end up like I am and it kills me to see what some parents feed their children. So yes, it's a touchy subject.

But I still stand by my opinion that EBT should not be eligible for junk. If your kids are underweight, I'm sure some allowances can be made like with WIC, but other than that, it's just not needed. I understand that people are afraid of making Big Brother more powerful, but who's to say that welfare and assistance will not be wiped out or reduced if a smaller government comes into play? The free medical benefits have recently been cut in AZ which drastically reduces my employment opportunities, so it's a double edged sword. :/
 

Jacqui

Wanna be raiser of Lemon Drop tortoises
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
39,941
Location (City and/or State)
A Land Far Away...
Robert said:
Again, just playing devils advocate here.

By your example, let's say that a family owns a home valued at $750,000. They have a mortgage for $200,000. They have three cars that are payed off. A classic corvette that the father had from the time he was sixteen that he has restored. Value of the vett for this example is $50,000. They also own two other cars that are payed off valued at $20,000 each. In essence, this family has roughly $640,000 in equity between their home and their cars.

In this example, should this family get government assistance? They have worked hard to obtain this house and these cars. The father had that corvette for almost 30 years! Now they have fallen onto hard times and they cannot make their mortgage payments. Their home is about to be foreclosed. They cannot make the payments to the two private high schools and the private university that their children attend. They are on the edge of being kicked out of their country club.

Should this family receive government assistance? They might only need it for a year while dad gets back on his feet. Or should they sell their home and sell their cars, pull their kids out of private schools, have their oldest transfer to a community college and start over. With $640,000 they could still live a lifestyle better than most, but is it fair? They worked hard for that lifestyle and it isn't anybody's fault that the father lost his job.

As some body who has worked hard all my life, I would say before I would dream of going onto public assistance, I would be taking a look at my spending. I would be selling the house, pulling the two from private schools, and yes selling those cars. Wow, just amazed anybody with that much worth would even dream of going onto public assistance.

Would it be so bad for the kids to have to be in public schools for just that one year? Or the college child to go to a cheaper college? Get a scholarship or a job to pay the school bill?

Does this family NEED the country club membership?

I worked hard when my children were young to keep our house (I paid 6,500 or so for it), to keep our old car (value not more then 500) running and my kids in clothes for the free public schooling. There were times we went without hotwater or even running water while getting enough money to have those items fixed. While I hate eating mac and cheese, did it hurt me or the children to eat them? No, we did okay thru those really lean times and I think are much better today for it.

Because of that and being raised by a Mother who supported three kids without public help, but rather with hard work, sacrifice, and living within our current means I just can not see how the person above has need of public help nor deserves it. I was taught that assistance is for those who NEED it, not those who just WANT it.

Yes you have worked hard for where you are, but life happens. You have to adjust. You have to change living standards and goals, as the times and your own life changes.

If my thoughts offend some in here, I am sorry. I am not ranting against you personally, just the way things are done. This is and has been a touchy subject all my life. Somebody mentioned earlier about the poor little children who on food stamps how they might feel sitting in the lunchroom without all the goodies the kids with money could buy. I am the the kid who sat and felt the same thing, but about the children on welfare who got free lunches, free this or that while I made do with less. The adult who watched my own four do without, while seeing the families with the handouts getting the better life. So yeah, I do have very hard feelings on the subject. Just don't get me started on SSI. :rolleyes:

P.S. I am also a person who has to take random spot drug tests and so feel there should be no problem with public assistance folks having to live the same way to get their "paychecks" as I do mine.
 

dmmj

The member formerly known as captain awesome
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
19,695
Location (City and/or State)
CA
I think most of us would agree that we don't mind helping those who truly need it, I know I personally don't I think all of us ( I hope) get mad when we see abuses of the system meant to help those who need it. I know my own family abuses the system,my aunt buys those 250 EBT cards from other family members who go down to public assistance and lie and say they are homeless and presto they are given a 250 EBT card no questions asked. What makes me angry is the government does not seem to want to enforce the rules, I have often called the office (I no longer do) and ask about reporting someone for fraud and they have a I could care less attitude. They advertise on TV for people to come down and sign up,and remember the guy back east who won a million dollar lottery and still used his EBT card,that is what sickens me,not helping people who need it.
 

Robert

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
772
Location (City and/or State)
Galaxy far, far away...
Jacqui said:
Robert said:
Again, just playing devils advocate here.

By your example, let's say that a family owns a home valued at $750,000. They have a mortgage for $200,000. They have three cars that are payed off. A classic corvette that the father had from the time he was sixteen that he has restored. Value of the vett for this example is $50,000. They also own two other cars that are payed off valued at $20,000 each. In essence, this family has roughly $640,000 in equity between their home and their cars.

In this example, should this family get government assistance? They have worked hard to obtain this house and these cars. The father had that corvette for almost 30 years! Now they have fallen onto hard times and they cannot make their mortgage payments. Their home is about to be foreclosed. They cannot make the payments to the two private high schools and the private university that their children attend. They are on the edge of being kicked out of their country club.

Should this family receive government assistance? They might only need it for a year while dad gets back on his feet. Or should they sell their home and sell their cars, pull their kids out of private schools, have their oldest transfer to a community college and start over. With $640,000 they could still live a lifestyle better than most, but is it fair? They worked hard for that lifestyle and it isn't anybody's fault that the father lost his job.

As some body who has worked hard all my life, I would say before I would dream of going onto public assistance, I would be taking a look at my spending. I would be selling the house, pulling the two from private schools, and yes selling those cars. Wow, just amazed anybody with that much worth would even dream of going onto public assistance.

Would it be so bad for the kids to have to be in public schools for just that one year? Or the college child to go to a cheaper college? Get a scholarship or a job to pay the school bill?

Does this family NEED the country club membership?

I worked hard when my children were young to keep our house (I paid 6,500 or so for it), to keep our old car (value not more then 500) running and my kids in clothes for the free public schooling. There were times we went without hotwater or even running water while getting enough money to have those items fixed. While I hate eating mac and cheese, did it hurt me or the children to eat them? No, we did okay thru those really lean times and I think are much better today for it.

Because of that and being raised by a Mother who supported three kids without public help, but rather with hard work, sacrifice, and living within our current means I just can not see how the person above has need of public help nor deserves it. I was taught that assistance is for those who NEED it, not those who just WANT it.

Yes you have worked hard for where you are, but life happens. You have to adjust. You have to change living standards and goals, as the times and your own life changes.

If my thoughts offend some in here, I am sorry. I am not ranting against you personally, just the way things are done. This is and has been a touchy subject all my life. Somebody mentioned earlier about the poor little children who on food stamps how they might feel sitting in the lunchroom without all the goodies the kids with money could buy. I am the the kid who sat and felt the same thing, but about the children on welfare who got free lunches, free this or that while I made do with less. The adult who watched my own four do without, while seeing the families with the handouts getting the better life. So yeah, I do have very hard feelings on the subject. Just don't get me started on SSI. :rolleyes:

P.S. I am also a person who has to take random spot drug tests and so feel there should be no problem with public assistance folks having to live the same way to get their "paychecks" as I do mine.

The above was a hypothetical example. I agree that a family in that situation should not be eligible for government assistance. The example can be scaled back. Should a person with $25,000 in equity be eligible? The core question is: should the goal of government assistance be to ensure survival or to maintain lifestyle?

Angela made the statement that a person should not have to sign over their home, their autos or anything of value in exchange for temporary government assistance. I was just using the above example as a challenge to that statement for the purpose of discussion. (Again, this is in no way a statement of judgement against Angela. I'm just adding another talking point to the discussion.)


I agree with dmmj, it is the abuses of the system that cause the most problems.
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
October said:
Terry Allan Hall said:
Drug testing?...well, absolutely not, until there's a 100% infallible test (and, so far, the most accurate, follicle testing, besides being the most expensive, is only 90% accurate under perfect lab conditions, and probably more like 80% under "real world" conditions...btw, urinalysis is more like 66/48%)...any possibility of testees getting false positives is unacceptable to me...careers have been ended and lives have been ruined! :(
I'm sorry but my schooling and future job depends on testing negative for drugs, just like a very large percentage of the population. Why is it okay for me to face the risk of false positives and my source of supporting my family, but it's not okay of someone without a job? If I have to take a drug test in order to pay the taxes that supports these programs, then the people who receive the rewards of my hard work should have to as well. Usually this argument devolves into an argument of "What about the kids?", but I wont go there unless asked.

Nobody should have to run the risk of losing out on a job, on benefits, on freedom, because of a test that is not 100% accurate...not you, not me, not anyone.

If they ever come up w/ a test where is no possibility whatsoever for a false positive (or a false negative, which can be just as bad), that'll be different.

In the mean time, let's just respect our Constitution's 4th Amendment (which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures) and the excellent concept of "innocent unless proven guilty"...our Founding Father's put both into the Constitution for very good reason.

We Conservatives REALLY like the Constitution, frequently more than our corrupt Government officials do.

DixieParadise said:
At those that think Drug Testing is wrong.... How can you say that. There are very few if any work places that do not do random drug testing to keep employment. For the one who said..why should I be subjected to this and risk a false positive. If you have nothing to hide a second test can be administered and you will be cleared. Just look around at the Pro Atheletes who said that they were not "Dirty" and the test was "Wrong" only to admit it later...when 2nd and 3rd tests continued to test positive.

I have held several jobs in the Government, where I risked my name coming up everyday for a "Drug" test...so if I have to do that to keep my job, then why shouldn't someone collecting welfare be asked to submit to a drug test?

Why would you assume that Drug Test #2 or #3 (or #6734, for that matter) will be any more accurate than #1?

Until someone devises a drug test that is 100% infallible, it's foolish to risk your lifestyle (and/or life, period) on such a scam...and, no, there are employers who believe in the Constitution of the United States...kind of a pity that the US Government isn't one of them.

Take your chances if you wish to, but I refused to and continue to refuse to...and still am able to earn an honest living.
 

Robert

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
772
Location (City and/or State)
Galaxy far, far away...
Terry Allan Hall said:
October said:
Terry Allan Hall said:
Drug testing?...well, absolutely not, until there's a 100% infallible test (and, so far, the most accurate, follicle testing, besides being the most expensive, is only 90% accurate under perfect lab conditions, and probably more like 80% under "real world" conditions...btw, urinalysis is more like 66/48%)...any possibility of testees getting false positives is unacceptable to me...careers have been ended and lives have been ruined! :(
I'm sorry but my schooling and future job depends on testing negative for drugs, just like a very large percentage of the population. Why is it okay for me to face the risk of false positives and my source of supporting my family, but it's not okay of someone without a job? If I have to take a drug test in order to pay the taxes that supports these programs, then the people who receive the rewards of my hard work should have to as well. Usually this argument devolves into an argument of "What about the kids?", but I wont go there unless asked.

Nobody should have to run the risk of losing out on a job, on benefits, on freedom, because of a test that is not 100% accurate...not you, not me, not anyone.

If they ever come up w/ a test where is no possibility whatsoever for a false positive (or a false negative, which can be just as bad), that'll be different.

In the mean time, let's just respect our Constitution's 4th Amendment (which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures) and the excellent concept of "innocent unless proven guilty"...our Founding Father's put both into the Constitution for very good reason.

We Conservatives REALLY like the Constitution, frequently more than our corrupt Government officials do.

DixieParadise said:
At those that think Drug Testing is wrong.... How can you say that. There are very few if any work places that do not do random drug testing to keep employment. For the one who said..why should I be subjected to this and risk a false positive. If you have nothing to hide a second test can be administered and you will be cleared. Just look around at the Pro Atheletes who said that they were not "Dirty" and the test was "Wrong" only to admit it later...when 2nd and 3rd tests continued to test positive.

I have held several jobs in the Government, where I risked my name coming up everyday for a "Drug" test...so if I have to do that to keep my job, then why shouldn't someone collecting welfare be asked to submit to a drug test?

Why would you assume that Drug Test #2 or #3 (or #6734, for that matter) will be any more accurate than #1?

Until someone devises a drug test that is 100% infallible, it's foolish to risk your lifestyle (and/or life, period) on such a scam...and, no, there are employers who believe in the Constitution of the United States...kind of a pity that the US Government isn't one of them.

Take your chances if you wish to, but I refused to and continue to refuse to...and still am able to earn an honest living.

Terry: as I stated earlier, most employment is "at will" employment. You are not required to work for any company who's policies you do not agree with. A company asking a potential employee to submit to a drug test is clearly not violating that potential employees constitutional rights. If the potential employee does not agree, they just walk away. Sounds like you have chosen to do that and you've lived a happy and productive life doing so. Congrats.

In the same manner, you would not be required to accept government assistance if you chose not to comply with the drug testing policy. No harm no faul.

What has your experience been with false positive drug tests? (not you personally as the test taker, but in your research what have you come across that makes you so adamantly against voluntary drug testing?)

My experience has been that drug tests come up positive for one of four reasons, all of which have a reasonable explanation:
1. The test taker is currently using drugs. Pretty self explanatory.
2. The individual test device is defective. Simply repeating the test, with a replacement from a different lot instantly solves that problem. -alternatively- one can request a different type of test. If a urinalysis comes up positive, the test taker can request a blood test or hair sample. Certainly an easy fix.
3. The individual taking the test is currently taking a prescription medication that contains ingredients that could trip a false positive. Very easy to fix by first disclosing what medications one is taking at the time of the test and two easy to fix with a simple call to the test takers General Practitioner.
4. The individual taking the test has some unique characteristic about his or her anatomy and physiological makeup that causes a false positive. Again easy to remedy with an alternative method of testing and or verification from ones General Practitioner.

Again, if any one part of that is too invasive, just walk away and don't partake. It's all "at will".

Should we, as Americans, be allowed to partake in whatever substance use we so choose? Well that is a completely different debate.

My feeling that government assistance benefits should require a negative drug screening is simply based upon our current laws regarding controlled substances. Whether I agree with the list of what we can and can't do is a completely different discussion.
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
Robert said:
Terry Allan Hall said:
October said:
Terry Allan Hall said:
Drug testing?...well, absolutely not, until there's a 100% infallible test (and, so far, the most accurate, follicle testing, besides being the most expensive, is only 90% accurate under perfect lab conditions, and probably more like 80% under "real world" conditions...btw, urinalysis is more like 66/48%)...any possibility of testees getting false positives is unacceptable to me...careers have been ended and lives have been ruined! :(
I'm sorry but my schooling and future job depends on testing negative for drugs, just like a very large percentage of the population. Why is it okay for me to face the risk of false positives and my source of supporting my family, but it's not okay of someone without a job? If I have to take a drug test in order to pay the taxes that supports these programs, then the people who receive the rewards of my hard work should have to as well. Usually this argument devolves into an argument of "What about the kids?", but I wont go there unless asked.

Nobody should have to run the risk of losing out on a job, on benefits, on freedom, because of a test that is not 100% accurate...not you, not me, not anyone.

If they ever come up w/ a test where is no possibility whatsoever for a false positive (or a false negative, which can be just as bad), that'll be different.

In the mean time, let's just respect our Constitution's 4th Amendment (which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures) and the excellent concept of "innocent unless proven guilty"...our Founding Father's put both into the Constitution for very good reason.

We Conservatives REALLY like the Constitution, frequently more than our corrupt Government officials do.

DixieParadise said:
At those that think Drug Testing is wrong.... How can you say that. There are very few if any work places that do not do random drug testing to keep employment. For the one who said..why should I be subjected to this and risk a false positive. If you have nothing to hide a second test can be administered and you will be cleared. Just look around at the Pro Atheletes who said that they were not "Dirty" and the test was "Wrong" only to admit it later...when 2nd and 3rd tests continued to test positive.

I have held several jobs in the Government, where I risked my name coming up everyday for a "Drug" test...so if I have to do that to keep my job, then why shouldn't someone collecting welfare be asked to submit to a drug test?

Why would you assume that Drug Test #2 or #3 (or #6734, for that matter) will be any more accurate than #1?

Until someone devises a drug test that is 100% infallible, it's foolish to risk your lifestyle (and/or life, period) on such a scam...and, no, there are employers who believe in the Constitution of the United States...kind of a pity that the US Government isn't one of them.

Take your chances if you wish to, but I refused to and continue to refuse to...and still am able to earn an honest living.

Terry: as I stated earlier, most employment is "at will" employment. You are not required to work for any company who's policies you do not agree with. A company asking a potential employee to submit to a drug test is clearly not violating that potential employees constitutional rights. If the potential employee does not agree, they just walk away. Sounds like you have chosen to do that and you've lived a happy and productive life doing so. Congrats.

In the same manner, you would not be required to accept government assistance if you chose not to comply with the drug testing policy. No harm no faul.

What has your experience been with false positive drug tests? (not you personally as the test taker, but in your research what have you come across that makes you so adamantly against voluntary drug testing?)

Simple: it's not 100% accurate...therefore, there'll be a certain amount of of false positives (and false negatives, obviously), which means that innocent parties will suffer (and guilty parties will skate), so they serve no good purpose.

My experience has been that drug tests come up positive for one of four reasons, all of which have a reasonable explanation:
1. The test taker is currently using drugs. Pretty self explanatory.
2. The individual test device is defective. Simply repeating the test, with a replacement from a different lot instantly solves that problem. -alternatively- one can request a different type of test. If a urinalysis comes up positive, the test taker can request a blood test or hair sample. Certainly an easy fix.

But these test are also not 100% accurate...

3. The individual taking the test is currently taking a prescription medication that contains ingredients that could trip a false positive. Very easy to fix by first disclosing what medications one is taking at the time of the test and two easy to fix with a simple call to the test takers General Practitioner.
4. The individual taking the test has some unique characteristic about his or her anatomy and physiological makeup that causes a false positive. Again easy to remedy with an alternative method of testing and or verification from ones General Practitioner.

Once again, as no test is 100% accurate, it's wrong (and unConstitutional) to inflict them on anybody.

Again, if any one part of that is too invasive, just walk away and don't partake. It's all "at will".

Should we, as Americans, be allowed to partake in whatever substance use we so choose? Well that is a completely different debate.

My feeling that government assistance benefits should require a negative drug screening is simply based upon our current laws regarding controlled substances. Whether I agree with the list of what we can and can't do is a completely different discussion.



[/b]
 

Kristina

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
5,383
Location (City and/or State)
Cadillac, Michigan
Inflict? That implies that there is no free will. There absolutely is, I agree with Robert.

While I don't feel that the government should have the right to tell us what substances we can and cannot put into our bodies, the fact of the matter is that at this time, they do, which means that drug use is against the law. So, for me it is a moral issue. On top of that, if you can afford drugs, you can afford food. It is absolutely not right for someone to be abusing a substance and getting assistance that can go to help people that just need that extra boost.

I used to have a coworker that had 8 children. Our boss decided that one year for Christmas, all the other employees would donate and help her buy presents for her children. I refused, for two reasons. One, I knew she regularly smoked pot. If you can buy pot, you can buy toys for your children. Second, a couple of weeks before Christmas, she went to a Rolling Stones concert. Those tickets were $80 each. Don't whine at me how you are struggling and broke if you can spend $160 on concert tickets. Same principle as drug users getting assistance. They don't deserve it IMHO.
 

Robert

New Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
772
Location (City and/or State)
Galaxy far, far away...
There are very few, if any tests in all of medicine that are 100% accurate. Mammograms are not 100% accurate, but the increase of routine mammography has led to a significant decrease in breast cancer mortality. If women refused all mammograms due to their lack of 100% accuracy, women would be far worse off.

In drug testing, by analyzing results from different testing modalities the combined probability far outweighs the percentage of inaccuracies in the individual tests.

And again, it is absolutely not unconstitutional if it is voluntary. If someone doesn't like it, they just walk away.
 

terryo

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
8,975
Location (City and/or State)
Staten Island, New York
Do you have any idea how easy it is to falsify a drug test?? Without going into detail.....The only drug test that is 100% accurate is a hair test for pot. Any other drug test is very easy to alter if you know how and what to drink or eat to expel or camouflage urine and blood.
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
terryo said:
Do you have any idea how easy it is to falsify a drug test?? Without going into detail.....The only drug test that is 100% accurate is a hair test for pot. Any other drug test is very easy to alter if you know how and what to drink or eat to expel or camouflage urine and blood.

Even the hair test is only about 90% accurate...and you're absolutely right about how easy it is to to alter if you know how and what to drink or eat to expel or camouflage urine and blood.

My brother tokes everyday (about every couple of hours, I suspect), as well as a using a few other "trendy chemical amusements", but has never failed any drug test...btw, he's a mechanic for his State's Government vehicles, so does have to take tests periodically.

Reassuring, huh?
 

Angi

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
2,745
Location (City and/or State)
La Mesa, CA.
Okay so I am very torn on this.
First off I hate to see a woman with kids filling up her basket with Mac-n-Cheese, Top Roman and other processed foods. Why do I think she chooses those things? Because they are cheap and she is trying to make as many meals for as little money as she can :(. Also probably lack of nutritional education. I would like to see something more like wic, where they had to get some healthy foods and fresh fruits. No soda! But they should be able to get some goodies too. Diapers should be a seperate thing. They should get diaper coupons seperate from food stamps. In California there is now a limit on how long you can get welfare I think. I know this would cost too much money....but I would like to see some kind of classes on nutrition as part of the program. My younger sister was on WIC 26 years ago and I remember her having to take child care classes. Oh and pot should be legal I really don't think it is nearly as bad as alcohol.
 

Terry Allan Hall

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
4,009
Location (City and/or State)
The Republic O' Tejas
Angi said:
Okay so I am very torn on this.
First off I hate to see a woman with kids filling up her basket with Mac-n-Cheese, Top Roman and other processed foods. Why do I think she chooses those things? Because they are cheap and she is trying to make as many meals for as little money as she can :(. Also probably lack of nutritional education. I would like to see something more like wic, where they had to get some healthy foods and fresh fruits. No soda! But they should be able to get some goodies too. Diapers should be a seperate thing. They should get diaper coupons seperate from food stamps. In California there is now a limit on how long you can get welfare I think. I know this would cost too much money....but I would like to see some kind of classes on nutrition as part of the program. My younger sister was on WIC 26 years ago and I remember her having to take child care classes. Oh and pot should be legal I really don't think it is nearly as bad as alcohol.

You make some very valid points, particularily on nutrition classes and such, and particularily on the point that crap foods make it possible to stretch one's food budget...it'd make more sense for fresh, unprocesseed food to cost less than excessively processed crap, but it doesn't, does it?

The government pays some farmers not to grow food, so as to artificially keep the prices up...but that's likely a subject of a whole 'nother debate thread.
 

ALDABRAMAN

KEEPER AT HEART
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 5, 2010
Messages
28,446
Location (City and/or State)
SW Forida
I have had many drug test when I was working, never had a problem at all. The food stamp issue, it is a big mess and needs revamped! I feel BIG BROTHER is in control of almost everything in one way or another. This should be a poll, to get a good perspective of what people feel about the original issue, things tend to get off topic. I enjoy off topic positions and perspectives.
 

terryo

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
8,975
Location (City and/or State)
Staten Island, New York
Well, here's my final thoughts on this subject. For people who really need help, I think it is a wonderful thing, and I don't think it's anyone's business what a parent feeds their children. I think a food card...or stamps...whatever... should be able to buy everything. I, as a taxpayer, don't mind helping anyone in need, as it could have happened to me very easily too. The other side of the coin........The system does not work. Everyone is robbing...from the politicians right down to the little person behind the desk. And let's not forget the Doctors, who participate .....IMHO, from personal experience....are the lowest of the low! All this is just my opinion, and I really do respect everyone else's opinion on this subject.
 

Jacqui

Wanna be raiser of Lemon Drop tortoises
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
39,941
Location (City and/or State)
A Land Far Away...
On the drug testing sure they aren't 100%, but they are pretty accurate and nothing in this world is 100%.

My own experience with the drug taking is I hate taking the random ones because I am not able to give a urine sample on demand. So I have to sit there and drink and drink, while feeling stupid. :D

When Jeff, my husband, first started working for Prime, his test was sent in along with the rest of the groups (about 50 samples I would guess). When the rest came back, he and another guy's were not in the bunch. Prime said the samples would be there Friday then. Friday came and no results. Prime then started in on how any and all samples which were late coming back were always positive. The other driver got made and left. Jeff stuck it out for another four days, the entire time they kept treating him like he was guilty. They kept offering him the chance to admit it would be positive and just go ahead and have him bused home. Finally the results came back... of course they were negative.

So yes for a lot of reasons they aren't the best things, but they are better then nothing and do weed out a lot of abusers.

It's also interesting, since that day Jeff has not been called for a random drug test at our company who has to do something like 100 tests a month. I on the other hand, average three tests a year. :D
 

Angi

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Messages
2,745
Location (City and/or State)
La Mesa, CA.
I am still stuck on the cycle of crap food being cheap. You can get three boxes of Mac-n-cheese or 10 packages of top ramin for the price of ONE apple or orange. The poor get fatter and people say "well they don't look poor" They are starving and getting fat and sick at the same time.
And yes Terry the goverment is really F-ing the food industry up.
When I see people buying that crap for their kids I want to cry.
I was very poor as a kid so I know how bad it sucks. I am so glad my kids don't have to know what that is like, but then sometimes I think, but could they survive? Are they tough enough? I guess I am O/T, but I am very passionate about the poor and nutrition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top