It's interesting to me how people that want gender specific bathrooms also want food stamps limited to specific foods. Is there a correlation there?

Higher taxes on sugary drinks.
Raising the age at which you may legally buy cigarettes.
Telling us which bathroom to use, or how to use it.
Telling us what and how to teach our children.
Telling us we cannot buy candy bars with food stamps.
Telling us we can't carry guns in "no gun" zones.
Making people get drug tested if they are on government assistance.
Telling us we must make cakes for gay weddings, etc.
I've even heard some say that anyone with pets should not be given government assistance.

Where is the continuity here? Either we do, or we do not, want government in our business. Should it be federal or state or local? Or is there a difference in different circumstances or issues?

Well, when you are on WIC, you can only buy certain foods. Basic nutritious foods, like milk, cheese, fruit juice, etc. So, I don't see why it's different for food stamps. You have to be extremely poor, to qualify for food stamps, so it's supposed to just be for the essentials to sustain you, not satisfy your sweet tooth, imo. A program that is supposed to be there to provide the most basic necessities for the very needy, allowing people to "splurge" on Twinkies, filet mignon, delicacies, etc. just seems absurd, to me.

Why should the rest of us have to show some self control and restraint, but the "very needy" can just get whatever they want? Some of us have to say no to the candy bar because we have to spend that money on an essential, so if someone has enough food stamp money left over for that kind of stuff, they're getting too much assistance. The rest of us don't get to just buy whatever we want, so why should they?

My mom was a grocery checker for many years and saw rampant abuse of food stamps, people buying nothing but junk. Generational food stamp users. And she was actually on food stamps for a brief period, and she did get more money than she needed. But I have also heard of the truly needy, not getting enough to survive on. So, you have people out there buying doughnuts, expensive steaks, etc. and others who can barely afford rice and beans. They need to develop some type of consistency.

Also, when you accept government assistance, you are already inviting the government into your business. I'm for less assistance and less government involvement in our lives, but I also think programs that are supposed to be for the needy should be, well, for the needy.

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).

Well, there again, the system is broken. You do NOT have to be "extremely poor" to be on food stamps. Some who could really use them can't even get $40 while others that are getting by get hundreds. I don't know how they determine it. I know we could get them but we get by, especially now with mom here. We've been on them in the past and we've also gotten commodities from the government both regular commodities and Indian commodities! (Could hardly fit them all in the CAR!)

Anyways, i remember my dad talking about being so very poor that they often only had potatoes. He remembered someone giving them ice cream once and he tho't he'd died and gone to heaven. I don't think we can say how others ought to spend their food money once we have determined they are eligible for help but... otoh.... food stamps are supposed to be supplemental and if you couldn't buy junk food with them you could use your other money to buy it. And soap, and pads and diapers and tp and toothpaste and clothes and electricity and dog food and .....

But who is going to say what is junk? Have you SEEN what they pass out as commodities for the poor?

Well, I think every state is different, but in our state you do have to be extremely poor to qualify. You have to earn next to nothing. Junk food is anything that has very little or no nutritional value. Our food stamp program is called SNAP, with the N standing for "nutrition", so it defeats the purpose of the entire program when people are using it to buy tons of boxes of Twinkies, soda, etc.

And again, I don't see why tax payers should pay for "extras" for other people, when they can not even afford those things for their own family. Occasional, is one thing, but every shopping trip with nothing but junk, is ridiculous. And no one seems to see anything wrong with WIC only covering certain food and not others, so I don't see anything wrong with the government actually making sure money is spent wisely, I think it should be encouraged. Too much wasteful spending, as it is.

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).

Are you talking in general terms about a correlation between gender specific bathrooms and limits on food stamp use?

Because to me those are two very separate issues.

General terms as in "government in my business". I heard on the radio that they are discussing raising taxes on sugary drinks here - kinda like the ounce restriction in NY and raising the age at which you can purchase cigarettes. I probably saw posts from the same people on the different subjects and it struck me as being what *I* think is safe/healthy/convenient vs what others might think.

For example: I am not comfortable in stalls for bathrooms, nor with pot being sold in my area, nor with Common Core, nor with illegal immigrants, nor with people using "my tax dollars" for their necessities when they are not doing without (cell phones, computers, gaming systems, nice clothes, pets, etc).

That's a generic typical conservative, right?

But, what if i'm vegan and don't think "my tax dollars" should go towards buying meat and dairy? Or if i'm best friends of illegal immigrants and am appalled and/or afraid of losing them? Or if i'm in such pain that i'll do "anything" to relieve it for awhile - even by using cannabis oil or smoking dope?

Then my views might be very different. I think people should make as much of their own decisions as possible before infringing on others.

Gotta go.

I agree! I remember my dad saying much of the same things years ago. . He always was so against many forms of government intrusion.

He was for less government and more personal responsibility.

The government should not be dictating your personal habits or morals. We all know the only way to convince someone of anything is by one-on-one interaction. The government issuing mass orders just causes people to come up with ways to get around the rules. All those things are un-Constitutional. Our founding fathers set up our government to be small and not powerful.

_________________
******
"Like" us on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/HomeschoolChristiancom

But it's a government program, so rules come with it. That's why it's best to not rely on it in the first place, or at least minimize it as much as you can. Running to the government and asking them to help you, but then telling them to stay out of your business, makes no sense. If you want your privacy, you're not going to find it with the government.

_________________
Mom to Christian (13), Saphira (10), Xavier (5), and Adrian (2).

I am with Lisa in the sense of they have asked for gov assistance so they have invited the gov into their business. I doubt the founding fathers could imagine the multitude of people that want to be supported or all the support programs that would exist now. My issue is with people who just don't want to work, not elderly or legitimately needy people. Needy is different than Wanty. Meeting needs is different than meeting every want. If we are going to give away money with no restrictions on how it is used, how does that encourage them to work for something?

I also agree with drug testing for people receiving assistance. After all, many many of the folks working to pay in the taxes to support this assistance must pass a drug test before being hired and many places here also do random unannounced drug testing after hire. I don't see how it is unfair that they be tested to receive the money.

I think there needs to be a better system to determine who is eligible. Able bodied working age folks should not be able to just get supported and have their every desire met and make no effort to work for it with no restrictions on what they do with it. Again, not referring to elderly or truly needy people.