Maine Gov. LePage threatens to halt food stamp program amid sugar crackdown

[Zyster]

Republicans, we hate big gov and don't want it to rule our lives. Unless you're gay. Or poor. Or anyone else that does things we don't like, then big gov ordering you around is great.

I suggest him to fight for cheaper , healthy food and more taxes on the unhealthy choices. But seeing as how that'd be against republican interests, cus taxes are evil and gov can't tell me what to do, that won't happen. So instead, lets attack the poor who are on food stamps and make them a scapegoat because they can't fight back.

Meanwhile, we ignore the hillarious irony of Republicans pointing fingers about special interests governing policy making.

It's hilarious when people chime in on a convo just for the sake of bashing a side and not providing anything to the discussion. Big old republicans making you sad.

[Damajin]

I thought republicans were supposed to be for smaller government, not nanny states?

Also, kind of funny that an obese person wants to be critical of other people being obese...

It's Maine, so you get that centrist big government Republicanism there.

[urasim]

I think he should just end the food stamp program in his state, and let us know how that actually works out for them.

Why go to such extremes when it does help people? Why are you people so against making sure your society is healthy?

[Deleted]

Your initial response was about time. I can guarantee the average family has less free time than a single person. If you literally can not spend an extra 10 minutes a day, or even 40 minutes one day a week if you want to prepare meals for the week, your priorities are shit. You are making excuses to be lazy and that is probably why you are on food stamps to begin with. A single person can make enough meals to cover 3 meals a day for 7 days of non-junk food for about $30 a week. We can do a family of 3 for about $50. Tell me more about how you don't have time and buying Doritos and Mountain Dew are the best answer.

I have to agree. I've lived on 760 bucks a month at one time. It was barely doable, but I could've put a lot more time into it and probably found much better deals if I was on my toes for sales and deals.
But when you're in the state I was at the time, energy was in very short supply. But yeah, it's definitely doable. People just don't know how to do it and kids aren't taught house economics and cooking anymore, atleast not in any meaningful way.

[Kathandira]

In the State of Washington, we have this 2 part SNAP system. To be eligible for the cash benefits, you have to have a child in a specific age range. You are ineligible if you don't meet that requirement.

The idea behind that money is to cover needs that are not covered by SNAP. So, toiletries and things of that nature. Doing away with that program seems like a bad idea. Granted, it could be different in each state.

That works for me. Though if it is cash, there are no safe guards against abuse. But I'm not going to lobby against ensuring one's child being cared for.

[Deleted]

It's hilarious when people chime in on a convo just for the sake of bashing a side and not providing anything to the discussion. Big old republicans making you sad.

Maybe you should look more before you post. I guess I insulted your conservative sensibilities and I'm surprised you haven't called me a dang dirty liberal. Imagine, people having differing opinions on an international forum.

[zenkai]

OK, as soon as the gov't tells corporations and the upper incomes how they must spend their tax breaks, free gov't subsidies (welfare), and offshore tax shelter (shell company) monies - including the obese fat asses in that group.

The government already tells people what they can and can't buy with food stamps, how is this any different?

[Zyster]

Maybe you should look more before you post. I guess I insulted your conservative sensibilities and I'm surprised you haven't called me a dang dirty liberal. Imagine, people having differing opinions on an international forum.

You literally just talked about how bad republicans are. Nice try.

[urasim]

Maybe you should look more before you post. I guess I insulted your conservative sensibilities and I'm surprised you haven't called me a dang dirty liberal. Imagine, people having differing opinions on an international forum.

The post he was quoting adding nothing to the conversation. It was just an insult to one side. Just like this post you just made is just an insult. You aren't expanding your position or even defending your previous post. Hell, I don't even know what you think besides "fuck conservatives".

[Immitis]

Do you think Snickers and MT dew are good staples to buy to feed your family?

nobody buys snickers and mtn dew to feed their family those are snacks. most people on food stamps spend the bulk of their money on cheap meat they keep frozen and then snacks and if they happen to live somewhere not completely ghetto they buy some vegetables.

the key to making people eat healthy isnt restricting what they can buy, its making the good healthy choices cheaper.

[Zyster]

nobody buys snickers and mtn dew to feed their family those are snacks. most people on food stamps spend the bulk of their money on cheap meat they keep frozen and then snacks and if they happen to live somewhere not completely ghetto they buy some vegetables.

the key to making people eat healthy isnt restricting what they can buy, its making the good healthy choices cheaper.

So then it shouldn't be a problem putting a restriction on things recipients don't buy anyways, right?

[Deleted]

Why go to such extremes when it does help people? Why are you people so against making sure your society is healthy?

It's a strange contradiction of US society. On one hand, it's about togetherness, resilience and persereverance. On the other hand, it hates social security, safety nets and solidarity. I don't understand it. People don't want government handouts, but they wanna give loads to charities, making such safety nets unreliable and uneven. Just imagine paying higher taxes so you wouldn't even need to give to charities, so that everyone, everywhere, got the same care and safety no matter where they're from, who they are or what they believe.

- - - Updated - - -

The post he was quoting adding nothing to the conversation. It was just an insult to one side. Just like this post you just made is just an insult. You aren't expanding your position or even defending your previous post. Hell, I don't even know what you think besides "fuck conservatives".

I suppose I should ignore him. Doesn't seem like a trustworthy poster anyway.
I can tell everyone to fuck off. It's just that this thread was about a Republican and his statements, so I'm focused on that. But believe me, I can dig into anyone with the same passion. I detest hypocricy, no matter who it comes from.

[melodramocracy]

Why go to such extremes when it does help people? Why are you people so against making sure your society is healthy?

Because I'm just sick of politicians threatening really dumb moves with zero effort placed into thinking what the outcome might be. He says he'll ban Maine's administration? Go right ahead... and as soon as crime starts to go up, he'll be lamenting about how underfunded the police force is.

Texas, who gets more disaster aid from the fed than any other state (last I checked), is always chirping about secession. You want to leave, go right ahead.

People love to point out the shortcomings of folks worse off than them, because the poor are an easy target.... while having no problems seeing their property taxes go up because the local school "needs" some new football field built, or the army is getting tanks built that they never asked for in the first place. The whole thing is absurd.

[Zyster]

It's a strange contradiction of US society. On one hand, it's about togetherness, resilience and persereverance. On the other hand, it hates social security, safety nets and solidarity. I don't understand it. People don't want government handouts, but they wanna give loads to charities, making such safety nets unreliable and uneven. Just imagine paying higher taxes so you wouldn't even need to give to charities, so that everyone, everywhere, got the same care and safety no matter where they're from, who they are or what they believe.

Well, part of the issue is people don't feel they should have to be forced to give to charities. Taxes are universal, not specific to those who choose to want to be taxed more (though that could be an interesting concept). Also, government tends to be tied to greed through most people minds, while charities don't. Not saying there aren't corrupt charities, there is even great articles on how corrupt a lot of different charities are. I mean even look at one of the current presidential candidates charities. The point I'm making is people usually feel that their money may be used given to a charity rather than the government. It does create something uneven, but if I can assure my money to be used in the manner I want to help people, why would I not choose that route? It is then the persons choice if they choose to follow said charities guidelines. It isn't the charities fault if said person doesn't.

[Deleted]

You literally just talked about how bad republicans are. Nice try.

I pointed out the hypocricy of his statements and viewpoint. He happens to be a republican, so obviously that becomes what I address.
Whats your point?

[Caolela]

The government already tells people what they can and can't buy with food stamps, how is this any different?

That's avoiding my question. How does the gov't tell the well-off and corps. how to spend the monies (taxes) they get away with not paying, and the billions in unneeded gov't subsidies (corporate welfare) they receive?

The answer is it gets spent however they want to, or hidden in other ways. Trying to pick on the poor/needy is pretty lame when the real money is being siphoned off elsewhere.

[urasim]

It's a strange contradiction of US society. On one hand, it's about togetherness, resilience and persereverance. On the other hand, it hates social security, safety nets and solidarity. I don't understand it. People don't want government handouts, but they wanna give loads to charities, making such safety nets unreliable and uneven. Just imagine paying higher taxes so you wouldn't even need to give to charities, so that everyone, everywhere, got the same care and safety no matter where they're from, who they are or what they believe.

You talk as if the US was a single individual with somewhat conflicting ideas.

I suppose I should ignore him. Doesn't seem like a trustworthy poster anyway.
I can tell everyone to fuck off. It's just that this thread was about a Republican and his statements, so I'm focused on that. But believe me, I can dig into anyone with the same passion. I detest hypocricy, no matter who it comes from.

Trustworthy? What are you trusting him with? Your feelings?

Because it's a republican, and his statements, you automatically assume everyone who disagrees with you is a republican?

[IIamaKing]

What answer would you like me to give? Do I have to agree with you for you to accept my answer?

Pretty much yeh, I dont buy it. I think you are giving an answer that supports your argument.

Give a guy 100 bucks for food cause he is broke, he goes and buys 2 lobster tails and some steak, instead of a weeks worth of rice/noodles, chicken/ground meat and veggies, no way I buy you are not at least disappointed in his choices.

[petej0]

I pointed out the hypocricy of his statements and viewpoint. He happens to be a republican, so obviously that becomes what I address.
Whats your point?

However it isnt a hypocritical stance. The federal & state government has always told recipients of programs what they should do to continue getting benefits.

[the game]

Pretty much yeh, I dont buy it. I think you are giving an answer that supports your argument.

Give a guy 100 bucks for food cause he is broke, he goes and buys 2 lobster tails and some steak, instead of a weeks worth of rice/noodles, chicken/ground meat and veggies, no way I buy you are not at least disappointed in his choices.

I see so I'm not allowed to disagree with you?