mnaj_springer wrote: Just look at the statistics from programs that forced drug testing to be on welfare. Everyone complained that they didn't want to feed people who were using, and we found out we weren't.
You claim that we aren't subsidizing people who are using, which just isn't true. Starting to wonder how often you slap yourself on the head. Might want to back off on that.
Perhaps if the gal in the supermarket had saved her thousands of dollars rather than shrewdly investing them in tattoos and piercings, she'd be in a better financial position today, and wouldn't require taxpayers to feed her. It's worth noting that her cell phone was two generations newer than my own. I suppose she procured that prior to falling on hard times as well? If we're paying for her food, it's also likely that we're subsidizing her health care, housing, and the upcoming college tuition for her kids. Meanwhile, my kids are working two jobs all summer, and doing without a lot of things (tattoos being one) in order to avoid going deeply in debt while earning their college degrees, in order that they can graduate and and then work hard to help pay for the next generation of folks who have been trained by the govt to take the easy way out. If you can't see that the current programs very often discourage initiative, and encourage the opposite, you're not looking very hard. If students are penalized for working and saving money, it obviously encourages them not to work or save money. We're rewarding the wrong things. I'm not against helping those legitimately unable to help themselves, it's just that too many people are taking advantage of the government's (read taxpayers' ) generosity when they could be providing for themselves. What we're doing now eventually enslaves people, makes them completely dependent on the government, which in turn creates more Democrats. Hmm......
Which of your various studies proved food stamp recipients consume junk food because it was cheaper? A gallon of milk is cheaper than a gallon of Mt. Dew. A packet of cheese is the same price as Cheetos. Potatoes are far cheaper by the pound than potato chips. Shouldn't food stamp programs encourage the consumption of healthy food, or is the right to free junk food written into the constitution somewhere? I've no doubt you can quote a study somewhere that suggests evil Republicans are forcing poor people to drink soda and eat pork rinds. Billions have been thrown at poverty over the past forty years, yet we have more of it now than we did when the spending started. Might here be a better way?