This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:

I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash. Anyone who
knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of "food stamps." I hate the
idea of letting folks go hungry. When I see people abusing the
program, it really ****es me off.
I'd like to see the SNAP program extended to more families, but
narrowed to exclude foods that are patently unhealthy, and I think
that such a change could garner bipartisan support. Liberals will
object, but sensible ones will realize that this type of reform will
benefit those who are down on their luck by incentivizing better
eating habits. Conservatives will object because it means expanding
the social safety net, but moderates don't want to see folks buying
cookies and soda pop with govt. benefits.
I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.

--Bryan

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:54:59 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> wrote:

>This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>
>I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
>my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash. Anyone who
>knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of "food stamps." I hate the
>idea of letting folks go hungry. When I see people abusing the
>program, it really ****es me off.

Good on ya-

>I'd like to see the SNAP program extended to more families, but
>narrowed to exclude foods that are patently unhealthy, and I think
>that such a change could garner bipartisan support. Liberals will
>object, but sensible ones will realize that this type of reform will
>benefit those who are down on their luck by incentivizing better
>eating habits. Conservatives will object because it means expanding
>the social safety net, but moderates don't want to see folks buying
>cookies and soda pop with govt. benefits.
>I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
>meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
>grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
>to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
>patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.

You would have peed yourself then if you were shopping with me a
couple months ago. I got behind a lady who only had a 1/2
cart-full in a local store in the poorer section of town. There
were already a couple people behind me when I noticed that the 2 carts
in front of her were being unloaded by her kids.

I had a long time to look over $500 worth of "veggies, eggs,
meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
grains, etc". No soda, no cookies, no TV dinners. I was tempted
to offer some help myself as her groceries were so frugal. Then she
whipped out the SNAP card. Damn! She was a poster child for the
way it ought to be. I wonder how many folks she was feeding on that
$500.

Jim


>
>--Bryan

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:54:59 -0800 (PST), Bryan
> wrote:

snip
>I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
>meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
>grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
>to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
>patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.
>
>--Bryan

There some other issues at play here. Many people who shop that way
have no idea what most of the food in the fresh food section is nor
how to cook it. There are people out there who have pretty much never
eaten outside of a fast food joint. They do not like any spice or
herb or anything that is outside their own culture. They also don't
have any of the tools needed to produce a cooked meal. (pots, pans,
etc.) Every once in awhile I see that there is a program somewhere to
try to teach simple basics, but funding for that sort of thing is
long gone.
Janet US

Bryan wrote:

> This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>
> I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
> my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash. Anyone who
> knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of "food stamps." I hate the
> idea of letting folks go hungry. When I see people abusing the
> program, it really ****es me off.

How much of a discount did he offer you? Around here, it's at least
33%, up to 50%.

> I'd like to see the SNAP program extended to more families, but
> narrowed to exclude foods that are patently unhealthy, and I think
> that such a change could garner bipartisan support. Liberals will
> object, but sensible ones will realize that this type of reform will
> benefit those who are down on their luck by incentivizing better
> eating habits. Conservatives will object because it means expanding
> the social safety net, but moderates don't want to see folks buying
> cookies and soda pop with govt. benefits.

I consider myself progressive, and I object because it's nanny-state
policy. Do you embrace what Bloomberg did in NYC with large sodas?
Also, your plan would impose a burden on merchants because they'd all
have to purchase an ad-hoc software update with the new categories of
food.

> I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
> meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
> grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
> to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
> patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.

They can't have even a little junk food? Say, 5% of the monthly
allowance? Don't be such a grinch.

On Nov 22, 8:20*am, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
> > This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>
> > I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
> > my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash. Anyone who
> > knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of "food stamps." I hate the
> > idea of letting folks go hungry. When I see people abusing the
> > program, it really ****es me off.
>
> How much of a discount did he offer you? Around here, it's at least
> 33%, up to 50%.
>
> > I'd like to see the SNAP program extended to more families, but
> > narrowed to exclude foods that are patently unhealthy, and I think
> > that such a change could garner bipartisan support. Liberals will
> > object, but sensible ones will realize that this type of reform will
> > benefit those who are down on their luck by incentivizing better
> > eating habits. Conservatives will object because it means expanding
> > the social safety net, but moderates don't want to see folks buying
> > cookies and soda pop with govt. benefits.
>
> I consider myself progressive, and I object because it's nanny-state
> policy. Do you embrace what Bloomberg did in NYC with large sodas?
> Also, your plan would impose a burden on merchants because they'd all
> have to purchase an ad-hoc software update with the new categories of
> food.

If they accept WIC, they already have that. WIC is very restrictive.
Each state sets its own restrictions within certain federal
guidelines.
Here is Virginia's:
http://www.vahealth.org/dcn/Publicat...odlist_web.pdf
Here is California's:
http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/wicw...5-2011.pdf.pdf
Here's Florida's:
http://www.doh.state.fl.us/family/wi...s_eng_1-12.pdf

I'm not suggesting anywhere near as restrictive as the WIC programs,
but somewhere in between.
>
> > I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
> > meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
> > grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
> > to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
> > patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.
>
> They can't have even a little junk food? Say, 5% of the monthly
> allowance? Don't be such a grinch.

They can buy junk food if they have unsubsidized money to do so, but
no, no subsidizing crap. Restricting eligible items to those that are
at least reasonably healthful would be a wiser use of *limited* funds,
and I think it's safe to assume, would increase the percentage of the
population who view SNAP positively.

--Bryan

On Nov 22, 8:15*am, Janet Bostwick > wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:54:59 -0800 (PST), Bryan
>
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
> >meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
> >grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
> >to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
> >patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.
>
> >--Bryan
>
> There some other issues at play here. *Many people who shop that way
> have no idea what most of the food in the fresh food section is nor
> how to cook it. *There are people out there who have pretty much never
> eaten outside of a fast food joint. *They do not like any spice or
> herb or anything that is outside their own culture. * They also don't
> have any of the tools needed to produce a cooked meal. *(pots, pans,
> etc.)

I find it hard to believe that there are many folks who do not have
pots and pans. Well the next time someone offers, I'm going to
politely say, "No thank you," casually follow them into the parking
lot, and get their plate #. Then I'll go back into the store and
inform them what's going on, and advise them that the transaction
records of those purchases might be evidence in a criminal case. Then
I'll call
800-424-9121
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud/fraud_4.htm

If, by then, I have broken down and bought a hand held cell phone,
I'll take photos too. That'd be a lot more satisfying that doing what
I do, which is tell the person off very publicly.


>*Every once in awhile I see that there is a program somewhere to
> try to teach *simple basics, but funding for that sort of thing is
> long gone.
> Janet US

--Bryan

On 11/22/2012 4:54 AM, Bryan wrote:
> This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>
> I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
> my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash. Anyone who
> knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of "food stamps." I hate the
> idea of letting folks go hungry. When I see people abusing the
> program, it really ****es me off.
> I'd like to see the SNAP program extended to more families, but
> narrowed to exclude foods that are patently unhealthy, and I think
> that such a change could garner bipartisan support. Liberals will
> object, but sensible ones will realize that this type of reform will
> benefit those who are down on their luck by incentivizing better
> eating habits. Conservatives will object because it means expanding
> the social safety net, but moderates don't want to see folks buying
> cookies and soda pop with govt. benefits.
> I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
> meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
> grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
> to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
> patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.
>
> --Bryan
>
I suppose these programs vary widely from state to state. I never heard
of anyone getting cash back from a SNAP (aka EBT) card.

Jill

On Nov 22, 9:14*am, jmcquown > wrote:
> On 11/22/2012 4:54 AM, Bryan wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>
> > I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
> > my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash. Anyone who
> > knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of "food stamps." I hate the
> > idea of letting folks go hungry. When I see people abusing the
> > program, it really ****es me off.
> > I'd like to see the SNAP program extended to more families, but
> > narrowed to exclude foods that are patently unhealthy, and I think
> > that such a change could garner bipartisan support. Liberals will
> > object, but sensible ones will realize that this type of reform will
> > benefit those who are down on their luck by incentivizing better
> > eating habits. Conservatives will object because it means expanding
> > the social safety net, but moderates don't want to see folks buying
> > cookies and soda pop with govt. benefits.
> > I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
> > meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
> > grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
> > to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
> > patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.
>
> > --Bryan
>
> I suppose these programs vary widely from state to state. *I never heard
> of anyone getting cash back from a SNAP (aka EBT) card.

He was offering to pay for my groceries with his SNAP card, then me
give him cash.
>
> Jill

--Bryan

Bryan wrote:

> Well the next time someone offers, I'm going to
> politely say, "No thank you," casually follow them into the parking
> lot, and get their plate #. Then I'll go back into the store and
> inform them what's going on, and advise them that the transaction
> records of those purchases might be evidence in a criminal case. Then
> I'll call 800-424-9121 http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud/fraud_4.htm

I hate to burst your bubble, but all that tattling will have zero
effect. There is no enforcement against the "fraud" that threatened
you.

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:14:44 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 11/22/2012 4:54 AM, Bryan wrote:
>> This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>>
>> I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
>> my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash.


>>
>I suppose these programs vary widely from state to state. I never heard
>of anyone getting cash back from a SNAP (aka EBT) card.
>
>Jill


You don't get cash back. The SNAP holder would use his card to pay
for someone's groceries and they, in turn, give him the cash they
would have spent. Usually it is done at a discount for an incentive.
In this area, a typical benefit for a single person is $200 a month.
You can easily find someone that will give their card to you to use
for about half that. Done all the time. Even some stores have
participated in scams to return cash to the user and increase their
profits.

"Bryan" > wrote in message
...
> This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>
> I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
> my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash. Anyone who
> knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of "food stamps." I hate the
> idea of letting folks go hungry. When I see people abusing the
> program, it really ****es me off.
> I'd like to see the SNAP program extended to more families, but
> narrowed to exclude foods that are patently unhealthy, and I think
> that such a change could garner bipartisan support. Liberals will
> object, but sensible ones will realize that this type of reform will
> benefit those who are down on their luck by incentivizing better
> eating habits. Conservatives will object because it means expanding
> the social safety net, but moderates don't want to see folks buying
> cookies and soda pop with govt. benefits.
> I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
> meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
> grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
> to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
> patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.
>
> --Bryan

perhaps we should require those people eat unhealthy foods.

Bryan wrote:

> > I suppose these programs vary widely from state to state. *I never heard
> > of anyone getting cash back from a SNAP (aka EBT) card.
>
> He was offering to pay for my groceries with his SNAP card, then me
> give him cash.

You already said that.

But I'll bet Jill STILL doesn't follow.

Bryan wrote:
>
> I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
> meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
> grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
> to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
> patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.

And I know several people that take advantage of the system and would really
make you mad.

The federal WIC program sounds more like your thinking. They restrict
purchases to healthy food. That still doesn't prevent them from buying
someone elses $30 worth of healthy grocerys in exchange for a $20 bill. It
happens all the time and angers me.

Sadly, too many people take advantage of our social programs designed to
help out those in need. I support all of those social programs but seeing
(first hand) the abuses really angers me big time. I should probably get
active and report abuses but I don't. You hate to be a "rat."

G.

On 11/22/2012 10:31 AM, Bryan wrote:
> On Nov 22, 9:14 am, jmcquown > wrote:
>> On 11/22/2012 4:54 AM, Bryan wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>>
>>> I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
>>> my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash. Anyone who
>>> knows me knows that I am a huge supporter of "food stamps." I hate the
>>> idea of letting folks go hungry. When I see people abusing the
>>> program, it really ****es me off. offended.
>>
>>> --Bryan
>>
>> I suppose these programs vary widely from state to state. I never heard
>> of anyone getting cash back from a SNAP (aka EBT) card.
>
> He was offering to pay for my groceries with his SNAP card, then me
> give him cash.
>>
>> Jill
>
> --Bryan
>
Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. Of course he
just assumed you were paying cash.

Jill

On 11/22/2012 10:49 AM, George M. Middius wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
>>> I suppose these programs vary widely from state to state. I never heard
>>> of anyone getting cash back from a SNAP (aka EBT) card.
>>
>> He was offering to pay for my groceries with his SNAP card, then me
>> give him cash.
>
> You already said that.
>
> But I'll bet Jill STILL doesn't follow.
>
>
FU. The initial post never said the guy was asking *him* for cash. It
was perhaps implied but not specifially stated.

Jill

jmcquown > wrote:

>On 11/22/2012 4:54 AM, Bryan wrote:
>> This is what I posted to Facebook yesterday:
>>
>> I told a guy off today in line at Shop'n Save. He offered to pay for
>> my groceries with his SNAP card because he wanted the cash.
-snip-

>I suppose these programs vary widely from state to state. I never heard
>of anyone getting cash back from a SNAP (aka EBT) card.

No cash back. I've got $10 worth of groceries. Crook says- I'll
pay for that- you give me $5 cash. He buys a 6 pack with the cash.

[at least that was the exchange rate when I had my store-- I had folks
all the time offering twice the foodstamps that beer/soda/candy was
worth.]

Jim

Jim Elbrecht wrote:

> I've got $10 worth of groceries. Crook says- I'll
> pay for that- you give me $5 cash. He buys a 6 pack with the cash.

Or, possibly, prescription meds, bus fare, laundry fee, etc.

Yes, the whole thing is dishonest. But it's wrong to assume the worst
possible result.

Christine Dabney wrote:

> >They can't have even a little junk food? Say, 5% of the monthly
> >allowance? Don't be such a grinch.

> I am currently getting SNAP benefits, because the disability I am
> getting while I am out on medical leave isn't enough to buy food, and
> pay rent at the same time.
>
> This is what makes me cringe when I get in line to pay for groceries..
> I am lucky that I know how to cook, and stretch a dollar. And when I
> buy groceries they are mostly good things. But sometimes I just want
> a little treat, ya know? Not all the time...but just sometimes.

See, Bryan? There's no good, one-size-fits-all policy on SNAP.

On Nov 22, 9:55*am, Gary > wrote:
> Bryan wrote:
>
> > I'd love to see a person with a shopping cart full of veggies, eggs,
> > meats, cheeses, milk, bread, peanut butter, fruits, beans, whole
> > grains, etc. pay for them with a SNAP card. That would make me proud
> > to be a taxpayer, but when I see folks using SNAP benefits to buy
> > patently unhealthful junk food, even my progressive self is offended.
>
> And I know several people that take advantage of the system and would really
> make you mad.
>
> The federal WIC program sounds more like your thinking. *They restrict
> purchases to healthy food. *That still doesn't prevent them from buying
> someone elses $30 worth of healthy grocerys in exchange for a $20 bill. *It
> happens all the time and angers me.
>
> Sadly, too many people take advantage of our social programs designed to
> help out those in need. I support all of those social programs but seeing
> (first hand) the abuses really angers me big time. I should probably get
> active and report abuses but I don't. *You hate to be a "rat."

Not me, buddy, and I'd be happy to testify in court. There are
limited resources for food assistance, and when some son of a bitch
who is not in dire need scams the system, (s)he is taking healthful
food out of the mouths of poor children. That makes such a person my
enemy.

See, I believe in social programs. Since we can't--or choose not to--
commit to full employment at living wages, we need such programs to be
a halfway morally decent society. If I thought of it as these folks
stealing my taxes, I'd be ****ed, but I take it that step further and
think of a child going to bed hungry, then I'm ****ed enough to act on
it.
>
> G.

--Bryan

On 2012-11-22 15:03:29 +0000, Bryan said:

> I find it hard to believe that there are many folks who do not have
> pots and pans.

There are. The vast majority of the homeless. And those who were
homeless last week but managed to get together enough funds for a room
in a beat-up motel this week, or this month.

> Well the next time someone offers, I'm going to
> politely say, "No thank you," casually follow them into the parking
> lot, and get their plate #. Then I'll go back into the store and
> inform them what's going on, and advise them that the transaction
> records of those purchases might be evidence in a criminal case. Then
> I'll call...

It reminds me of throwing a man in jail for stealing bread. You have no
idea how important that money might have been to that cheater. He might
have been trying to get gas money to go watch his mother die in a
hospital. Or scrounging the cash to get a dress for his 8 year-old
daughter to wear to church after weeks of watching her feel shamed to
tears.

I'm not saying that's these are the likely reasons; I'm saying we don't
know what bad reasons bad people have for doing bad things in a good
"system".

On 2012-11-22 19:06:58 +0000, Bryan said:

> See, I believe in social programs. Since we can't--or choose not to--
> commit to full employment at living wages, we need such programs to be
> a halfway morally decent society. If I thought of it as these folks
> stealing my taxes, I'd be ****ed, but I take it that step further and
> think of a child going to bed hungry, then I'm ****ed enough to act on
> it.

I agree completely with your mindset. Sadly I don't have the ability to
know my policing of a system I wasn't hired to police is any more
effective than the fascist goons that linger around polling places to
intimidate what they assume or "illegal voters"; that is, anyone that
looks Latino.

On Nov 22, 2:35*pm, gtr > wrote:
> On 2012-11-22 19:06:58 +0000, Bryan said:
>
> > See, I believe in social programs. Since we can't--or choose not to--
> > commit to full employment at living wages, we need such programs to be
> > a halfway morally decent society. If I thought of it as these folks
> > stealing my taxes, I'd be ****ed, but I take it that step further and
> > think of a child going to bed hungry, then I'm ****ed enough to act on
> > it.
>
> I agree completely with your mindset. Sadly I don't have the ability to
> know my policing of a system I wasn't hired to police is any more
> effective than the fascist goons that linger around polling places to
> intimidate what they assume or "illegal voters"; that is, anyone that
> looks Latino.

Those "goons" are hostile to Latinos, both legal and undocumented.
It's apples and oranges. Folks who commit food stamp fraud are
victimizing other poor folks. Are they as bad as that SON OF A BITCH
that nearly half of voters preferred for president? No. Heck,
they're not living high on the hog, and they're just hustling to get
by, but food stamps are damned near sacred to me, like "There but for
the grace of God go I," and I'm a freakin' Atheist. If it did end up
that I was horribly mistaken, that there really is a Christian-type
God, I doubt I'd fare any worse than any of the Mammon worshiping
supposed Christians.

Reading something like this can bring me literally to tears:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...46&version=KJV

It's my one emotional weakness. I know I seem like a mean old cuss
here, and I can be in other aspects of my life, so it isn't about
niceness, it's about a minimum standard of decency, not in speech, but
in deeds. I challenge all folks here at the start of the holiday
season to read Dickens' *A Christmas Carol* in its entirety.

--Bryan

On 2012-11-22 21:34:57 +0000, Bryan said:

> On Nov 22, 2:35*pm, gtr > wrote:
>> On 2012-11-22 19:06:58 +0000, Bryan said:
>>
>>> See, I believe in social programs. Since we can't--or choose not to--
>>> commit to full employment at living wages, we need such programs to be
>>> a halfway morally decent society. If I thought of it as these folks
>>> stealing my taxes, I'd be ****ed, but I take it that step further and
>>> think of a child going to bed hungry, then I'm ****ed enough to act on
>>> it.
>>
>> I agree completely with your mindset. Sadly I don't have the ability to
>> know my policing of a system I wasn't hired to police is any more
>> effective than the fascist goons that linger around polling places to
>> intimidate what they assume are "illegal voters"; that is, anyone that
>> looks Latino.
>
> Those "goons" are hostile to Latinos, both legal and undocumented.
> It's apples and oranges.

I don't think so. The apples to apples is this: Self-appointed
enforcers of a system they believe is good and right and real and
"protecting it" for the good of the community. Self-appointed
enforcers don't understand the nuances and the details of such systems,
because they are generally in a lather about some specific "injustice"
either real or imagined, and/or microscopic.

Sure it's wrong to cheat, we all know that because we have all cheated
at some time or other. But we also know that sometimes you have to do
what you have to do.

> Folks who commit food stamp fraud are victimizing other poor folks. Are
> they as bad as that SON OF A BITCH...

I disagree that they are victimizing anyone. They are certainly aiding
in the ineffective operation of a system that is intended to feed the
hungry, but they are not specifically taking any food out of any hungry
person's mouth. In most every federal or state system there is
corruption and fraud. That doesn't mean most or even any of it effects
the good that system does, it just waters down the broader efficacy at
a dollar-by-dollar level.

> ...food stamps are damned near sacred to me, like "There but for
> the grace of God go I," and I'm a freakin' Atheist.

I am too, but it doesn't lessen the overarching utility of many
precepts, such as "judge not lest ye be judged". You surely read my
imagined examples of the things that poor people do--fraudulently
do--to survive. Sure, some of them work the system for dope, but
others work it essentially to patch the many OTHER cracks that the
hungry and homeless have to deal with.

I'm certainly not arguing that frud is okay. I'm arguing that you
shouldn't be judging others and then working to make a miserable human
that much more miserable with some more "noble" rationale. Your
rationale is noble in the abstract and his is evil in the abstract.
But neither of you are abstractions--you're humans.

I appreciate your sentiments, and your desire to ensure that a good
system works well. The cheater you saw, about whom we can know only
the one thing, is not remotely as malevolent or as evil as those who
would cut food stamps to balance budgets while giving 663 billion
dollars a year to the military. "Doing your duty" to expose a pitiable
person who broke a rule while a heirarchy of highly-rewarded but
legitimate fraudes continue apace; it's a curious focus.

> If it did end up that I was horribly mistaken, that there really is a
> Christian-type
> God, I doubt I'd fare any worse than any of the Mammon worshiping
> supposed Christians.

We are all horribly mistaken with or without a diety to judge us. I try
not to judge others, particularly those at the bottom of the food
chain. I've seen more than I want of their penury, anbd experienced a
taste of it a few times myself. I've seen these folks used as a prop in
political battles among people who care nothing about them. I had to
see individuals among used to wage a battle by those who DO care about
them.

gtr wrote:

> I always note the closing of a factory or business with the same kind
> of line. For instance Hostess is aid to be eliminating 1800 jobs. My
> response is usually, "Another 1800 parasitic Democrats who won't take
> responsibility for their own lives and want to live off the government."

You dragged a food topic into this affray, so here goes: How long will
it take for another snack company to pounce on the Hostess stuff? Now
that the union is busted, new management will be able to negotiate
lower labor costs.

(For any Twinkie lovers out there, I suggest shunning the first couple
of batches produced under the adoptive company.)

On 11/23/2012 11:40 PM, gtr wrote:

> line. For instance Hostess is aid to be eliminating 1800 jobs.

1800?

nancy

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:37:03 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>gtr wrote:
>
>> I always note the closing of a factory or business with the same kind
>> of line. For instance Hostess is aid to be eliminating 1800 jobs. My
>> response is usually, "Another 1800 parasitic Democrats who won't take
>> responsibility for their own lives and want to live off the government."
>
>You dragged a food topic into this affray, so here goes: How long will
>it take for another snack company to pounce on the Hostess stuff? Now
>that the union is busted, new management will be able to negotiate
>lower labor costs.
>
>(For any Twinkie lovers out there, I suggest shunning the first couple
>of batches produced under the adoptive company.)
>

My guess is they will be made by the new company in their existing
facility by existing workers. More efficient, more profitable. Just
send the recipe and off we go.

On 11/24/2012 10:22 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 09:37:03 -0500, George M. Middius
> > wrote:

>> (For any Twinkie lovers out there, I suggest shunning the first couple
>> of batches produced under the adoptive company.)
>>
>
> My guess is they will be made by the new company in their existing
> facility by existing workers. More efficient, more profitable. Just
> send the recipe and off we go.

Perhaps it's just my perception, but it seems to me that when another
company takes over a product, especially food, they just have to
tinker with it somehow and it's just not the same. Some cost-cutting
measure, naturally.

nancy

On 2012-11-24 15:22:02 +0000, Ed Pawlowski said:

>> How long will it take for another snack company to pounce on the
>> Hostess stuff? Now that the union is busted, new management will be
>> able to negotiate
>> lower labor costs.
>
> My guess is they will be made by the new company in their existing
> facility by existing workers. More efficient, more profitable. Just
> send the recipe and off we go.

I think not. I've heard they will be licensing the produts to other
companies for manufacture.

On 2012-11-24 14:46:55 +0000, Nancy Young said:

> On 11/23/2012 11:40 PM, gtr wrote:
>
>> line. For instance Hostess is aid to be eliminating 1800 jobs.
>
> 1800?

Nationally 18,500. They employ 1,800 in California.

TEN times my initial number of parasitic democrats have been created!