07-10-2008, 11:38 AM
It repulses me to agree with Douchess, but I think there needs to be a higher standard set for those wanting food assistance. If you can't feed your kids, you should have the help the government can offer. But there has to be some give, not just take.
Once you have been qualified for these benfits, you have to agree to a sterilization process that prevents you from squeezing out more puppies which can be reversed once you have proven that you can and do work. Such as being employed in one job with few issues (tardiness, absences) for one year. But then, you have to either come off the food stamps or the amount you get is decreased. Each case should be looked at individually and treated according to what is best for the children involved, not the crack whore with 9 kids from 9 different daddies.
The types of things you can buy should be relegated. Just because you get 170 bucks a month for food does not mean you get to buy crab legs and shrimp. Healthy, necessary food; milk, cereal, eggs, staples to make things from scratch. Not 2" thick porterhouses and portabella mushrooms and Rice Krispie treats.
Once you have been qualified for these benfits, you have to agree to a sterilization process that prevents you from squeezing out more puppies which can be reversed once you have proven that you can and do work. Such as being employed in one job with few issues (tardiness, absences) for one year. But then, you have to either come off the food stamps or the amount you get is decreased. Each case should be looked at individually and treated according to what is best for the children involved, not the crack whore with 9 kids from 9 different daddies.
The types of things you can buy should be relegated. Just because you get 170 bucks a month for food does not mean you get to buy crab legs and shrimp. Healthy, necessary food; milk, cereal, eggs, staples to make things from scratch. Not 2" thick porterhouses and portabella mushrooms and Rice Krispie treats.