Fucking exactly my point.This whiny bitch right here. It's better than having nothing and starving.
This is basically what I'm hoping it is, though as I said earlier in the thread I'd rather have it cut down to be like WIC benefits.So do we actually know what's going in the boxes or is this argument just autism with both sides assuming the worst/best for their own political benefit? If the food baskets are good, generic staples like soup stock, rice, eggs, this system could work well. If the box is "lol one piece of bread" it's fucking dumb. Pretty simple.
I'm shifting a goalpost I never originally made? God damn I'm more talented than I thought!Goalpost shifting engaged!
Maybe you should actually read the articles you're citing to defend your bullshit arguments next time?
Is it not though, when the system was originally intended to only give the bare essentials necessary for someone to survive?I would hardly call "they didn't buy the food I want them to buy" abuse of the system. SNAP is to buy food. If they're buying food, it's not abuse, regardless of the quality of food they're buying.
And yet again the U.K. outdoes the U.S. with it's social programs.dunno if anyone pointed it out already, but the "overly liberal" EU already does this.
they give these no label not sellable packaged food to those in the poorest section of society. It's essential things like tard cum, beans, cookies for little children, meat in cans and rice. My aunt receives and uses these. They don't taste that great but in such situations you're just glad to have food in your plate