First, the federal government would create a government “brand” of essential food items such as milk, cheese, meat, cereal, vegetables, bread, peanut butter, beans, juice, soup, baby formula, diapers, etc., and would package the items with simple black-and-white labels and basic descriptions. The word “Government” would be stamped across the top in bold letters so everyone would know it was a welfare item. These items could be manufactured by major companies through government contracts, thus not creating a net loss to private industry. Because competition is not an issue, taste and quality, with the exception of the baby formula and baby food, would not be a top priority. Snacks, soda, cigarettes and beer would not be available through the program.
First of all, the government already does this, or if they don't now, they used to. Ever heard of government cheese? My mom was on welfare shortly after she divorced my dad when I was 2 and I remember government food subsistence being part of the program where we could get the basic stuff such as cheese, milk, bread, etc and the rest of the food stamps could be used on any other food. Hell, I remember that we were able to get McDonald's or Burger King on food stamps.
I do agree that maybe the government should set aside an allotment for government "brand" foods as listed in here as it would provide people with the basic stuff. It should be cheaper and it should have a good quality. Also, we do have the WIC (or whatever it's called now) so the baby formula, food, diapers, etc are already covered.
Second, the government would lease existing store fronts and set up “government stores.” There are typically several grocery store locations that have gone out of business in any given area; these would make ideal settings for the new government stores. The number of store locations would be chosen based on the size of the area and its number of food stamp recipients. The stores would be placed on public transportation routes for convenience.
Welfare food depositories are not a bad idea, the food should be available in both supermarket stores or these depositories. However one should not be exclusive to the other.
Third, and most importantly, all food stamp recipients would be required to spend their government dollars at these stores. Private grocery stores and chains, such as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, would no longer be allowed to accept EBT cards, and the money loaded on the cards could not be withdrawn and used for any other purpose.
No, I disagree with this, many retailers do get money off welfare recipients so I doubt that they would want the government to bar people on welfare from their buyer base. Also, many poorer people shop at places like Wal-Mart, Costco, Meijer's, etc and get food, that should we have the government "brand" would not provide. As for the cash withdrawl, that is cash that is supposed to be used for non-food items such as paper plates, toilet paper, plastic forks, dish soap, body soap, etc. You cannot use food stamps for these items anyways and most that are on welfare also receive cash assistance (my sister for example) So if a person on welfare can't work or only can work a minimum wage job, it still would not be enough for one to be able to purchase non food essential items.
Each card would have a set dollar amount sizable enough to purchase essential items from the government store. For example, a family of four could expect to receive enough government-brand beans, rice, bread, milk, cheese, meat, cereal and vegetables to last a month with careful planning. In other words, they must be ready to stretch a food budget. Families with babies would get a month supply of formula, baby food and diapers.
Fine enough, but what about unexpected things? What if the food spoils, such as instances where the electric goes out and the food in the fridge spoils? What if babies go through the formula too fast? Also how much is enough to last? I know families that have two children and they run out of food and supplies by the end of the week or so. Each family is different and this one size fits all doesn't apply to everyone?
Fourth, anyone who accepts government aid would have to submit to a monthly tobacco and drug test. Food stamp recipients are, after all, wards of the state. They are slaves to the government and should be reminded of that fact. If a recipient is found to have tobacco or drugs in his system, he would be dropped from the program. People on government aid would also lose the privilege of voting. That way they couldn’t vote for greater benefits or easier terms (most of them don’t vote, but now they couldn’t)
A tobacco test? This is ludicrous. First of all, poor people are probably the biggest smoker base, though I could be wrong being poor is stressful which is why the health of poor people are worse than those that are better off, but that's a discussion for another time. Drugs, yes I understand that but not tobacco or alcohol tests. Also, it takes a lot of taxpayer money to fund for these tests and of course since this is about poor people basically "taking our tax dollars!" I am sure you (the author of this drivel) don't want to have to foot the testing bill. The right to vote is available for everyone and many have fought hard to gain the right to vote, excuse me for asking but is there also a subtle hint of racism in that statement? You probably think that all poor people are
niggers black people and want to suppress their vote.
While there are some valid points this is overall a very ill thought program and will not work. Poor people will always exist whether or not you like it and disenfranchising them or humiliating them as you basically state in this writing are
not going to make the poor go away. I also understand that there are abuses in the system and those that abuse it make it much more difficult for those with honest and true needs to get the help that they want. However, draconian measures like this will only serve to piss people off, and not just the poor.
