|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
In 2013, Fox News proudly broadcast an interview with a young food stamp recipient who claimed to be using the government benefit to purchase lobster and sushi.
"This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate explained to Fox. “It’s free food; it’s awesome."
That story fit a longtime conservative suspicion that poor people use food stamps to purchase luxury items. Now, a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri is pushing for legislation that would stop people like Greenslate and severely limit what food stamp recipients can buy. The bill being proposed would ban the purchase with food stamps of "cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood or steak."
"The intention of the bill is to get the food stamp program back to its original intent, which is nutrition assistance," said Rick Brattin, the representative who is sponsoring the proposed legislation.
[The double-standard of making the poor prove they’re worthy of government benefits]
Curbing food stamp purchases of cookies, chips, energy drinks, and soft drinks at least falls in line with the food stamp program's mission to provide nutrition. Nutrition experts are already discussing whether to remove unhealthy items from the list of foods participants can buy.
But seafood and steak? Seafood has been shown, time and again, to be a healthy part of any diet. And steak is such a broad category that it's essentially banning people from buying any flat cuts of beef, from porterhouse to flank.
"It just seems really repressive," said Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University and author of the book Living on the Edge: The Realities of Welfare in America. "I don't see how it makes any sense to ban some of these foods. Fish is something that should really be in your diet. And steak, what does that mean in this context?"
Brattin admits that the language might need some tweaking. "My intention wasn't to get rid of canned tuna and fish sticks," he said. But he also insists that people are abusing the system by purchasing luxury foods, and believes that that must be stopped, even if it ends up requiring the inclusion of other less luxurious items.
"I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards," he said. "When I can't afford it on my pay, I don't want people on the taxpayer's dime to afford those kinds of foods either."
[Kansas wants to ban welfare recipients from seeing movies, going swimming on government’s dime]
Currently, a household of one can qualify for up to $194 dollars a month, or fewer than $7 dollars day, as part of SNAP, according to the Department of Agriculture. For a household of two, it's roughly twice that. For a household of three, it's about three times the amount.
It doesn't take too much math to figure out that foods like lobster aren't exactly within a recipient's budget. And it's also hard to draw conclusions based on a single purchase. What if that family that was purchasing a more expensive cut of meat had subsisted on cheaper canned goods for the past month in order to afford it?
Brattin's proposal is part of what Rank laments is a long history of stigmatizing food stamps and welfare programs in America. Ronald Reagan famously told the story of one "welfare queen" as though she were representative of the system at large. Rank says that today, the myth is perpetuated using similar anecdotes, like the Fox example, which he argued should be viewed as distortions of reality.
"There are some isolated cases of abuse, sure," said Rank. "But they are hardly representative of what the people struggling to get by on SNAP are actually buying... These people are spending their money extremely frugally."
Brattin says his bill is about making the food stamp program revolve around nutrition, but it also touches on more than that: whether poor people should be allowed to purchase foods that are deemed fancy. And Rank argues that this crosses a line.
"More than anything else, I think this is about controlling people," said Rank. "We should be treating people who are in poverty the same way we treat everyone else." Link Another "brilliant" idea from the party of limited government and personal freedoms.
I get the "junk food" idea. However, what if the steak is on sale and about to expire? How is seafood not healthy? I highly doubt those on the stamps are buying prime lobsters. And before anyone starts the "get a job and stop paying for your food with my tax dollars" argument: A good portion of those on such a program DO have jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
I agree with the steak and junk food.
the seafood? that's healthy, i dunno why they want to ban that.
you know what's crazy though? people keep talking about fraud and abuse with the food stamp program, but i just saw one official government link and another .org website that said Food stamp fraud accounts between 1-1.5% of use.
1-1.5%
yea....such a massive problem in our country.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
Ugh. It makes me shiver to think I could ever be so poor as to not be able to enjoy my Shrimp cocktail with a Surf and Turf dinner! What is this, Calcutta?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,797
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 34,797 |
I would rather they buy steaks and shrimp than buy the boxed heavily process crap that most Americans eat. I see the point, but I don't care, people have to eat.
Seafood includes fish, steak could include several cuts that are nothing more than sirloin or flank cuts. What's next ribs? Fresh vegetables? GMAB... Talk about big Government.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
I see the intention, but I'm wondering when they're going to limit unnecessary spending by the defense and energy industries.
We give them WWWAAAYYYYY more money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,198 |
I agree with the steak and junk food.
the seafood? that's healthy, i dunno why they want to ban that.
you know what's crazy though? people keep talking about fraud and abuse with the food stamp program, but i just saw one official government link and another .org website that said Food stamp fraud accounts between 1-1.5% of use.
1-1.5%
yea....such a massive problem in our country. That's right down there with the number of recipients who tested positive when drug tested. Let's drug test anybody taking government money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,173
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,173 |
I have no problem with them banning luxury food. No matter how you look at it if you're buying lobster or filet mignon then you're cheating the system somehow or at least making poor budget decisions. No reason to ban sirloin or rib meat though. I can often catch those on sale cheaper than hamburger.
I honestly don't have a problem with banning junk food too or maybe putting a junk food allowance on the card to ensure some of these parents are spending enough on good food for their kids but leaves some room for a little bit of comfort food too. You don't want to remove one of the few pleasures a poor person can have at the beginning of their food stamp month. Some of those sugary foods stop more riots than you might imagine.
If they don't like what the government offers there is always the choice of earning a wage ...
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I just wish people would stop pretending welfare is the same as charity.
The government isn't offering squat. They are forcing people to pay charity.
More banging my head on brick walls here, but it's a subject around consent and morality. People don't grasp it well. Welfare is to Charity as rape is to love making. I'd just like to stop hearing arguments about how great financial rape is and how I'm a terrible person who must hate the poor because I think stealing is wrong.
All this debate of how to spend stolen money is frustrating. Modernity has a real problem processing morality and authority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
You're post confused me.
we are paying into charity now?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I think I need more clarification on your confusion Swish.
I'm saying people say "Welfare is how we help the poor". Which is what charity traditionally has aimed to do.
I think charity is a good thing. I donate some of my extremely meager income to charity.
I think forcing people to pay welfare is the moral equivalent of a mugging.
So I don't exactly enjoy debating how the mugger should best spend my stolen money.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
So you think there should be no safety net for people who fall on hard times, correct?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
I'm not sure how you got that when I openly stated I donate money to charity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
I'm not sure how you got that when I openly stated I donate money to charity. this is also what you said: I think forcing people to pay welfare is the moral equivalent of a mugging. so you're cool donating, but not paying taxes to support welfare. That's exactly what I got from your statement.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Yup.
I'm also not a fan of rape.
I understand this concept is hard to wrap around emotionally. But the government is all based on violence.
Welfare is charity or insurance enforced violently.
I also don't support war. But I'm forced to pay for it. I also don't support the prison industrial complex. But I'm forced to pay for it. I also don't support the drug war. But I'm forced to pay for it.
I'm pointing out the gun in the room and asking that people acknowledge the difference between voluntary actions and involuntary actions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Did someone just compare paying taxes to rape? oh boy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Granted I'm arguing about the virtue of non-violence with a guy who has probably shot people. So I'm probably barking up a tree here. But it is something for you to consider if you want to be moral.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Granted I'm arguing about the virtue of non-violence with a guy who has probably shot people. So I'm probably barking up a tree here. But it is something for you to consider if you want to be moral. If I want to be moral..... ok man.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
Lol Swish. Do you realize how polite I have to be socially with you? When I'm discussing morality and non-violence?
There is one word I'm not allowed to call you that fits you perfectly. And I shouldn't call you it because violent people might beat me up.
It starts with M and ends with me getting punched.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Lol Swish. Do you realize how polite I have to be socially with you? When I'm discussing morality and non-violence?
There is one word I'm not allowed to call you that fits you perfectly. And I shouldn't call you it because violent people might beat me up.
It starts with M and ends with me getting punched. It's the Internet. The fact that you feel you have to be polite talking to me lets me know that whatever you're going to say would probably get you beat up in real life by the majority of other people. I'm not a violent person by nature, and words won't lead to physical altercations with me. Unless OFCOURSE you run your mouth about my wife and kids. So say what you mean. Cause you know I will. Go ahead. Let's hear it so I can utterly destroy whatever it is you're about to say.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
So you are open to discussing why you shot people overseas without being violent towards me?
How do you differentiate that from murder?
I wouldn't bad mouth your family at all. In fact I think you're a pretty sweet dad. But talking to someone about something they did which wasn't a good behavior is tricky business.
All due sympathy man, but to the best of my knowledge you killed people. That is something difficult to deal with.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
It's not murder if you're at war. Even the bible doesn't count it as murder.
No Craps Given
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
If you want I can break down the logic of that if you like...
The Nazi's were at war as well. And pretty Christian as a population.
It seems to me it isn't considered murder when your society approves of it.
I imagine a lot of the world would have a different opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
We can talk about whatever you want man. I'm an open book. Take your shots. Anybody can take heir shots. One by one I'll answer. Anything you got. Questions, objection, arguments, trash talk.
Let's get it man. I'll be polite. Non violent. Chill. Respectful.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,930 |
So you are open to discussing why you shot people overseas without being violent towards me?
How do you differentiate that from murder?
I wouldn't bad mouth your family at all. In fact I think you're a pretty sweet dad. But talking to someone about something they did which wasn't a good behavior is tricky business.
All due sympathy man, but to the best of my knowledge you killed people. That is something difficult to deal with. Might be crossing a line here King. Not just because it's Swish - because you aren't talking just about him - you're talking about all of the military. They don't get to pick and choose - they do what they are told. Further, there are a lot of people in the military that didn't kill people directly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
He is accusing people of murder. It is NOT murder if you are at war. Not if in the military and NOT according to the bible.
My brother was in the marines, He fought in the battle of Falluja. In Iraq. I do not know if he shot anyone. May of or may not. Regardless, he follows instructions. It is'nt murder when you are at war. It's war.
No Craps Given
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 369
1st String
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 369 |
That's just crazy talk. . . 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 369
1st String
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 369 |
Man, this thread just went south quick. . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
As I mentioned Arch. I'm well aware this is horribly insulting to a lot of people. And I mentioned to the best of my knowledge Swish did shoot people, but I could be totally wrong.
I started off this conversation mentioning I was going to be crossing a line and people would get really mad at me. I'm well aware of that.
But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Soldiers do get to pick and choose what they do. They choose to join the army. I have much more sympathy for anyone who has ever been drafted. That is a horrifying position to be in, I really feel for the Vietnam and especially the WW2 vets.
The vast majority of soliders join between 18-20 to my knowledge. And I view the politicians and war mongers as preying upon children in this respect. I'm sympathetic to most soldiers. But I don't think pretending they are heros is going to help them. They were tricked by corrupt people into doing horrible things. A huge percentage commit suicide or develop PTSD because of the complete monsters who tricked them into it.
People need the capacity to say no to authorities and recognize our society for what it is. Otherwise we end up with soldiers who think they are heros going off and killing people and ruining their minds. We end up with people advocating welfare while all the evidence points to it is destroying the lives of the poor. Every time we try to justify whatever it is the politicians tell us is some great and moral crusade it destroys lives.
Last edited by Kingcob; 04/09/15 11:17 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,438 |
If they don't want people buying high end food, then don't give them so much to spend.
Honestly, 194 per single person is a lot. I don't spend that much. If I did, yeah lobster tails for me.
Maybe an adjustment is needed. Because if I had so much to spend for free, I would buy high end food also.
What do they expect to happen with so much to spend.
No Craps Given
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 369
1st String
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 369 |
I understand what you are trying to say. In military operations innocent men, women and children are killed. All these operations and wars are not necessarily in reality to defend our freedoms. Drones have killed more innocent people than bad ones, yet we don't seem to care.
Currently the political environment we live in cares more about what is popular instead of what is morale. If a soldier refuses a lawful order they are subject to UCMJ actions. That means possible prison time.
While I agree with some of your points, war is about survival of you and the man next to you. It is the American people who put Soldiers in the position to kill others. Instead of your condemnation how about you look in the mirror and place the blame where it truly belongs? What are you doing personally to reduce placing troops in harms way? Are you protesting? Contacting elected officials? I'm willing to bet the answer is "No". If that is the case I blame you and anyone else who stood by while my brothers and sisters were sent to do and see horrors you can't even imagine.
So before you run your mouth about things you know know thing about, before you judge me, swish and others, take a long look in the mirror. You call men and women you have never met murderers as you sit in the comfort their efforts provide. You are a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,173
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,173 |
I'm sorry about the nonsense about the military tricking kids. It's voluntary and most of the young MEN join because there are no other jobs to be had or for the free college. Personally I think military should be mandatory for 2 years. Give at least some of these young men some real upbringing for a few years of their life. Much better than being thugs out on the street. At least they can get some useful job skills.
Welfare is protection money plain and simple. Protection for the kids of people down on their luck. Protection for those who have jobs against those that don't. I promise you that without welfare there would be a massive increase in theft and murder. A hungry person will do unspeakable things when their kids are even hungrier. They are not going to go rob the other poor people...
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,938
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,938 |
I think that we absolutely need a safety net for people, however I also agree that there is too much abuse in these programs. I also realize that some people who really do want to do what's best for their kids may occasionally want to provide something special for their kids, treats, candy, or pop. (and the like)
I think that we should look at mandatory nutrition education for people who receive over a certain level of assistance, and mandatory education programs for people on public assistance programs who are not working. (or who work only limited hours) I think that we can, and should, do a lot better for people we are trying to help.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 369
1st String
|
1st String
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 369 |
You don't have to join the military to get job skills. We can't say we are a truly free nation if we force people to join the military. That's what they do in socialist/communist countries. Last thing I want is to serve with someone who doesn't want to be there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Lol Swish. Do you realize how polite I have to be socially with you? When I'm discussing morality and non-violence?
There is one word I'm not allowed to call you that fits you perfectly. And I shouldn't call you it because violent people might beat me up.
It starts with M and ends with me getting punched. Look, man. You can say soldiers are "murderers" all you want. Honestly, I don't care. I share a similar view. But there was really no need to talk down to Swish and then direct it at him. Many here will remember I've always taken that "soldiers are murderers", but I never felt the need to call someone out over it. I also have no beef with someone in the military, but more of the complex instead. Then again, I'm not a "non-violence" kinda guy. You are. And I find it interesting as you try to belittle someone over this and attack them with it. You also just compared paying taxes to rape, so I assume you can understand this analogy. But correct me if I'm wrong. I assume you being non-violent is because you believe that one can persuade someone without the use of violence. But belittling someone and attacking someone are essentially the closest thing we have to attacking someone over the internet. It's just kinda funny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,173
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,173 |
You don't have to join the military to get job skills. We can't say we are a truly free nation if we force people to join the military. That's what they do in socialist/communist countries. Last thing I want is to serve with someone who doesn't want to be there. That's odd several democratic countries have mandatory military service. South Korea is one of them. It's called civic duty and earning the right to have that citizenship by being prepared and able to help defend your country. It would be an interesting world if you had to earn your citizenship instead of having it handed to you and then treating it like trash.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
You don't have to join the military to get job skills. We can't say we are a truly free nation if we force people to join the military. That's what they do in socialist/communist countries. Last thing I want is to serve with someone who doesn't want to be there. That's odd several democratic countries have mandatory military service. South Korea is one of them. It's called civic duty and earning the right to have that citizenship by being prepared and able to help defend your country. It would be an interesting world if you had to earn your citizenship instead of having it handed to you and then treating it like trash. The last thing you want to have happen is going to war with a bunch of people who didn't join the military on their own accord. Yea... I disagree with you're take to the fullest.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
I think you struggle with the concept of basic human nature.
And thus you really don't deserve a response from this.... Post of yours.
To be honest, I was actually surprised that was all you was going to say, and I'm pretty disappointed. I was expecting shots about how I was raised and my city and how I feel about other problems.
Yep, massive disappointed. I'm bored.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Someone should sugar smack them upside the head.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 25,823 |
My taxes are Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!
I'm headed over to my neighbors house for breakfast. He is on Welfare and has the finest Caviar.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... MO Republicans Plan For Food
stamps: "Ban sugary products,
sea food, and steak!"
|
|