Wisconsin GOP Bans Poor People From Buying Shellfish, Potatoes And Ketchup

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iBlazed, May 15, 2015.

  1. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #1
    In case you needed any more reason to despise the Republican Party and the sick, twisted "values" they represent, you can add this to your list.

    LINK

    I had a long political discussion with a co-worker today. In the beginning of the conversation he was a Republican, by the end he was an "Independent Libertarian", I guess that's some progress. :rolleyes:

    The GOP is completely out of control. This shift even further to the right won't end well for them.
     
  2. jnpy!$4g3cwk, May 15, 2015
    Last edited: May 15, 2015

    jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #2
    I have to tell you that this law as written is very confusing, but, it appears to me that white potatoes are OK under the proposed legislation. Whew! Back when I was poor, forty years ago, white potatoes, beans, and rice were it. I'm not certain, though. There are a lot of tricky dependent clauses in there.

    But, the summary is correct, this part is clear: no crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other kind of shellfish. Is this a religious proscription? I wasn't aware until now that the Church of the Wisconsin Fundamentalist/Authoritarian Republican Party had a shellfish prohibition.

    http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab177

    Follow up:

    Even though the listed legislation seems to specifically permit potatoes, this brochure seems to prohibit them:

    https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p4/p44578.pdf

    It also looks extremely complicated; for example, in some cases, whole wheat products are recommended, in other cases, prohibited. There seem to be different food categories with allowed/banned items for each type. I think they must be trying to enforce some kind of balance-- not necessarily a bad thing, but, potentially very complicated at check-out time. Anybody seen anything like this in action?
     
  3. nagromme, May 15, 2015
    Last edited: May 15, 2015

    nagromme macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #3
    Wow, unbelievable. (Except, I believe it.) :( No clam chowder for you!

    As for the poor eating healthy, nationally a big problem is poor neighborhoods having a lack of full-range grocery stores and fresh produce; coupled of course with the lack of time and money to commute to fancier stores. Banning canned beans won't help if that's all the chain convenience store will sell you... and if you already can't get enough sleep after work/childcare without commuting 90 minutes round trip to a more expensive store.

    (Then of course we have fast food and junk food giants marketing heavily to poor communities. But we all know corporations are always the good guys, so forget about that.)
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    Spaghetti sauce? Really?

    When it comes to healthy, affordable meals for people on a budget and limited time to prepare food, I'd have to rate jars of spaghetti sauce as one the best things out there. Along with baked beans and canned tuna, white rice and taco shells.

    At this point, I really have to ask what kind of excuse for a human being came up with this nonsense?

    These are the same people who shriek about the "nanny state." Personally, I'd much prefer a nanny state that actually pretended to care about people. These jerks seem to go out of their way to be spiteful and petty.
     
  5. APlotdevice, May 15, 2015
    Last edited: May 15, 2015

    APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #5
    So people are potentially scraping by on 60+ jobs are now going to have to spend the time making food from scratch? (homemade isn't always cheaper either)

    Also, no bulk items? For **** sake, the whole point of buying in bulk is to save money!
     
  6. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #6
    You can bet your ass this person identifies as a "Christian"....
     
  7. xmichaelp macrumors 68000

    xmichaelp

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #7
    Potatoes and beans are cheap and healthy. What's next, rice?

    Edit: Just saw rice is banned. What the ^$&$?
     
  8. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #8
    These people are bastards, the lowest of the low. It's so disgusting. I wish hell existed for people like them.

    Also, notice how many of the banned foods are basic parts of Mexican cooking. They specifically ban taco shells, salsa, rice, baked beans. Gee, I wonder what's behind that.
     
  9. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    Another vindictive punishment directed at the poor. At least it's in keeping with consistent GOP standards. :confused: These are the types of things voters could keep in the forefront when in the ballot box.
     
  10. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #10
    You're right, it will make check out time much more complicated and time consuming. But I think that's part of the plan. Poor people will be forced to have a public conversation with the cashier about what they may and may not purchase while people standing behind them in line roll their eyes and get impatient. It's all part of a larger effort to humiliate the poor. Republicans make me sick to my stomach, in case I haven't already made that abundantly clear.
     
  11. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #11
    The bill doesn't ban the poor from buying any of those things. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #12
    Of course it doesn't. "The poor" can still buy whatever they want with their own money.
     
  13. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #13
    I knew some someone would come in with that BS excuse.

    Why don't these Republicans just stop beating around the bush and admit that their agenda is to destroy the food stamp program in their state completely? Why come out with arbitrary restrictions on healthy basic food items in an attempt to shame the poor?

    I know, when you saw the thread title, you were sure that when you read the article it would be a ban on junk foods that you can easily defend. When you read the list, you found yourself unable to defend your disgusting party so you try to deflect that the poor can still buy these things for their own money, which completely defeats the entire purpose of the SNAP program.

    Anyone who voted for this should be hanged from the nearest tree. :mad:

    Not to mention, this isn't reducing the amount of money being spent on the SNAP program. The recipients will still spend their monthly allowance. The sheer purpose of this is to humiliate them, nothing more nothing less. It's nasty and mean spirited, just like the rest of the right wing agenda.
     
  14. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #14
    Doesn't change the fact that everyone is still free to buy whatever food they want with their own money.

    And: In what world are shrimp, shellfish, ketchup and potatoes "healthy basic food" items?
    I think you been living in the United States of Fatsos too long. :D
     
  15. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #15
    You know what? I don't even want to entertain your idiocy because it's a lost cause.

    But for the record, what the hell is your definition of basic??

    And nice little jab at America at the end. :rolleyes:
     
  16. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #16
    The Federal SNAP program already has built-in limitations that - for the most part - make sense. I don't anyone objects to the idea that Food Stamp money shouldn't be used to buy pint bottles of liquor; lottery tickets; or packs of Camels.

    But the utter condescension; paternalistic; meddling; micro-managing - and ultimately fiscally irresponsible nature of this Wisconsin bill blows me away.

    Can you imagine, from a strictly practical standpoint, the costs every single food retailer that participates in this program is going to incur in order to comply? Can you imagine the amount of time needed to program in the UPC's for each and every "allowed" and "disallowed" item. The hassles and delays it is going to create at checkout lines in every store in the state.
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    Actually, it is the purpose of the program. S is for supplemental.

    I'm in no way defending this move. I think it's disgusting.
     
  18. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #18
    That's actually a good point. Why make more laws?

    And why has the amount of households that has to rely on foodstamps doubled since Obama came to power?

    13.3% of Wisonsin households rely on the government to survive. Why?
    People should have their own money to be free to buy their own stuff.
     
  19. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #19
    I am not a big fan of SNAP and think that it is overused and abused, and should be curtailed. But micro-managing want food items can be purchased with food stamps, to the degree described here, is absurd, demeaning, and and petty. If the government decides, wisely or not, to provide free food to people, then it should do so and then stay the hell out of the recipients business as to what food they choose to eat.
     
  20. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #20
    White potatoes are basically sugar and lobsters, shrimp and shellfish are in no way basic food items. Especially not in a cold state like Wisconsin.

    I am actually not defending whatever happens there in Wisconsin, but the thread title "poor people are banned from buying certain foods" is nonsense.
     
  21. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #21
    Well for everybody who doesn't live in an Ivory Tower, this might have had just something to do with it.

    In 2008 the world economy faced its most dangerous crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The contagion, which began in 2007 when sky-high home prices in the United States finally turned decisively downward, spread quickly, first to the entire U.S. financial sector and then to financial markets overseas.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1484264/The-Financial-Crisis-of-2008-Year-In-Review-2008

    President Barack Obama

    He was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. Nine months after his election,
     
  22. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #22
    Yes, that's what happened.
    And what did he do when he came into office? He kept the people who caused this crisis in power and continued the practices that led to the 2008 crash.
     
  23. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #23
    Thank you for your honesty.
     
  24. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #24
    In what world? How about the German world?

    Funny how you aren't even in touch with your own world.
     
  25. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #25
    Do you even understand what the word poor means?
     

Share This Page