Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 86309

(Elitist Assholes Say the Darndest Things?)

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.

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.

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Wal-Mart and McDonald’s, would no longer be allowed to accept EBT cards, and the money loaded on the cards could not be withdrawn and used for any other purpose. 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.

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).

...

My reform measures might seem draconian to some (and the antithesis of the free market), but they would hopefully have the desired result of reducing food stamp rolls so we could eventually eliminate the program and let the states handle the issue. Before accepting food stamps, people would have to carefully consider whether they want to face the loss of voting privileges, the humiliation of shopping at government stores and using government food, the inability to smoke or do drugs and the added inconvenience of having to make two or three stops for their groceries should they choose to buy snacks with their own money. Plus, tax producers would no longer have to knowingly be face to face with people at the check-out who are on government assistance but have nicer cell phones and accessories than they do.

There should be humiliation and pain in government assistance. Every time someone accepts food stamps, they are spitting on the principles of independence, and they, not the taxpayers who fund the program, should be reminded of that fact.

Brion McClanahan , Daily Caller 88 Comments [3/13/2012 3:27:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 73
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
nutbunny

Denying the vote to the poor.

Hmmmm...

3/13/2012 3:45:36 AM

toby_in_manchester

I don't know the social security system in the USA by heart, but I am sure people do not choose to have food stamps just because it is so darn convenient and tasty. They are not poor because they choose too.... sheesh...

3/13/2012 4:01:44 AM

Extraintrovert

Fuck me with sideways with a rusty railroad spike.

The welfare system in the US is already pitiful and horribly broken compared to basically every other developed nation on the planet, and there are people such as this shitstain who want to put further restrictions on people who need government assistance to pay for the BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIVING. It's as if he wants MORE people below the poverty line.

I also like how he mentions his aim to "eventually eliminate the program and let the states handle the issue", because apparently the federal government paying for things is TOTALLY DIFFERENT to the state government paying for things. While I try to avoid stereotyping, McClanahan is almost certainly a Libertarian, given that they're the main group that advocate this idiotic position.

3/13/2012 4:05:22 AM

MK

And here I thought these people wanted LESS intrusion into people's lives, not more.

3/13/2012 4:12:02 AM



There's a school of thought which used to be prevalent in the UK and is still common, I suspect, in the USA, that the poor are just lazy and punishing that laziness is an acceptable way of reducing unemployment and poverty. It's what gave us workhouses and Dickens novels.

And its demonstrably wrong, and doesn't work. Societies are judged by use they treat their less fortunate. Punishing the poor for being poor just doesn't seem terribly just to me.

Remember, there but for the grace of god go I.

3/13/2012 4:21:06 AM

Robespierre

The first half sounds like a retarded version of socialism in a republican's mind. The second is standard-issue victorian class snobbery that we really ought to have buried in the 19th century.

It's funny that there WAS a time when the ideal conservative state was in place, with government spending at 10-20% of gdp, a humiliating and often non-existing welfare, weak unions, "family values" and official hypocrisy on anything vaguely related to sex.
The result was misery, a breakdown in family life among the poor, with child labour, alcoholism, crime and just about every social ill running rampant. To top it all, the economy atually performed WORSE than it has in the 20th century, and much worse than during the half-century in 1929-1979.

3/13/2012 4:23:07 AM

Tempus

In the early part of the twentieth century, it wasn't uncommon for charity and welfare offices to refuse assistance people unless they could raise their shirts and show visible ribs, proving that they were actually starving to death.

Your idea of humiliating and disenfranchising people who need government assistance and a safety net--you know, like people laid off because their companies decided to send their jobs overseas to be done by desperate people under horrible working conditions for a quarter or less of the pay of their American counterparts, who aren't able to find a job that pays to support themselves and their families because there aren't any,--isn't anything new or revolutionary. It's very, very old.

Also, you're apparently under the mistaken impression that most food stamp recipients refuse to work. A majority of people on assistance are actually employed full-time in the best jobs they could find in their area, and actually need extra help to keep from starving to death on their wages. Like a disturbing number of military and law enforcement personnel.

The world you want is a horrible, horrible place. No one sane wants to live there.

There's a school of thought which used to be prevalent in the UK and is still common, I suspect, in the USA, that the poor are just lazy and punishing that laziness is an acceptable way of reducing unemployment and poverty.

@#1381820: That school of thought is EXTREMELY common here, sad to say.

3/13/2012 4:26:11 AM

zipperback

This, of course, completely ignores the large percentage of people on public assistance who are WORKING POOR, having part time jobs or full time jobs and complicated situations. This also leaves them tethered to areas near the stores

My reform measures might seem draconian to some (and the antithesis of the free market), but they would hopefully have the desired result of reducing food stamp rolls so we could eventually eliminate the program and let the states handle the issue.

Typical Republican tactic. Introduce bad laws to break program X, complain that program X is broken and try to eliminate it.

3/13/2012 4:27:45 AM

WWWWolf

> 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.

That's funny. I'm in Finland, and I've been a recipient of many government-funded or -subsidised food programs - schools and military.

And the food is usually top notch. I've seen universities getting some pressure when the subsidised student meals weren't good enough.

You see, the citizens had the senses to demand that the food is adequate and sufficently nourishing, even considering the circumstances. (Sorry, national in-joke.)

> 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.

I don't quite follow. If they get "enough" stuff, why do they need to "stretch" the food budget?

If I get money to buy food, I fucking spend it on food. This isn't rocket science.

> There should be humiliation and pain in government assistance.

Yeah, humiliation and pain in day-to-day survival of some citizens. In a first-world country. Sounds about right.

3/13/2012 4:28:01 AM

Tempus

I don't quite follow. If they get "enough" stuff, why do they need to "stretch" the food budget?

@WWWWolf: Brion here is getting at the idea that people on his program would receive JUST BARELY enough food to keep themselves and their families from starving to death, provided they very, very carefully ration their monthly allotment--not enough to keep them comfortable, but only just enough to subsist on. He thinks if they're kept desperate and miserable enough, they'll be forced to find work quickly. Never mind the fact that many or most of the people on welfare programs are ALREADY employed full-time, aren't being paid anywhere near a living wage, and can't find a better job within range because there ISN'T one.

3/13/2012 4:37:18 AM

Diatryma

Hmm. How about having to give up one family member of choice to the production of Soylent Green (TM)?

3/13/2012 4:54:54 AM

Bollox

Slightly boggled at the notion that peanut butter is an essential food item.

3/13/2012 5:04:22 AM

Canadiest

"I sold my soul to the company store"

Why'd that pop into my head? Oh, I know, because you wanna lock people into a restrictive display of sub-human obediance. Mostly for your amusment, but also I suspect you want the competition for jobs cut back.

How would this save any money? The Republicans would privatize these store and put fat-cat friends in charge ( Ex: the Red State (have not states, welfare reciepients themselves) private prison systems)

3/13/2012 5:07:30 AM

Mister Spak

Anyone who voted for the president who caused the crash of 08 should also be forced to shop at these stores. Every time they vote conservative they are spitting on the principles of America, and they, not Americans, should suffer the consequences of their destructive ideology.

3/13/2012 5:46:11 AM

D Laurier

Anything to further punish the poor for not being rich, eh?

This asshole would make it impossible for the working poor to continue working.

3/13/2012 5:57:10 AM

gaijinlaw

@Bollox said:

Slightly boggled at the notion that peanut butter is an essential food item.

Don't knock it. It's cheap and nutritious.
Also? Yummy.

As for Brion McClaptrap, he's no libertarian. You can smell the authoritarian Puritainism coming off him. How does he imagine money would be saved by government spending money on buildings and branding? And Florida has already fallen on its collective face by spending $178 million on a program to drug test benefit receipients, which found that 2% of them tested positive for drugs and "saved" taxpayers a whopping $60,000. For those keeping score, that's an ROI of about -3000%.

3/13/2012 6:10:25 AM

Brendan Rizzo

What the hell is this?! Is he seriously suggesting slavery?! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHH!

Everywhere else in the free world, people on welfare are treated as human beings, no worse than anybody else. Their system, if you've noticed, actually works as there is very little poverty or suffering in places like Sweden. There is also almost no religious lunacy. What I wouldn't give to live there instead of in the same country as McKlanahan! (Sorry, but that alteration of his name was just too easy.)

This is why I hate my fellow Americans with every fibre* of my being! They KNOW how other countries do things vastly better than here, but deliberately ignore and pervert foreign, more enlightened systems in order to cause even more misery! AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!

* Commonwealth spelling intentional.

3/13/2012 6:10:54 AM

Doubting Thomas

Yes, let's humiliate the people who don't make a lot of money because they weren't born into rich families. Makes sense to me.

And HOW DARE they eat the same food as us??? Let them eat government cheese.

3/13/2012 6:11:41 AM

Dr. Razark

"...taste and quality... would not be a top priority."
"...all food stamp recipients would be required to spend their government dollars at these stores."
"...anyone who accepts government aid would have to submit to a monthly tobacco and drug test."
"People on government aid would also lose the privilege of voting."

Drop those, and I'm pretty much with you. (Ignoring the second bit about how awful it is that poor people exist.) A system for providing nutritious food to those in need would be a step in the right direction.

But the attempt to shame people off of welfare? That's not going to work. That's just you being an asshole.


Regarding the drug testing for those receiving government benefits, I assume you will follow to the logical conclusion. You will submit to drug test before you use the services of the fire department, the police, the public roads, the public education system, or any other program provided by the government, right?

3/13/2012 6:16:44 AM

Rageaholic

I hope you never end up on welfare assistance.

No scratch that, I do. It would be good karma for being a nieve fucking asshole.

3/13/2012 6:30:18 AM

dionysus

There should be humiliation and pain in government assistance.

Because it's not humiliating enough to need government assistance, no, let's further degrade people that are down on their luck. And while we're at it, let's force people who get laid off from their jobs to walk naked to the unemployment line.

People on government aid would also lose the privilege of voting.

Even slaves were considered 3/5 of a person. You're actually going to treat them worse than the slaves? You're a horrible person.

That way they couldn’t vote for greater benefits or easier terms

Because suppression NEVER led to rebellion. Nope, never.

3/13/2012 6:33:42 AM

navelgazer

Brion,

You should feel very bad about yourself. Ashamed of your moral values and embarrassed with your poorly thought out proposals.


3/13/2012 6:33:43 AM

arcangelsd

Actually, until I reached the part of pseudo-slavery, I was agreeing with him somewhat.
I must say that I absolutely don't know how does the US welfare system works, so give me a break e.e

@Brendan
Dude (or gal), chill off, that mustn't be good for your heart O.O

3/13/2012 7:05:29 AM

Horsefeathers

I think that before someone proposes something like this they should be required by federal law to have to live on the current welfare system for a period of one month, preferably living in a fleabag motel with no car and no job.

If they still think the welfare system is such a bad idea and is too liberal with its current system then they can propose something more restrictive.

3/13/2012 7:25:28 AM

emau99

People on government aid would also lose the privilege of voting.

Taxation without representation? It seems that I've heard that somewhere before...

...anyone who accepts government aid would have to submit to a monthly tobacco and drug test

I've been hearing calls for this more and more frequently. What would be the purpose of doing this? How much would it cost, and what would the benefits be? Would you also apply this standard to people who work for the government? After all, they're on the public dole, too, aren't they?

3/13/2012 7:26:52 AM
1 2 3 4