I think lobster meat is ridiculously overrated. It tastes fairly bland without the butter, lemon or other dips/seasonings that usually go with it.
It used to be considered fit only for bait or fertilizer and only food for the poor or lower classes until around the mid 1800's when it started to become more popular on the American east coast.
So, from a historical perspective, it's actually the type of food one would associate with someone who's down on their luck (those porterhouse steaks are another matter, however.)

The problem with restricting what items can be purchased with food stamps is the complications which would arise for grocers & what have you. As most grocery stores have such dramatic diversity of products stocked, it’s simply subdivided into various groups for various reasons, one of which is – simply – “groceries”, with a few subdivisions such as dairy, fresh produce, etc. To require further subdivisions, which would be in constant flux due to the inevitable revisions which would take place the Government & constant changes in stock, this would likely result in a cluster****. Whether or not the push-button-monkeys who work as cashiers at grocery stores have the mental capacity to remember an ever fluctuating list of what is questionable, but I doubt they’ve the inclination. So it’d have to be automated somehow, but I dunno how feasible that’d be considering the how much the administration of these programs is left up to individual states….

Then there’s the whole issue of how programs like these end up benefitting, you know, multinational corporations – link, that’s from the liberal viewpoint, but it gets the gist across.

Regarding abusing foodstamps – it’s stupidly easy and the amount of money you can get from it is retarded. In Montana you’ve no dependents, you don’t even have to bring in a bank statement or what have you – and you can get two hundred a month, for one person. Seriously, the only real deterrent to abusing food stamps is the threat of bureaucracies working together, which is to say there is no real deterrent.

This personal experience actually illustrates exactly why this weird anti-welfare camp annoys me. They'll use images like this as memes to circulate the idea that the welfare system is a scam and everybody is getting free money for not working. It's a wholly Republican feeling where I'm located, but ignorance knows no political boundaries.

My family has also used foodstamps in the past. If we hadn't been granted them, we would have gone hungry. Foodstamps are not checkcards with no limits, and as a large family we had to be selective with what we bought with them.

I'll often see sentiments such as "If you can afford cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, cable, and porn, you don't need food stamps."

Not only are such memes attacking strawmen, they show zero empathy for their fellow man. I've personally witnessed an astounding lack of altruism coming from Christian conservative Republicans, in my state at least. Jesus was a socialist passing around free welfare, according to their holy book. I don't mean to set up my own strawman, but these people, whom I know personally and work with daily, disgust and morally offend me.

Now, if we're not speaking personally, I don't think wanting welfare reform is a bad thing. I can understand that people don't want their tax dollars going to waste. I am, however, in favor of a type of socialist and non-judgmental Government mandated altruism which extends to all citizens, not just the financially insecure -- so I find arguing welfare as a United States political issue a waste of time with my views being so far left field.

No one thinks welfare/food stamps are limitless credit cards. The image at the very least displays irresponsible behavior, and more often than not they don't run out and realize they need to get a job. A lot of people on welfare don't want to get a job. I realize that may apply to a minority of those on welfare, but I think it's still a significant problem. Most of my friends and their families have or have had welfare benefits. I know a lot of them are trying to make it work, but I know some total pieces of **** who don't deserve anything.

We don't need to get rid of it, and we don't need to force regulations, but I think it either needs to be tougher to get benefits or tougher to keep benefits. Force them to go to 2-hour classes or something.

Rip Van Winkle most cash registers are computerized by now, and it's programmed in the system whether or not something can be paid with food stamps. These cashiers you called "monkeys" are actually working. They could have possibly a college degree or working for one, or been laid off from a job and now have to work those service jobs you think are "monkey" jobs - you really don't know so you really shouldn't judge. Besides your negative epithet to those who work in the service industry, I like your up-beat attitude for those who abuse the system.

There will always be those who abuse a system, but if, according to your own words, those who abuse welfare are in the minority of those who use it responsibly, why should you make it more difficult for those who genuinely need it to obtain/hold onto those benefits? You're punishing many for the acts of a few.

I don't know the percentage of people who genuinely need welfare vs. those who could do without. It's a tough thing to gauge considering all of the factors involved. But to me, the benefits of the current system far outweigh the faults -- and if there were one person genuinely in need to 10 who weren't, I'd still advocate the current system or an even easier one.

If a system can be more efficient, then it should be. You're making it seem like money grows on trees, and this day where the economy is completely ****ed, it's ignorant to just look at it in a humanitarian way. Granted, it's equally ignorant to just look at it from a business POV.

The problem with welfare is that when people misuse it, then they're essentially spending more money than they have (it's the taxpayers' money) and that's a huge problem. When you're spending other people's money, you're hurting them financially, and that hurts the economy.

How much money was spent on welfare this year? How much will we be spending on it for 10 years? 20? It doesn't matter, but let's pretend you're in charge of welfare, you're being paid essentially to make sure your program works, and that it's not wasting money. You sound like you would be pretty bad at that job, and you sound like you'd just pull a laissez-faire on welfare reform. You don't seem very bothered at all by whether or not it's efficient.

Ensuring the system works as intended has absolutely no negative side effect, unless the system is aimed at ensuring its own abuse. You hurt no one by ensuring that only the people who legitimately need a service are the ones able to access that service.
It's not about making it harder for legitimate needs to be met. It's about making it harder for illegitimate needs to be met.

One of the big problems is that it's very hard to determine who's abusing the system and who's not. Short of monitoring purchases made with EBT, the tax-payer-funded money is simply "trusted" to those who apply and qualify, and that's even if they were honest about their income to begin with.
Due to this, there can't be any effective statistics drawn from who is using the system as intended and who is not. This creates a situation where you either "hope" everyone is using the service legitimately, or simply put in place a system that ensures it.

Since the system is meant for legitimate use, resisting efforts to ensure that it cannot be used illegitimately is basically pushing for a government sponsored, tax-payer funded free "whatever you want" program. Given the options of providing food to the needy, versus providing funds to the irresponsible or dishonest, I'm sorry, but I gotta go with the former.

Did not know this. I guess the job is even easier than I thought.

Now, yes, of course people who abuse welfare are preferable to those who "need it". The former will trade me food for cheap vodka/drug money. The latter are sadsacks.

What's sad is the widow who gets only $16 a month while those who know how to bilk the system get hundreds of dollars. If the guy is buying five cases of Mountain Dew and (8) lobsters you can safely assume he's not living the life of Riley and eating lobster every night for dinner, it's possible he's going to resell that stuff for cash.