Should it be the store who has to set up their system to restrict eligibility or should there be an audit process by the body giving the stamp that then disqualifies that person from receipt again in the future?

On one hand, the store wants the business, so the body could say well if you want to be an eligible location, you have to set up your point of sale system accordingly. No exactly fair for the small guys.

On the other hand, if the body does it , its a bunch of government time and money.


In Canada there's a program called Jordans Principal and there was amounts given monthly that were similar to food stamps. What happened and why it failed miserably, was people just bought a shiton of garbage food when it was designed to be for nutritious food. It ended up being the body's responsibility to hold people accountable but what happened was they were so lazy, they just signed off on every receipt. Gov't job baby, 8:30-4:30, not gonna cause any rifts, sign receipt and move to the next.

Last I remember going into a dollar general they had big signs posted all over advertising what items qualify for SNAP, so I'm going to assume that it wouldn't be particularly burdensome for stores to do so. On the flipside I'm also willing to give the pro-government people a chance to show government can actually accomplish things! Your example doesn't give me much confidence though lol

There are good times and there are bad times. During good times, people tend to ignore stuff like this. If your budget is running on a huge deficit, you look at every penny spent. We say in German, you have to fasten your belt tighter. This shutdown highlights how much money is wasted. I don't get also why MSM needs 500M dollar from the federal government (one of the dem's demands). Are they working for the government or are independent? Both can't be true at the same time.
As for sugar, it's a drug for poor people just like alcohol. Sugar makes lazy people fat and even more lazy. I was conditioned by my volks to eat sweets after the meal only and only in small amounts. To this day, I can't eat much sweets at once. I prefer nuts.

This post was edited by babun1024 on Oct 30 2025 01:33pm

When Trump fumbles, sometimes it crosses my mind, though fleeting: maybe there is merit in the Democrat Party? And then I remember. They would continue to shove more and more taxpayer-funded food down the gullets of fat minority parasites without the tiniest concern for a balanced budget until the last tree has been cut down and the last clean river has been rendered brown toxic sludge just to continue feeding fat minority parasites - until we're all dead among the smoldering ruin of civilization. Literally nothing will prompt a US Democrat to restrain themselves.

Whay news aource? Please provide a link.

Lol. Last president to balance the budget- Bill Clinton.

Yeah, and he was swiftly gotten rid off with the Monica Lewinsky scanal.

Meanwhile, Trump gets reelected even after admitting to and being found guilty for sexual assault. The gop has become the party of no morals.

no he didnt he was to busy staining fat dresses (wheres Lewinskys dress?) and later hanging out with epstein

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget
https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

or maybe he won because of precanned lines like this that are provably false with 3 seconds of google searching.

for real man, democrats continue to have a credibility problem and they're doing nothing to address it.

just like the "34 time a felon". it was 1 single case, in an uber liberal state court, where the counts were inflated to get to that 34 number. like trump is obviously guilty of stuff, he's not a nice guy, etc. But when people lie or use fake lines it makes people dislike dems more than they dislike trump. so in a binary you lose.