• TheFogan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 month ago

    Sure, but did you think about the fact that food stamp recepiants could legally buy frozen lobster tail if they hoose to use all of their food stamps on it?, there’s at least one documented case of someone actually doing it too so, it’s a serious problem and justified cutting off half the country from food stamps to keep the epstien files from releasing.

    • Soulphite@reddthat.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      Right, and lobster used to be considered peasant food back in colonial times. Funny how times change.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I never understood how Faux was allowed to run wall-to-wall coverage on the horrors of allowing people to buy steak-n-lobster on food stamps (! gasp! clutch pearls!) and most people didn’t shut them the fuck off. I also didn’t understand the propensity of so many people to police the fuck out of what is in someone’s grocery cart if they are on assistance, while they seem to have very little interest in putting any checks at all on the parasitic class/the idle rich.

      Then I learned about last place aversion and it makes a lot more sense. Whole lot of people would rather see the Epstein class get even richer than to have someone they think is beneath them jump one rung higher.

    • kittykillinit@lemy.lolBanned
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Heh, I hate to break this to ya’ll, but I used to be on food stamps and ate crab legs all the time. I could’ve gotten frozen lobster tail; there’s nothing stopping that. It’s just that crab legs are a better deal and easier.

      They really do give more than enough.

      • TheFogan@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Would say overall the point is… they aren’t more expensive than regular food, depending on your situation etc… Key thing is crab legs and lobster tails, aren’t generally a huge price point beyond other things… and the joke, is of course that someone using their 200 a month and getting something moderately paletable, while a small group of cabinet members are literally spending more than… well more than a states worth of food stamp recipients get total.

        • kittykillinit@lemy.lolBanned
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I mean, I agree with you. Why should we have less while others have more? Especially when they’re not contributing to civilization, but rather leeching off of it.

          At the same time, the $300* a month that I received was way more than enough for my personal needs. It was great. I got to eat whatever I wanted and then some. I was no longer bound to just the bare minimum that I was willing to accept.

  • megopie
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    To put that number in perspective, there are 1.3 million active personnel with in the DOD right now, and a 1.5 pound live lobster costs about 34$. So, that’s enough for 1 in 5 active duty personnel to have a lobster with in the given time frame.

    I’d say that 9 million dollars on an expensive food category over several months isn’t that much when we’re talking a population of 1.3 million (active duty personnel with in the DOD). But then again, that money probably wasn’t evenly distributed, I doubt they’re serving lobster dinners to all the privates at fort polk. So, some officers are getting some big lobsters once or twice a month. That’s probably a bit much, lobster is a treat, not something to be on the regular rotation.

    Ultimately though, all these luxury expenses are just a drop in the bucket of over all spending. Everything when described as a line item will be massive. We could force every officer to live on dog food and it would barely make a dent in the expenditure. Ultimately, the budget is the result of the shear scale of the organization. The only really way to reduce the spending is to decrease the scale of the organization, and that requires reducing what it is expected to do. That means closing some bases, reducing overseas commitments, and giving up capabilities.

    The discussion that needs to be had is around what the organization should be focusing on, what the people of the US want it to be doing. Like, maybe, we don’t want it bombing random countries at the whim of a president. The ability to do that off the cuff is quite expensive.

  • Matt
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    This is why the pentagon has never passed an audit.

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Where’s that little chipmunk Kevin Hassett that loves to pop up in front of the camera and gaslight about fighting “waste, fraud and abuse”?