Regarding the letters “SNAP cuts real, painful I” from the Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank's CEO and “SNAP cuts real, painful II” from a Just Harvest intern (both Nov. 20 and TribLIVE.com): With my hand on the Bible as I type this, I was once in a local fish market and witnessed a couple buying lobster tails with a SNAP card. Surprisingly, this is completely legal.
Furthermore, when the SNAP balance is exhausted, there's always the food bank, as no one is allowed to go hungry. I related this story to a grocer who told me, “Forget the hand on the Bible, I've sold them lobster, shrimp and expensive steaks for years,” paid for by SNAP.
Personally, I like lobster — but try not to buy it, because then I'll spend all my money and be poor, and then I'll need food stamps. Is that making sense? That's my lobster-tail tale.
I wish the left would be more coherent. One day, the poor are starving, so we need to raise taxes to fund feeding them more; the next day, the poor are desperately obese, so we need to tax foods like soda pop and fast food to stop them from eating so much. From first lady Michelle Obama's anti-obesity “Let's Move” website: “(C)hildhood obesity rates have tripled ... . The numbers are even higher in African American and Hispanic communities” — read “poor” — “where nearly 40% of the children are overweight or obese.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Atheists & religious expression
- Article painted wrong picture
- Show appreciation
- Fitz draws ire
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’
- ‘Trust’ in God
- Pols’ real interest