On that topic: I have brought this up in this thread before but it is worth mentioning again. What do you think would happen, politically, if some idealistic Congress Critter were to introduce a bill that defined specific foods a “junk” and suggested that said junk not be subsidized by the Federal Government. Think some special interest groups might have a thing or two to say about it? I do
Welcome to the middle, my friend. I know it’s kind of lonely around here, but one of these days one party or the other will come back. Would you like some punch? Gobear’s in charge of new members, see him for the secret handshake and the complimentary bozo button.
Hey now, careful. 
My husband’s welding courses are being paid for by his grandparents. He does “walk the walk” though, welding is hard work, in cramped conditions, and not many are willing to do it anymore because it’s manual labor, and riskly. There aren’t many welders on the job market, (worldwide if I understand correctly) and even less that can do MIG, TIG, and SMAW (Shielded Metal Arc Welding) so those who are around get paid easily $50 a hour on the East coast. (This from a Union representative who spoke to my husband’s class a month ago.) It’s not unheard of for welders who travel from site to site to make 100k a year. Just saying, some people who get “handed a career” by a relative go into jobs that actually are hard work, that actually help out communities by building things they need like water towers, pipelines, etc. 
Weirddave, Does someone get a toaster out of the deal?
Refusing to admit that there is any type of correlation only goes to prove that blatant stupidity isn’t limited to people of meager means.
That’s a wonderful, heartwarming, touching fantasy you have there. I know am certainly not superior to anyone, and my personal self esteem isn’t based upon putting anybody down. Anyone who knows me can verify that I do not treat anyone with contempt, regardless of economic class. OTOH, you are an obvious pustulating prick, so if I wanted to feel superior to someone I wouldn’t have to look very far.
It’s not quite that easy in most POS systems, as meat that the in-store butcher cuts is packaged and sold as a “random weight” item. The UPC does show how much that package of meat costs, but not its price per pound. Next time you buy meat look at the UPC. You’ll notice that it starts with a 2, meaning “random weight” meat, and that the last five digits, which normally are the product code, are instead the actually price of the product. Not per pound, but full price. If you bring a $6.00 package of meat to the register, the system has no clue if you are buying 6 pounds of meat for $1.00 a pound, or a quarter of a pound of meat that sells for $24.00 a pound. Some of the more expensively equipped stores have their entire operation networked. In other words, the deli scales, the meat packing scales, etc., are all tied into the POS network, and all share information such as price per pound, etc. The problem is that this is VERY expensive, and it’s much more likely to be seen in high end stores, as opposed to the small stores in poorer neighborhoods.
While it seems like it would be easy to implement your solution, as they do it for things like cigarettes, booze, etc., that’s not always the case. For booze and cigarettes, they simply mark the category as non-foodstamp eligible, and any UPC you assign to that category or department is ineligible.
WIC is a great thing, but it’s also an expensive nightmare. You’re attempting to do the same thing with food stamps.
That’s a very valid point, but it’s also already addressed in the food stamp program. Food stamp allotments are based on a sliding scale. The formula for a family of four who fall below the maximum income is ($499 - (net income * .3)). We’ll use three families of four as an example. Family A has zero net income, and therefore receives $499 in food stamps. Family B has $500 in net income and therefore receives $349 in food stamps. Family C has $1000 in net income and gets $199 in food stamps. Obviously, Family C is in better shape than A or B, so getting a job is still attractive. While I’ve tried not to take a political stance in this thread, so as not to add a perception of bias to the technical side, I think this same method is a possible solution to other areas of assistance. If all welfare was done on a sliding scale, with marked benefits for those actually employed, even if underemployed, I think we’d see more progress.
Finally, the vast majority of food stamp users are indeed trying to make ends meet. Only about 17% of them also receive TANF. Aside from the disabled and elderly, it’s mostly people who have an income, but a very small one.
Not as attractive as it would be if Family C got $1,000 in food stamps. I could easily see Family A saying, “I’m going to work a 40 hour week for a very marginal increase in money? Why, I’m getting enough to get by now.”
P.S. (I do understand that your numbers are made up hypotheticals - I’m not suggesting that you attempted to give a real world example)
Indeed. You’re on a budget. And most people on food stamps are quite good at finding ways to manage that budget.
I was on food stamps while working at Pizza Hut. As a result, I frequently got to take home “abandoned” pizzas (plus my employee meal) without paying for them. As a result, we’d get ahead of our food stamp budget (because of free meals). There were times we were ahead $100 in food stamps. Would it really have been so wrong to buy lobster under these circumstances? Note that it’s illegal to continue to use food stamps after you’ve been disqualified from the program for any reason; any food stamps you have left over at the end you’re supposed to surrender. With EBT, this rule is enforced (your EBT card is cut off when you are disqualified).
Actually, those are not hypothetical numbers, as that is how they calculate it. Family A has $499 after all is said and done. Family C has $1199. I think that difference is enough to encourage employment, but wouldn’t have any problem with someone adjusting it to make it even more appealing. The vast majority of recipients are employed, as only 22% of households receive the maximum benefit, so at least 78% (actually more, as many of those 22% actually have no choice) are getting income of some sort. Since a very small percentage of recipients receive TANF, that’s not the source of their income.
Here are the calculations used, but keep in mind they have all sorts of other things they take into account. For example, your car must be valued below a certain dollar value, etc.
First, you need to demonstrate that it is necessary to prevent permanent dependence on public charity. What, exactly, is so bad about that?
I have two words for you: Alaska, and Hawaii.
This is an asinine thing to say. You don’t know anything about anybody’s circumstances here. I would say that a lot of compassionate conservatives haven’t had anything handed to them, beyond being lucky enough to be born to parents who raised us to not accept being poor and feeling sorry for ourselves.
If you’re asking what is so bad about permanent dependence on public charity, I submit Canada’s Aboriginal people, and their poverty, suicide, incarceration, teen pregnancy, child abuse, and drug and alcohol dependency rates.
Because it’s clear that conservatives should not make assumptions regarding the poor, for they can not possibly know what it is like to be poor, spending all of their time using $100 bills to light their cigars and swimming in their money vaults.
It is, however, acceptable for people to make assumptions regarding conservatives, as it is clear that conservatives’ viewpoints come solely from a life of privilege and ignorance about how the masses live. Liberals, who are open minded and do not make snap judgments about classes of people or worldviews, somehow have the ability to intuit exactly what a conservative is made of.
My jab wasn’t directed at you at all. It was directed at what I will call the Country Club Conservatives. You know, the ones who become VP because daddy owns the company. The ones who go right from (the right) high school to (the right) college and then to (the right) country club and a cushy job because daddy already greased the wheels. The ones who sit on their dead asses behind a desk and do less than nothing (if they were paid what they are worth, they would starve). Your husband is working to get ahead (a good thing). The family is helping (a good thing). For all I know, you may be risking your “entitlements” for accepting family help and for trying to learn a trade. That is a bit different than some smug spoiled shit who never had to DO anything for himself and now feels entitled to slam the (what did they call it) stupid poor people.
I’ve never been on welfare, neither has anyone in my family. But, I had a short period of unemployment years ago. It was enough to make me very nervous, and a bit more understanding of the frustration you must feel, being forced to live that way AND being told that you are poor/stupid/worthless/eeeevilll.
DMC,
Thanks for the technical info on the scanners, that’s very interesting. Now I have something to look for/at the next time I go to the store.
What about Alaska and Hawaii? If food prices are truly so much higher than the rest of the country, different rules could be applied to them specifically. It’d be pretty stupid to change the rules for the other 48 states to match the situation in just 2 states rather than vice versa, wouldn’t it? I’ve never been to either place, but food prices in Yellowknife, NWT are only about 10-15% higher then food prices in Calgary, I’d be surprised if it was markedly different in Alaska.
Slyfrog and Featherlou, Have you read this thread? It is OK to make assumptions about people you know about, if they are poor=stupid=lazy.
It is not OK to make a different assumption that the ones saying this are spoiled brats or well fed know-nothings?
I guess assumptions and blanket statements are only acceptable if they come from one side.
For poor adults, you mean? Sure. Although it seemed that Binarydrone would go beyond that, and encourage it by penalizing people for having more than one child.
Are we going off on a eugenics rant here?
True, although the liquor and tobacco industries seem to have adjusted.
I am not disagreeing that federal controls on what welfare recipients can buy would be massively unwieldy and produce only limited benefits. There has been enough strawman argumentation and excluded middles that I probably ought to get that clear. I am arguing against the principle that tax payers ought to have nothing to say at all on the subject of how welfare recipients can expect to spend their subsidies.
I want to forestall people complaining that their welfare subsidies are inadequate, if they are spending any significant proportion of the money on HoHos or steak. And I react very badly to people who say, “people who support themselves can buy such-and-such, therefore so should I”.
Welfare should provide what you need, not what you want. The necessities of life, and opportunities to better yourself so you can get off the dole and earn some self-respect. Twinkies are neither a necessity, nor will they make you better off. And all this stuff about how they can’t get enough calories to live unless they stock up on Cheet-os and porterhouse steaks is, quite simply, nonsense. I’ve seen people at the food banks. Judging by the size of some of those ass-cheeks, those folks haven’t been in calorie deficit since the Eisenhower administration.
Regards,
Shodan
Years ago, welfare recipients got “surplus food”. I remember this (because an elederly grand-uncle was alone and living on a miniscule disability pension. he was given HUGE 10-lb. blocks of yello , “velveeta”-like cheese, huge cans of peanut butter, and also5 pound cans of spam-like meat. All of this stuff had the USDA seal on them, with the logo “not for purchase or resale”.
I always wondered what an 80-year old man was going to do with a case of peanut butter…but anyway, is this stuff still distributed?
Also, years ago, there was a major food stamp scandal in Chicago. it seems that crack addists would sell their food stamps to agents, who would pay something like 10 cents on the dollar…with the money they could buy crack.
How does the government monitor the redemption of food stamps?
Why did your doctor tell you that, Zabali? AFAIK, there is no truth to the statement that Tegretol causes tooth decay. I’ve been taking it for about 16 years as well, my mom is a doctor, I’ve never had a neuro mention it and the PDR makes no mention of it.
Sam