Food Stamp /Lobster and Steak

[SlyFrog]

@tdn

Let me restate it then.

$5 worth of lobster costs $5. $5 worth of rolled oats costs $5. No matter which of those two choices a poor person makes, the cost on his EBT card is still $5. Therefore, from a taxpayer perspective, it matters not one whit whether the poor person bought lobster or rolled oats. Perhaps this is obvious to all (it should be), but people are still bellowing about how the buying of lobster is ripping off taxpayers. I have yet to see even one no-choicer acknowledge that the taxpayer is not affected by choices made by the EBT user. It would be a real treat to see even one person give even lip service to the concept.

That’s because it’s not true. So long as we as taxpayers would be willing to let the person die, you are correct. But we are not. When people make mistakes like spending their $5 on one meal instead of two, they tend to fall back on additional societal safety nets, which cost tax payers additional money.

As well, you are begging the question in presuming that the person is entitled to an absolute dollar amount of $5. I do not agree with this assumption; I believe they are entitled to enough to be fed a nutritious meal at as low a cost as possible. If they are purchasing lobster and surviving, it suggests to me that I could take back some of my $5 and they could purchase more reasonably priced food and still survive.

Your fundamental argument boils down to we have to pay them $5 no matter what, so what do you care how they spend it. The problems are: (i) we end up paying more than $5 if they misspend it; and (ii) we don’t actually need to pay them $5 in the first place.

[stretch]

I’ve been off public assistance since 1992 but I remember it well.

In February 1986, I was 18 and had just left my husband. I had two young children (9 months and 22 months). I had just recently gotten my GED. I went on public assistance (PA) in Washington, which is pretty well know for its high-level benes (people move here from neighboring states to take advantage of the excellent benefits). I was extremely lucky because I received ADFC (now TANF), food stamps, medical coupons, and, after about a year I really scored and got a Section 8 housing subsidy.

I had to jump through hoops to maintain my eligibility for PA; meetings with case workers, submitting paperwork whenever anything in my life changed, etc. When I wanted to go to the local community college in 1987, I was not encouraged at all by my caseworkers. I was not given information on getting help with daycare or other programs available to aid recipients.

I got financial aid through the college and attended courses on grants and student loans from 1987 - 1990 (I took summers and one spring off). I was very, very lucky in getting a work-study job at the college–from September 1987 through June 1988, I was a custodian; and through meeting staff while cleaning their offices, I got a job in the admissions office. That was my true score–they hired me part-time after graduation.

This is where Washington used to serve it’s PA recipients the best–while I was working part-time, I was still eligible for some PA grant money up to a certain amount, I still received some food stamps, and I still had medical coverage. I also maintained my Section 8 housing eligibilty.

In January 1992, I began working full-time. I immediately contact DSHS and notified them I was working full-time. I would have been allowed to keep my medical coupons for a year, but my job provided full health insurance. I no longer qualified for food stamps. I also contacted HUD; I was allowed (encouraged really–I offered to give up my subsidy but they had a policy) to maintain my Section 8 housing for the rest of my already-approved subsidy year. I think that this really helped keep my off welfare because it meant that I didn’t suddenly have to pay a huge amount of rent, I was able to get a dependable car, I was able to afford my daycare and to eat, I was able to really get a foothold in the working world.

This was the way things used to be. Now there’s even less aid available. Real education is not encouraged.

Anyway, I occasionally bought “luxury” items when I was on foodstamps; I have a penchant for chocolate ice cream and I had children who needed an occasional cake or cookie. If it wasn’t for my extended family regularly giving us parts of the beef they butchered, we would have not had meat most of the time; as it was we had lots of all-starch dinners–mac n cheez, potatoes, bread.

I live in Yakima County in Washington; we have the highest number of folks receiving some form of assistance in the state. We have a very high unemployment rate, but we are also home to a lareg number of formerly-migrant farmworkers. These folks are seasonally employed and I believe they still like to eat in the winter, hence a lot of folks receiving aid. They are imported here to work shit jobs for shit pay, and then everyone complains that they are on welfare the rest of the year. :rolleyes:

mr.stretch is a support enforcement officer. He would agree that a large portion of the folks on PA are there because they aren’t getting any or enough child support. When the minimum order is $25/month and most of your cases can’t even pay that, you’ve got to figure that a huge portion of those custodial parents are receiving some kind of assistance to feed the kids.

For those of you who want to restrict the actual items that people can buy–apparently right down to the brand in some cases–what do you think this will mean for me? If 57% of the folks in your town get food stamps, the stores are going to have to carry enough of the approved items to meet demand. This will restrict my choices as well because it will limit the amount of space for non-approved items. There will be even less chocolate ice cream for me to buy, even less of the brand of rolls I like, I will never be able to find my favorite brand of enchilada sauce. You guys suck. :mad:

[tdn]

@SlyFrog

That’s because it’s not true. So long as we as taxpayers would be willing to let the person die, you are correct. But we are not. When people make mistakes like spending their $5 on one meal instead of two, they tend to fall back on additional societal safety nets, which cost tax payers additional money.

If that’s the point you want to make, then make it. So far no one has yet asserted that, much less proven it. I will assert the it’s at least theoretically possible for a person to a) make that mistake and then learn from it and not make it again, or b) scrimp and save a little here and there, enough to be able to afford a treat once in a blue moon. Neither case need result falling back on additional safety nets.

And of course, this is all theoretical anyway, since we have seen that there is no widespread crustacean abuse in the first place.

As well, you are begging the question in presuming that the person is entitled to an absolute dollar amount of $5. I do not agree with this assumption; I believe they are entitled to enough to be fed a nutritious meal at as low a cost as possible.

It’s already been established that $5 per day is the standard amount, so my assumption is based in fact. And that’s not much. How much more of that would you like to take away before you feel that these people are not living high on the hog?

If they are purchasing lobster and surviving, it suggests to me that I could take back some of my $5 and they could purchase more reasonably priced food and still survive.

If they are purchasing lobster on that $5, it suggests to me that they are sorely lacking in some other nutritional needs, and they’ll be feeling that soon enough.

If you want to make your point, however, would you be willing to engage in a little experiment? Since you seem to be suggesting that $5/day is too much already, would you be willing to eat on $4 per day for the next month, and post every meal and every purchase here?

Your fundamental argument boils down to we have to pay them $5 no matter what

That does seem to be how the system works.

The problems are: (i) we end up paying more than $5 if they misspend it;

How?

and (ii) we don’t actually need to pay them $5 in the first place.

This has yet to be proven to me.

[SlyFrog]

@tdn

If that’s the point you want to make, then make it. So far no one has yet asserted that, much less proven it. I will assert the it’s at least theoretically possible for a person to a) make that mistake and then learn from it and not make it again, or b) scrimp and save a little here and there, enough to be able to afford a treat once in a blue moon. Neither case need result falling back on additional safety nets.

I already made the point in this thread. It is theoretically possible for the person to learn from the mistake or afford a treat. For the people I know who are on public aid, that does not seem to happen. Anecdotal, I know.

@tdn

And of course, this is all theoretical anyway, since we have seen that there is no widespread crustacean abuse in the first place.

No, we’ve seen one data point, who may be biased, who has used the specific example of lobster alone. If you really think that this thread is solely about whether food stamps are used to buy lobster, instead of lobster as a general coverall for luxury items and other overpriced/undernutritious foods, then we won’t be able to have much of a discussion from here on out.

@tdn

It’s already been established that $5 per day is the standard amount, so my assumption is based in fact. And that’s not much. How much more of that would you like to take away before you feel that these people are not living high on the hog?

To the extent it was established by you. Of course that again begs the question as to whether $5 per day needs to be the standard amount. I could just as easily say, “They should get $1,000 per day; who are you to judge what they do with that $1,000.”

@tdn

If they are purchasing lobster on that $5, it suggests to me that they are sorely lacking in some other nutritional needs, and they’ll be feeling that soon enough.

Unless they have other safety nets, including other taxpayer subsidies.

@tdn

If you want to make your point, however, would you be willing to engage in a little experiment? Since you seem to be suggesting that $5/day is too much already, would you be willing to eat on $4 per day for the next month, and post every meal and every purchase here?

Why should I? I make more than $5 per day; having earned the money, I’ll spend it on what I want.

Besides, I never said $5 per day was too much; I said that if I am forced to give someone $5 per day, and they can afford to eat lobster, then I should not be forced to give them $5 per day. That seems pretty simple.

[Elza_B]

@SlyFrog

That’s because it’s not true. So long as we as taxpayers would be willing to let the person die, you are correct. But we are not. When people make mistakes like spending their $5 on one meal instead of two, they tend to fall back on additional societal safety nets, which cost tax payers additional money.

I don’t have a dog in this fight since I kind of agree with both sides, but I just wanted to mention that for people like me, that $5 spent on whatever that would be one meal for most people, would be two meals for me. I tend to eat smaller meals more frequently than most, but I still typically eat half of what my husband eats every day. So I can easily stretch what should be one meal into two.

E.

[SlyFrog]

@Elza B

I don’t have a dog in this fight since I kind of agree with both sides, but I just wanted to mention that for people like me, that $5 spent on whatever that would be one meal for most people, would be two meals for me. I tend to eat smaller meals more frequently than most, but I still typically eat half of what my husband eats every day. So I can easily stretch what should be one meal into two.

I am willing to concede that the U.S. might be better off if far more people did what you do.

[tdn]

@SlyFrog

I already made the point in this thread. It is theoretically possible for the person to learn from the mistake or afford a treat. For the people I know who are on public aid, that does not seem to happen. Anecdotal, I know.

I’ll take your anecdote as fact. I’ll even go you one further and ask you to elaborate on those anecdotes. What sort of mistakes are these people making? What are they eating?

No, we’ve seen one data point, who may be biased, who has used the specific example of lobster alone. If you really think that this thread is solely about whether food stamps are used to buy lobster, instead of lobster as a general coverall for luxury items and other overpriced/undernutritious foods, then we won’t be able to have much of a discussion from here on out.

We’ve seen one data point for an entire chain of stores. I’d say that’s a pretty decent sample size. And I understand that it’s not just about the lobster but DMC has stated he cannot run meaningful queries on random weight foods, so we have no data about that either way. But you make a good point that I’ve been wanting to make since page 3 – luxury foods and junk foods are two seperate categories, and we’ve all been treating them like the same thing. That has thrown a bit of confusion into the topic.

To the extent it was established by you.

No, not by me. By someone who (I believe) is an admin for the program. I didn’t pull that figure out of my ass.

Of course that again begs the question as to whether $5 per day needs to be the standard amount. I could just as easily say, “They should get $1,000 per day; who are you to judge what they do with that $1,000.”

How much they get per day is a seperate issue from who gets to say what they do with it. As for the amount they actually get, I hope you’d agree that it isn’t very much.

But whatever the amount, no, it’s not up to you to impose limits on how people can use it. I’m firm on that point. I stand by it for 3 reasons:

1. You cannot see all ends. You are not aware of what special deals and sales might be available to the recipient. You do not know what special circumstances the recipient has regarding kitchen tools. You don’t know what food allergies the recipient might have. Why not leave the shopping up to the person who knows these things?
2. Being poor is tough, and robs you of your dignity. This makes it tough to give a good interview, and so keeps the poor where they are. By further restricting them, you add to the problem, you don’t solve it. If I’m poor and I can figure out a way to work the system so that I get a treat, I’ve taken back a little of my own humanity. I’ve asserted myself in the world. I’ll walk into an interview with my head held high, rather than feeling like a loser. That can directly affect my chances of landing the job.
3. This is America. Stop messing with the basic freedoms of others.

Why should I? I make more than $5 per day; having earned the money, I’ll spend it on what I want.

Fine, but any claims you make that $5/day should be enough are now rendered moot.

Besides, I never said $5 per day was too much; I said that if I am forced to give someone $5 per day, and they can afford to eat lobster, then I should not be forced to give them $5 per day. That seems pretty simple.

Simple but wrong. First of all, you’re not being forced to give someone $5 a day, your being forced to pay your taxes, a very tiny portion of which goes to the food stamps program. Second, if someone can figure out a way to eat lobster for $5, I’m not going to punish them for their incredible shopping skills. Perhaps you could learn a lot about economics from a person who is so smart.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@tdn

<snip>3) This is America. Stop messing with the basic freedoms of others.<snip>

I think this is the crux of the matter right here. I see the basic freedom that we’re discussing here as “People who are not financially supporting themselves have the right to have enough food to remain alive and healthy.”

You, and the others arguing for your side, see the basic freedom (in my opinion, from what I’ve read in this thread so far) as, “People who are not financially supporting themselves have the right to be given money for food with no conditions that reduce their dignity even further.”

[tdn]

@featherlou

You, and the others arguing for your side, see the basic freedom (in my opinion, from what I’ve read in this thread so far) as, “People who are not financially supporting themselves have the right to be given money for food with no conditions that reduce their dignity even further.”

Wonkily put, but essentially correct. Whether they have a “right” to foodstamps is a debate on its own, but going on the assumption that they’re going to get them anyway, I would be very hesitant to impose any restrictions, the reduction of dignity being one of multiple reasons.

[phall0106]

@Abbie Carmichael

…I don’t know where people get the idea that being on welfare is something good, and that those who are on it have it easy. They’ve constantly got caseworkers breathing down their necks, bullshit meetings to attend, the state has access to all of their financial information, the program itself is designed to KEEP you poor (don’t work and you can have a medical card: work, and it gets cut off, etc.), and of course every time the subject is mentioned people come out of the woodwork to talk about welfare recipients being the biggest pieces of shit on the planet. …

I can’t help but read this thread, thinking of the time my children and I were receiving food stamps and I got a letter from the welfare office, stating that I had until Date X (which was the day I recieved the letter) to supply them with proof of somethingoranother. I had enough bus fare to make it to the office (with the proof of whatever), but not enough to make it home. We also didn’t have any food in the house (except for some dry pasta), but were supposed to receive food stamps within the next day or so–but weren’t unless they got their “proof”.

Long story shorter, I took the kids (one of whom was so little she wasn’t even walking, and the other was barely three), wrapped them up in their coats (it was winter), and took the bus to the welfare office. I met with a social worker, who informed me that we’d get food stamps within 5-7 days, and when I explained that we didn’t have any food, she offered to give us a bag of food to take with us to last until the food stamps came. I couldn’t take the bag of food because there was absolutely no way I could carry it and the kids and get us all home safely. As it was, I HITCH HIKED (with two babies!) the approximately 7 miles home, and we borrowed food from a neighbor who was kind enough to lend my family food, no questions asked.

I will never…absolutely never…forget the humiliation of that entire incident. Receiving foodstamps is humiliating and degrading, but if it fed my family, I was willing to deal with whatever I needed to do to feed them. It didn’t help having someone who thought I was doing wrong by buying something they though was “unhealthly” or that I shouldn’t have been buying with foodstamps.

[KellyM]

If you think that people should get “three nutritious meals a day”, then issue them a benefit card that entitles them to three nutritious meals a day. Know why we don’t do this? Because it would cost more than giving them a food benefit that allows them to buy, on the open market, food sufficient to pay for three nutritious meals a day. If you create a captive “benefit recipient” market, the people who service that market will charge above the market rate for those services, knowing that the government will pay whatever the charge is. The food stamp program creates general demand, not captive demand, and thus costs the government less.

The more complicated you make a benefit program, the more it costs to administer and the more prone to captive market abuses you get. Quite often, the government spends less in total by giving more aid than strictly “necessary”. I think it’s this pragmatic aspect of the food stamp law that is being objected to here, by people who (as far as I am concerned) are more interested in making sure the divide between poor and not-poor is maintained properly than they are in actually ensuring that the poor receive the help they need.

[Nawth_Chucka]

@LookingAround

Anyway I ranted and thats my belief and its not going to change.

There ya go, newbie, hold on to your narrow opinions in the face of opposing views and experiences as tightly as you can! No, don’t even consider you might be wrong or that a compromise in your thoughts could be in order after listening to what other people have to say. That’s what we’re here for, after all. Pooey on facts, they’ll never stop ignorance!

I suppose you’d tell those receiving Pell Grants what they should go to school for as well?? It has to be something ‘useful’ to people like you, right, not something silly like Art or a foreign language?
When you look at those taxes being taken out of your paycheck, silently pray there are programs available that may help you some day when you least expect it.

[annaplurabelle]

@tdn

Simple but wrong. First of all, you’re not being forced to give someone $5 a day, your being forced to pay your taxes, a very tiny portion of which goes to the food stamps program. Second, if someone can figure out a way to eat lobster for $5, I’m not going to punish them for their incredible shopping skills. Perhaps you could learn a lot about economics from a person who is so smart.

I’ve been lurking/reading this thread, and it seems like “lobster” is some kind of symbol to some of you. Is that right?

I’ve got a childhood girlfriend, chronically on the dole between husbands and children (4 and counting), and I have to say that “lobster” is a symbol for her too. And you know what, I’ve prepared lobster for her on special occasions (birthdays) because it seemed like something she would appreciate. And she did appreciate it. I’m not even sure if she likes lobster all that much, but she appreciated the thought behind it - that it was a special meal.

I know for a fact that, every once in a while, she would buy lobster with her food stamps - most often because she had extra resources due to her parents helping her out with extra food and/or money at a particular time. It must have really made her day since she saw fit to mention it to me (BTW, she’s off the dole and working now, but still thinks a lobster dinner is the “ultimate” meal).

As much as I agree there should be incentives for people to get off the dole, it struck me as a small thing, something that would be petty and/or vindictive to deny another person under the circumstances. How small and/or petty would I need to be to deny someone pleasure in what they eat for dinner? I refuse to lower myself to that standard.

So that’s my position on all this. I admit I’m angry at people who do not provide their children with nutritious food, but that’s a separate issue, and it also applies to people who do not receive food stamps. And what can I do about that???

All this to say: Taxpayers may have the right to critique how their money is spent on the food stamps program, but it doesn’t boil down to spying on a particular individual buying something on line with them in a grocery store. You don’t know the story behind that purchase, and it’s not a suitable anecdote to critique the food stamp program in general.

[Man_from_Mars]

I don’t think anyone should be allowed to use Food Stamps to buy anything unless they get written approval from LookingAround (appropriate name, by the way). Also, people who use Food Stamps should be as self-conscious as is humanly possible and be made to apologize to everyone in line behind them for whatever it is they are buying. They should also, on demand, be made to list their budget for that month so the public, who is paying for those groceries after all, can be sure that they are not spending frivolously.

Yes, LookingAround. I’m being sarcastic, thanks to that Sarcasm 101 class. And another thing, although I’m sure you’ve heard it before: FUCK YOU AND MIND YOUR OWN GODDAMNED BUSINESS.

[SteveG1]

‘Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness’
Nothing in there says anything about ‘Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness’ only for those above a certain income bracket.

Life requires food. Nothing about “let the bastards starve” in there.
Liberty means no meddling or interference in private personal business (do I want a cheap burger or a hotdog or a Twinkie). No controlling people at such a basic level as “what we will allow them to eat”.
Pursuit of happiness means even those below the arbitrary income level can chase the rainbow. Happiness isn’t promised or guaranteed, but people are allowed to try for it - that negates ALL arguments about how we should make “them” feel miserable.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@SteveG1

Liberty means no meddling or interference in private personal business (do I want a cheap burger or a hotdog or a Twinkie). No controlling people at such a basic level as “what we will allow them to eat”.

But we already “control” what people can buy with food stamps: it has to be food! You can’t use them to buy alcohol, or cigarettes, or DVDs, or disposable diapers, or gardening tools. Does this also count as meddling: telling people what they can and can’t buy, that they can’t have a beer or a smoke or a bottle of wine? The thought occurred to me long before this thread came up: if we can restrict what people spend this particular kind of aid on only to food, why can’t we also restrict it to nutritious food, food that will actually meet their nutritional needs? There are reasonable responses to this question, some of which have already been made earlier in this thread—but c’mon, it’s not an inherently unreasonable question.

Not everybody receives food stamps—I don’t, and you probably don’t. They’re only supposed to go to the people who need them. When someone’s using food stamps to buy luxury items, that at least raises the suspicion that maybe that person doesn’t really need the assistance and that the money could be better spent on those who actually do need it. That’s a big maybe, of course, and I wouldn’t presume to say that that was the case an any particular instance without a lot more evidence; this point also has already been well-responded to earlier in the thread. But it’s not unreasonable or anti-poor to deplore cheating or abusing the system if that is in fact what’s happening.

And since you brought up the Declaration of Independence, my impression of the Founding Fathers’ philosophy is that they would say that the government has neither the responsibility nor the ability to grant life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness: these are natural endowments from the Creator. The government’s role is to not deprive its citizens of these rights, and to protect them from others who would so deprive them.

[SlyFrog]

@Thudlow Boink

And since you brought up the Declaration of Independence, my impression of the Founding Fathers’ philosophy is that they would say that the government has neither the responsibility nor the ability to grant life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness: these are natural endowments from the Creator. The government’s role is to not deprive its citizens of these rights, and to protect them from others who would so deprive them.

My impression goes a little further than that. I believe that the Founding Father’s philosphy toward this issue would have been, “Find a way to make your own money or starve.”

Were the Founding Father’s really big on social safety net programs (I’m being serious, I don’t have a set answer to this, but I doubt it)?

[SlyFrog]

@Tony

I don’t think anyone should be allowed to use Food Stamps to buy anything unless they get written approval from LookingAround (appropriate name, by the way). Also, people who use Food Stamps should be as self-conscious as is humanly possible and be made to apologize to everyone in line behind them for whatever it is they are buying. They should also, on demand, be made to list their budget for that month so the public, who is paying for those groceries after all, can be sure that they are not spending frivolously.

Yes, LookingAround. I’m being sarcastic, thanks to that Sarcasm 101 class. And another thing, although I’m sure you’ve heard it before: FUCK YOU AND MIND YOUR OWN GODDAMNED BUSINESS.

I don’t think anyone should ever question the use of government money without Tony’s approval. Also, people should be given as many Food Stamps as they feel they need, to spend on whatever they want. In fact, we should stop calling them Food Stamps; if someone requests $10,000 from the government to buy a new plasma screen TV, we should just give them the money. In no way should someone who is requesting assistance from someone else, ever be questioned as to the use of that assistance; aid should be freely given without any responsibility or ties, because we all know that money given away freely is usually spent wisely.

[Hello_Again]

@SlyFrog

My impression goes a little further than that. I believe that the Founding Father’s philosphy toward this issue would have been, “Find a way to make your own money or starve.”

Were the Founding Father’s really big on social safety net programs (I’m being serious, I don’t have a set answer to this, but I doubt it)?

Sing it for me, friends:

We the people
In order to form a more perfect union
establish justice
ensure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

[Shodan]

@Hello Again

Sing it for me, friends:

We the people
In order to form a more perfect union
establish justice
ensure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

And while you’re at it, sing the part of the Constitution that guarantees a lip lock on the public teat for whoever wants it.