There are people that know how to game the system. There are also some really stupid people who buy what they want and wind up short at the end of the check. But I would suggest most people getting help are doing their best to make the food last for a month. They are in survival mode after all. We love to damn everybody when we notice a case to go off on. But it is not fair.
One would hope that most people spend it wisely. It wouldn’t take much to eliminate high dollar items by limiting the per/lb cost associated with any category of food. The recent reduction in food stamp money by Congress means they see waste in the program or the well is running dry.
Yep, he buys giant bags of potatoes. I suppose if any of the restrict-food stamps crowd saw him in the grocery store they would be pleased he was buying cheap, nutrient rich staples. If only they knew?
Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to make vodka out of pure sugar?
Or they are simply in the mood to stomp on people who can’t fight back.
See, you really do learn something new every day. For instance, I had no idea that if you received government assistance that meant that your voting rights are taken away. So, thank you for that info
Potato chips are a pretty good thing to buy if you are low on money and need to get filled up cheaply.A 2 buck bag of chips could be a filling meal.
Magiver et al.,
How does a food stamp recipient spending buying $100 worth of Ho-Ho’s cost the tax payer any more than his spending $100 on chicken, broccoli and potatoes? In both cases the tax payer is out $100. Now we all agree that the recipient would be better off and healthier not buying the ho-ho’s, but the same is true of anyone else, and I assume that you don’t want the government restricting the diet choices of the population in general. Ideally the recipeitns should understand the advantages of healthy eating, but if they don’t they will just suffer the consequences of an unhealthy diet, just like any one else. They, not the tax payer, will suffer the consequences. I believe that education in healthy eating and increased access to grocery stores should be encouraged among the disadvantaged, but saying you must behave you we say you should because you aren’t smart enough seems very patronizing.
And then inflation hits, and the $ per/lb cost of everything rises, making it illegal for them to buy any food at all.
It might be filling, but I wouldn’t call it a meal. There’s plenty you can get for $2 that’s a lot healthier than that, and still filling (I know this, cause my budget for my packed lunches for work is $2).
I’ve been thinking about this thread every which way. In a sense, I see Lynn’s point, that maybe the public’s responsibility should end at the necessities, but even if that’s the right thing, what’s the cost of implementing it? Who decides what the qualifies, and how do you keep the lobbyists from making sure those decisions are in their favor, vs. in favor of the public or in favor of the recipients of the foodstamps? I was thinking that maybe the solution is for a certain amount of each month’s allotment to go to various food groups, to ensure a healthy, well-balanced diet, with maybe some for the luxury goods like candy or whatnot? But that just seems so incredibly patronizing to me, and besides which, how much MORE would we spend trying to set up a system that could micromanage it like that? No, I think there’s no real justification for making these kinds of changes.
Personally, my expectation would be that anyone who uses foodstamps would maintain some normal level of frugality, the same as anyone else would when dealing with a limited household budget. Most probably will, some won’t, but that’s just the price providing a safety net.
If only poor people understood nutrition, we wouldn’t have all these problems.
It affects me because hoho’s are not food and $20/lb steak doesn’t go very far. Poor nutrition raises health care costs and overpriced food means money is wasted. Wasted money means it could be used to feed someone else. What you can’t seem to grasp is that we are running out of money. As I cited above, money has already been cut from food programs.
Should they also only be allowed to buy store brands on sale?
Hey, maybe we should just ban them from food-selling establishments, and appoint each EBT recipient a “food guardian” to do all their shopping for them. Sure, it’s expensive, but we’d get to both condescend to the poor AND create jobs!
Or maybe we should just pile money on each street corner and eliminate the whole card process. Think of the money we’ll save. :rolleyes:
When California implodes what do you think will happen to people relying on government money?
The same thing that happens to everyone else - when a large mass of land suddenly crunches inward to a central point, it ain’t pretty.
But if you’re inimating that the overwhelming cost of food stamps is what’s bringing California to it’s knees, then I can’t argue against that. I’m laughing too hard.
If only someone had said that tax money needs to be spent wisely across the board. (Post 280)
Personally I prefer when it’s spent stupidly across the board. It’s funner that way.
It’s still absurd to point at food stamps and blame them, directly or indirectly, for the collapse of California.
People only know what they know and it is the state’s responsibility to teach them (as the state has accepted that responsibility through public schooling and other programs). If such foods is what the people believe know that they need, and if the state is to provide for their needs (if they can’t on their own), then the state has to do so according to their needs as taught by the state (as the state has accepted total responsibility for the education of the population as they claim that as their responsibility to do so) and the state therefor has no right to restrict what the person feels they need.
Pretending that you really thought he was saying that really does nothing for your position and if you REALLY thought he was saying that food stamps are causing the collapse of California then you’re not half as bright as you imagine yourself to be.
Everyone seems to want to point to the most dramatic and absurd thing instead of having an actual discussion (let’s pair up poor people with a working person har har har because that hasn’t already been suggested at least three times in this thread and boy howdy am I original and funny!) but that doesn’t really lend itself to an exchange of ideas.
I do not think people should only be allowed to buy ingredients with food stamps. Still, there have to be some non-smartassery ideas of improvements which could be made.
You’d think by this point in the thread everyone would have all of their gong show comedy material used up.
Part of spending tax money wisely is not implementing an outrageously complex regulatory regime, that costs more to administer than you saved by creating it.