At $3 per person per day what do you think is possible? If you’re asking a serious question how much do you spend on goat cheese? It shouldn’t be micromanaging for dollars to follow nutrition and choice.
It’s sunk in just fine for me. You’re the one who keeps insisting that steak is inappropriate.
And assuming that even sven is indeed serious, then how do you propose solving the goat cheese problem under your cost per pound proposal, without ‘micromanaging’?
How do you justify this answer with your assertion that no one on food stamps ever needs steak, seafood or aged cheese? You can’t have it both ways. If you’re limiting cost per pound (which could conceivably make sense if all the kinks were worked out; would that I trusted the feds to work the kinks out of something without spending billiions more of tax-payer dollars, creating bureaucratic jobs that would never end). . .so you can say ‘cost per pound’ or you can say ‘nutritional sawdust’, but you simply can’t have it both ways. The fact is, from an outlook of immediacy (this is going to be tasty, and all I have to do is open a package/pop it in the microwave), most low-cost-per-pound foods are nutritional sawdust.
They do, and while I can see the point (just as I can see the point in limiting what people can buy with food stamps; I just don’t think it can be realistically applied because there are too many variables, and it would be too expensive), I’m not sure they should be spending tax dollars poking their noses into car safety/fuel efficiency so much, either. It would be a better use of money, imho, for them to require car manufacturers to honestly disclose information on mileage efficiency/safety, and let me make my own choices about where my priorities are. Which seems to be pretty much what most people are saying about food stamps. Coincidence? Hmmmmm.
Look, you’re upset because people are spending what you see as ‘your tax dollars’. I understand. But, for one thing, once you pay $4.00 for a gallon of milk, you’ve got a gallon of milk, but that $4.00 isn’t yours any more, right? You don’t have the right, the following week, to storm into that store and demand they take down some tacky, over-the-top display on the premise that part of it was paid for with your money that you bought milk with. Same with taxes. You pay your taxes. You elect the people who make the decisions on how those dollars are spent, but once you pay the money, it isn’t yours any more.
For another thing, and here’s my biggest problem with implementing limits on what food stamps can buy, if millions of dollars are being ‘wasted’ every year on junk food and luxury foods, I don’t trust the federal gov’t to ‘fix’ the problem without spending ten times what’s being wasted. My husband works for the federal gov’t. I know how they implement new programs, and believe me, what they would spend on a quagmire like this would never be recouped by the idea that it would halt this kind of mis-spending.
I read it - what makes you think I didn’t? I wasn’t aware I was compelled to comment on it.
Starving Artist, I am WELL aware of how willing or unwillingly the government gives out this benefit, and how minimal the amount of benefit is because I was on the program the first half of this year! I am not “excusing” the cuts, I stated that what this was really doing is removing the benefit increase given by the Obama administration, that is, dropping the benefit to what it was prior to the Great Recession. Yes, that’s tight, but it’s doable. As I stated in the “Ask the Person on Food Stamps” thread earlier this year when I went on foodstamps my food budget went UP, which sure surprised me. I actually didn’t spend the entire amount given in a month (it built up in my account. When that happens, you have up to a year after your allotment ends to use it). That’s right, we actually received more than we needed… but they, we qualified for the maximum. Not everyone does, in fact, most don’t. If I was only getting $50 a month (which, actually is what I got the final months on the program because my income went up and my benefit went down) yeah, I’d probably spent it all, every penny, every month, but you know, those months I didn’t have a problem buying additional food because - wait for it - I had other income to help.
However, this thread was (at least I thought it was) about what people should be allowed to buy on foodstamps, not how much the benefit is or should be. Sure, it’s a related topic, but if you want to scream about the cut in benefits start a thread on it (I’d probably put it in the Pit, if I started one).
Am I happy about such a benefit cut? No. Would you feel better if I added some swearing about it? It’s not something to be happy about, but it’s not the end of the world, either.
So what price per pound are we talking about, then? What’s your proposal?
That has always been a valid point. Do you think the WIC program requires a lot of government money to implement? conceptually, this would be an extension of the process.
I can see the government mucking it up.
I can’t give you an honest answer. I don’t know what goat cheese costs. I’m assuming it’s expensive since it was given as an example.
I’m certain that the WIC program costs a lot of money to administer. And you say that ‘conceptually, this would be an extension of the process’.
Yes, in an ideal world it would, but the federal gov’t, left to its own devices, never turns down the opportunity to start a department. Anyone who thinks the gov’t is going to do anything in a cost-effective manner is deluding themselves. See, the big problem with the gov’t administering programs is they have no profit motive. Most of the programs (if not all) would be done much more effectively and cost-efficiently if they were privatized. Anecdotal example: a few months ago, my husband had to do a minor fix to a co-worker’s computer. The part he needed to fix it was about $50.00. Unfortunately, it took over $200.00 worth of red tape to get approval to buy the part. Oh, and in the meantime, co-worker’s computer wasn’t working, so be sure to factor in that they had to supply him with another machine. :smack:
Don’t get me wrong, in this economy, we are very grateful for a regular paycheck. But this is the kind of crap that goes on in his department that makes him nuts. When he was with the state gov’t, he had a minor discretionary fund (I think it was around $250.00) so that if he could fix something for less than what was in the fund, he could do it without filling out 18 pieces of paperwork in triplicate and submitting them to 40 people for review. (Note: the above numbers are hyperbolic, and came directly out of my ass).
Actually, I find myself agreeing with you for all the above. Government bureaucracy is the gift that keeps on growing. I also suspect that the idea of managing a WIC style program has been looked at already. The data would be very easy to sift through with a simple download of the POS information.
How about a better idea: why not just trust people to buy their own grocceries, like the rest of us?
After reading so many posts about how we have justification for having a say in what people on food stamps eat it makes me wonder if those arguments don’t fit as well as any who make spending and lifestyle choices which make it more likely they will need public assistance of some sort or another. Maybe we should only allow the freedom to spend money on convenience food for those who save enough of their income to make it reasonably likely they won’t need to rely on outside help to get by?
So which is it? Should people on food stamps buy the cheapest nutritional sawdust on the market, or should they buy the expensive, nurtritionally dense food? You appear to blame them if they do either, which is why I think you just have a thing against poor people.
Ah, the question I’ve been asking all along! To which, when he finally replied, said “price per pound” repeatedly, and then wouldn’t answer when I asked him how he justified that with his rage against ‘nutritional sawdust’ and his assertion that poor people never need to buy steak, seafood or aged cheese, I would assume that would hold true even if the steak, seafood or cheese were below his proposed price per pound, but he never clarified.
When I was a cashier at a local grocery store in high school, I would have HATED to have dealt with Magiver’s proposed “suggestion.” I can only imagine the crap I’d have to deal with from customers. “Oh, you’re using FS? Well, um, this item, this, this this, um, isn’t elligible. I’m sorry, I don’t make the rules, please don’t yell at me, yes, I’ll get my manager.” And I CAN imagine the humiliation people would have had to go through. 
I pointed out we once accidentally “aged” some cheddar in our own fridge, and he didn’t even answer. (We got through a lot of cheese, and I guess this fell back in behind all the other stuff. It was sealed, and when it was opened, damn, that stuff was GOOD)
Does that count as “aged?” I think feta cheese counts as “goats” cheese (although it’s traditionally made with sheep’s milk). You can buy it in the supermarket for a pretty good price next to the hummus. It’s not what I’d call gourmet-pricing.
(Off-topic suggestion: one of my favorite meals: take pita, spread on some hummus, then chop up some raw mushrooms and spinach, and then, if you have some, sprinkle on some feta. It’s soooo freaking good. My personal favorite hummus is roasted garlic.)
Well the scanners do all the sorting for food stamps.
So items that are not allowed are not paid for by the EBT card.
One important thing is that the people don’t get any money. The money goes to the food industry. You think Kraft is going to give up the money that comes to the company from the sale of Mac and Cheese to people on Food Stamps?
Think again.
You know, Lobsters are an ingredient. Would it be OK if they bought Lobsters? I seem to remember Lobsters are not OK to buy with food stamps from earlier threads.
The local stores in my area identifies the WIC funded items.
When I worked at trader joes the only thing you couldn’t buy were alchohol and non food items. So yes, you could buy lobster. Funnily wuty only a fw exceptions, almost all people on EBT bought the same stuff everyone else bought.
It is not an either/or concept and I don’t understand the difficulty in understanding this.
Nutrition is one aspect, overpriced foods are another. Cheese doodles have little nutritional value. Caviar is a waste of money.
We task politicians with the proper use of tax dollars. When the task is to feed the poor the best dollar value is to see that nutrition is maximized to some extent. A cheese doodle has no nutritional dollar value. Truffles are equally poor in nutritional dollar value.
Whether a WIC style program can be expanded in an efficient manner is certainly suspect. It is pure conjecture that there is even a need for it without any data. It is still the function of a government to spend money wisely otherwise we will continue to increase debt to a level that is unsustainable. Our debt-to-GDP ratio has risen sharply in the last year. It’s conceivable that things could get a lot worse.
And this is possible because WIC only covers about a dozen categories of foods.