So having seen the full exchange, @Czarcasm , I’m definitely now of the opinion that caviar- guy did absolutely nothing wrong at any point in the exchange, and that the answer to the OP’s question is not ESH.
In fact, I have no idea why they posted the full exchange, such is how non-flattering the picture of them it paints.
I don’t understand the surprise that a program administered by the USDA , currently named the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program” and formerly known as “food stamps” only pays for food and not toilet paper and dish soap. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other programs that provide cash assistance that can be used for non-food items or services but this particular program pays for food just like a rental assistance program pays for rent and heating assistance pays heating bills.
I’m not, given that in the very OP we have this “buying rare wines with food stamps”.
While I don’t have an issue with the OP’s friend buying caviar with his SNAP benefits, I am also content that food stamps can only be used to buy food.
Because if people were given cash instead of a limited benefit card, some of them would use the money to buy lottery tickets, alcohol, or tobacco; even if their children went hungry.
It’s a big system. There’s always going to be some fraction of people who try to abuse it.
I’d rather figure out if the cost (direct and to unfed children) of implementing such restrictions is actually less than the potential abuse.
Because that seems to be an unquestioned assumption, backed mainly by moralizing to and scolding of the poors (“well of course they’re going to buy lotto tickets and booze and need to be forced what to do”).
If it happens to be true, well and good. But if not, that’s a bigger source of waste than potential abuse by a few bad apples.
I think a lot of the objection is more philosophical though. “What should be allowed by a supplemental food assistance program?” is basically the question.
After having thought about it, highly restricting what it’s used for does actually make sense if it’s supplemental, and not meant to be someone’s sole source of food. They can buy their staples with the supplemental program, and luxuries with their own cash if there’s any left over.
But the real objections are really at the intersections, I think. I mean, it doesn’t really make me much personal difference- I can buy whatever the heck I feel like eating, wherever I choose. But there are a LOT of people out there who are unsubsidized who can’t afford much in the way of luxury, and who likely highly resent the idea that the government is giving people who are worse off luxuries, while they have to scrape and save for the same things. To them and to a lot of others, it probably largely looks like a reward for failure and/or a penalty for doing the right thing (i.e. pulling your own weight and staying off public assistance).
Yes, as I said - moralizing with little numerically backing it up.
If that’s the goal, well ok, but I disagree that personal effrontery should be the basis of public policy.
For about twenty years, I had Supplimental Security income and Social Security Disability. These combined did not even cover rent. I also had a phone bill, electric, and a gas bill. I needed to borrow money from my parents just to pay the bills.
For food I had the monthly box from the Jewish Relief Agency and the funds on my SNAP card.
You do realize that we live in a democracy, right? Personal effrontery is the cornerstone of our public policy, and pretty much every other policy, when it comes right down to it.
Of course we do, and therefore we often, as a society, collectively make irrational or counterproductive decisions and judgments.
That does not mean I should agree it is a good way to develop public policy.
In this case, it clear is counterproductive in several specific examples given. And probably works in others.
So, as I said, it would be a good idea to get some actual numbers and put things on a more quantitative basis. But I understand this may not be a realistic solution given human nature.
They should try living on a less than $300 food budget and see just how many ‘’‘luxuries’‘’ that buys while they at the same time complain about how high the price of eggs are.
They resent a fictional narrative invented by politicians who want to end welfare. Nobody (barring fraud, which is of course wrong) is living like kings on food assistance.
Most people on assistance struggle mightily to fill in the gaps that aren’t covered, and navigating overlapping support systems can be a nightmarish full-time job in itself.
I don’t know if this is a cite, strictly speaking, but our Senior Center has forms on hand where a senior can authorize someone to shop for them using their EBT card and PIN.
My parents in an assisted living facility in a different state have a similar process. Yes, there are people (not my parents) living in a facility that costs $100k per year that get SNAP. Basically their assets are locked up somehow so that they don’t count. My mother finds this QUITE objectionable. My mother does not find the various tax dodges used by my siblings to be as objectionable.
That only proves that, exactly as I already posted, nobody cares to enforce the law if there is one. It does not prove that it is in fact legal.
For Example-
In one of the alternative weekly papers that used to come free in honor boxes, I read a story on how most cops in Philly did not bother to arrest, or fine you for smoking weed in public. It was against the law. But nobody cared.
I seriously doubt that our Senior Center staff is facilitating some illegal behavior. To put it mildly, they are extremely rules oriented. Because for one thing, there are busybodies looking over their shoulders all the time. Very well off libertarian busybodies, in particular.
Are you contending that the rules make it impossible for a home bound person to buy groceries outside of delivery? I mean it’s certainly possible, because often people want to police things more than they want to facilitate them, but in Massachusetts that seems very unlikely to me.
If you need someone to purchase your groceries for you because of a disability, lack of transportation, or other reason, ask your local caseworker to explain how you can designate a person you trust as your authorized representative.
No, as I said in an earlier post anybody can designate another person who is legally aithorized to use their card and benefits when they apply. Some basic information is needed on that person- OTTOMH name and either their mailing address or phone number,
That would seem to agree with me. You cannot just hand a friend or relative your card and tell them your PIN. They must be duly designated with the county assistance office.
Yeah-- a bit of Googling seems to confirm what @DocCathode is saying. I am wondering whether the nursing home mentioned by @Mighty_Mouse might have a stack of “authorized representative” forms like this one from NC, and has expedited getting them completed and forwarded to DHHS.
But also, I’ve regularly sent my kid to the store with my credit card. Although it might technically violate some rule or law, nobody is checking (other than me, checking the balance on the card to make sure she didn’t blow it all in Vegas).
I believe this is what is being facilitated by the senior center and assisted living facility. They are witnessing signatures on the forms.
Next time I have occasion to visit the senior center I will go and see if the form is going to the state (we don’t really have county level government organizations in Massachusetts).