I am really skeptical of people who claim they say a fellow shopper paying for lobster or caviar with “food stamps”. Particularly nowadays when they are issued on an EBT card. I don’t think I ever closely paid attention to what the card person in front me was using to pay.
Yes, but you’re not alone.
And it seems to come from the same place as this sort of thing:
And on a slightly pedantic note:
It’s Electronic Benefits Transfer.
You can’t buy alcoholic beverages with food stamps, or SNAP, or EBT, or whatever it’s called now.
Your friend may have been snarking when he said he was going to buy caviar, but it is food, and AFAIK can be purchased this way.
Well you’re not a judgmental asshole, so it figures.
I’ve seen and heard comments from people who said things like, “I saw someone buying dog food and Kotex with a food stamp card!” Most likely, it was actually an EBT card, which some employers use, and many states put unemployment benefits and child support on them, and they can be used for anything if the store takes the card.
I’m curious what those who suggest this is a purchase that is unethical (per the OP) suggest the guidelines should be. Perhaps a mandated calorie amount per penny spent? Volume of food per penny? Mass of food per penny? I don’t understand what sets caviar apart, aside from the name triggering folks into some sort of reaponse based on the cultural symbolism of the product.
Or, far more likely, that person was buying food with their SNAP benefit and buying items that the poors are still, shockingly, allowed to buy for cash/credit.
Yes you are.
Is the person who called him up to egg him on about buying caviar with food stamps wrong?
Sure, trolling is also wrong. ESH.
But the other guy is not The Asshole for the buying of the caviar. Only for trolling the OP about it.
No. Not wrong as far as I understand the type benefits.
Is it moral or ethical?
That’s the question. I believe.
That is exactly what I am talking about. Not the buying of the caviar, but the trolling of his companion about it.
“acquaintance”, not companion. And while I think trolling is wrong, I’ll add that very minor trolling of people with odious opinions is a very, very minor wrong.
It’s on a par with double dipping, reading over one’s shoulder or chewing with your mouth open, as far as social wrongness goes, IMO.
Also, as outlined in the OP, I’m not even sure it qualifies as wrong - the person shared their purchase, the OP then made a comment, and then the acquaintance asked their opinion. OP could have just STFU when showed the purchase and that could have been the end of it.
It could also be a case of the person using their cash benefits. At least in MI, if you go through the pia hoops to qualify for cash benies, the benefits are issued on the same card. So, if you get cash benefits you can buy anything that is legal to buy: alcoho, cigarettes, dog food, etc. The nosy pokes behind you in line just don’t know as much as they think they do. In some places it can be done in a single transaction. If not, it’s just a matter of swiping your card again for the stuff that didn’t get paid for with the food portion, and pressing a different button. Some people get quite offended by people who buy bad stuff with cash benefits. These people need to mtob as getting cash is difficult, and you better believe they’re poor.
I used to get ebt food. I did have a job that was about 5 hrs. a week short of full time. It involved driving to different towns. I was a merchandizer. I drove an ancient Cavalier that we called Lil’ Ole’ Rusty. A few times I would be very low on gas when I finished work at a town some 40min. Away from home. Now Rusty was good on gas, but empty is empty. I’d go in the store, and with ebt food, buy 2
- 3 12 packs of the cheapest pop they had, poor it all out in the parking lot, return the cans, (thank you MI bottle return law) take the money and put it in my gas tank so I could get home. Ah, good times. I’m pretty sure it was, “unethical,” but it beat walking 20+ miles home.
I’ve only noticed someone ahead of me using their EBT a handful of times. Like you, I don’t really pay attention to how the people ahead of me are paying their grocery bill. I don’t really have any strong feelings about how people spend their EBT funds beyond not allowing them to purchase alcohol or tobacco. The “hot food” restriction might need to be updated as purchasing a rotisserie chicken at the grocery store can be quite economical and a good use of funds. For all I know, that dude buying a steak with his EBT card might have found something on sale or budgeted just right for it. I’m not going to begrudge them. Even if I resented their steak, it’s a waste of my time to worry about.
Call me the asshole, call me a republican, your words cant hurt me.
In my opinion, “welfare” for food is to feed those that cannot afford their own. X amount per month and you should eat the whole month. If all you can afford on it is staples, then staples is what you shall have. Or starve.
So the person that buys whatever - caviar, steaks, cookies, etc - then they blow a chunk of their budget and don’t eat for part of the month. Same with the beggar and the rabbi. The guy gets to eat a sandwich like the “rich folk”. OK, what about tomorrow? Back to relying on the kindness of strangers?
I don’t really care if you the welfare recipient feel bad that you can’t eat caviar. There’s a lot of things I can’t do, either. But if it comes to eating regularly, or eating like rich folk, I come down on the side of eating regularly, even if it is boring.
But there really is no way to regulate this question, short of spoon feeding everyone. People have to make theior own choices, and if people on welfare waste their money, why am I not allowed to judge them? My judgement doesn’t hurt them. We on this board are judging strangers every day! There are whole threads dedicated to people who make bad decisions. Why are the people of the OP exempted?
I mean, if you’re going to judge the OP and categorize him in the same group that says “the poor must suffer”, then you can’t complain if they sell their food stamps for crack. Why are you denying them some small pleasure in their lives?
So, IMO, no, the OP is not the AH. He IS wrong for asking a question like this of the sanctimonious dope. Anyone who has been here for any length of time would know exactly what response the OP would get.
I think ppl should be able to treat themselves if they want to. I personally wouldn’t buy expensive food like that, but it’s his money, not mine.
This is exactly right and I think explains most of the reaction (edit to add: I mean in a general cultural sense, when this kind of question is engaged, not necessarily specific to the OP). “If we allow poor people to be happy, what is their incentive to change their circumstances?”
Any resentment one might feel on seeing someone using benefits to buy ostensibly inappropriate products says a lot more about the person reacting than the person purchasing. It seems to me there are several choices in how to react:
“I see a poor person using my tax money to buy a luxury item (meaning some food item that is more expensive than basic efficiency would suggest). I conclude from this that poor people are using this program to buy luxury items on a regular basis, and that the benefits are too high and should be reduced.” This obviously assumes facts not in evidence; as has been discussed, this could be a one-time purchase.
“I see a poor person using my tax money to buy unhealthy food. I conclude from this that poor people are unable to make good choices about nutrition, and that the program should be modified to further restrict their options.” This overlooks how grotesquely skewed the American food marketplace has become; unhealthy packaged products are far cheaper than the fresh alternatives, and judgmentalism here is about a superficial and inappropriate transfer of accountability because it’s easier to attack the poor than it is to engage with the much larger problem of shitty industrial food.
“I see a poor person using my tax money to buy a luxury item. I do not make the mistake of leaping to the conclusion that this must be a regular practice; I accept that it could be a one-time purchase. However, I am still resentful, because I do not feel like I’m able to buy that luxury item, so whatever justification they may have (scroll up for lots of examples), it is insufficient for me.” Pure jealousy and definitely asshole territory. Here is where the choice of reaction is most clear: With no evidence except the raw fact of the purchase in front of you, you can make a negative assumption that the person is doing this for bad reasons, or you can make a charitable assumption that the person has good reasons. On the principle that accusations tend to be subconscious confessions, a tendency to make negative assumptions should be cause for reflection.
“My friend called me and bragged about using public assistance to purchase a luxury item, and I took the bait and allowed him to push my emotional buttons.” All parties guilty. (bangs gavel)
And then don’t be surprised if they start robbing people to stay alive rather than just quietly starving because somebody wanted to punish them for poverty. Or starting a violent revolution.
If you don’t want violence, then don’t put people in a position where they have to choose between being violent and being dead.
Why is there seemingly an automatic assumption that a person getting benefits now has not at some point, in the past or the future, paid into the same system (leaving aside the kinds of taxes that even welfare beneficiaries are paying anyway)?
All those crying “But ! But ! My Taxes!” seem to not think someone on benefits ever has or ever will pay taxes of their own.