Because it makes it harder to demonize them, we’re all supposed to pretend anyone poor is an evil parasite who deserves death.
There is NO objective criteria for evaluating what food is “staples”, the 'best value", or “healthiest” or whatever criteria you want to judge. NONE.
The judge of those things is the consumer who will eat the food and has the budget to do so. That is it.
And there exist some aholes who consider it some moral duty to force someone to consume the LEAST nutritious and palatable food or use some other criteria like that which causes the most discomfort or suffering or least nutrition for the value.
Also, if anyone is really concerned about the government pissing away tax money, would this really be the hill to die on? Like, they’ve analysed all of the many ways that government funds are, or may be mismanaged, and come to the firm conclusion that poor people allegedly buying the wrong food with their benefits is the issue that they really need to speak out on?
There isn’t a shortage of food or government funds in this world; there is a shortage of basic human compassion.
I sometimes wonder if the entrenched powers are engaged in a conscious effort to beat the empathy out of us, because it’s so useful to elevate minor wedge issues as major distractions.
Thank you. Long ago, my husband was in grad school, and I was having a hard time finding a full-time job, so we had to go on food stamps for a few months–and they WERE food stamps back then. I’d always thought food stamps were great for people who needed them. I just felt terrible that I needed them. My parents told me something very like what Mr. Dibble said, and it helped. I’ve paid for those food stamps many times over, and I’m happy that my tax money goes in part to feed hungry people.
But here’s something else: SNAP is income-based, so a family is not necessarily getting all their grocery money through SNAP. That was the case with us: we essentially got 25% of our groceries paid for. So for those who think we taxpayers have the right to dictate what SNAP recipients buy, remember that you might only be paying for 25% of it.
And should we then get a say in what other entitlement money is spent on? I once knew a farmer who benefitted from an ag program that paid farmers NOT to grow crops. He and his wife went to Vegas on that money. Should we taxpayers get to tell farmers how they spend their government money?
For that matter, I get social security. What I paid into it went to my parents’ generation’s retirement. What I’m getting is paid for by current workers. Should those workers get to tell me what I spend my social security check on?
It’s an easy and therefore common tactic for (usually right-wing) political entities to waggle the finger of blame for society’s ills in the direction of those who are easily victimised, easily marginalised, and lack the power or organisation to push back.
A lot of conservatives are very fond of quoting Milton Friedman. As well they might be, because he is absolutely the father of modern right-wing economics and his writing completely revolutionised government policy in, above all, the UK and the US.
One of the things he talked about was about who was best placed to make choices about how money is spent.
He argued that when we spend our money on other people, we are very concerned about economising, but far less concerned about getting the best value. And consequently, we make short-sighted decisions. It’s far better, he said when people get to make their own choices about what they buy, because they are the best judge of their own needs and wants.
This is a principle which economically right wing folk bring easily to mind when the subject is how much they should be taxed, or whether healthcare should be nationalised. It vanishes into the ether however, when the topic turns to how people receiving benefits should be allowed to spend what is, after all, their money. Of course the people on SNAP are the best to judge what to spend their money on, just as you and I are the best to judge what goes into our shopping baskets. Any attempt to control their spending is the worst kind of nanny-state paternalism, a recipe for baked in inefficiencies and an axe-blow to the glorious flourishing tree of individual liberty.
I’m not sure about that last part - there seems to be quite a similar thread of thought regarding health care to the effect ‘I don’t care how bad or expensive private health care gets, as long as poor people suffer or are bankrupted when they get sick’
I was thinking of arguments that I’ve seen to the effect that if the governent is deciding how the national health care budget is spent, it’ll lead to substandard care and ‘death panels’. But I agree that due concern for what happens when people actually need healthcare does seem to be absent.
We already have death panels, but nobody seems to object when they are “death panels for profit.” (But if we want to dig further, this should be taken to the ‘ethics of health insurance’ thread, so as not to derail this one.)
I’ve read all the replies in this thread, and don’t think I saw anyone question the ethics of food stamps vs plain old cash. So I will.
I don’t believe that we should engage in control and humiliation over people who are struggling in life. I have read many people upthread reveal how they mentally judge people at the checkout for their food-stamp choices. And that’s because the person in front of them has to wave a card to the queue saying 'hey, everyone, poor person here! Anyone want to lean in and comment on my purchases?"
People who are struggling deserve some dignity. And should be able to make choices the way the rest of us feel entitled to. My view is that food stamps in themselves are wrong, and that people should just get the cash. And let them buy the odd beer or dog food if it helps their mental health. And if they blow the whole lot on caviar on day 1, well that’s their lookout.
I think that would be better for some but worse for others. And the ones it would be worse for include those who, because of financial illiteracy or poor impulse control or addiction or mental illness or whatever, would waste the cash, not have enough to eat, and end up starving.
And if you say “But at least it would be their own fault for starving—at least they have their dignity,” that seems heartless, and counter to the whole point of food stamps/aid, which is to help people get their basic needs met.
And it’s not as if the name of the program Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program might be even the tiniest of clues.
And it might be even worse - my family was on food stamps when I was a kid in the 70s, when they gave you actual coupons. I don’t know whether it was a NYC thing or if it was the case everywhere but the food stamp worker figured out how much we should spend on food and how much assistance we got- and then my parents had to pay the difference. Using made up numbers , we were budgeted to spend $100 on groceries , we were eligible for $20 in assistance - and my parents had to pay $80 to get $100 in food stamps. Because otherwise, we might have spent some of that $80 on toilet paper or something else food stamps couldn’t be used for.
I saw (and saved) this back when that odius song came out earlier this year.
It was something like that in South Carolina, too. In 1979 (when I was 7) my grandfather died. So for a few months until my grandmother could get her social security spouce benefits started the only money for me, my mother, and grandmother to live on was my mother’s near-minimum wage job. Out of desperation they applied for food stamps. A few years back I found the letter they got in reply in a bunch of old papers. They were offered something like $120 in food stamps per month that they would have to pay $105 to get. Deeply repulsive.
Great point. I believe there’s increasing evidence that simply giving people cash is a very effective means of preventing poverty. I mean, it sounds obvious when you put it like that, but it turns out that Friedman was right, people are the best judges of what will benefit them
Not a Christian I take it? I’m not, but if you are, you seem very judgey of people on SNAP and I think the bible doesn’t advise you do that lest something also happen to you.
I’m sure the DOGE office of billionaires will be looking into this. I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t the first thing they tackle.
I have friends and families that have gone to work and pissed away their paychecks on all sorts of stupid shit like drugs and alcohol. Should the govt intervene and tell them how to spend their money as well?
That’s also the point of a paycheck.
Indeed. I think it’s terrifically patronising that we all sit here ‘knowing what’s best’ for grown adults. Are some people bad with money? God yes. But that doesn’t mean we should treat all people on benefits like children who can’t make decisions for themselves. For example, the idea that they restrict people from using food stamps for something like sanitary products … have these people not heard of period poverty?
We do not use foodstamps/EBT. My gf buys pulled white meat chicken every week. Basically the store tears apart rotisserie chickens that do not sell. It would be much cheaper for her to buy a whole rotisserie chicken and break it down herself, but she likes the convenience.
So, an EBT Card user could buy the pulled chicken meat but not the cheaper per pound rotisserie bird. Doesn’t make sense.