Why aren't food stamps regulated like WIC?

[amy g.]

I also worked in a very low income school. Every child there was on free lunch.

 

Parents with tons of status items really were not very rare.

They were the norm.

 

What shocked me was the corruption of the assistant principal and many of the teachers. They had grown up with the something-for-nothing attitude.

 

If I baked banana bread with my kindergartens, it would be stolen from the teacher's lounge before we could serve it.

 

One friend had huge boxes of new shoes and coats donated for the kids. The administrators used a key to get in her classroom that night, and take everything nice for their kids and grandkids.

 

I really have a heart to help, and have spent my entire adult life doing volunteer work, and donating to the poor, but the system I saw was really not working.

 

How are these little 5 year olds I was teaching supposed to learn to work hard and do what is right when everything they are surrounded with is crooked, and if they don't grab their share first, it gets stolen.

[melissel]

I'm sorry and I don't mean to disrespect your or your mom's experience. I find the flagrant disregard and abuse of the system represented in your post to be very, very rare.

 

Sadly, in my experience living and working in NYC, being a part of DH's family and circle of friends and acquaintances, and working in a nonprofit in NJ, I have found such abuses to be very common. In fact, in my experience, people have been horrifyingly upfront about it. For a year or so, DH worked with the NY state health care program, going to the hospitals in the low-income parts city (the kind where the cockroaches roam as freely as the visitors), trying to help people put in applications and determine their eligibility. A shocking percentage of people would ask him upfront about the best way to hide their assets, if they had to claim the income from this job or that job, the money they had in bank accounts in other countries, the people they had living in their houses, etc. Around here, at least, this kind of manipulation is widespread. I still remember how ticked off I was when I discovered that the mother of a good friend of ours was living in a fancy, subsidized apartment in midtown Manhattan, paying a few hundred a month in rent because on paper, she had almost no income. In reality, two of her sons, both of whom were making nearly or over six figures, were living with her, unclaimed. It was just the way the system "worked."

 

However, that said, while I agree it's a frustrating and broken system, and we should be working toward change and improvements, I agree with KingM below:

 

I agree and when such abuses do exist, the solution is to better regulate the system, not do away with it.

 

But in an event, I will put up with the occasional fraud if it means that people like Joanne aren't tossed into the street when life throws them a curve ball.

Edited May 30, 2009 by melissel

[melissel]

I also worked in a very low income school. Every child there was on free lunch.

 

Parents with tons of status items really were not very rare.

They were the norm.

 

What shocked me was the corruption of the assistant principal and many of the teachers. They had grown up with the something-for-nothing attitude.

 

If I baked banana bread with my kindergartens, it would be stolen from the teacher's lounge before we could serve it.

 

One friend had huge boxes of new shoes and coats donated for the kids. The administrators used a key to get in her classroom that night, and take everything nice for their kids and grandkids.

 

I really have a heart to help, and have spent my entire adult life doing volunteer work, and donating to the poor, but the system I saw was really not working.

 

How are these little 5 year olds I was teaching supposed to learn to work hard and do what is right when everything they are surrounded with is crooked, and if they don't grab their share first, it gets stolen.

 

Oh, THIS is horrible! I'm very grateful that I have not experienced this at all! That must have made you crazy.

[Renee in NC]

Sadly, in my experience living and working in NYC, being a part of DH's family and circle of friends and acquaintances, and working in a nonprofit in NJ, I have found such abuses to be very common. In fact, in my experience, people have been horrifyingly upfront about it. For a year or so, DH worked with the NY state health care program, going to the hospitals in the low-income parts city (the kind where the cockroaches roam as freely as the visitors), trying to help people put in applications and determine their eligibility. A shocking percentage of people would ask him upfront about the best way to hide their assets, if they had to claim the income from this job or that job, the money they had in bank accounts in other countries, the people they had living in their houses, etc. Around here, at least, this kind of manipulation is widespread. I still remember how ticked off I was when I discovered that the mother of a good friend of ours was living in a fancy, subsidized apartment in midtown Manhattan, paying a few hundred a month in rent because on paper, she had almost no income. In reality, two of her sons, both of whom were making nearly or over six figures, were living with her, unclaimed. It was just the way the system worked.

 

However, that said, while I agree it's a frustrating and broken system, and we should be working toward change and improvements, I agree with KingM below:

 

That kind of stuff infuriates me, mostly because people see that kind of abuse and then make assumptions about others. I know that abuse exists. I know that people don't take care of their dc (on assistance or not.) I know that there are people getting assistance that have boyfriends living with them that they don't claim and don't report the income.

 

I like to think that isn't the majority, though. I can't imagine WHY someone would be on assistance if they didn't need it. We qualified for food stamps for almost 10 years before we applied for them and we will get off of them as soon as we can. I said before I can't stand it - I hate using them.

 

I wanted to clarify something else - someone earlier in the thread said that Habitat does not take gov't money. This is not true. Many Habitat affiliates take money from other non-profits in the area that receive HUD money to alleviate housing issues. So, while Habitat may not receive that money directly from the gov't, the money comes from the feds nevertheless.

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

Dealing with a population where there's a "pandemic of dishonesty" is very difficult. The honest people in the system suffer from the blanket suspicion focused on the entire group. The dishonest people, both clever and careless, feel entitled to cheat. If "everyone" is doing it, (and they truly believe only the "stupid" people are not), then by cheating, they're only "collecting their fair share".

 

I know, it sounds crazy. When we see people through eyes of love, we can understand this feeling of entitlement, and still want the harmful behavior to stop.

 

How to persuade people to stop cheating, yet not harm them, is the challenge. After all, the food stamp cheat's child still needs to eat. S/he still needs to eat. What do we do? Very frustrating.

 

Worst of all, the red tape set in place to prevent cheating makes it complicated for honest applicants to get the help they need. Grrrr!

:iagree: completely. Nicely said.

[pqr]

I like to think that isn't the majority, though. I can't imagine WHY someone would be on assistance if they didn't need it. We qualified for food stamps for almost 10 years before we applied for them and we will get off of them as soon as we can. I said before I can't stand it - I hate using them.

 

 

 

That is because you..... are honorable and alas that is a virtue that is fast becoming extinct.

 

I did not read all 21 pages of the posts, but the sense of entitlement that some argue simply boggles the mind.

 

1. Assistance is just that assistance. It is not a right, and it should be accepted with a large degree of gratitude.

 

2. Assistance is a gift that is extracted from the American taxpayer and done so based on a general not an individual consensus. It is an enforced gift and while many may argue that it is necessary the fact that is essentially enforced help should never be forgotten.

 

3, Nobody, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, really wants American's to go hungry simply because they are facing hard time. Nevertheless, many deeply resent paying taxes that enable people to abuse the system.

 

I would argue that there should be regulation, but more than that there should be legal penalties for abuse (resulting in jail time) and when people get back on their feet they should be required to pay the taxpayer back.

 

Just as accounts are kept for student loans they should be kept for those who receive assistance and when able the recipients should pay back what they received.

 

A further pet peeve of mine is people on assistance who play the lottery. This should be illegal and those who do so anyway should forfeit any winnings to the taxpayer.

Edited May 30, 2009 by pqr

[BakersDozen]

 

I like to think that isn't the majority, though. I can't imagine WHY someone would be on assistance if they didn't need it.

Well, according to the lovely families I am around they continue to be on assistance so they can continue their lifestyle - a lifestyle I can't afford to have. They have their food paid for them so they go out to eat...to Olive Garden...every week. They have their food paid for them so they buy animals...horses...several horses. They have their food paid for them so they can continue to stock their pantries/freezers with junk food for their kids...their 8, 9, 10 kids. The question around here isn't so much WHY would someone want to be on assistance as much as WHY WOULDN'T someone want to be on assistance? There is nothing spurring these families to get themselves off of the help, to support themselves, because doing so would cramp their style. I wish I had the power to overhaul the entire food stamp/WIC system; oh the changes I would make...

[I talk to the trees]

I did not read all 21 pages of the posts, but the sense of entitlement that some argue simply boggles the mind.

 

1. Assistance is just that assistance. It is not a right, and it should be accepted with a large degree of gratitude.

 

2. Assistance is a gift that is extracted from the American taxpayer and done so based on a general not an individual consensus. It is an enforced gift and while many may argue that it is necessary the fact that is essentially enforced help should never be forgotten.

 

3, Nobody, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, really wants American's to go hungry simply because they are facing hard time. Nevertheless, many deeply resent paying taxes that enable people to abuse the system.

 

I would argue that there should be regulation, but more than that there should be legal penalties for abuse (resulting in jail time) and when people get back on their feet they should be required to pay the taxpayer back.

 

Just as accounts are kept for student loans they should be kept for those who receive assistance and when able the recipients should pay back what they received.

 

A further pet peeve of mine is people on assistance who play the lottery. This should be illegal and those who do so anyway should forfeit any winnings to the taxpayer.

:iagree:Exactly. Even if it's a no-interest loan, it should still be a loan. AND- this is a biggie for me- I think these types of services should be administered on a LOCAL level. One of the things that makes it so easy for those taking advantage of the system to justify their actions is that the money is coming from the federal government. The federal government is just one big, evil entity, so it's okay to steal from it, right? I believe if income assistance/ food stamps were dealt with through local groups and local taxes then 1) Individuals receiving such aid would be less likely to cheat, since those you are cheating are your neighbors and people you know- heck, they might be folks who have helped you out in the past, and (crazy as it sounds) I still believe that *most* Americans have a strong sense of honor and decency, and 2) Those paying into the system (taxes) would do so more willingly, perhaps even happily! I know I would be much happier paying into a system that is helping *those in need in MY community.* But it's highly unlikely that that will ever happen. The federal bureaucracy is far too large, and enjoys its power far too much to ever allow intelligent people to exercise control over their own communities.:glare:

 

Oh, and about the wedding cake? My grandparents were dirt-poor when they got married. They stood before a justice of the peace with two witnesses. No special dress, no cake, no punch, no honeymoon. And ya' know what? They were married happily for over 60 years, and a shining example of what marriage should be: love, trust, and faith. So don't feed me any lines about how people are somehow deprived if they don't start their married lives with a fancy confection. That's a load of.....garbage.

 

-Robin

[johnandtinagilbert]

WOW! Good thing I feel like Not working today :) As I have mentioned in other threads, I have witnessed fully the abuses of the system. I have also witnessed people trying to get off of aide, although I find the abusers are the Majority in this gov't aide system.

 

We receive aid, and I have to say to those of you who have shame...I am not ashamed. I wish it were different, yea, I wish my husband made 6 figures, but he doesn't. I do know this though, we are hard working. We pay taxes. We eat well (quality). We still help our community although we have little to offer monetarily. I have no reason to hold my head in shame when I use my EBT, because we qualify legally for assistance and when we need it, we use it. If we don't need it, and qualify, we don't use it. I have not lost integrity nor do I have any reason to lose self-respect. Please, don't beat yourself up because you need help. We all need help of some sort, sometimes it's just a little easier on our pride. ~wink~ besides, if you go to the right neighborhood, people would encourage you to get aid ~jokingly~ find some new friends :) Sincerly, :grouphug: if you are hard working and need some help, you are not alone and have no cause for shame or condemnation. Those who judge you, without knowing you, should be ashamed -- Not you.:grouphug:

 

I do believe the system as a whole is broken and in need of Much reform. In a perfect world, there would be no need of the system at all, but alas, this world is far from perfect and generations have passed along bad habits (food, work ethic, entitlement, laziness, illness, etc. etc. etc.) that bring us farther from the ideal and make us deal with what we have, where we are, like it or not.

 

I would like to say RE: FL's amounts paid to families who qualify...the chart is correct, but with lack of explanation, misleading. Those are the maximum amounts offered based on minimum income requirements. My family of 7 receives some food stamps, but not nearly the limit. There is a formula used, not just a blanket handout. Keep in mind, that formula calculates basic living expenses (rent/mortgage, utilities) with little regard to debt (cards, vehicles) and determines your eligibility, with a recertification process every 6 months. It is a flawed system, but not as generous as that chart made it look.

 

Also, and truly with all due respect to the variety of kind people here, I am often confounded by these types of posts because I wonder how much contact with this part of the world some people have. No disrespect intended, please do not take offense, but if I need help in Latin, I contact someone with experience, I don't rely on the advice of someone who has never spoken the language. Speaking for myself here, but thinking it may cross over to others, there have been times when I had such an established, rooted opinion about something which I had no real life contact. Once that contact came, I realized some of my ideals and staunch opinions were a bit far strectched, misinformed, unrealistic, or generally without compassion. I suppose what I mean is, walk in ones shoes first, then you'll understand the depth (or lackthereof). I have walked in the shoes of extreme poverty, ministered to extreme poverty, fought out of extreme poverty and landed in many places outside of such. I don't say this to be a marytr, or lift myself up, but just to share my experience and let you know I am not talking wind, but out of a variety of experience. (As an example, I debated Against home schooling as an education major in college....9.5 years of home schooling later, here I sit -- I had staunch opinions then, many which were a bit far strectched, misinformed, unrealistic, or generally without compassion. Another example, my kids were Never going to eat at McDonald's....yeah that didn't quite work out, although we probably eat there twice a year only).

 

I'd like to say that many children are home alone, or simply without supervision, a lot. Combine that with no knowledge of cooking, and they're glad they're mom bought that microwave meal, or bag of chips ~ otherwise, they'd be very hungry. I know in a forum such as this, full of involved parents, that may be hard to imagine, but it is the real world for many.

 

I am not for regulation of food stamps, b/c I don't think the lack of regulation is the problem. I belive it is rooted much deeper as a societal problem of the family, knowledge, desire for convenience, etc. Even with classes offered, like the WIC classes, moms still send their babies to bed with bottles in tow. People will take mandatory classes b/c they are mandatory, but will only take from them what they want anyways. You can't make people eat well, you can't force them to follow what the gov't deems appropriate...again, I refer to the standards set by the Federally ran schools...we don't all agree there, right?

 

Finally, to beat a dead horse, seriously, as much as I think Most people, on and off aid, need to improve their eating habits, I have no idea of their personal situation and have no right, none whatsoever, to decide what is the best course of action in their grocery shopping. Does it make me sad that they're feeding their children chips, soda, white bread, or wedding cake, sure, but for people who buy junk in large quantities, they are clearly not interested in providing something better, so at least this way, they are at the very least (and I agree it is the least), they are feeding their children, who may otherwise, in this imperfect world, go hungry.

 

I'd like to end with this, our budget is T I G H T....super tight! We get aid, but there isn't room for much more. I have sold curriculum to buy next years and my parents will gift me a couple things more. We get aid, but we are still broke. I still budget. I still shop at the local venue for less expensive produce, I shop at bag-it-yourself stores for pantry items, and I shop for meat Only when it is a sale price. We have a veggie and herb garden and we help out a friend with her farm from time to time to get some free eggs on occasion. I am frugal, frugal, frugal. I am no Welfare Queen, but I am a princess (that's another thread!) And I hope that someday (soon preferably) my husband can get back some of the work he's lost over the last 1.5 years and we can be off of food stamps.

 

Hope I didn't offend, just being plain and honest.

[johnandtinagilbert]

 

I would argue that there should be regulation, but more than that there should be legal penalties for abuse (resulting in jail time) and when people get back on their feet they should be required to pay the taxpayer back.

 

Just as accounts are kept for student loans they should be kept for those who receive assistance and when able the recipients should pay back what they received.

 

A further pet peeve of mine is people on assistance who play the lottery. This should be illegal and those who do so anyway should forfeit any winnings to the taxpayer.

 

I agree. Although I can already hear the argument that would discourage getting off the system....I still agree, though. I would have no problem paying back when I could.

[OnTheBrink]

Sadly, in my experience living and working in NYC, being a part of DH's family and circle of friends and acquaintances, and working in a nonprofit in NJ, I have found such abuses to be very common. In fact, in my experience, people have been horrifyingly upfront about it. For a year or so, DH worked with the NY state health care program, going to the hospitals in the low-income parts city (the kind where the cockroaches roam as freely as the visitors), trying to help people put in applications and determine their eligibility. A shocking percentage of people would ask him upfront about the best way to hide their assets, if they had to claim the income from this job or that job, the money they had in bank accounts in other countries, the people they had living in their houses, etc. Around here, at least, this kind of manipulation is widespread. I still remember how ticked off I was when I discovered that the mother of a good friend of ours was living in a fancy, subsidized apartment in midtown Manhattan, paying a few hundred a month in rent because on paper, she had almost no income. In reality, two of her sons, both of whom were making nearly or over six figures, were living with her, unclaimed. It was just the way the system "worked."

 

However, that said, while I agree it's a frustrating and broken system, and we should be working toward change and improvements, I agree with KingM below:

 

When I was on aid when my son was born, I found fraud to be very common. Food stamps (back then, they were actually paper coupon-type things) were traded for booze, cigarettes and drugs. I saw it frequently. Single women, on paper, had no roommates or men living with them, but they sure had "overnight company" a LOT. Jobs paid "under the table" were also common. It was more rare to find someone who obeyed the laws than someone who defrauded the system. Women got pregnant on purpose in order to get more benefits (this was late '80's, before CA put a cap on how much a family got based on #of family members) and more WIC.

 

The system definitely needs to be changed, but one of the problems I saw was that unless you could get a job that allowed you to be totally off the system, the system punished you for working. There was no way to get ahead on the system, unless you defrauded it. I saw it over and over. Someone would get an entry-level job, and would lose more in benefits than what they'd get in pay from the job! It was ridiculous! I went to school while I was on aid, and I wanted to go into graphic arts. They wouldn't support that program because TPTB said graphic arts wasn't a high-demand job, regardless of the columns and columns of want ads in the paper for graphic artists! I had to sign up for a major or program that TPTB felt was in high demand. That makes sense, but they were really out of touch about what jobs were in demand in the area. The whole thing was maddening. It was like no matter how hard someone tried, it had to be an all-or-nothing situation. You either landed an awesome job with great pay, or you did nothing and collected aid. There was no middle ground.

[melissel]

That is because you..... are honorable and alas that is a virtue that is fast becoming extinct.

 

I did not read all 21 pages of the posts, but the sense of entitlement that some argue simply boggles the mind.

 

1. Assistance is just that assistance. It is not a right, and it should be accepted with a large degree of gratitude.

 

2. Assistance is a gift that is extracted from the American taxpayer and done so based on a general not an individual consensus. It is an enforced gift and while many may argue that it is necessary the fact that is essentially enforced help should never be forgotten.

 

3, Nobody, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, really wants American's to go hungry simply because they are facing hard time. Nevertheless, many deeply resent paying taxes that enable people to abuse the system.

 

I would argue that there should be regulation, but more than that there should be legal penalties for abuse (resulting in jail time) and when people get back on their feet they should be required to pay the taxpayer back.

 

Just as accounts are kept for student loans they should be kept for those who receive assistance and when able the recipients should pay back what they received.

 

A further pet peeve of mine is people on assistance who play the lottery. This should be illegal and those who do so anyway should forfeit any winnings to the taxpayer.

 

I think a lot of what you're saying here is based on the assumption that someone receiving aid has never and will never pay into the system. Anyone who's ever paid taxes has helped to build their own safety net. I'm sure there are some people who've never paid taxes in their lives and simply live off the system, but I think they're in a very small minority, even given all the abuse I've seen personally.

 

For this reason also, I do, in fact, see assistance as an entitlement if it's truly necessary. Simply by virtue of their citizenship here, the taxpayers of this country pay into a system that is guaranteed to be there for them should they fall into a certain category of need. You may wish it were otherwise, but the fact remains that it's not. IMO, gratitude is not required, just as it's not required if you're collecting unemployment in a time of need.

 

It seems like a lot of your sentiments are targeted toward abusers of the system, but again, that wide net of assistance also lifts up many families who are legitimately struggling and need the help. IMO, your use of the word you later edited out of your post is telling, and it makes me sad that people who are struggling and need temporary help are painted with the same broad brush as those who do abuse the system. There but for the grace of God and all that...

[melissel]

The system definitely needs to be changed, but one of the problems I saw was that unless you could get a job that allowed you to be totally off the system, the system punished you for working. There was no way to get ahead on the system, unless you defrauded it. I saw it over and over. Someone would get an entry-level job, and would lose more in benefits than what they'd get in pay from the job! It was ridiculous! I went to school while I was on aid, and I wanted to go into graphic arts. They wouldn't support that program because TPTB said graphic arts wasn't a high-demand job, regardless of the columns and columns of want ads in the paper for graphic artists! I had to sign up for a major or program that TPTB felt was in high demand. That makes sense, but they were really out of touch about what jobs were in demand in the area. The whole thing was maddening. It was like no matter how hard someone tried, it had to be an all-or-nothing situation. You either landed an awesome job with great pay, or you did nothing and collected aid. There was no middle ground.

 

I totally get this, Michelle. The other bind is childcare. I'm on another board with a fair percentage of moms who are living at or below poverty level but cannot go to work because they can't afford care for their children, or have a child with special needs, or are single parents etc. Of course, their own or their working spouse's income isn't enough to pay all the bills, but it IS just enough to put them over the line at which they'd qualify for assistance. It's such a broken, broken system :(

[Impish]

I've seen and experienced the trap of poverty and assistance in Canada.

I was living in income housing, and it was a nightmare. I was working, a single mom of 2. Housing wanted 30% of my GROSS pay, which worked out to be 50% of my NET pay, by the time all the deductions, etc were taken off. They didn't give a crap that I paid for my own daycare, etc. They wanted what they wanted. So, from my $800 take home, $400 went to rent. My sitter was paid $20 a day, so $200 for a sitter. Already I'm down to $200. Bus was another $15/wk, so take off $30 for 2 wks of work. Down to $170 for me and 2 children for 2 wks. Ah, but the fun doesn't stop there, because I also had to pay all my utilities as well, so it wasn't just food that had to be covered, but power, water, heat, and phone. Remember, in Canada, we don't have food stamps.

I did the math...I would have been better off on welfare.

[theresatwist]

That is because you..... are honorable and alas that is a virtue that is fast becoming extinct.

 

I did not read all 21 pages of the posts, but the sense of entitlement that some argue simply boggles the mind.

 

1. Assistance is just that assistance. It is not a right, and it should be accepted with a large degree of gratitude.

 

2. Assistance is a gift that is extracted from the American taxpayer and done so based on a general not an individual consensus. It is an enforced gift and while many may argue that it is necessary the fact that is essentially enforced help should never be forgotten.

 

3, Nobody, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum, really wants American's to go hungry simply because they are facing hard time. Nevertheless, many deeply resent paying taxes that enable people to abuse the system.

 

I would argue that there should be regulation, but more than that there should be legal penalties for abuse (resulting in jail time) and when people get back on their feet they should be required to pay the taxpayer back.

 

Just as accounts are kept for student loans they should be kept for those who receive assistance and when able the recipients should pay back what they received.

 

A further pet peeve of mine is people on assistance who play the lottery. This should be illegal and those who do so anyway should forfeit any winnings to the taxpayer.

 

 

States make HUGE revenues from lottery ticket sales--literally hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't like the idea of people on assistance buying lottery tickets either, but the money they pay for the ticket goes right back to the state. If we didn't have that either programs would have to be cut (which it sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with, but I absolutely think such programs should exist) or some sort of tax would have to be raised.

 

To clarify: I don't like the idea of gambling period. I don't think those on assistance shouldn't gamble because they're on assistance, but rather because I'm against gambling period.

 

In general on this issue I feel like "there but for fortune go you or I." You can work incredibly hard and do very well, but you can also work incredibly hard and barely make it. So much of life is luck. I think most people want to be self-sufficient. There are certainly a few exceptions, but there are exceptions in every group.

 

If assistance were not "enforced" would the same degree of assistance be available? (I don't like the term "enforced" I think society is a give and take situation and we should expect to give as well as take without calculating tit for tat.) I'd like to think so, but frankly I really doubt it.

Edited May 31, 2009 by theresatwist

[Delighted3]

when my husband and I were first married. The system was broken then. The marriage penalty for one thing. At one point my husband lost his job and we could only get food stamps because we were married, so we were going to get like $600 a month for 2 adults and 2 babies. That was a lot of groceries 18 years ago. We couldn't get housing or child care assistance, so my joke for awhile was that we were going to be living out of our car, but have plenty to eat:tongue_smilie: The system as it is encourages young mothers to stay single because they will get more aid while having a boyfriend as a frequent overnight "guest".

 

I know what it is like to be poor. My husband and I both worked at menial jobs on opposite shifts and he went to school for 2 years, so he could get a job that would support our family. We received food stamps and medicaid during that time, but we gave it up as soon as he got a job and we could scrape by because we hated the meetings with the social workers, the paperwork, the invasion into our lives by the gov't, the looks at the register when using food stamps, the constant questioning, classes, and medical requirements at the WIC office.

 

That being said, I worked at Wal-Mart 5 years ago in the evenings and I could always tell when a big order came through that was going to be paid for with EBT by what was in the cart. I think assistance should be available for people when they need it, but it should not be a lifestyle. The regulations that I think should be in place would not be popular here, so I am not even going to go there.;)

JMO,

Joy

Edited May 30, 2009 by Delighted3

[Murphy101]

*sigh*

 

many others have noted already the many presumptions and assumptions and various errors that led many to look down upon such as those on assistance.

 

what is the point of this? does it make anyone eat better or have more gainful employment?

 

no.

 

yet offense by the exisitance of no and low-income people continues, oddly enough this is especially true if they have children.

 

ETA: abuse exist in any area of life. the abuse ofit is not a reason to presume less than charitibly of our neighbors

 

maybe people are these days would be more open to Swift's Modest Proposal than folks of his day were?

[phathui5]

A further pet peeve of mine is people on assistance who play the lottery. This should be illegal and those who do so anyway should forfeit any winnings to the taxpayer.

 

I think what you're not understanding is that most of these people lack any financial education. They haven't been able to learn about saving, investing, etc. There are people for whom winning the lottery is either their retirement plan or something they see as their way to get out of the situation they're in.

[pqr]

I think what you're not understanding is that most of these people lack any financial education. They haven't been able to learn about saving, investing, etc. There are people for whom winning the lottery is either their retirement plan or something they see as their way to get out of the situation they're in.

 

 

Quite frankly it is because some on assistance have little in the way of financial education that those who are on public assistance should be banned from playing the lottery.

 

I am not so naive as to believe that by being unable to play the lottery that they will suddenly start an IRA but I do begrudge them any winnings if you and I and every other taxpayer supplemented their ticket.

 

As to the poster who called it a wash when public money goes into lottery tickets that then return to the public kitty. This is incorrect as there are costs involved on both ends. For evey dollar spent on a lottry ticket the state does not reveive a dollar into the budget. There are operating costs, that take a large cut. Even if the case were true of 100% transfer that would not make it right. If one has money for a lottery ticket then you should not be taking public assistance and if the you do need assistance you certainly should not be wasting anything on the lottery.

[Joanne]

You know, the assumptions of level of education, knowledge, experience and life smarts made by some people in this thread WRT those in need of help is......insulting.

 

Many people who need gov't support know how to cook, budget, plan, shop and conduct themselves.

 

No one can really speak to the percentages of people adequately prepared for the complicated life in our culture but I'm sad that "we" (those needing help) are assumed to be stupid.

[Ravin]

I haven't read most of the replies, but if people start trying to tell food stamp recipients how to spend their benefits, then why not tell people on Medicaid and Medicare how they need to give up their bad health habits in order to have medical treatment paid by tax dollars? You could extend this to just about every government program that pays people a benefit.

 

(And I do not support telling food stamp recipients how to spend their benefits.)

 

 

This pretty much already happens. I wanted a homebirth with a midwife with DD, and I was low risk. But even though it would have saved the state THOUSANDS of dollars in my medical care, they wouldn't cover it, and I wound up bullied into a chain of interventions in the hospital, culminating in a C-section that I truly believe would not have happened if I'd had actual birth choices (i.e., not being forced into an induction because if I'd walked out of the hopital A.M.A., medicaid wouldn't have covered the birth).

[Ravin]

For those who have commented about the lame excuse for "nutritious food" WIC gives out, check out this article:

 

http://www.nyhealth.gov/press/releases/2009/2009-01-06_wic_revamps_food_choices.htm

 

I saw a memo at work a while back; they're doing a major revamp of the food package for WIC. The only problem I see with it is the "only lowfat milk" for over 24 mo. It would have been completely ridiculous to give my family lowfat milk, when my DD was BELOW the 3rd percentile for weight on the growth chart!

 

I wish more states (like this one) would start doing what Texas has for WIC. Instead of the vouchers, they put a smart chip on the front of the same cards that get used for food stamps/cash assistance. You stick the card into a slot on the bottom of the pinpad, and it will deduct just the items you want/need at the time from your package for the month. So no more having to cart home eggs you don't need yet and everything else when all you need that day is the gallon of milk. It's also less hassle for both the WIC recipient and the cashier/store when it comes to getting through checkout.

 

when I was 17 (ages ago) and worked as a cashier, quite a few folks would buy the 17 cent kool-aid packs to get the change. Then they'd come back and do it again. Until they had enough change to buy cigarettes and beer. I'm all for WIC. Love it-great plan. food stamps needs some revamping. Obviously 20 years later it still hasn't been figured out.

 

In most states you can't do this now because the nutrition assistance money is put on a debit type card that can only be used for items properly coded in the store's computer as food items, and there's no change. Cash assistance is also on these cards, but can pay for generally everything, and money can be pulled from it as cash back at the store or from an ATM.

 

On a final note, for those who would feel ashamed to get WIC: literally half the infants born in the United States, and their mothers while pregnant, postpartum and nursing, qualify. There's no shame in being part of half the population!

Edited May 31, 2009 by Ravin

[Pamela H in Texas]

Many people who need gov't support know how to cook, budget, plan, shop and conduct themselves.

 

I think you misunderstood.

 

It has nothing to do with "people who need gov't support" really. The whole country chooses to eat junk, not budget effectively, etc. Why would people on assistance be BETTER off than everyone else?

 

But SHOULDN'T they learn to be better off? Wouldn't it be great if they were encouraged to learn to do better than "everyone?" If they want to go back to messing up like "everyone else" when they are paying for it themselves, that is their choice, I guess.

 

BTW, I am well aware of the REAL stats about "these people." The majority are JUST like me. They hit a snag and will be on for a limited period of time and are GLAD that will be the case. They just need a "hand up." And if hubby doesn't get a job in the next month, we'll be humbly in the same position. But I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to ask me to be frugal and not create more medical problems they'd have to pay for also during the time I may be on it. I think it's perfectly reasonble for "you all" to ask me that of me.

[Danestress]

Yes, she's the major character. And her writing doesn't leave you thinking she's a saint (as you can tell form that particular passage).

 

But it was really interesting to get an insider's view on Merry Maids, Wal-mart, Howard Johnsons. It was actually a very compassionate book that really opened my eyes to how hard people work and how badly they are often treated in low wage jobs. And I will never, ever, ever be tempted to call a housecleaning service:)

 

I think every kid should read this book at some point in their college careers and remember that the thing that stands between them and picking up and rehanging underwear at Wal-mart may very well be luck - at least in part. Lucky to have parents who could help them get a decent education, lucky to have the emotional and mental abilities to achieve goals, etc. I mean, no one ASKS God for a low IQ. I know a lot of very happy, contended homeschool mothers who could well find themselves at least temporarily in these low wage, retail type jobs if their husbands up and left them, and whether you are liberal or conservative politically, I think it's interesting just to read about the people she met working in those jobs.

 

But she is, for the record, a bleeding heart liberal, so if you don't agree with her politics, there are some passages that would be fairly irritating. Still, it's worth the read.

[TXMomof4]

I'm sorry and I don't mean to disrespect your or your mom's experience. I find the flagrant disregard and abuse of the system represented in your post to be very, very rare.

 

Maybe, just maybe you find it very rare because you aren't abusing the system like that. You don't come from a community where everyone is out to get what they can at whatever expense. I know the people I know now who need the system would never dream of living like that. But I can guarantee that at this school, the abuse continues because it is a way of life. I didn't believe at all that people had more babies simply to get more welfare money until my mom taught at this school. It really does happen. It isn't very rare, IMO, it's just limited to communities where it is acceptable and expected to be in the system and to take advantage of it at every opportunity. People who aren't content to live in that situation aren't likely to stay in a community where that situation is acceptable. They use the system as intended to get themselves out of it at some point. The dependancy on governmental aid has to end at some point, but if children haven't been taught that it isn't their "right" and "the way things are done" they are much less likely to get out of it.

 

 

ETA: I think so much of the problem with communication here is that we are really talking about two distinct groups of people. Those who need assistance and those who abuse the assistance. Yes, those lines may cross - someone who abuses the system may legitimately need it. However, *the individuals I have personally known* who truly abuse the system have no intention of not being on food stamps/welfare. They have no desire to not need the help. It's a completely different mentality and reasoning going on there.

Edited May 31, 2009 by TXMomof4

[Heather in the Kootenays]

Have any of you read Nickled and Dimed? It's about a woman who takes a series of low wage jobs and tries to survive on them. It was eye-opening for me.

 

I read a long excerpt from this book and think it should be required reading for everyone. It clearly showed how the author, despite her education, intelligence, and the security of her health insurance and retirement funds, couldn't make it as a service sector worker on the money she was paid. As I recall she cut her experiment short because she was getting ill.

[Murphy101]

You know, the assumptions of level of education, knowledge, experience and life smarts made by some people in this thread WRT those in need of help is......insulting.

 

Many people who need gov't support know how to cook, budget, plan, shop and conduct themselves.

 

No one can really speak to the percentages of people adequately prepared for the complicated life in our culture but I'm sad that "we" (those needing help) are assumed to be stupid.

 

:iagree:

 

btw, Nickle and Dimed is a terrible book, imho. and I would't want my kids to read it at all. I thought the woman put almost zero effort in trying to live off her income. this one is MUCH better! imho.

 

ETA the book is called Scratch Beginnings, Me, $25, and the search for the American Dream

 

what I would like to see, is a book like this done by a married couple with a few kids.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Martha

[theresatwist]

Quite frankly it is because some on assistance have little in the way of financial education that those who are on public assistance should be banned from playing the lottery.

 

I am not so naive as to believe that by being unable to play the lottery that they will suddenly start an IRA but I do begrudge them any winnings if you and I and every other taxpayer supplemented their ticket.

 

As to the poster who called it a wash when public money goes into lottery tickets that then return to the public kitty. This is incorrect as there are costs involved on both ends. For evey dollar spent on a lottry ticket the state does not reveive a dollar into the budget. There are operating costs, that take a large cut. Even if the case were true of 100% transfer that would not make it right. If one has money for a lottery ticket then you should not be taking public assistance and if the you do need assistance you certainly s

hould not be wasting anything on the lottery.

 

 

In 1991 my state made $228 million in revenue from the lottery. (I just looked it up.) I assume that number has gone up since then. That amount may not cover all of the cost of assistance programs--I simply don't know. But it's clearly a lucrative program, although as I said I'm opposed to gambling in any form by anyone. I think our main difference in opinion is that I don't mind my tax money going to such assistance programs. Maybe there are a few who waste that assistance. But I think the majority use it responsibly and need that money more than I do.

[Murphy101]

Originally Posted by pqr

Quite frankly it is because some on assistance have little in the way of financial education

 

 

oh geez. the LAST thing I would ever expect to be reliable is the gov't giving financial advise to anyone. even if we do presume that those who need assitance need financial guidance, having that guidance come from the gov't is the blind leading the blind.

 

same goes for nutrition in my experience.

 

for example that ban on whole milk? we have that here, so WIC users cannot get whole milk, but they can get chocolate skim milk and juice.

 

I've said it before, we all pay taxes. (in the case of those on assistnace, the majority are actually working poor)

I've said it before, if we all did better for our family and neighbors through our churches or even on a more personal basis - gov't programs wouldn't be neccessary.

[pqr]

I think our main difference in opinion is that I don't mind my tax money going to such assistance programs. Maybe there are a few who waste that assistance. But I think the majority use it responsibly and need that money more than I do.

 

For those who are in genuine need and who are trying desperately to get out of their current situation I too think the states should help.

 

I do, however, think that the recipients should have to pay back what they received (when they can).

 

We have had poster after poster tell you, and others, that it is not a few who cheat the system but rather many. Do you think that they are all lying? How many more must post that abuse in endemic? Wishing that all people were as honest as you are will, unfortunately, not make it so.

 

Finally I want those who deliberately and knowingly cheat the system to go to prison.

 

 

As to the lottery.

 

Lottery money is generally allocated to public schools, and even though those institutions are failing miserably every dollar that is stolen (yes, that is the correct word) through abuse of the system is one less that might possibly go to education.

 

What is the problem with:

 

1. Regulation of what someone can buy,

2. A payback system where those who have taken from the public teat may pay it back, (there is no shame in being in need but I would expect that those who take would be willing to return to the system what they received as that would seem both honest and just).

3. Putting abusers of the public trust in prison,

4. Making it illegal for people to waste public funds on something like the lottery?

__________________

Edited May 31, 2009 by pqr

[cathmom]

Let's just make the lottery illegal, as it should be anyway.

[pqr]

pqr said "Quite frankly it is because some on assistance have little in the way of financial education"

 

oh geez. the LAST thing I would ever expect to be reliable is the gov't giving financial advise to anyone. even if we do presume that those who need assitance need financial guidance, having that guidance come from the gov't is the blind leading the blind.

 

same goes for nutrition in my experience.

 

for example that ban on whole milk? we have that here, so WIC users cannot get whole milk, but they can get chocolate skim milk and juice.

 

I've said it before, we all pay taxes. (in the case of those on assistnace, the majority are actually working poor)

I've said it before, if we all did better for our family and neighbors through our churches or even on a more personal basis - gov't programs wouldn't be neccessary.

 

Taking it just a little out of context aren't we especially as you neglected to quote the rest of the sentence.

 

I stated in the post.

 

Quite frankly it is because some on assistance have little in the way of financial education that those who are on public assistance should be banned from playing the lottery

 

I never advocated the government giving financial advice, I said do not let people on assistance play the lottery. Yes, this is because many do not know any better, but primarily it is bacause the lottery is a luxury and people should not expect the taxpayer to fund that particular luxury.

Edited May 31, 2009 by pqr

[mycalling]

Well, my family is on foods stamps for the first time after we sold everything we could to keep afloat. We went from healthy meals down to oatmeal, a gallon of milk for our older 6 kids per week, from 100% juices to soda to koolaid, from meat most meals to bologna and hot dogs as their only meat...we really needed it and I cried when my husband went down to sign up for them.

 

I do agree they need to be regulated. We buy healthy food we couldn't afford anymore, but I know we're not the norm. I buy cheese again, meat, milk and fruit, we even planted a huge garden with seeds and plants purchased with our EBT. We're really thankful.

 

We're going to switch from EBT to WIC as a transition then get off everything. **Another good inbetween offering would be a percentage off food, the higher the percentage off for the healthier the food.**

 

We need to take steps and I do not agree about paying it back. How overwhelming do you want this to be for people on assistance? How many would give up the freebies to then owe a huge debt to the govt when they could just keep the freebies?? That'll just add fuel to keeping assistance to those who would actually want to get off of them.

 

 

What about public schooling? Should that be a debt parents owe back to the state? Educa

Edited May 31, 2009 by MyCalling

[wildflower]

i can see the whole wedding cake issue- i made my own also- for a lack of a good bakery among others (and it was inexpensive!) did my own flowers too, granted i had worked as a florist in college & bought everything wholesale....

 

if they truly could not afford food, healthy food, and needed the stamps, how did they sustain themselves for the duration of that time?

it's frivolous. it may be wrong, but they know how to work the system...

last time i checked you didn't need a cake to get a marriage license.

i am a self proclaimed liberal, but, arg! that annoys me, and it's our tax dollars paying for it. the system doesn't work if everyone doesn't do their part.

sorry if i offend, needed that vent.

[theresatwist]

For those who are in genuine need and who are trying desperately to get out of their current situation I too think the states should help.

 

I do, however, think that the recipients should have to pay back what they received (when they can).

 

We have had poster after poster tell you, and others, that it is not a few who cheat the system but rather many. Do you think that they are all lying? How many more must post that abuse in endemic? Wishing that all people were as honest as you are will, unfortunately, not make it so.

 

Finally I want those who deliberately and knowingly cheat the system to go to prison.

 

 

As to the lottery.

 

Lottery money is generally allocated to public schools, and even though those institutions are failing miserably every dollar that is stolen (yes, that is the correct word) through abuse of the system is one less that might possibly go to education.

 

What is the problem with:

 

1. Regulation of what someone can buy,

2. A payback system where those who have taken from the public teat may pay it back, (there is no shame in being in need but I would expect that those who take would be willing to return to the system what they received as that would seem both honest and just).

3. Putting abusers of the public trust in prison,

4. Making it illegal for people to waste public funds on something like the lottery?

__________________

 

I acknowledged that there are some who waste that money. I said so in my original post. I continue to believe that they are the small minority. The stories that stick with us are the stories of abuse.

[wildflower]

i am very sorry for your situation.

you are in my prayers.

 

 

Well, my family is on foods stamps for the first time after we sold everything we could to keep afloat. We went from healthy meals down to oatmeal, a gallon of milk for our older 6 kids per week, from 100% juices to soda to koolaid, from meat most meals to bologna and hot dogs as their only meat...we really needed it and I cried when my husband went down to sign up for them.

 

I do agree they need to be regulated. We buy healthy food we couldn't afford anymore, but I know we're not the norm. I buy cheese again, meat, milk and fruit, we even planted a huge garden with seeds and plants purchased with our EBT. We're really thankful.

 

We're going to switch from EBT to WIC as a transition then get off everything. **Another good inbetween offering would be a percentage off food, the higher the percentage off for the healthier the food.**

 

We need to take steps and I do not agree about paying it back. How overwhelming do you want this to be for people on assistance? How many would give up the freebies to then owe a huge debt to the govt when they could just keep the freebies?? That'll just add fuel to keeping assistance to those who would actually want to get off of them.

 

 

What about public schooling? Should that be a debt parents owe back to the state? Educa

[pqr]

I continue to believe that they are the small minority.

 

Based on what?

[Impish]

I'll never forget an article posted by a friend of mine in another group. It was after Katrina. A woman was interviewed, complaining about what was given to her, and quoted as saying 'its sad, what people give you' and 'I'm poor, but I don't like to live poor'. Pictures that accompanied the article showed her lovely hardwood floors, hardwood cupboards, and gigantic screen tv. It was appalling. This woman had no interest in doing anything but living off assistance, and complaining that what she was being GIVEN wasn't enough.

Her name is Sharon Jasper, and I can't find the original article (lots of blogs and such mentioning it though) but here's a link that you can see the original pic

http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/12/housing_officials_claim_surplu.html

There are other comments/articles mentioning that she's been on assistance for 53 of her 54 years. I believe her daughter is also on assistance. For her family,it most certainly IS a generational issue, and judging by the photo of her home, I'm sorry, but she's NOT someone that is barely getting by. Heck, my home isn't as nice.

 

Its stuff like that that has the average taxpayer angry. When people on assistance live better than those busting their hump day in and day out...and then COMPLAIN that its still not good enough for them! Ms. Jasper is an activist, complaining that things aren't good enough, and has stated that the government is neglecting them because they're black. I suppose a 60 inch tv needs upgrading.

[Jami]

didn't want to derail the discussion

Edited May 31, 2009 by Jami

[LMA]

Well, my family is on foods stamps for the first time after we sold everything we could to keep afloat. We went from healthy meals down to oatmeal, a gallon of milk for our older 6 kids per week, from 100% juices to soda to koolaid, from meat most meals to bologna and hot dogs as their only meat...we really needed it and I cried when my husband went down to sign up for them.

 

I do agree they need to be regulated. We buy healthy food we couldn't afford anymore, but I know we're not the norm. I buy cheese again, meat, milk and fruit, we even planted a huge garden with seeds and plants purchased with our EBT. We're really thankful.

 

We're going to switch from EBT to WIC as a transition then get off everything. **Another good inbetween offering would be a percentage off food, the higher the percentage off for the healthier the food.**

 

We need to take steps and I do not agree about paying it back. How overwhelming do you want this to be for people on assistance? How many would give up the freebies to then owe a huge debt to the govt when they could just keep the freebies?? That'll just add fuel to keeping assistance to those who would actually want to get off of them.

 

 

What about public schooling? Should that be a debt parents owe back to the state? Educa

 

I am sorry about your situation. I hope things work out for you soon.

 

I do not agree about paying it back either. If we say to have food stamps paid back, how about social security, Medicaid, Medicare. Many people on SS now are getting a lot more past what they put into the system and the system is set up so that your non-working spouse collects SS also. Those paying into the system now aren't paying for their own SS, but for those collecting it now. How about telling people on Medicaid and Medicare to stop their unhealthy habits? And unhealthy habits go beyond eating the "wrong" foods. A lot of medical problems can come from just a lack of exercise (my elderly mother is an example). What about making them exercise an hour a day, have their bp checked everyday, ask if they had any cigarettes, etc.? And a lot of abuse in the Medicare system is from medical staff charging Medicare because Medicare covers the item/service. Many elderly are admitted to a hospital overnight even though no problem could be found whereas if I went to the hospital for the same problem, I would not be admitted because my insurance would not approve it. I know a diabetic woman who gets her one free pair of shoes a year from Medicare but she doesn't eat right for her blood sugar or even wear the shoes. Abuses are everywhere, but how do you regulate everyone who is on assistance? If people want food stamps to be regulated, but how about all the other govt. progams? How far do we go?

 

Louise

[theresatwist]

Based on what?

 

Based on the fact that I think most people are good and responsible people who strive to do the best they can to care for themselves and their families.

 

There have, as you said, been many stories told here about people on assistance who weren't holding up their end of the bargain, but you also have a large number of stories here about people who had been on assistance themselves and who did hold up their end of the bargain.

 

You're obviously free to disagree. But, I've said all I have to say on this subject.

Edited May 31, 2009 by theresatwist

[Pamela H in Texas]

Based on the fact that I think most people are good and responsible people who strive to do the best they can to care for themselves and their families.

 

There have, as you said, been many stories told here about people on assistance who weren't holding up their end of the bargain, but you also have a large number of stories here about people who had been on assistance themselves and who did hold up their end of the bargain.

 

You're obviously free to disagree. But, I've said all I have to say on this subject.

 

Some basic research would show who the average welfare recipient is. The majority of people think it is some stereotype that actually has VERY little truth to it. It is an extreme minority that fits that stereotype. The average welfare recipient isn't anywhere close in any way.

 

Of course, people can argue, but fact is fact. Some people would also argue saying Cookie Monster is white--doesn't make it so.

[wildflower]

People who are not on assistance are abusing the system too.

Look at all the CEOs who took home huge paychecks, forget about the bonuses for a moment, ran their businesses into the ground and then got taxpayer money on top of that to dwindle away!

Please. As my pastor says- we live in a fallen world.

Could we have a moment of inward reflexion here. Is anyone here without a fault?

Please do not rip me apart for that one. I really get mad when I heard generalizations about those who need/ want help.

 

I am the daughter of a man who was blinded at birth (preemie, eyes burnt with oxygen, 1947 born at 28 weeks).

It turns out he had this horrible type of MD that wreaked havoc on him- started with a rare cancer that is common with theses patients, went on for 19 years. He ended up unable to do anything by himself in the end, choked to death. What a terrifying way to go & the doctors told him years before that's usually how it happens- what a thing to look forward to.

 

My dad worked hard all his life. Went into the workforce before equal opportunity laws, etc. Had to work twice as hard for half the opportunity.

He traveled 2 hours by train each way to work. Some nights he stayed in his office because it was so late it was unsafe for him to travel home (NYC subway was part of his route at one point). He counted his steps from penn station to his office to make sure he was going to the right place.

After his second battle with cancer & the MD started to kick in it was the 1990's/ recession. His boss said 'listen I am afraid they will let you go' (no Clinton FMLA laws to help him out yet) and convinced him to go on disability. This tore him apart. NO self respecting man does this. He did it anyway. My siblings were still young kids & he had to do something. He went through some physical therapy type things he was forced to do & then had a review. This woman, I'll never forget her, she was young maybe late 20's and thought she was funny. Made some comment about cat scratch fever (the song) to my sister who was 9, kid was afraid of her cat after that. She (the woman) was obnoxious actually. Thought she was so far above us because she had a job & dad was looking for the infamous 'hand-out'. Well he wasn't, but he was tired and sick, and sick and tired.

She had the gall to tell him that she thought he needed to get over himself and find a job!

Blind man, very ill, long battles with cancer, a life full of surgeries to correct his eyes and she thinks he is a faker?

He ended up not going back to work, they wouldn't have him.

He ended his life in poverty. It makes me sick to think about it. How dare they do that to him.

The company he worked for 'lost' his insurance paperwork. Lawyer took half the settlement to get it for mom to pay his medical bills they had accumulated. It takes a lot of money to keep the dying from doing just that, or at least comfortable while they do.

 

I would give him money to buy mom cards or flowers for their anniversary. He had nothing. He was aproud man who was handed the worst deck of cards I can imagine.

He had the strongest faith ever. DD2s middle name is faith for him. Her first name is our last name. Named her for dad.

 

How would mom have paid back all that aid, with their house?

 

Please look more kindly on your neighbors. You may find yourself being judged before your day also.

[Nestof3]

Well, my family is on foods stamps for the first time after we sold everything we could to keep afloat. We went from healthy meals down to oatmeal, a gallon of milk for our older 6 kids per week, from 100% juices to soda to koolaid, from meat most meals to bologna and hot dogs as their only meat...we really needed it and I cried when my husband went down to sign up for them.

 

I do agree they need to be regulated. We buy healthy food we couldn't afford anymore, but I know we're not the norm. I buy cheese again, meat, milk and fruit, we even planted a huge garden with seeds and plants purchased with our EBT. We're really thankful.

 

We're going to switch from EBT to WIC as a transition then get off everything. **Another good inbetween offering would be a percentage off food, the higher the percentage off for the healthier the food.**

 

We need to take steps and I do not agree about paying it back. How overwhelming do you want this to be for people on assistance? How many would give up the freebies to then owe a huge debt to the govt when they could just keep the freebies?? That'll just add fuel to keeping assistance to those who would actually want to get off of them.

 

 

What about public schooling? Should that be a debt parents owe back to the state? Educa

 

About drinks. I've never bought koolaid. Water would be much better.

[mycalling]

 

About drinks. I've never bought koolaid. Water would be much better.

I agree and we drink tons of water. We have water that tastes like sand and at the time I obviously couldn't afford more water filters so they complained if sand water was all they got. We did powdered milk for a while last year when we first had to cut food costs but then there was a huge jump in price for that and now regular milk is the same price.:001_huh:

[Nestof3]

I agree and we drink tons of water. We have water that tastes like sand and at the time I obviously couldn't afford more water filters so they complained if sand water was all they got. We did powdered milk for a while last year when we first had to cut food costs but then there was a huge jump in price for that and now regular milk is the same price.:001_huh:

 

Ugh -- sorry about that. Our city water used to have such a strong chlorine taste. I went to Florida once, and the shower water smelled HORRIBLE. I cannot imagine drinking their city water.

[Renee in NC]

Ugh -- sorry about that. Our city water used to have such a strong chlorine taste. I went to Florida once, and the shower water smelled HORRIBLE. I cannot imagine drinking their city water.

 

That was probably sulfur water - it is common in wells where we are moving. Thankfully our new home has city water (which is not sulfur.) My mother has well water, though, and she uses a whole house filter, softener, and reverse osmosis to remove it. It does pretty well. The sprinkler system smells like sulfur, though.

 

The home we are moving into used to be my grandfather's when I was growing up. His job was a water man - he delivered those big 5 gallon jugs of water to residences because you couldn't drink the sulfur water. I always associate that smell with visits to his home and it is actually somewhat comforting.

[Joanne]

I'd like to make the point absolutely clearn that not believing in restriction, "paying back", or even lottery restrictions (!!!) does not = a belief or support of abuse of the system.

 

Fundamentally, I am a believer in small, local government and privately administered social welfare. That's not reality it our culture and I don't see us returning to it. Fundamentally, I am a believer in *appropriate* accountability and least gov't intervention and specifics.

 

However, having lived in situations that challenged what I thought I'd EVER do has challenged me to open my mind about the realities of people involved in the system on any level.

 

Finally, needing gov't help is not a crime. Being impoverished is not either. Neither situation speaks to character, beheavior, past or suggests anything you can conclude about the family. The loss of dignity and imposition of social, food and lifestyle restriction being advocated by some in this thread is awful as it's born CLEARLY of belief in damaging and inaccurage stereotypes.

 

I don't play the lottery, don't lie to the system, don't buy copious amounts of junk food (my FS should I get them will probably be used for Angel Food Ministries and staples such as milk, eggs, peanut butter, pasta and clearance fresh foods). But the suggestion that "they" or "the public" should decide for me because it's "tax payer money" is an insult.

[lgm]

But the suggestion that "they" or "the public" should decide for me because it's "tax payer money" is an insult.

 

 

If a family is going to take someone else's money, there is a string attached. The string a bank attaches is that the loan be repayed w/certain amount of interest. The string the taxpayers are asking for in regards to welfare is that the money be used for what it was intended...healthy food for ex. It's an insult to the taxpayer, who is giving a substantial portion of their income to taxes, that the money be used for alcohol, drugs, non-nutritious wants and/or a luxurious lifestyle beyond what the taxpayer himself can afford. A family shouldn't expect to keep up with the middle class or wealthy Jones' on welfare money. Given the rampant abuse and the high cost of the health consquences from the abuse,and the sheer volume of people on welfare, the taxpayer is demanding accountability. Good for the taxpayers for standing up, trying to stop the fraud and encourage that the money be used to actually improve the welfare of the recipient!

[Nestof3]

If a family is going to take someone else's money, there is a string attached. The string a bank attaches is that the loan be repayed w/certain amount of interest. The string the taxpayers are asking for in regards to welfare is that the money be used for what it was intended...healthy food for ex. It's an insult to the taxpayer, who is giving a substantial portion of their income to taxes, that the money be used for alcohol, drugs, non-nutritious wants and/or a luxurious lifestyle beyond what the taxpayer himself can afford. A family shouldn't expect to keep up with the middle class or wealthy Jones' on welfare money. Given the rampant abuse and the high cost of the health consquences from the abuse,and the sheer volume of people on welfare, the taxpayer is demanding accountability. Good for the taxpayers for standing up, trying to stop the fraud and encourage that the money be used to actually improve the welfare of the recipient!

 

lgm,

 

You have to just accept that people who receive assistance do not want to see accountability, regulation, etc. regarding it. I am certain that no one on the board who has or has had assistance is in favor of regulation of it, nor do the abuses really bother them.

 

Moreover, most people are of the mindset that if they qualify for some sort of aid, they should take it, even if they COULD live without it. College educational aid is one example. A relative gave our son a website the other day to go to in order to sign up for college aid. When he discovered it was federal and not private aid, he did not bother going to the website.