Why aren't food stamps regulated like WIC?

[lionfamily1999]

No, she shouldn't have had to lie. Was it wrong of her to lie? Yes. But, I understood her wanting to get her son clothes and a toy for his birthday, something she could not have done if she'd reported the income.

I would say the problem is that people are forced to lie.

 

We've gone through some tough times. At one point, my dh's grampa had cancer, was living with us, so we could care for him; I was pregnant; Dh lost his job. We didn't qualify for any assistance because of my car. A Geo Prism (97), this was in 2001, was worth so much hypothetical money that we'd have to sell it. We ended up with all the cupboards bare, bumming food and gas money from our neighbors (God bless them). SS TOLD us to lie. They TOLD me to sign my car over to someone else. They TOLD me to lie about Grampa's income.

 

We didn't, but I was shocked that they would inform me that this was sop.

 

If you don't lie, you don't qualify.

[TravelingChris]

What I don't understand is how anyone can think that having a large family one cannot afford to raise is a good thing. Many of us would have liked to have more children but we needed to be responsible and be able to afford them. I can completely understand if someone has a large family and temporarily loses a job or has a drop in income. Then they need temporary help as anyone might if a catastrophe befalls them be it unemployment, a tornando or a fire. But it seems to me that no one should be having children they can't afford and part of that means getting life insurance on the main breadwinner so that if that person dies, the family is not in financial ruin.

[Nestof3]

What I don't understand is how anyone can think that having a large family one cannot afford to raise is a good thing. Many of us would have liked to have more children but we needed to be responsible and be able to afford them. I can completely understand if someone has a large family and temporarily loses a job or has a drop in income. Then they need temporary help as anyone might if a catastrophe befalls them be it unemployment, a tornando or a fire. But it seems to me that no one should be having children they can't afford and part of that means getting life insurance on the main breadwinner so that if that person dies, the family is not in financial ruin.

 

I agree with you on this one. People take the "children are a blessing" verse as a command to have as many children as their bodies can have, but there are many financial scriptures in Proverbs -- some about paying back debts quickly, and these same people will focus on the having children but not the paying back debts quickly. We know people who are in their late 40's and still have student loans from their teens/early 20's. They are trying to fill up their quiver but not paying attention to the financial warnings in scripture.

 

Or, they accept that children are a blessing, but if they don't have a house large enough to not have to be too crowded with their children, they buy more yet rely on gov't assistance. It seems they want the blessing without the difficulties that come with it.

[mom2agang]

We have a large family and have no bills. We bought a forclosed duplex on a old airforce base for $9,000 yes only $9,000 and we paid cash. We just bought a 2008 15 passenger chevy express $20,000 in Feb with cash. We don't have cable or internet(besides on only my phone) we don't have 4wheelers or dirt bikes or snow machines. We only have 1- 20 inch TV that is 10 yrs old no game systems laptops or gameboys. Two years ago I signed up for food stamps after my husband got layed off from his masonry job. We didn't have enough weeks for unemployment. So for 7months we had no income. In MI they didn't care what we owned just that we had no income. This spring I let them know I bought the van with cash. The case worker just said you can spend your income however you need. I know a lot of people who can't even afford to have 1 kid they live paycheck to paycheck and their credit cards are maxed so I don't think it has anything to do with size of your family. I think it has to do is being wise with your money and not living on credit. Our water heat and gas are all on the budget plan and every year with our taxes I pay them for the year not the month. Car insurance is paid every 6 months. My husbands employer doesn't offer health insurance so I get mi child for mi children. We hardly ever go to the drs once every 2 yrs unless they need stitches. We have no credit cards or debit cards or even a checking account. All we have is a prepaid debit card so the only way to spend the money is to put it on there. My husband has life insurance to cover his death and to help us for 10 years. So yes we can afford our children. Its the people who live above their means and want me to support them or the guy who can afford the beer and cigirettes but no money to feed his own kids.

[mom2agang]

I think everyone should get rid of credit. That is what is destroying our economy. Not large families. Most families own to vehicles for $35,000 and a home mortgage for $100K. Who knows what is on their credit cardS yes more than 1.

[Pamela H in Texas]

.

[Audrey]

I think everyone should get rid of credit. That is what is destroying our economy. Not large families. Most families own to vehicles for $35,000 and a home mortgage for $100K. Who knows what is on their credit cardS yes more than 1.

 

Did you know that the first personal credit cards rolled out in the late 50's? Before that, you could get them from a few specific businesses (like hotels, for example) to use only at that business. Visa and AmEx are only as old as 1958. Even into the late 1960's not many people had credit cards.

 

IMO, the entitlement culture blossomed in the 1980's and we've run ourselves deeper and deeper into the debt h*llhole ever since.

 

It is possible to live entirely without using credit cards. It is also entirely possible to pay cash for large purchases like cars (house might be tougher, but it can be done!) It requires planning and saving, though, and doesn't allow for the instant gratification of credit purchasing. That's what will stall most people -- the "have to have it now!" attitude.

[Impish]

I just as of last week have my first credit card since college. In college I received THREE credit cards, each for $500. I had no flipping clue about how to manage credit! Needless to say, collections was a permenant fixture in my life for a few years. :( Now, almost 20 yrs later, I have another credit card, with a $300 limit. I *had* to get one, because without it, we have no possible hope of EVER getting a mortgage, because we have NO credit history. Plus, you can't even rent a stinking steam cleaner for your carpet without one around here! I offered $300 as a deposit, in cash, and they REFUSED me. I kid you not. A credit card, or forget it. I could have $20 left on a credit card, and they would accept that, rather than cash. You can't do anything it seems without a credit card. Order online, nope, not onless they accept paypal echeck. I'm in Canada, and we don't have the same kind of debit card that exists in the States, with a Visa/MC logo on it, so its a strictly ATM/debit purchase card, cannot be used online. I've been incredibly blessed by SpecialMama in that I could pay her and ask her to order things on my behalf, but otherwise, impossible.

 

In my area, there's simply no way to afford a home without a mortgage...unless you win lotto, inherit large, or have an incredible job...because the cheapest place I've found that is habitable is an acreage for $90,000. You couldn't get a condo in the city here for that. I kid you not, condos here are $175k+. For a condo. An apartment. :scared:

 

Getting a credit card, building credit, is simply our only way out. My next move is once we have $5,000 in savings, is to ask for a $5,000 loan from our bank. Stick that in savings right beside our $5,000, and leave it there, paying it right back from the loan itself. Sounds ridiculous I realize, but another way to build positive credit, with no risk to the bank, so therefore they're willing to loan, and yes, will cost us to borrow, but worth it because its a giant step towards a YES on a mortgage.

[Moxie]

I agree with you on this one. People take the "children are a blessing" verse as a command to have as many children as their bodies can have, but there are many financial scriptures in Proverbs -- some about paying back debts quickly, and these same people will focus on the having children but not the paying back debts quickly. We know people who are in their late 40's and still have student loans from their teens/early 20's. They are trying to fill up their quiver but not paying attention to the financial warnings in scripture.

 

Or, they accept that children are a blessing, but if they don't have a house large enough to not have to be too crowded with their children, they buy more yet rely on gov't assistance. It seems they want the blessing without the difficulties that come with it.

 

I disagree. This is way OT but, taking American culture as a whole, I see the large number of families who would rather have 1 or 2 children and lots and lots of stuff as a bigger problem then the few families who are poor and open to new life.

[Impish]

Personally, I'd love to have another baby. Or three. There's no way, given our financial situation. My husband is the first to say so, is doing the happy dance over the 'no more diapers' in sight yet refuses to take permanent measures to ensure that no more babies occur. I think he's hoping for a lotto win :D Plus, with my physical disability, I'm not sure another baby is a great idea, but we'd manage...its finances that are saying no. And I hate the fact that finances are what make the decision about the size of our family, rather than our hearts, I truly do, but being responsible parents, to us, means just that.

 

But, we also know that if God has plans otherwise, then no man's plans stands a chance :lol:

[johnandtinagilbert]

I agree with you on this one. People take the "children are a blessing" verse as a command to have as many children as their bodies can have, but there are many financial scriptures in Proverbs -- some about paying back debts quickly, and these same people will focus on the having children but not the paying back debts quickly. We know people who are in their late 40's and still have student loans from their teens/early 20's. They are trying to fill up their quiver but not paying attention to the financial warnings in scripture.

 

Or, they accept that children are a blessing, but if they don't have a house large enough to not have to be too crowded with their children, they buy more yet rely on gov't assistance. It seems they want the blessing without the difficulties that come with it.

 

There are scriptures that say not to have debt; not to sponsor someone else's debt. There are scriptures saying it is better to be like Paul (single), but if you can't handle the desires, get married. Finally, there are scriptures that say don't judge, lest you be judged in the same manner.

 

I understand, or at least hope, you are talking about people who live the welfare lifestyle, and not those who are in unusual circumstances and get aid.

 

This line of reasoning scares me though, b/c I wonder if you think we should stop home schooling b/c we are getting aid? I worked this school year and our studies took a shot b/c of it. To provide the education we think is Best, I cannot have a job outside of our home, or one in the home that requires my time. We tried, it simply doesn't work.

 

In that regard, since the bible says not to have debt, I wonder if all SAHM who have any debt should then get a job....you see my point? Slippery slope here.

 

We have little money, little stuff, and yup, we receive aid, but our five children are amazing people and we absolutely believe they are a blessing from God - every single one of them. Our decision to have a large family is faith based ~ boy am I glad we live in a place where there is a separation of church and state.

 

For reference, it was hard to read your post and the one before it and not be offended. No matter what my circumstance, nobody has the right to tell me (or you or anyone else) how many children to have -- No Body.

Edited June 3, 2009 by johnandtinagilbert
misplaced negative word

[Scarlett]

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.

 

Bravo. I totally agree. Few things get me as upset as people judging a FS user's purchases. Ugh.

[johnandtinagilbert]

.its finances that are saying no. And I hate the fact that finances are what make the decision about the size of our family, rather than our hearts, I truly do, but being responsible parents, to us, means just that.

 

But, we also know that if God has plans otherwise, then no man's plans stands a chance :lol:

Hi, Impish. Not directed at you. I respect your decision on what is best for your family and wish you well with the disability you mentioned. Hope you're ok. Just using your statement cuz I have seen it much and wanted to share my thoughts.

 

First, you are so right, God can do what He likes...I kinda like that cuz He surely knows better than I, but kinda don't cuz our plans aren't always the same and that means I don't always get my way (tee hee...realize what a spoiled brat I can be!)

 

Some people believe that the most responsible thing we can do is operate in faith, by faith, and watch God do the work. What amazing life lessons we have all learned by doing things that go beyond reasoning or common sense! Yes, we work hard, yes we offer our lives daily, as a living sacrifice to do Whatever God puts in front of us to do. We happen to live in America and since we can legally get assistance, when we need it, we use it. It is not our plan to use it forever, in fact, the sooner we're off, the better. We give Caesar his and in return we lawfully live under Caesar's plans in our Nation. God has never failed us by doing this (b/c we believe those to be His principles), so we continue to pass on our ideas about walking and living in faith...faith before reason, even....by reason there is no parting of the Red Sea, no healing, no blinded Paul, no return of Christ, but by faith all these things are real to us, just as real as us having a bunch of kids and never going without.

 

Anyways, I know that is different than many believe, and that is A-O.K. with me, but it is how we believe and even though our work is light, and we were hungry (never starving) b4 receiving aid, we will serve the Lord. We need some help, and we are taking that where we can find it and we thank the Lord for the good fortune of our birthplace.

 

Anyhoo, we love our large family and if the fact of its size and us receiving aid offends, then I am deeply sorry to have offended (any of) you. That is not my intention, nor my desire.

[hana]

It would seem to me that needing ongoing government assistance for feeding one's children and making sure they have adequate healthcare could be seen as an indicator that one is leaving beyond one's means.

[asta]

Mark this day: nestof3 and I agree on something.

 

And no, I do not believe I have the right to stay home and HS my child if I do not have the financial means to do so. My belief, and that of my DH, is that it is not the job of our government to support our personal decisions.

 

And, no matter how I want to spin it, HSing is a personal decision. Is it a better environment for DS then PS? Yes, it is: we have done both. Would I bust my behind to get money any way I could should something happen to our family income? Again, yes. If the answer to my family's survival was that DS went to PS, we would do that, too. We aren't members of the John Birch society, but we really don't want gvt in our lives any more than they already are.

 

(And yes, I recognize the logical fallacy of not wanting the gvt in our lives and being willing to send DS to a public school; the reality, however, is that it is the law that we pay taxes, and those taxes pay for PS. If we're paying for a service, we don't see it as gvt support)

 

 

a

[Impish]

Hi, Impish. Not directed at you. I respect your decision on what is best for your family and wish you well with the disability you mentioned. Hope you're ok. Just using your statement cuz I have seen it much and wanted to share my thoughts.

 

First, you are so right, God can do what He likes...I kinda like that cuz He surely knows better than I, but kinda don't cuz our plans aren't always the same and that means I don't always get my way (tee hee...realize what a spoiled brat I can be!)

 

Some people believe that the most responsible thing we can do is operate in faith, by faith, and watch God do the work. What amazing life lessons we have all learned by doing things that go beyond reasoning or common sense! Yes, we work hard, yes we offer our lives daily, as a living sacrifice to do Whatever God puts in front of us to do. We happen to live in America and since we can legally get assistance, when we need it, we use it. It is not our plan to use it forever, in fact, the sooner we're off, the better. We give Caesar his and in return we lawfully live under Caesar's plans in our Nation. God has never failed us by doing this (b/c we believe those to be His principles), so we continue to pass on our ideas about walking and living in faith...faith before reason, even....by reason there is no parting of the Red Sea, no healing, no blinded Paul, no return of Christ, but by faith all these things are real to us, just as real as us having a bunch of kids and never going without.

 

Anyways, I know that is different than many believe, and that is A-O.K. with me, but it is how we believe and even though our work is light, and we were hungry (never starving) b4 receiving aid, we will serve the Lord. We need some help, and we are taking that where we can find it and we thank the Lord for the good fortune of our birthplace.

 

Anyhoo, we love our large family and if the fact of its size and us receiving aid offends, then I am deeply sorry to have offended (any of) you. That is not my intention, nor my desire.

I'm not offended at all. I believe that 'God helps those that help themselves' and my goodness, He has helped us in ways that I never could have believed or anticipated...and often in ways that weren't what I asked or thought I needed, but were just the same. I believe that we're to be good stewards of the incredible blessings that our Lord has given to us, and for *us* that means including not deliberately attempting to bring more children into our family when our finances are shaky at best. But, given that our beloved Princess was a beautiful surprise blessing at a time when we weren't financially healthy, I will always bow my head and acknowledge that God has ultimate control and knows better than I do...even if I protest a wee bit at the time :tongue_smilie: We have 3 kids at home, and would love another 3 (I would anyways...Wolf would probably be happy with another 1)...heck, I'd settle for 1 more birth, and then start adopting. Wolf's a bit nervous that once we get an acreage, the stables will be renovated for children rather than horses :001_huh: I told him nah, that's what the extra wing on the house would be for :lol:

 

In all seriousness, we couldn't get approved for adoption with our financial situation, or our current housing. Not enough room for them, or stable enough income, since I'm on Workers Comp.

 

Waiting for God's plan. Impatiently, but waiting just the same ;)

[Audrey]

It would seem to me that needing ongoing government assistance for feeding one's children and making sure they have adequate healthcare could be seen as an indicator that one is leaving beyond one's means.

:iagree:

[johnandtinagilbert]

Wolf's a bit nervous that once we get an acreage, the stables will be renovated for children rather than horses :001_huh: I told him nah, that's what the extra wing on the house would be for :lol:

 

In all seriousness, we couldn't get approved for adoption with our financial situation, or our current housing. Not enough room for them, or stable enough income, since I'm on Workers Comp.

 

Waiting for God's plan. Impatiently, but waiting just the same ;)

 

:lol: Love that....we applied to be foster parents, b/c we love children, lots and lots of children ;), but b/c our house was too small, they said no. Sad, I thought, b/c we wanted to do shelter (short term foster) for babies (an area desperately needed). Don't need much space for baby stuff, and we have so much love to give...anyways, loved the renovation idea!

[pqr]

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

 

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.

 

Just how is it an insult? It IS taxpayer money and I fail to see how one could argue otherwise. Nobody is forcing anyone to take this money, it is done freely (through necessity I agree, but nevertheless freely).

I would agree to many things if it kept my children eating and I like to think that I would not have a problem with restrictions on what is in essence a gift that comes from the largess of the American people.

I see no constitutional right that is being violated by putting restrictions on behavior of the individual when they agree to take money from the taxpayer. It seems to me that when schools take government money they agree to modes of behavior, companies agree to certain modes of behavior when they take loans, an employee agrees to certain modes of behavior when he works for the government, why should someone on assistance be different?

 

If you want to argue the slippery slope I might be willing to listen. If you argue that in the US people should be allowed some form of entertainment regardless of their economic situation I might listen. If you argue that children in order to have somewhat of a pleasant childhood need the odd cake, candy bar and present and that cotton candy and caramel apples are part of a childhood experience that the government should make allowances for, I might listen. Even during the war, in England, ration cards did allow for some chocolate for children and a case could be made on these lines.

 

If you are arguing that I am a heartless, bigot who revels in stereotypes that somehow provide me with a sense of superiority and that I am offering insult by demanding that people use taxpayer money responsibly then I am afraid your argument is flawed and wasted.

 

As a taxpayer I want to ensure that the money is not wasted.

 

I want abusers in prison

I want limitations on use

I want it paid back.

 

Joanne,

 

Please explain why you think someone on assistance should be allowed to play the lottery. Why should my taxpayer dollars be used by someone to play powerball? Why should I deny my children something so that someone else can engage in an activity that is a luxury, unnecessary and is gambling with the taxpayers money? (I get furious when politicians do this and feel no less fury when a private citizen does it).

 

Why am I being insulting when I say this?

 

 

-pqr

[Renee in NC]

Just how is it an insult? It IS taxpayer money and I fail to see how one could argue otherwise. Nobody is forcing anyone to take this money, it is done freely (through necessity I agree, but nevertheless freely).

I would agree to many things if it kept my children eating and I like to think that I would not have a problem with restrictions on what is in essence a gift that comes from the largess of the American people.

I see no constitutional right that is being violated by putting restrictions on behavior of the individual when they agree to take money from the taxpayer. It seems to me that when schools take government money they agree to modes of behavior, companies agree to certain modes of behavior when they take loans, an employee agrees to certain modes of behavior when he works for the government, why should someone on assistance be different?

 

If you want to argue the slippery slope I might be willing to listen. If you argue that in the US people should be allowed some form of entertainment regardless of their economic situation I might listen. If you argue that children in order to have somewhat of a pleasant childhood need the odd cake, candy bar and present and that cotton candy and caramel apples are part of a childhood experience that the government should make allowances for, I might listen. Even during the war, in England, ration cards did allow for some chocolate for children and a case could be made on these lines.

 

If you are arguing that I am a heartless, bigot who revels in stereotypes that somehow provide me with a sense of superiority and that I am offering insult by demanding that people use taxpayer money responsibly then I am afraid your argument is flawed and wasted.

 

As a taxpayer I want to ensure that the money is not wasted.

 

I want abusers in prison

I want limitations on use

I want it paid back.

 

Joanne,

 

Please explain why you think someone on assistance should be allowed to play the lottery. Why should my taxpayer dollars be used by someone to play powerball? Why should I deny my children something so that someone else can engage in an activity that is a luxury, unnecessary and is gambling with the taxpayers money? (I get furious when politicians do this and feel no less fury when a private citizen does it).

 

Why am I being insulting when I say this?

 

 

-pqr

Those who are for paying them back - how do you see this occuring? Just curious.

[pqr]

Those who are for paying them back - how do you see this occuring? Just curious.

 

 

When able. Many who were on assistance have, over subsequent years become affluent. I simply think that a table should be kept and when able those who received assistance should be expected to pay back.

 

I would bet that a fair number of "ghetto rap" ....ahem "artists," of professional athletes, etc received assistance in their younger years. Why should they not return these benefits? This is not only for the very wealthy but also for those who affluent enough to repay the taxpayer without driving them back into poverty. I suppose you might even base it on a certain tax bracket. This is not soaking the rich, it is reclaiming a debt.

 

Obviously if someone is on the brink and can not make restitution then they can nor be expected to pay back. My point is that if they can pay back they should.

Edited June 3, 2009 by pqr

[lionfamily1999]

When able. Many who were on assistance have, over subsequent years become affluent. I simply think that a table should be kept and when able those who received assistance should be expected to pay back.

 

I would bet that a fair number of "ghetto rap" ....ahem "artists," of professional athletes, etc received assistance in their younger years. Why should they not return these benefits? This is not only for the very wealthy but also for those who affluent enough to repay the taxpayer without driving them back into poverty. I suppose you might even base it on a certain tax bracket. This is not soaking the rich, it is reclaiming a debt.

 

Obviously if someone is on the brink and can not make restitution then they can nor be expected to pay back. My point is that if they can pay back they should.

I would have to wonder, though, how many people would be sunk by that? It's fine and dandy to say, only those who can, should, but the government has some really unrealistic ideas about how much money a family needs to survive. IOW, you can make 30 thou. a year here and you are middle class. Houses cost 100 thou. and up. The electricity company here is charging around 200-500 a month. Just for housing and electricity, around half of the monthly income is sucked up. Put in water and food (of all the crazy ideas), and you have a paycheck to paycheck situation. The big problem is that the local government sees this as more than enough for a family to live on. IOW, enough for that family to pay back the assistance they had before. Take out another hundred dollars a month and the family has sunk back to the brink.

 

My parents recieved too many fs the year they were on it. They had to pay back the amount that went over what they were supposed to be getting. Ironically, that meant eating out the food closet, because they were back to being in the red, every week. SS didn't see a problem with this, because their income, before the fs money came out, was above the poverty line.

[hmschooling]

I think if you smoke or drink regularly, you should not be allowed to have foodstamps. For the money you waste on those, you could feed your family! I also don't believe all these illegal aliens should be given a hand-out! Food stamps, housing, etc...if you aren't a citizen, you should not get citizen benefits. I don't however believe the gov't should tell people what they are allowed to purchase with foodstamps.

 

Also, have you seen the price of healthy food!? It's cheaper to buy junk food...rices, pastas, etc. WIC allows only unflavored cereals, fake cheese, and other yucks and is very limited, to a flaw. Much gets wasted b/c it's tasteless and some is kinda gross. There are other healthy choices that are actually tasty!

Anyway, No matter what, these people on FS are still getting the same amount each month...and it's not much. For a family of 5, the maximum amount if you have NO income and meet criteria to not be working at least 20 hours per week, you get about $500 in a high-cost-of-living area. Rarely do people get that b/c there are so few people that qualify to not have to work...most people working full time min. wage might get about half that. That's not much to get by on for a family of 5!

 

And some people just don't know better...that's why the gov't is trying to educate people about nutrition. Just remember, some people have to start there, but that doesn't mean they've ended there. That's what the system is for and there's no reason to punish the responsible ones just b/c of some bad eggs.

[Renee in NC]

I think if you smoke or drink regularly, you should not be allowed to have foodstamps. For the money you waste on those, you could feed your family! I also don't believe all these illegal aliens should be given a hand-out! Food stamps, housing, etc...if you aren't a citizen, you should not get citizen benefits. I don't however believe the gov't should tell people what they are allowed to purchase with foodstamps.

 

Also, have you seen the price of healthy food!? It's cheaper to buy junk food...rices, pastas, etc. WIC allows only unflavored cereals, fake cheese, and other yucks and is very limited, to a flaw. Much gets wasted b/c it's tasteless and some is kinda gross. There are other healthy choices that are actually tasty!

Anyway, No matter what, these people on FS are still getting the same amount each month...and it's not much. For a family of 5, the maximum amount if you have NO income and meet criteria to not be working at least 20 hours per week, you get about $500 in a high-cost-of-living area. Rarely do people get that b/c there are so few people that qualify to not have to work...most people working full time min. wage might get about half that. That's not much to get by on for a family of 5!

 

And some people just don't know better...that's why the gov't is trying to educate people about nutrition. Just remember, some people have to start there, but that doesn't mean they've ended there. That's what the system is for and there's no reason to punish the responsible ones just b/c of some bad eggs.

 

The max amount of food stamps for a family of 5 is $793. One person working fulltime minimum wage (with a family of 4 others) would still get around $577 (without taking into account child care or excess housing.) The maximum allotments are now very generous - someone posted them earlier.

 

Illegal immigrants cannot get food stamps. Even legal aliens do not qualify except for certain cases. Their citizen children may, but only their children would - ie. if the family has 6 dc and only one is legal, the max. amount the could get (and the income limit) would be based on a family of 1.

 

I just wanted to clarify those things.

[Tap]

WIC allows only unflavored cereals, fake cheese, and other yucks and is very limited, to a flaw. Much gets wasted b/c it's tasteless and some is kinda gross. There are other healthy choices that are actually tasty!

.

 

Sorry but WIC pays for very good quality foods.

 

several cereals including Cheerios, Kix, Chex, Life, Special K, Corn Flakes, Grape Nuts, Cream of Wheat, and other "staples" of American diet. They are good cereals, just not presweetend.

 

Cheddar cheese, Monterey Jack, Mozzarella, string cheese are all allowed even brands like Tillamook are allowed.

 

Peanut butter is allowed in any brand, crunchy/creamy salted/unsalted. Beans can be substituted.

 

Milk is allowed (even organic or lactose free) in any brand.

 

Large Eggs are allowed

 

Juice is allowed in several Brand names both frozen/canned. Minute Maid/Old Orchard/ Tree Top including flavors like apple, fruit blends, pineapple, tomato, V-8, grapefruit, orange, grape etc.

[Annabel Lee]

.

[melissel]

As a taxpayer I want to ensure that the money is not wasted.

 

I want abusers in prison

I want limitations on use

I want it paid back.

 

And no, I do not believe I have the right to stay home and HS my child if I do not have the financial means to do so. My belief, and that of my DH, is that it is not the job of our government to support our personal decisions.

 

I'll hop on this bandwagon when I hear about the state and federal governments launching initiatives to give me back all the taxes I've paid over the years that went toward public assistance and public schooling and unemployment funds that we didn't use. Until then, if I lose my job and we happen to need assistance so that I can feed my children until we can figure something else out or the situation improves, you can bet that I'll feel entitled to participate in those programs that constitute the safety net I've worked to help build.

[Tap]

Does WIC vary state-to-state? Here, people on WIC can only get the cheapest available milk and sometimes are allowed another brand. There are even little purple "WIC Item" tags by ea. allowed item to make it easier to shop. I agree though, when I was on WIC about 13 yrs. ago, it provided much more nutritious *and* tasty things than I could have afforded on my own. They allow natural, real cheese - in fact, here they don't allow the individually wrapped kind, which is usually "cheese product" or "cheese food". They didn't allow organic stuff when I was on it, but again, that was ages ago. They did allow fresh veg. from the local Farmer's Market. That was a treat.

 

As far as I know WIC is federal. They do have some items marked with stickers in the stores, but not all items that qualify have stickers. Stores move product around about every 3 months so I guess they just label the most common items and don't worry about the rest. That would be an annoying task on items like peanut butter where almost every item in the right size, qualifies (ones with mixed in items, and organics are not allowed). The person in charge of signs, may or may not be aware of what actually qualifies so they may not want to label something wrong.

[melissel]

As far as I know WIC is federal. They do have some items marked with stickers in the stores, but not all items that qualify have stickers. Stores move product around about every 3 months so I guess they just label the most common items and don't worry about the rest. That would be an annoying task on items like peanut butter where almost every item in the right size, qualifies (ones with mixed in items, and organics are not allowed). The person in charge of signs, may or may not be aware of what actually qualifies so they may not want to label something wrong.

 

It's a partnership. WIC programs are under a federal umbrella and receive federal funds, by they are state-administered, and their guidelines vary from state to state. In some states, you get more fresh produce. Some states offer vouchers for farmers' markets, but most do not. I think the general guidelines are similar, but the finer points vary. For example, in NJ, WIC excludes anything organic in any category. Peanut butter is store brand only, and cannot be natural or organic.

Edited June 4, 2009 by melissel

[cathmom]

While technically you could get natural PB with WIC, you have to get an 18 oz jar, and natural varieties (at least the ones I have seen) only come in 16 oz jars. Milk is cheapest available (ie, store brand), definitely not organic or chocolate.

[Tap]

While technically you could get natural PB with WIC, you have to get an 18 oz jar, and natural varieties (at least the ones I have seen) only come in 16 oz jars. Milk is cheapest available (ie, store brand), definitely not organic or chocolate.

 

In our area the coupons say peanut butter 16-18oz. We had WIC for our foster daughter and bought Adams Peanut butter with it all the time. I don't think we could get the fresh ground peanut butter in stores that did that.

 

ETA here is a link to the Washington State brochure that shows specific items available to purchase. http://www.doh.wa.gov/cfh/WIC/materials/food/brochure06.pdf

 

ETA 2: here is a link to the national list if any one is interested in looking at different states. go to the individual states sits and then look around for 'brochures' or links to 'pamphlets' or 'approved food list' or similar. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/Contacts/statealpha.HTM#M

 

ETA 3: Wow, I am really surprised at the difference between states on WIC. Here is the list in Arkansas page 29-33. I was really surprised at how much more regulated it is there. I also looked at Minnesota's list and it has a lot more options that Washington. I guess I figured a federal program would be pretty much the same state to state. http://www.healthyarkansas.com/wic/pdf/vendor_agreement_handbook.pdf Even the Arkansas website is very minimal compared to the other sites. I had to sift through a 40+ page document to even find the list. The other states I looked at had it clearly marked and had a color brochure.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Tap, tap, tap

[Dobela]

 

It's a partnership. WIC programs are under a federal umbrella and receive federal funds, by they are state-administered, and their guidelines vary from state to state. In some states, you get more fresh produce. Some states offer vouchers for farmers' markets, but most do not. I think the general guidelines are similar, but the finer points vary. For example, in NJ, WIC excludes anything organic in any category. Peanut butter is store brand only, and cannot be natural or organic.

In my state what you purchase with WIC has to be the cheapest available that day among the allowed brands and sizes. If you want a specific brand, it has to be on the approved list (which is tiny) and be willing to use coupons to bring the price down below other brands on the list. So, if I want Welch's grape juice instead of store brand, I had better have a coupon and watch for sales for it to be allowed on WIC. But in other states I know that is different.

[Tap]

In my state what you purchase with WIC has to be the cheapest available that day among the allowed brands and sizes. If you want a specific brand, it has to be on the approved list (which is tiny) and be willing to use coupons to bring the price down below other brands on the list. So, if I want Welch's grape juice instead of store brand, I had better have a coupon and watch for sales for it to be allowed on WIC. But in other states I know that is different.

 

It is amazing how different it is state to state! I just went and looked up Arkansas, and was genuinely surprised at the difference from the other states I looked at!

[Ravin]

So the young man I work with who has a wife and two kids at home shouldn't get food stamps (to feed his kids) because he smokes? Doesn't add up.

 

And reference back to my previous post in this thread, that WIC is doing a major overhall of their food package this fall.

 

I get a whole whopping $27/mo in food stamps. It by no means buys all my groceries. It does help the first week of the month, when rent has come due so I've forked over pretty much everything I could scrape together for that.

 

I think if you smoke or drink regularly, you should not be allowed to have foodstamps. For the money you waste on those, you could feed your family! I also don't believe all these illegal aliens should be given a hand-out! Food stamps, housing, etc...if you aren't a citizen, you should not get citizen benefits. I don't however believe the gov't should tell people what they are allowed to purchase with foodstamps.

 

Also, have you seen the price of healthy food!? It's cheaper to buy junk food...rices, pastas, etc. WIC allows only unflavored cereals, fake cheese, and other yucks and is very limited, to a flaw. Much gets wasted b/c it's tasteless and some is kinda gross. There are other healthy choices that are actually tasty!

Anyway, No matter what, these people on FS are still getting the same amount each month...and it's not much. For a family of 5, the maximum amount if you have NO income and meet criteria to not be working at least 20 hours per week, you get about $500 in a high-cost-of-living area. Rarely do people get that b/c there are so few people that qualify to not have to work...most people working full time min. wage might get about half that. That's not much to get by on for a family of 5!

 

And some people just don't know better...that's why the gov't is trying to educate people about nutrition. Just remember, some people have to start there, but that doesn't mean they've ended there. That's what the system is for and there's no reason to punish the responsible ones just b/c of some bad eggs.

[Guest Bluebonnet]

I have to address this issue, because I’m one of those people stuck in the cycle. I’ve been ill for the past several years, unable to work or even complete some courses at the local college. The courses were not arduous, but I was just sick, so sick. It is embarrassing, and I am disgusted that I cannot financially support my own family- yes, after years of being “in the systemâ€. Every time I go to the food stamp office, I hear people complaining about people abusing the system (like me). Many people do, but most of the folks I’ve seen, do have jobs, sometimes two, they just don’t make enough to cover their basic needs. I also see people that get angry, because they feel they are entitled to it, or they don’t get enough - as if sitting in the waiting room of the DHS for four hours every six months is justification enough to receive their benefits.

 

Every time I go the grocery store, I am ashamed. I cannot look the cashier in the eye, and if I buy something that’s not generic, I cringe, even if the brand name is less expensive than the off-brand. I have bought sodas a couple of times. As a rule, we don’t drink it, but sometimes it is nice for the kids to have a treat- but I feel guilty. I feel that I have to make an excuse for every little thing that I buy that is not healthy. Sometimes junk is cheaper than healthy food; it shouldn’t be, and that’s one of the reasons I feel that so many poor are overweight, unhealthy, sick and lazy.

 

My kids have rarely needed to see the doctor, but they still need Medicaid, just in case something happens, yet it still feels wrong to take them to the dentist. I have to go once a year for a medical checkup, which seems to me like a waste of money, if they are not sick. I go so they do not lose their Medicaid, It is my understanding that doctors who accept Medicaid only receive 50% of the bill.

 

We lived off $200 a month for food, until recently, now we get $300, a small amount compared to what I hear most people spend for food. We’re eating well this month. I can buy milk.

 

When I received my disability settlement, I felt guilty because I bought some nice bookcases, something I’d always wanted, but wouldn’t have been able to do otherwise, but- it was an investment. If I didn’t have someone I could trust to keep my money, I would have lost it, deducted from my bank account. I was supposed to spend it. Ha. I cannot have more than $ 1,300 in the bank or I will lose my stamps, the kids Medicaid, and TANF ($112), which the kids receive because child support isn’t paid. Ifchild support is paid over $50, the rest of the money goes back into the TANF fund, to help other people. I wouldn’t qualify if I “spent†the money, but I would be back where I was in a few months, with no resources, and nothing to put towards the kid’s college.

 

 

I have some nice things. I have a cell phone, that I use to call family members-It was given to me, one of those network plans where I got the extra phone that my mother didn’t use. I have, I think nice furniture- but if you look closely, it is scuffed and marred from decades of use. We’ve gone to the movies, because we’ve been treated. I’ve gotten looks from people many times, because they assumed I was spending money that could be spent better elsewhere.

 

I took a temporary job (minimun wage) for two weeks while I was in school, and lost everything. I needed to go to the doctor, I could barely walk, but I couldn’t get the care I needed. I went to the free health clinic, where the first thing the doctor said to me was â€I’m not giving you any painkillersâ€, assuming I was a drug addict off the street. He wrote me a prescription for Ibuprofen, which I can get over the counter anyway.

 

The only people that know I receive assistance are my family, and of course, the cashiers. I just couldn’t bear to tell anyone.

 

I hate being poor, but right now, I’m stuck in the cycle, and until I get better and get a good job (or a nice husband, maybe :) our future doesn’t look so bright.

[Guest GMGUY]

Nope, not with taxpayer money, they shouldn't. It should be for nutritious foods only.

 

Otherwise, why not be allowed to buy a pack of cigarettes? Or a bottle of wine?

 

 

Well, I work as a cashier and a lot of people have a cash allowance and they take cash of and buy cigarettes, alcohol and gas. One time someone came in and took over 700$ out. CASH

 

Boils my blood every time.

 

I also fully agree that it should only be used for nutritious foods. NOT soda, chips, candy, or any other foods that are considered JUNK by most americans.

[LibraryLover]

Good first post, GUY.

 

Not really, but it seems like you needed some attention. I hope you feel better. Have a cookie.

[nmoira]

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

[Mrs Mungo]

Oh, geez, I didn't notice how old this stupid thread was. Editing my post out.

 

I'll just agree with moira:

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

 

[Ohdanigirl]

Geeze, I did not realize how old this thread was. Or the obvious troll. I'll blame it on the fact that I forgot to put in my contacts.

 

Since there are still people commenting, I will leave the rest of my comment in.

 

As for foodstamp threads, I have seen many of them get ugly fast. I hope this doesn't turn into a bashing thread. Yes, there are people who abuse it, but there are also people going through very tough times. I think this is a touchy subject, and I hope we can all tread lightly and respect each other's opinions. (Even if we do not agree.)

[clarkacademy]

I don't think you can judge a person on a trip to the grocery store. I think a Walmart cashier can worry more about the customer care than the way they pay. Not everyone can cook or bake or even has the tools to do so. I also don't think a bunch of people who wanna play I am better than you really has the right to get on a board and start ragging on people they don't know. I think it is basically ones way of feeling superior to another.

[elizabeth]

He is still living in the house - but i have no access to funds.

 

It's really not a pretty thing to be going thru at all.....

 

I do not know your situation but would encourage you to call Legal Aid in your county/city to seek free legal help if you need it. Not having access to funds is often a red flag that there is trouble and that perhaps you are not safe. Please pm me if I can help you with resources in your area.

[JennyD]

Could someone explain to me how threads like this get resurrected? "Food stamps" seems like such an odd search term for a newbie on a homeschooling forum. Is GMGUY an old poster now registered under a new name?

 

Sometimes I see these resurrected contentious threads and wonder if somehow it's an orchestrated effort to drive traffic, but that's pretty cynical even for me. Does anyone have a better theory?

[Dmmetler]

1. The grocers would not appreciate having to go through each purchase checking to see if the client purchased the correct items if food stamps were specific in what the client had to purchase. Could you imagine having to stand in the checkout line that long?

 

2. The money for food stamps comes from the US government and, as we all have found out this past year, the supply of government money is limitless. This, of course, makes the grocers and farmers very happy. Any sort of restrictions on food stamps would make some of our grocer and farmer friends very unhappy. I would not be surprised if grocers/farmers have some pretty influential lobbyists walking the halls and rotunda of the US Capitol.

 

Claire in NM

 

 

My DH is a software engineer for NCR, and I can tell you that he's spent HOURS programming in exclusion codes for specific items that have specific restrictions as to what they can and cannot be purchased with or which require specific overrides (items where ID has to be checked, signature required and so on). With a good POS system, this is in no way, shape, or form dependent on the grocery clerk-POS systems are designed to be idiot-proof and to require little or no training for a high school part-time employee to use. About the only store-type that I can think that wouldn't have such a system in place is something like Dollar Tree (which, because of their pricing structure, doesn't necessarily track items at the individual level) or a local farmer's market-and I'm not sure the latter take the digital benefits cards anyway.

[cdrumm4448]

I haven't read all the replies, but I do have to say that tax payer money should not be spent on junk food. No pop, candy, wedding cakes, basketballs. Nothing of the sort. And, I think recipients of food stamps should shop at the most reasonable stores. Aldi comes to mind, although I realize they're not in every state. Sorry, but on food stamps you don't need that rotisserie chicken with sides from Jewel. When you spend your own money, buy anything you want.

 

My family went through a very tough financial time when I was a kid. My mom actually went to inquire about food stamps and was told, "You own a house? Sell it." That forced my dad to overcome his problems and get a job. Any job. Being uncomfortable with poverty is something society has lost along the way. My dad would have been unemployed for much longer if the system hadn't given him a kick in the pants. That wouldn't have done anybody any good.

[Melissa in Australia]

this is a very old thread!

[Impish]

Braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnssssssssssssss

[mommymilkies]

 

 

 

Sorry but WIC pays for very good quality foods.

 

 

several cereals including Cheerios, Kix, Chex, Life, Special K, Corn Flakes, Grape Nuts, Cream of Wheat, and other "staples" of American diet. They are good cereals, just not presweetend.

 

 

Cheddar cheese, Monterey Jack, Mozzarella, string cheese are all allowed even brands like Tillamook are allowed.

 

 

Peanut butter is allowed in any brand, crunchy/creamy salted/unsalted. Beans can be substituted.

 

 

Milk is allowed (even organic or lactose free) in any brand.

 

 

Large Eggs are allowed

 

 

Juice is allowed in several Brand names both frozen/canned. Minute Maid/Old Orchard/ Tree Top including flavors like apple, fruit blends, pineapple, tomato, V-8, grapefruit, orange, grape etc.

 

It depends on the state. It was not like that here last time we were on it. My dd also had a documented dairy allergy and we could not get WIC products because they refused to let us get soy milk instead, and we could only get everything on the stamp, not just part.

 

It's whole conversation just makes me sick. I think many here need to work on some compassion and pass on the judgement based on appearances.

[Michelle My Bell]

Let's just regulate everything. That would solve it all!

[elegantlion]

Perhaps we should just tie up food stamp recipients in chain gangs and slap their wrists each time they grocery shop. Some of you high and might people posting on a 3 year old thread really don't get it. There are people working full time jobs that still qualify for food aid because their salaries are so low. Perhaps one of the ministers at your church is getting paid so poorly they qualify for aid, perhaps that person who has had some bad turns in life needs some temporary aid so they can not worry about food on the table for their family. Unless you've been there you really don't get it. It's different than it was in your momma's day. There have been some hard time for a lot of hard working families. Not having to worry about what to feed your children for a temporary period of time is a blessing to many, so they can focus on finding a better job, or changing their circumstances. Kicking people while they are down or elevating yourself above them because you've never been there and judging because they might have a bag of chips in their cart is really petty. Go ahead, judge, karma/fate/God whatever you call has a way of humbling those who think they are superior.