Jump to content

Menu

No Soda Bought With Food Stamps?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 977
  • Created
  • Last Reply
This thread got crazy. I think I knew it would that is why I just stopped posting. But here goes, I have been broke for years now since my boy got sick. I cannot believe all the posts on here about taking kids gifts back, selling them etc. WOW. My parents knew I was in a bad place, they knew their college kid didn't do anything to get here and have always been happy to buy my kids things.

 

Last year they built their dream house and I got the hand me down house. Maybe I should have said no mom sell the house and buy my groceries. In a few months or whatever when the money was gone I would still be in government housing though so I don't see that point. And for the record here if you ever see my kids they wear all name brands. It is called yard sales and second hand stores.

 

It is also called knowing how to shop on clearance. I get their clothes probally much cheaper than those who are buying in season at Wally World. I have a nice van. I got it when my elderly grandma died two years ago. Maybe I should have sold it to buy groceries and bills? Of course when that money ran out we would still be hungry riding the bus.

 

People have posted that families shouldn't be giving gifts they should be helping with bills and food, well not to be rude aren't the majority of those gifts helping? I was always taught to take a gift and be thankful not rude or expect a certain thing. Oh and for all the people out there on assistance who have family members with money to throw away can you put in a good word for me, my kids would love a Wii. :D

 

I can't believe the posts I have read on this board over this. It is shameful. I also think it is shamful that any parent would punish a child by taking their personal belongings to pay a bill instead of swallowing their pride to ask for help. Our children did not ask to be here. They will live in the hard cold world soon enough why punish childhood?

 

I had to get rid of the kids dog when things started going bad before I finally asked for help. My kids have never forgiven that. It has been 6 years and they still will talk about Sebastian. My oldest now 14 will still say she would have shared her food to keep the dog. Telling them I had money problems only scared them cause if mommy can't feed our dog and he had to go live somewhere else, what will mommy do with us?

 

I also know deep down she knows that it is because her brother got sick. So his illness greatly changed our life. At 14 she will tell you that she probally won't have kids she will adopt cause that way you know what you get. :confused: Horrible for a child to live scared.

 

For real? If your mom sold her house, and give you the money, you'd only have enough for a few months of groceries?

 

I am not asking that to be snarky at all. I truly don't know how that can be possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know what it means. But thanks. :001_smile:

 

It is a pretty nasty accusation from someone who obviously has no clue.

 

In case anyone else doesn't know:

 

from wiki

 

Astroturfing is a form of advocacy often in support of a political or corporate agenda designed to give the appearance of a "grassroots" movement. The goal of such campaigns is to disguise the efforts of a political and/or commercial entity as an independent public reaction to some political entity—a politician, political group, product, service or event. The term is a derivation of AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to look like natural grass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dulcimeramy

Clarkacademy, you are assuming that I don't know how to shop clearance or use garage sales, and you are assuming my kids live in clothes from Walmart. Why? Why wouldn't you think that an obviously frugal person dedicated to independence would have a clue how to shop?

 

I've never taken my child's personal possessions and sold them to pay a bill. I've never punished a child because we are poor.

 

I have refused extravagant gifts from people who don't care that a child has actual outstanding physical needs...people who just want to gratify themselves by showering a kid with luxuries while ignoring the realities of his life...but that's not the same thing, is it? Did you never read Dickens? It is immoral to buy a kid a pony while ignoring his bare feet. The principle stands, no matter how small the pony or how soft the road on which the bare feet walk.

 

Black-and-white thinking is a problem. You can't paint everyone on your side as the cowboys with black hats and everyone of a different opinion as the cowboys with black hats. Big problems are more complex than that. Convictions are more complex than that.

 

I'm not an ogre or a bad mother. I simply disagree with you on some issues of federal and state economics (and parenting). It really is useless to try to paint me this way. This perspective is false, and this reputation you want to assign to me is entirely untrue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarkacademy, you are assuming that I don't know how to shop clearance or use garage sales, and you are assuming my kids live in clothes from Walmart. Why? Why wouldn't you think that an obviously frugal person dedicated to independence would have a clue how to shop?

 

I've never taken my child's personal possessions and sold them to pay a bill. I've never punished a child because we are poor.

 

I have refused extravagant gifts from people who don't care when a child has actual outstanding physical needs and just want to gratify themselves by showering a kid with luxuries, but that's not the same thing, is it?

 

This black-and-white thinking is a problem.

 

I'm not an ogre or a bad mother. I simply disagree with you on some issues of federal and state economics (and parenting). It really is useless to try to paint me this way. This perspective is false, and this reputation you want to assign to me is entirely untrue.

 

:iagree:

Link to post
Share on other sites
For real? If your mom sold her house, and give you the money, you'd only have enough for a few months of groceries?

 

I am not asking that to be snarky at all. I truly don't know how that can be possible.

 

 

No I just phrased that then typed or whatever ....I know it would be more than a few months but as is my son won't get better. That was the point the money would not last and we would be in same place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarkacademy, you are assuming that I don't know how to shop clearance or use garage sales, and you are assuming my kids live in clothes from Walmart. Why? Why wouldn't you think that an obviously frugal person dedicated to independence would have a clue how to shop?

 

I've never taken my child's personal possessions and sold them to pay a bill. I've never punished a child because we are poor.

 

I have refused extravagant gifts from people who don't care that a child has actual outstanding physical needs...people who just want to gratify themselves by showering a kid with luxuries while ignoring the realities of his life...but that's not the same thing, is it? Did you never read Dickens? It is immoral to buy a kid a pony while ignoring his bare feet. The principle stands, no matter how small the pony or how soft the road on which the bare feet walk.

 

Black-and-white thinking is a problem. You can't paint everyone on your side as the cowboys with black hats and everyone of a different opinion as the cowboys with black hats. Big problems are more complex than that. Convictions are more complex than that.

 

I'm not an ogre or a bad mother. I simply disagree with you on some issues of federal and state economics (and parenting). It really is useless to try to paint me this way. This perspective is false, and this reputation you want to assign to me is entirely untrue.

 

Well maybe they figure if he has a pony he won't need shoes? I am sorry you walked into that one. I never said you personally you. I stated what I had read key word POSTS with an s for meaning more than one. Are you a bit defensive on that? I said nothing to you. Me thinks the lady does protest too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So tell me, how does it apply here? If it is too unpleasant for the board, you can PM or email me. Thanks.

 

It is a very nasty accusation.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing

 

If someone thinks someone is doing this, they should report them to the mods or they should learn what a word means before using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I find the tags assigned to this thread so ridiculous that they are laughable. I hope Mrs. Mungo in particular is having a good guffaw at the rope a dope reference. Goodness.

 

I just love reading about anything she says even if I don't agree. She is just wonderful

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dulcimeramy
Well maybe they figure if he has a pony he won't need shoes? I am sorry you walked into that one. I never said you personally you. I stated what I had read key word POSTS with an s for meaning more than one. Are you a bit defensive on that? I said nothing to you. Me thinks the lady does protest too much.

 

If they think having a pony means he doesn't need shoes, than they are more self-absorbed and stupid than even I previously believed.

 

Quoting Shakespeare doesn't change the fact that you addressed an idea put forth only by me. You didn't address me, but you addressed my posts when there were not posts on that subject by anyone else. I found it reasonable to answer since you said that I should be ashamed of myself, but I disagree that I protested too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well maybe they figure if he has a pony he won't need shoes? I am sorry you walked into that one. I never said you personally you. I stated what I had read key word POSTS with an s for meaning more than one. Are you a bit defensive on that? I said nothing to you. Me thinks the lady does protest too much.

 

Amy didn't walk into anything.

 

You chose to write that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cut everything by a certain percentage. Everything.

 

Cuts like this are disasterous. A huge cut was suddenly made in our state's department of mental health. The department's reaction was to lay off many of it's social workers and automatically cut off social service workers for all clients who were no longer homeless no matter what their current condition was.

 

I knew one girl with Anorexia Nervosa, who was told about the cut, by her social worker, while in the hospital on full bed rest, with a feeding tube down her nose, and I think restrained so she wouldn't pull it out. So now the hospital had no outside worker to help them set up out patient care for this very sick young lady, who they had to keep longer. It ended out costing the tax payers a lot more in the long run.

 

And if we are cutting all programs at the same time, the hospital would be discharging young ladies like this to reduced food stamps too? Now there is a good plan.

 

Well it is a good plan if you believe genocide is okay and think the United Declaration of Human Rights is wrong/bad/unfair.

 

If we as a world or country believe that saving the lives of young ladies with Anorexia is important, then we cannot just cut all programs at once.

 

And if we cut WIC what do you think will happen then? WIC has been sucessful in lowering medical costs of pregnant moms and babies. So you want to cut the free medical care AND WIC at the same time. You do realize that infant mortality will climb, but maybe that is okay.

 

My exhusband and the other people from my old life before my divorce all believed genocide was acceptable and weeding out weaker families was good for the planet as a whole. I have almost no contact with anyone from my old life as many of them do not recogize my right to even be alive right now, never mind accept any services funded by tax payers. They think I am evil to steal THEIR money.

 

My MD and mental health team get so frustrated sometimes trying to convince me I have the right to be alive while disabled, never mind the right to a "good life". I'll often stop taking care of myself in an area and stop receiving a service, because I feel guilty. I've only stopped doing that mostly, because in the long run, I end out running up bigger bills. So unless I decide to commit suicide, I need to stop trying to save the tax payers a few pennies to just cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

 

And I take gifts without reporting them. Because again it ended out costing the tax payer more when I didn't do that :-0 My constant seizing scrambles my brain. I'm not very efficient with my money and time anymore and people just throw money and things at me when they see me getting disorganized, because stuff makes life easier sometimes. And watching me seize makes the people around me uncomfortable. It makes THEM feel better to buy me dinner and then take me into a book store to pick out a book to curl up in bed with, that doesn't need to be returned anywhere or special ordered beforehand. Instead of leaving me alone in my kitchen to try and assemble a meal from staples and then resort to only having access to the books available from the local library as my memory loss make it so hard for me to keep track of the interlibrary loans, and then I need help as I'm crying and trying to find the lost $150.00 book.

 

I struggle with whether I have the right to survive and especially whether I have the right to eat nice things and own nice books. I sleep on nothing but a piece of foam on the floor and my only furniture is a couple folding chairs and tables, but I have an iPad and a friend pays my for internet for me and she often buys me nice books and wants to take me out to dinner tonight. And I read things things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I hear what my doctor says and sometimes I parrot what they say, but deep down, I really still believe it's a shameful thing for me to enjoy anything. The word pleasure makes me literally tremble.

 

My friend knows she cannot bring me into certain restraunts, because I won't be able to eat the food there because I will be so filled with a deep black shame. That I will leave there unsure of even my right to exist.

 

I find all of this confusing, but I do know that regulating the food stamps will not save the tax payer any money. That I do know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do none of you have senses of humor? Is the only joy you get debating on a homeschool board and trying really hard to make it known how great you are? There has been quite a few people responding on the whole gift for a child. Yes I chose to write that. Again it was comical. Take a joke :chillpill: in the end you will still feel great on your opinions and I will still feel fine with mine.

 

I would never refuse a gift for my child. Never. It is wrong. You are to be grateful for your blessings whether you wanted them or not. Any gift is a blessing. No child should lose out on stuff due to finances if someone is wanting to bless them with it, if you could read my post you would see what that was saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to think that recipients of social programs paid for out of my taxes at least appreciate the program.

 

So where should they all send the thank you notes?

 

 

I spent way to much time thinking about this thread last night.

 

Cheryl, when that man insulted you at the checkout line, I really think it was the universe trying to show you how such ignorant judgment felt. It offended us for you. But because you're so busy defending him, you couldn't see how horrible his actions were.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's the problem I have. I have great ideas to make something better but it costs twice as much! :glare: I truly want to help people. I'm really not a bad person. :crying:

 

Cheryl,

You are not a bad person. I have agreed with nearly everything that you have posted in this rather long and cantankerous thread. The bottom line is this: personal responsibility. You clearly know what that means, and many others don't.

 

I don't care if someone buys soda with food stamps. My bigger issue is if they actually need the food stamps. You can't legislate that people purchase and consume healthy food, it is just common sense to eat nutrient rich food. But you can decide who receives the benefits. If I had my druthers all aid would stop and everyone would need to re-apply, and us tax paying citizens would get to decide who was able or not to benefit from government handouts of our tax money. But that's just me. A horrible, greedy, evil, judgmental, capitalist loving pig.

 

And, Wow! Just, wow!

 

See, I did it for you. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find all of this confusing, but I do know that regulating the food stamps will not save the tax payer any money. That I do know.

:grouphug::grouphug: I am so, so sorry. And you are so brave for posting that-especially on this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cheryl,

You are not a bad person. I have agreed with nearly everything that you have posted in this rather long and cantankerous thread. The bottom line is this: personal responsibility. You clearly know what that means, and many others don't.

 

I don't care if someone buys soda with food stamps. My bigger issue is if they actually need the food stamps. You can't legislate that people purchase and consume healthy food, it is just common sense to eat nutrient rich food. But you can decide who receives the benefits. If I had my druthers all aid would stop and everyone would need to re-apply, and us tax paying citizens would get to decide who was able or not to benefit from government handouts of our tax money. But that's just me. A horrible, greedy, evil, judgmental, capitalist loving pig.

 

And, Wow! Just, wow!

 

See, I did it for you. ;)

 

 

Sorry, I dont find your post that shocking. I think most of us here are capitalist pigs.

 

I just think the compliations of that would cost more than it would save.

 

I know people who are poster people of the types that give welfare a bad name. They were recently forced to get jobs. I admit I was pleased. So...in reality despite the fact that we never agree I agree there are people taking advantage.

 

I do think those that are taking advantage are the minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cuts like this are disasterous. A huge cut was suddenly made in our state's department of mental health. The department's reaction was to lay off many of it's social workers and automatically cut off social service workers for all clients who were no longer homeless no matter what their current condition was.

 

I knew one girl with Anorexia Nervosa, who was told about the cut, by her social worker, while in the hospital on full bed rest, with a feeding tube down her nose, and I think restrained so she wouldn't pull it out. So now the hospital had no outside worker to help them set up out patient care for this very sick young lady, who they had to keep longer. It ended out costing the tax payers a lot more in the long run.

 

And if we are cutting all programs at the same time, the hospital would be discharging young ladies like this to reduced food stamps too? Now there is a good plan.

 

Well it is a good plan if you believe genocide is okay and think the United Declaration of Human Rights is wrong/bad/unfair.

 

If we as a world or country believe that saving the lives of young ladies with Anorexia is important, then we cannot just cut all programs at once.

 

And if we cut WIC what do you think will happen then? WIC has been sucessful in lowering medical costs of pregnant moms and babies. So you want to cut the free medical care AND WIC at the same time. You do realize that infant mortality will climb, but maybe that is okay.

 

My exhusband and the other people from my old life before my divorce all believed genocide was acceptable and weeding out weaker families was good for the planet as a whole. I have almost no contact with anyone from my old life as many of them do not recogize my right to even be alive right now, never mind accept any services funded by tax payers. They think I am evil to steal THEIR money.

 

My MD and mental health team get so frustrated sometimes trying to convince me I have the right to be alive while disabled, never mind the right to a "good life". I'll often stop taking care of myself in an area and stop receiving a service, because I feel guilty. I've only stopped doing that mostly, because in the long run, I end out running up bigger bills. So unless I decide to commit suicide, I need to stop trying to save the tax payers a few pennies to just cost them tens of thousands of dollars.

 

And I take gifts without reporting them. Because again it ended out costing the tax payer more when I didn't do that :-0 My constant seizing scrambles my brain. I'm not very efficient with my money and time anymore and people just throw money and things at me when they see me getting disorganized, because stuff makes life easier sometimes. And watching me seize makes the people around me uncomfortable. It makes THEM feel better to buy me dinner and then take me into a book store to pick out a book to curl up in bed with, that doesn't need to be returned anywhere or special ordered beforehand. Instead of leaving me alone in my kitchen to try and assemble a meal from staples and then resort to only having access to the books available from the local library as my memory loss make it so hard for me to keep track of the interlibrary loans, and then I need help as I'm crying and trying to find the lost $150.00 book.

 

I struggle with whether I have the right to survive and especially whether I have the right to eat nice things and own nice books. I sleep on nothing but a piece of foam on the floor and my only furniture is a couple folding chairs and tables, but I have an iPad and a friend pays my for internet for me and she often buys me nice books and wants to take me out to dinner tonight. And I read things things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and I hear what my doctor says and sometimes I parrot what they say, but deep down, I really still believe it's a shameful thing for me to enjoy anything. The word pleasure makes me literally tremble.

 

My friend knows she cannot bring me into certain restraunts, because I won't be able to eat the food there because I will be so filled with a deep black shame. That I will leave there unsure of even my right to exist.

 

I find all of this confusing, but I do know that regulating the food stamps will not save the tax payer any money. That I do know.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dulcimeramy
Do none of you have senses of humor? Is the only joy you get debating on a homeschool board and trying really hard to make it known how great you are? There has been quite a few people responding on the whole gift for a child. Yes I chose to write that. Again it was comical. Take a joke :chillpill: in the end you will still feel great on your opinions and I will still feel fine with mine.

 

I would never refuse a gift for my child. Never. It is wrong. You are to be grateful for your blessings whether you wanted them or not. Any gift is a blessing. No child should lose out on stuff due to finances if someone is wanting to bless them with it, if you could read my post you would see what that was saying.

 

So it's "I'm right and you're wrong," and I obviously have no sense of humor and only find joy in debating on the internet?

 

Logic. Formal logic. It is a wonderful tool. I'm glad I've studied it.

 

I type 85 wpm so this isn't taking more than a few moments of my day. As the happily married mother of four great kids, I have many opportunities to experience joy. These assumptions are as bad as your other ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So it's "I'm right and you're wrong," and I obviously have no sense of humor and only find joy in debating on the internet?

 

Logic. Formal logic. It is a wonderful tool. I'm glad I've studied it.

 

I type 85 wpm so this isn't taking more than a few moments of my day. As the happily married mother of four great kids, I have many opportunities to experience joy. These assumptions are as bad as your other ones.

 

Your the one getting snotty over a joke. I don't care how fast you type or about your husband. I never said I was right your wrong. I gave an opinion. You are the one he!! bent on this thread to be the "right" opinion. I hope your happy opportunities last for the sake of your children. If they don't you may have to sell their pony.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well maybe they figure if he has a pony he won't need shoes? I am sorry you walked into that one. I never said you personally you. I stated what I had read key word POSTS with an s for meaning more than one. Are you a bit defensive on that? I said nothing to you. Me thinks the lady does protest too much.

 

Amy didn't walk into anything.

 

You chose to write that.

 

Do none of you have senses of humor? Is the only joy you get debating on a homeschool board and trying really hard to make it known how great you are? There has been quite a few people responding on the whole gift for a child. Yes I chose to write that. Again it was comical. Take a joke :chillpill: in the end you will still feel great on your opinions and I will still feel fine with mine.

 

I would never refuse a gift for my child. Never. It is wrong. You are to be grateful for your blessings whether you wanted them or not. Any gift is a blessing. No child should lose out on stuff due to finances if someone is wanting to bless them with it, if you could read my post you would see what that was saying.

 

My point was/is don't "make a joke" and then say someone "walked into that one."

 

If you want to joke, own it. Part of owning it is realizing that not everyone will think it is funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My point was/is don't "make a joke" and then say someone "walked into that one."

 

If you want to joke, own it. Part of owning it is realizing that not everyone will think it is funny.

 

I own it I said it and it was funny. Especially when you take anothers words and give it a whole new light. That would be "walking into it". Oh and for the record quite a few others on this thread thought it was the funniest thing yet they just didn't want to respond and have you blast them. I don't care though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cheryl, when that man insulted you at the checkout line, I really think it was the universe trying to show you how such ignorant judgment felt. It offended us for you. But because you're so busy defending him, you couldn't see how horrible his actions were.

 

I was waiting for this accusation. I posted this experience to show that offense does not need to be taken. Dignity has it's place.

 

Just because he acted offensively doesn't mean I have to take offense. My personal opinion regarding that episode is that he had some guilt over something and took it out on me. It didn't really have anything to do with me; I was just his toilet. I can chose to be upset about it or not let it upset me. Long story short, why in the world would I let something get to me that was said by someone who doesn't know me or my situation in life? Besides that, the man had a good point. My food choices were not healthy; it just wasn't his place to tell me since I was asking him to provide it. If I was asking him to pay for my food how could I possibly take offense at the food he wished to provide for me?

 

Cheryl,

You are not a bad person. I have agreed with nearly everything that you have posted in this rather long and cantankerous thread. The bottom line is this: personal responsibility. You clearly know what that means, and many others don't.

 

I don't care if someone buys soda with food stamps. My bigger issue is if they actually need the food stamps. You can't legislate that people purchase and consume healthy food, it is just common sense to eat nutrient rich food. But you can decide who receives the benefits. If I had my druthers all aid would stop and everyone would need to re-apply, and us tax paying citizens would get to decide who was able or not to benefit from government handouts of our tax money. But that's just me. A horrible, greedy, evil, judgmental, capitalist loving pig.

 

And, Wow! Just, wow!

 

See, I did it for you. ;)

 

Thank you! :grouphug:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am seriously asking...are there no longer butchers in big cities? There certainly are in the Seinfeld episodes (lame, I know, but my only experience with NYC) There has to be a better plan than fast food and junk food. It's just not healthy as a way of life. What about those community gardens in big cities that I hear about?

 

Access to nutritional foods is an *enormous* problem in some neighborhoods - and butchers are *much* harder to find than supermarkets.

 

I think your suggestions come from genuine (admirable!) compassion and a desire to improve a very flawed system - and I respect both of those motivations! - but I think you are unaware of the depth and seriousness of some of the challenges to reform - both logistical and financial.

 

I agree that there needs to be a better plan... but I'm not convinced that the *starting* place for that is food stamp regulation. (imho, that would be trying to fix the symptoms rather than the problem).

 

Once there are better resources in place, regulatory changes might be helpful... *but* only if there is the political will to take on the extra costs involved.... because more rules mean more overhead cost.

 

Where should we start?

 

I'm not sure.

 

My instinct is that attempts on the local level will be more effective than broader, national attempts... but I could see a national program to support & finance local programs... and to help them network. (There was a Food Policy conference last month in Portland, OR which sounds interesting.)

 

 

...but how to we, even on the local level, address food access, both urban and rural?

 

Here in Seattle, one program Marra Farm, is doing some wonderful work. The neighborhood they are in is very poor and:

 

Access to nutritious food, particularly fresh produce, is very limited in this community. While two small mini-groceries exist, they have limited offerings of fruits and vegetables. South Park has no supermarkets, and Seattle's recent growth in farmers markets has not yet reached the neighborhood.

 

Here's a brief history of the Farm:

 

The Marra Family, Italian truck farmers, worked this land from the early 1900s until the 1970s when they sold it to King County. It is one of the last two remaining pieces of original agricultural land in Seattle. In 1997, a handful of neighborhood residents launched the earliest restoration efforts at the Farm with support from a VISTA volunteer. The following year, a diverse group of nonprofit organizations, government programs and individuals joined together to care for this valuable agricultural space. In 2000, community organizer John Beal and the King Conservation District daylighted a section of the Lost Fork of Hamm Creek on the western edge of Marra Farm. Working as the Marra Farm Coalition, a group of organizations and individuals (listed below) continues to build and expand Marra Farm's role addressing community food security needs, providing a space for sustainable agriculture education, and engaging community members.

 

 

The key here, I think, is the combination of grass-roots efforts & (local in this case) government programs to support the goals.

 

 

...but it takes so much time to cause lasting change, and in the mean time folks are hungry and poorly nourished.

 

One place to start to make longer term changes is with kids - our patterns of eating, and comfort foods, are set in childhood... but there was an uproar here over removing chocolate milk from school lunches. ...and adding even just an apple a day to school lunches would add a lot to costs. (There are programs/organizations working to improve school lunches in various innovative ways - exciting, but hard to do without more money.)

 

 

Another idea that would cost money: a required nutrition class in high schools (with hands-on sessions growing plants, cooking rice, etc)....most states require a 1/2 year health class; make the other half of the year nutrition.

 

If schools had school gardens (some do!) - and used the produce to add nutrition to the meals... or for the nutrition classes to cook with... again money... and educational time.

 

What it comes down to, I think, is that while the *idea* of improving the situation appeals to most people... the reality of spending more money to do so doesn't. ...and the seeming quick fixes of extra regulation (which *also* cost more money) appeal more to many folks. ...but that too founders, because those who are most drawn to extra regulation are (imho) least likely to want to spend *more* money on social services.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what is going on in this thread. I've been making pieces for a cake all morning. :confused:

 

Here's the problem I have with this thread:

 

I am fine with reforms. *I* would be fine with requiring a real home economics class in all schools-budgeting, basic cooking, etc. I would be fine with offering classes in frugal cooking or whatnot. I think urban gardening movements are fantastic and can be a true blessing.

 

But, I see those as long-term ideas that will require more than a change in the food stamp program.

 

I am *not* fine with demanding short-term fixes that don't *really* fix anything. If you want to say "here is a list of healthy foods, you may only buy these items with food stamps," that would be ignoring the *serious*, child-endangering consequences of those actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was waiting for this accusation. I posted this experience to show that offense does not need to be taken. Dignity has it's place.

 

Just because he acted offensively doesn't mean I have to take offense. My personal opinion regarding that episode is that he had some guilt over something and took it out on me. It didn't really have anything to do with me; I was just his toilet. I can chose to be upset about it or not let it upset me. Long story short, why in the world would I let something get to me that was said by someone who doesn't know me or my situation in life? Besides that, the man had a good point. My food choices were not healthy; it just wasn't his place to tell me since I was asking him to provide it. If I was asking him to pay for my food how could I possibly take offense at the food he wished to provide for me?

 

 

 

Thank you! :grouphug:

 

Ah, THAT phrases pretty well how this thread has felt with all the back & forth. It seems like many people have been upset by something related (like paying lots of taxes, that do support FS along with many other programs, or like government intervention/entitlements) and end up placing a lot of that frustration directly onto those of us using FS for things like buying a soda. There's been a lot of anger and most of it has little to do with the food stamps and FS users themselves (but at the system supporting it instead), so we're kind of caught in the middle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree Elaine.

 

Reform is needed.

 

I think part of the problem is that there are large lobbies that stand in the way of true progress. The food insustry has too much power.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::glare::glare:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden
I have no idea what is going on in this thread. I've been making pieces for a cake all morning. :confused:

 

Let's see, right now someone who can't write an intelligible sentence is trying to defend a non-opinion with a bad joke. Other than that, I have no idea either. ;)

Link to post

I don't care if someone buys soda with food stamps. My bigger issue is if they actually need the food stamps. You can't legislate that people purchase and consume healthy food, it is just common sense to eat nutrient rich food. But you can decide who receives the benefits. If I had my druthers all aid would stop and everyone would need to re-apply, and us tax paying citizens would get to decide who was able or not to benefit from government handouts of our tax money.

 

 

...but having everyone currently on any form of assistance all reapply would cost a *fortune*.

 

...and who would set the criteria by which we tax paying, non-benefit receiving citizens would decide who was worthy and who wasn't?

 

I, too, would rather see "my" tax money going to those who genuinely need it, but I don't see a cost effective way to improve enforcement of existing standards let alone to add more stringent qualification guidelines.

 

 

 

...and, honestly, my first emotional reaction is: do we also get to decide which corporations/industries should get (corporate) welfare, and other forms of handouts of our tax dollars?

 

...what about tax deductions? ...and tax cuts? When we cut taxes to a certain category of corporations or individuals, we are giving them a handout too...

 

Some of the budget driven pieces of this feel like going after the smaller, easier targets rather than the biggest expenses... akin to the IRS tracking down individuals who owe $1000 in taxes, but not the folks/companies that owe tens of thousands.

 

 

...but I know that is an emotional reaction, and doesn't in any way invalidate any of the concerns raised about appropriate use of this one piece of government spending.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, THAT phrases pretty well how this thread has felt with all the back & forth. It seems like many people have been upset by something related (like paying lots of taxes, that do support FS along with many other programs, or like government intervention/entitlements) and end up placing a lot of that frustration directly onto those of us using FS for things like buying a soda. There's been a lot of anger and most of it has little to do with the food stamps and FS users themselves (but at the system supporting it instead), so we're kind of caught in the middle.

 

This really goes both ways. It is unfair to state that non FS recipients are mad about taxes and taking it out personally on FS recipients but to not acknowledge that FS recipients might have some baggage that they are taking out on non FS recipients. I agree that the emotions involved in this thread have caused many people to not really read the words that were posted and respond without taking posts personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many view the WIC program as successful. I have seen it defended in this thread. Why would it be bad to change the FS system to mimic WIC? That's all I'm suggesting.

 

My dd is allergic to dairy, so cheese/milk/formula vouchers aren't really that helpful for us. As a result (plus the many "check-ups" you need just to qualify for that handful of food) I've never used WIC and can't comment knowledgeably on its efficacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many view the WIC program as successful. I have seen it defended in this thread. Why would it be bad to change the FS system to mimic WIC? That's all I'm suggesting.

 

Not a terrible idea, but WIC is very complicated to follow. Yes, there are signs on foods listing what is permissible. Sometimes foods do not "pass" at the register even though the person on WIC has attempted very hard to choose an item which is on the list and "follow the rules". Also, the listing of foods is very specific and narrow, which is overly restrictive. There are some choices to be made but not as many as could be offered.

 

It is a "broken" system in that the documentation needed to qualify and the way the offices go about gathering this documentation is inefficient. It is also a "one size fits all" approach, in that participants must attend nutrition classes in order to continue to receive benefits which amount to about $40 worth of food per month. It is a high cost for a low return, both for clients and for the program. It is most likely less abused than the food stamps program, but that is just my guess, not based on any research.

 

WIC is meant to be supplementary nutrition only, and it serves a narrow population, pregnant women and children five and under. The income guidelines for qualification are higher than food stamps, as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many view the WIC program as successful. I have seen it defended in this thread. Why would it be bad to change the FS system to mimic WIC? That's all I'm suggesting.

 

1) Cost

 

Cost to the taxpayers/government and cost to store owners.

 

WIC covers such a small number of categories that the labor involved is much less than if something comparable were done with food stamps.

 

2) Logistics

 

Connected to cost, but... oh, my, can you imagine the amount of work it would take to make up the list of what is and isn't covered?

 

WIC, aiui, only covers very specific things: product x in size y from brand z, and *everything* covered has to be, aiui, nationally available.

 

Just that level of research is enormous.

 

Ensuring that a family without access to an actual supermarket can still have something to eat.

 

WIC doesn't have a fixed dollar amount, it has a ceiling for each coupon, aiui, so it might cover a gallon of milk and a pound of dried beans and a pound of carrots - the costs would be higher at a gas station convenience store than at a supermarket, frex, but they are set up to provide a certain amount of specific things.

 

3) Effectiveness

 

I am not at all convinced that a WIC-like food stamps program would accomplish anything positive... let alone enough positive to justify all the extra expense.

 

I think WIC is enormously flawed, and one of the flaws, as I expressed up-thread, is that is trying to do two very different things, and, imho, not doing either of them very well.

 

4) Priorities

 

I want to see energy (and money) going into improving food security, into educational outreach, into making lasting improvements, not in trying to legislate better eating habits.

 

 

 

...but if a WIC-like food stamps program is something you support, please, please, please, support doing it as well as possible! ...with appropriate research and support. ...I hate to think of people left hungry after such a well intentioned reform because things weren't thought through well enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Many view the WIC program as successful. I have seen it defended in this thread. Why would it be bad to change the FS system to mimic WIC? That's all I'm suggesting.

 

Here is a list of foods you can/can not get under WIC

 

1. A lot of families with allergies/food intolerances have trouble with this list.

 

2. Some of it doesn't even make sense! You can buy junk cereal, but not white potatoes? Why can't you buy dried fruit? It can be a great source of iron.

 

3. It doesn't take into account ease of cooking. A lot of people on food stamps don't have access to a real kitchen.

 

4. It doesn't cover fresh meat.

 

5. Again, these are not all items that can be easily found at small inner city grocery stores. Go to a 7-11 and see how many of the items on this list you can find. *No* substituting, you can't get white or wheat bread instead of whole grain, for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My dd is allergic to dairy, so cheese/milk/formula vouchers aren't really that helpful for us. As a result (plus the many "check-ups" you need just to qualify for that handful of food) I've never used WIC and can't comment knowledgeably on its efficacy.

 

WIC offers soy options now, but a doctor must sign a note for a child to receive this option rather than dairy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No. It seems responsible.

 

It sees pretty irresponsible to me to make blind cuts without any consideration of logistics.

 

 

All we need is a bunch of mental/elderly patients on the streets because people just make cuts without any consideration of consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...