Cheryl in NM Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I am flabbergasted at this post. I could list the activities I (and my DH) participated in while on assistance, but I won't. What I will share is that my perspective on living responsibly, people "in the system", people "in need", and their lifestyles changed radically in the last 5 years. I no longer assume that my choices are rare, superior, or that others make lesser choices. Joanne, I'm truly sorry. I didn't say my choices are superior. I just think that what I described would help people more than the current system. Please accept my apologies, I didn't mean to make you feel less than. I don't even want to make the abusers of the system feel less than. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 BTW, I don't think any of us were saying that any kid "deserves" anything. In my case, I'm saying that I'm not going to dictate what a grandparent gifts. I'm also not going to intentionally offend the grandparents by selling something they gave my children. Yes, if we were destitute, the grandparents would help out, but we have worked our butts off to pay our own bills. They've helped in the past when we were younger. But having bills or being part of the working poor does not mean that my children are not permitted to be gifted nice things...particularly if it's a rare thing. Yes, I understand the pp's frustration with needing help and then being showered with only frivolous things. That would be an issue. But at the same time, I would not be unkind to the gifter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KristinaBreece Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 BTW, I don't think any of us were saying that any kid "deserves" anything. In my case, I'm saying that I'm not going to dictate what a grandparent gifts. I'm also not going to intentionally offend the grandparents by selling something they gave my children. Yes, if we were destitute, the grandparents would help out, but we have worked our butts off to pay our own bills. They've helped in the past when we were younger. But having bills or being part of the working poor does not mean that my children are not permitted to be gifted nice things...particularly if it's a rare thing. Yes, I understand the pp's frustration with needing help and then being showered with only frivolous things. That would be an issue. But at the same time, I would not be unkind to the gifter. And you said in one post what I couldn't effectively communicate in several. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm having a hard time seeing this whole things in terms of dignity. There is nothing undignified about needing help or accepting help. There is also nothing inherently undignifying about attaching stipulations to help that is given. The same is true of just about anything else people choose to avail themselves of: jobs have stipulations, parks and libraries have stipulations, schools have stipulations, auto registrations (in our state) have stipulations that you need to have insurance in order to be registered ... anyone is free to find an alternative if they don't like the choices offered. I completely agree that people on foodstamps generally contribute tax dollars as well; it's not the wealthier, better-educated, superior "we" who give to the poor, dumb, lesser-than "them"; it's everyone collectively pitching in to help those who find themselves in need. I know plenty of people on food stamps who feed their families well. I know plenty of people who don't get food stamps who feed their families crap. So be it. However, if we are going to use our tax dollars to provide food to people, I think we should demand that the recipients receive high-quality food--not because I am the nutrition police but because I think people deserve it, and I stand by my earlier statement that if food stamps were limited to healthier options, food providers in areas that serve a high proportion of food-stamp recipients would adjust their stock accordingly. Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I am flabbergasted at this post. I could list the activities I (and my DH) participated in while on assistance, but I won't. What I will share is that my perspective on living responsibly, people "in the system", people "in need", and their lifestyles changed radically in the last 5 years. I no longer assume that my choices are rare, superior, or that others make lesser choices. And not everyone is able to do everything listed. Many cities don't permit livestock. Many city yards aren't big enough for a garden or able to sustain a garden (one house we are looking at has a neighbours oak tree hanging over...it has destroyed all grass in the yard with it's acid). I used to have a couple of home businesses, but I no longer have the time...I can only be stretched so far and my children's education comes first (eventually I hope to have my own business again). Yes, each situation is different and we cannot judge others by what WE have done or can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm having a hard time seeing this whole things in terms of dignity. There is also nothing inherently undignifying about attaching stipulations to help that is given. Tara If you'd like the answer, it lies in stripping the recipient of her (or his) ability to make autonomous, adult choices for their family. Imposing (debatable, arbitrary, and inconistent) restrictions on families that qualify patronizes them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embassy Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I know there is often concern about misuse of tax dollars. Why do we seem to have such a hard time with a person on food stamps buying something we wouldn't spend money purchasing? Is it because it is in front of our face at the supermarket? In reality the amount spent helping the poor is nothing compared to the amount our governement spends helping the rich. Why don't we get into a tizzy about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyWifeandMommy Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 So, should the commissary remove all unhealthy foods from their shelves and stop subsidizing those items for us? When we lived in Hawaii I shopped almost exclusively at the commissary because it cost about half of what it would at a local store. Should they only do that for healthy items? The commissary isn't goverment aid. It's not even comparable to the food stamps. I seldomed shopped at the commissary stateside because it cost more than Walmart or Food Lion. I use it now because we are overseas but even than I rather go out in town for the fresh veggies/fruits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I completely agree that people on foodstamps generally contribute tax dollars as well; it's not the wealthier, better-educated, superior "we" who give to the poor, dumb, lesser-than "them"; it's everyone collectively pitching in to help those who find themselves in need. I know plenty of people on food stamps who feed their families well. I know plenty of people who don't get food stamps who feed their families crap. So be it. However, if we are going to use our tax dollars to provide food to people, I think we should demand that the recipients receive high-quality food--not because I am the nutrition police but because I think people deserve it, and I stand by my earlier statement that if food stamps were limited to healthier options, food providers in areas that serve a high proportion of food-stamp recipients would adjust their stock accordingly. Tara My issue with this is who decides what is healthy? Vegetarians? Vegans? People who swear that eliminating dairy is healthiest? People who think grains are poison? Are hot dogs Ok? What about all - beef, no nitrate/no nitrite hot dogs? White bread? Juice? Go - gurt? Cheese crackers? Saltines? Ritz crackers? Goldfish crackers? Pretzels? Bacon? Red meat? And while it is admirable to want to "teach" food stamp recipients how to eat healthy, it is also the epitomy of flat out insulting. You are poor, let me dictate what is Ok for you to eat. I am rich and will eat whatever garbage I deem Ok. But I am using "my own money" and you are using "my tax dollars," not the tax dollars you pay or paid in already. It is a very slippery slope. Right now, health insurance is based on the whole. Well, I don't want *anyone* filling their bodies with garbage, drinking, and smoking, and costing me more money through premiums and higher health care costs, so let's just educate everyone on healthy habits. Wait, let's make junk food and cigarettes illegal. They are killing us (as a nation) and costing us *all* a fortune. Oh, no, that won't work. What with the lobbies and subsidies and all... :glare: It is SUCH a huge problem and it is attempting to put a band aid on a gaping wound. End subsidies. Make cigarettes illegal. But that infringes on "free choice." We live in a free country where we are allowed to make the very worst decisions about our lives. The cheapest foods (and the sales and the coupons) are SO often on garbage food. It is *awful.* But the corn subsidies ensure that gravy train keeps right on chugging along. Taking junk off of food stamps does nothing. It doesn't make anyone healthier. It is a way to make "TPTB" show that they are being proactive on public health. Hogwash. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Also, out of curiousity, for those who want to see "junk food" banned from being purshcased with food stamps, how would you "react" (internally, as I doubt anyone here would actually *react* in a grocery store!) if you saw a person in line in front of you buy fruits and veg with FS and then go on to purchase cookies and pop with cash? I can kind of see that thread starting like this: Do you KNOW what I saw today?! Someone used food stamps to get food and then bought junk with cash! If they have the cash for junk, they have the cash for food!!!! Just sayin'... (And my dd10 wears the *nicest* hand me downs EVER. I have a friend who has a friend who loves to shop for pricey cothing for her dd. When she outgrows it, my dd is the recipient, lucky girl! ;) But one could get confused if they saw her while I used my FS card. And we hardly receive any benefits, at all. Dh works LONG hours... ) I'd much rather see (and maybe even complain about) this than seeing a toddler running around with a baby bottle half full of Coke. I'm having a hard time seeing this whole things in terms of dignity. There is nothing undignified about needing help or accepting help. There is also nothing inherently undignifying about attaching stipulations to help that is given. The same is true of just about anything else people choose to avail themselves of: jobs have stipulations, parks and libraries have stipulations, schools have stipulations, auto registrations (in our state) have stipulations that you need to have insurance in order to be registered ... anyone is free to find an alternative if they don't like the choices offered. I completely agree that people on foodstamps generally contribute tax dollars as well; it's not the wealthier, better-educated, superior "we" who give to the poor, dumb, lesser-than "them"; it's everyone collectively pitching in to help those who find themselves in need. I know plenty of people on food stamps who feed their families well. I know plenty of people who don't get food stamps who feed their families crap. So be it. However, if we are going to use our tax dollars to provide food to people, I think we should demand that the recipients receive high-quality food--not because I am the nutrition police but because I think people deserve it, and I stand by my earlier statement that if food stamps were limited to healthier options, food providers in areas that serve a high proportion of food-stamp recipients would adjust their stock accordingly. Tara :iagree: I wish all food providers would adjust their stock to higher quality foods no matter the recipient. Yes, each situation is different and we cannot judge others by what WE have done or can do. Exactly! Edited June 2, 2011 by Parrothead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoforjoy Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 My issue with this is who decides what is healthy? Vegetarians? Vegans? People who swear that eliminating dairy is healthiest? People who think grains are poison? Are hot dogs Ok? What about all - beef, no nitrate/no nitrite hot dogs? White bread? Juice? Go - gurt? Cheese crackers? Saltines? Ritz crackers? Goldfish crackers? Pretzels? Bacon? Red meat? And while it is admirable to want to "teach" food stamp recipients how to eat healthy, it is also the epitomy of flat out insulting. You are poor, let me dictate what is Ok for you to eat. I am rich and will eat whatever garbage I deem Ok. But I am using "my own money" and you are using "my tax dollars," not the tax dollars you pay or paid in already. :iagree: Do we want other people making decisions for us about what food our family should or shouldn't be able to eat, should we fall on hard times? I also think it's insulting to assume that poor people don't know how to eat okay. I mean, if a family was using all of their food stamp money on soda and chips, yes, that would indicate a problem. But I really don't think that a family buying a bottle of soda along with a bunch of nutrient-rich foods signals either that they are too stupid to know how to eat right or that they are doing damage to their children, or should be something that concerns any of us. Should my employer get to decide how I spend my income? After all, it's *their* money. What about my students? Their tuition pays for my income. Should they get to say what I can or can't spend it on? The whole "it's not really their money thing" just rubs me the wrong way. How about we get outraged over the increase in the number of people receiving food stamps, because the jobs being created right now pay so poorly that you can't support a family on them? That seems like it would be far more productive than getting angry because somebody dares to buy a bottle of soda using "your" tax dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Chucki, I am confused. :confused: What does a baby with a bottle full of coke have to do with anything? Do only welfare/food stamp recipients give babies bottles of cr*p to drink? Not IME. There are a lot of things I would rather see dicussed, like how to help people, how to improve the quality of life for seniors without families, how to end child abuse... Honestly, not being snarky, I don't get what your point is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Chucki, I am confused. :confused: What does a baby with a bottle full of coke have to do with anything? Do only welfare/food stamp recipients give babies bottles of cr*p to drink? Not IME. There are a lot of things I would rather see dicussed, like how to help people, how to improve the quality of life for seniors without families, how to end child abuse... Honestly, not being snarky, I don't get what your point is... Here's a thread on how to help. It IS being discussed. You are welcome to start threads regarding the other topics you wish to see discussed. If this thread isn't your cup of tea then ignore it. I'm truly not being snarky either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Isn't this entire thread about not buying soda with foodstamps? I'm saying I'd much rather see people buying whole healthy foods for their families with food stamps than buying Coke for their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Here's a thread on how to help. It IS being discussed. You are welcome to start threads regarding the other topics you wish to see discussed. If this thread isn't your cup of tea then ignore it. I'm truly not being snarky either. :confused: I said in my post that I thought how a thread would go, Chucki replied she would rather XYZ be discussed, I asked for clarity b/c if we are talking about what we would rather discuss, I have a whole list. Your reply makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 :confused: I said in my post that I thought how a thread would go, Chucki replied she would rather XYZ be discussed, I asked for clarity b/c if we are talking about what we would rather discuss, I have a whole list. Your reply makes no sense. She was talking about FS recipients filling baby bottles with Coke. Did you not understand that? She didn't say she'd rather discuss something not involved with this thread. You did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Chucki replied she would rather XYZ be discussed, .... Hmmm.... no I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 She was talking about FS recipients filling baby bottles with Coke. Did you not understand that? She didn't say she'd rather discuss something not involved with this thread. You did. I addressed that. :confused: Plenty of people who AREN'T on FS give their babies cr*p in bottles. I said that. She implied that only the "poor" do that. Wrong. Many do. Please read my whole post, each one pertaining to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I addressed that. :confused: Plenty of people who AREN'T on FS give their babies cr*p in bottles. I said that. She implied that only the "poor" do that. Wrong. Many do. Please read my whole post, each one pertaining to this. No, I didn't imply that poor people are the only ones giving babies/toddlers soda. Again, the thread is about food stamp recipients being able to buy soda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 You are right, Chucki. You said you would rather discuss what people buy rather than discuss babies with coke in their bottles. But no one ever said anything about any baby, much less a fs baby, with coke in its bottle. It was confusing and to me, insulting, as if only poor people make poor food choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 No, I didn't imply that poor people are the only ones giving babies/toddlers soda. Again, the thread is about food stamp recipients being able to buy soda. Yeah, so why the reference to babies with coke in their bottles???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Okay, I'll say this time I'll say it slowly. From a few posts back. I'll quote myself. Then I have to go to to a class. Isn't this entire thread about not buying soda with foodstamps? I'm saying I'd much rather see people buying whole healthy foods for their families with food stamps than buying Coke for their families. Which was what was referred to in the post I quoted about the babies drinking coke from a bottle. Did you read that entire post earlier? ETA: This as a refresher: : Originally Posted by cindergretta Also, out of curiousity, for those who want to see "junk food" banned from being purshcased with food stamps, how would you "react" (internally, as I doubt anyone here would actually *react* in a grocery store!) if you saw a person in line in front of you buy fruits and veg with FS and then go on to purchase cookies and pop with cash? I can kind of see that thread starting like this: Do you KNOW what I saw today?! Someone used food stamps to get food and then bought junk with cash! If they have the cash for junk, they have the cash for food!!!! Just sayin'... (And my dd10 wears the *nicest* hand me downs EVER. I have a friend who has a friend who loves to shop for pricey cothing for her dd. When she outgrows it, my dd is the recipient, lucky girl! ;) But one could get confused if they saw her while I used my FS card. And we hardly receive any benefits, at all. Dh works LONG hours... ) I'd much rather see (and maybe even complain about) this than seeing a toddler running around with a baby bottle half full of Coke. Edited June 2, 2011 by Parrothead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) Okay, I found GB and SC in kilts, but how do I post the pics? We need some tension release here! Alright, I think I got it! :chillpill: and enjoy! Edited June 2, 2011 by Cheryl in NM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Yes, also speaking slowly. :glare: I read that AFTER your post about babies with coke in their bottles. Very slowly now... Why the reference to babies with coke in their bottles? What did that have to do with anything, except to "imply" that poor people on fs put coke in their babies bottles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Yes, also speaking slowly. :glare: I read that AFTER your post about babies with coke in their bottles. Very slowly now... Why the reference to babies with coke in their bottles? What did that have to do with anything, except to "imply" that poor people on fs put coke in their babies bottles? Oh, for the love of all that is holy! I'll never convince you that I was NOT being derogatory to poor people so I'm done trying to convince you otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Oh for the love of lipstick!!! :glare: I didn't understand. I said I didn't understand. You have never said anything other than I am not reading what you wrote correctly. You have offered *no* clarification. You don't need to clarify or explain. That is your right. It read very insulting to me so I asked for clarification since I didn't think you were trying to be. Now, I am not so sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 to foodstamp recipients. 47% of working Americans pay no federal income taxes. They pay FICA (social security/medicare/workers comp) but not federal taxes. Food stamp funding comes from federal funding. A family of four making less than about $50,000 annually pays no federal income tax. Also my hubby's dime, who's working full-time and paying taxes to support it, and my own dime for years of taxpaying up until August of last year. I'm quite fine paying taxes to help out others, and to now be helped out by it for a while until hubby finishes his degree. If they chose to regulate those, so be it, but if they give me X amount for food stamps and I feed my family well and have enough left for some ice cream, I don't see that as a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 She was talking about FS recipients filling baby bottles with Coke. Did you not understand that? She didn't say she'd rather discuss something not involved with this thread. You did. Here, this was helpful. You two seem to be in agreement. She and I aren't. Yet she read it the way I did but I didn't think that was actually what you meant!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 to foodstamp recipients. 47% of working Americans pay no federal income taxes. They pay FICA (social security/medicare/workers comp) but not federal taxes. Food stamp funding comes from federal funding. A family of four making less than about $50,000 annually pays no federal income tax. People in the lowest income stanine pay a bigger percentage of their income in federal taxes (not income taxes, but other federal taxes) than those in the highest. I am at tennis, but if you do an advanced search under my name with the word stanine you are sure to find a reference or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakotajm Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I have no problem limiting what people can buy with food stamps. I'm pretty liberal, but no one is forced to use food stamps, so if you choose to use them (which is totally cool with me and I am fine with my tax dollars being used to support the food stamp program) you agree to the limitations. WIC has a ton of restrictions on what you can buy, and no one gets all up in arms about that. (Well, except for my friend who was vegan and had a degree in nutrition and was told by her WIC office that she wasn't buying enough milk, so her kids weren't getting enough calcium, and when she talked to them about leafy greens, tofu, and almonds, they acted like she had three heads and lectured her about appropriate food choices.) I would be fine with limiting food stamps to actual food and not junk masquerading as food. Won't happen though, as the junk food lobby is too powerful. Tara Choose to use food stamps? Huh? Like someone just goes "Gee, I think I'd like to use food stamps"? Have you ever been on FS? Most people who are on FS are on it because the other "choice" is not eating often enough. And what's up with thinking if you are on FS you don't have the right to be human and have ice cream every now and again? Also, what about birthday parties? That is one of the few times my kids get to have junk. And you are buying for more than just a few, making it costly. So I should just explain to the kids that they get bran muffins and 100% juice because you folks would like them to eat healthier? Lovely. (And I am not actually on FS-but I have been.) I agree with the idiocy of WIC. I have peanut, dairy and wheat allergies. And try to limit animal products in our diet. I got the same lectures. I totally agree on principle, but can we consider things like b-days and halloween? Maybe a monthly quota on such items? Like extra for Halloween and Easter and Christmas, less for most months? I dunno-just trying to inject a little perspective here. Lakota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPlaceLikeHome Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I know there is often concern about misuse of tax dollars. Why do we seem to have such a hard time with a person on food stamps buying something we wouldn't spend money purchasing? Is it because it is in front of our face at the supermarket? In reality the amount spent helping the poor is nothing compared to the amount our governement spends helping the rich. Why don't we get into a tizzy about that? :iagree::iagree::iagree::D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cat Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 There are a lot of things food stamps should not be allowed for and this is one of them. Food stamps should be used for FOOD! Soda is not a food! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classical Book Worm Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I wasn't able to read every response, but a lot of the points brought up have to do with the increased commercialization of food and our changing food culture. I grew up without soda (except for special occasions) and just about all junk food. Not only could my family not afford it, but also there wasn't the sense that people needed or deserved it. Snacking wasn't prevalent. You ate your meals, and that was it. We didn't snack regularly, and if we did, we made a sandwhich or grabbed a piece of fruit. A treat was the occassional ice cream, not something that was regularly stocked in the pantry or experienced daily. I came of age in the 80s, too by the way. Not during the Great Depression. :) My husband and I also did without while putting ourselves through college. We lived in a "bad" part of the city, and spent less on food than what food stamp allotments would have been. We were able to make good choices at our ghetto grocery store.:D The difference was not money, but education and the willingness to sacrifice. I don't think it's too difficult to draw food boundaries without getting into reductive arguments or shrill "rights" stances. When my church (not a goverment entity, obviously) supports meals for various ministries, it doesn't call for soda and Doritos to supplement diets. It asks for spaghetti and sauce, canned tuna, salad dressing, canned fruits and vegetables, peanut butter, applesauce cups, Cheerios, oatmeal, 100% juice, and granola bars. Those are all reasonable food items that don't seem to violate the givers (even the vegans) or the dignity of the recipients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 If you'd like the answer, it lies in stripping the recipient of her (or his) ability to make autonomous, adult choices for their family. Imposing (debatable, arbitrary, and inconistent) restrictions on families that qualify patronizes them. I'm not trying to be insensitive or deliberately obtuse. I simply disagree. I was a social worker for many years, and I heard this argument many times. I just disagree with it. Alcohol is a beverage. It cannot be purchased with food stamps. If they can arbitrarily exclude alcohol, why not soda? Is it patronizing to say that someone cannot use food stamps for alcohol? I don't think it is. No one forces people to accept food stamps or dictates what people can eat. Restricting what food stamps can be spent on is not the same as telling people what they can and can't eat. And while it is admirable to want to "teach" food stamp recipients how to eat healthy, it is also the epitomy of flat out insulting. You are poor, let me dictate what is Ok for you to eat. I am rich and will eat whatever garbage I deem Ok. But I am using "my own money" and you are using "my tax dollars," not the tax dollars you pay or paid in already. I hope that is not what you got from my post, because I specifically pointed out that I don't view food stamp recipients as dumb or people who don't contribute tax dollars. Taking junk off of food stamps does nothing. I don't believe that. I honestly believe that stores that serve large proportions of food stamp recipients would improve their offerings if food stamps could only be spent on certain items. And as I live in a city that definitely suffers from the "convenience store grocery" problem, I think it would be a good step toward helping people have access to the food they want, not the food they are limited to by corporations and their bottom lines. I guess it's a case of agree to disagree. Should my employer get to decide how I spend my income? After all, it's *their* money. No, it's not. People agree to trade labor for wages. The employer gets the labor, and the employee gets the wages. The wages do NOT belong to the employer. Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I do find it hilarious that the minor fraction of the federal budget that makes up the food stamp portion causes SO many people to get SO wound up. :001_huh: You could entirely eliminate the program and it wouldn't make a dent. Really? $56 billion (in FY 2009)? That's a drop in any size bucket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest momk2000 Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I don't think any junk foods should be allowed with food stamps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheryl in NM Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Also, what about birthday parties? That is one of the few times my kids get to have junk. And you are buying for more than just a few, making it costly. So I should just explain to the kids that they get bran muffins and 100% juice because you folks would like them to eat healthier? Lovely. (And I am not actually on FS-but I have been.) ..... I totally agree on principle, but can we consider things like b-days and halloween? Maybe a monthly quota on such items? Like extra for Halloween and Easter and Christmas, less for most months? I dunno-just trying to inject a little perspective here. Lakota I really can't believe it! Food stamps are to fill the gap for your family NOT to feed others at your child's bday party or to provide goodies for halloween! The FS should take enough stress off your budget so you can save for your child's bday party and halloween goodies. This is just so appalling to me! It is the epitome of the sense of entitlement that I've been talking about all day. FS is for the family that went to the office and qualified for it to feed their family NOT to provide food to others! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Choose to use food stamps? Huh? Like someone just goes "Gee, I think I'd like to use food stamps"? Yes, it's a choice. Perhaps not an easy or fun one, but life is full of hard and unfun choices. I make hard and unfun choices every day, and my family is not rolling in money. My husband hasn't worked full time in nine months. I'm not a stranger to financial hardship. My point was that no one is forced to accept food stamps, so restricting what food stamps can be used to purchase does not equal telling people what they can and cannot eat. Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 All I'm saying is that I wish I could use my flex spending health care account for that. It would help my cardio, for sure. Okay, I found GB and SC in kilts, but how do I post the pics? We need some tension release here! Alright, I think I got it! :chillpill: and enjoy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 Really? $56 billion (in FY 2009)? That's a drop in any size bucket. That is a lot. In 2010, 14% of the federal budget was used for "safety net programs," including food stamps, SSI, school lunch programs, low income housing assistance, low income child care assistance, assistance for energy bills, assistance for children dealing with abuse and neglect, etc. So 14% of the whole budget goes for ALL of these programs plus... That 14% was $496 billion.... Eliminate the (I think??) $68 billion in 2010 and that still leaves you with $428 billion, which goes back to my original point that the food stamp budget is a drop in the bucket of the over all, and safety net, budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embassy Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 If it were up to me I'll snag all the bailout corporate bonuses and purchase a grocery cart full of soda for every poor family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stacy in NJ Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 (edited) FICA is specific to social security, medicare, and disability - ONLY. People in the lowest income stanine pay a bigger percentage of their income in federal taxes (not income taxes, but other federal taxes) than those in the highest. I am at tennis, but if you do an advanced search under my name with the word stanine you are sure to find a reference or two. Soooo, they may pay federal income tax in the form of FICA. FICA pays into ONLY social security, medicare, and disability - NOT into the general fund. The federal gov. funds Food Stamps via the Dept. of Agriculture which receives all of it's funds from the general fund (both personal and corporate income taxes). Sooo, unless they are paying INCOME taxes they are NOT "paying into" Food Stamps. Edited June 3, 2011 by Stacy in NJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristineW Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 I'm not trying to be insensitive or deliberately obtuse. I simply disagree. I was a social worker for many years, and I heard this argument many times. I just disagree with it. Alcohol is a beverage. It cannot be purchased with food stamps. If they can arbitrarily exclude alcohol, why not soda? Is it patronizing to say that someone cannot use food stamps for alcohol? I don't think it is. No one forces people to accept food stamps or dictates what people can eat. Restricting what food stamps can be spent on is not the same as telling people what they can and can't eat. I hope that is not what you got from my post, because I specifically pointed out that I don't view food stamp recipients as dumb or people who don't contribute tax dollars. I don't believe that. I honestly believe that stores that serve large proportions of food stamp recipients would improve their offerings if food stamps could only be spent on certain items. And as I live in a city that definitely suffers from the "convenience store grocery" problem, I think it would be a good step toward helping people have access to the food they want, not the food they are limited to by corporations and their bottom lines. I guess it's a case of agree to disagree. No, it's not. People agree to trade labor for wages. The employer gets the labor, and the employee gets the wages. The wages do NOT belong to the employer. Tara I totally agree. I have no problem with using food stamps to buy organic strawberries and milk or sustainably-raised meat. I wouldn't even eliminate ice cream, but Diet Coke is not food nor is anything else where "natural flavoring" is the only natural ingredient. Food stamps should be for food. Christine W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted June 2, 2011 Share Posted June 2, 2011 So 14% of the whole budget goes for ALL of these programs plus... That 14% was $496 billion.... Eliminate the (I think??) $68 billion in 2010 and that still leaves you with $428 billion, which goes back to my original point that the food stamp budget is a drop in the bucket of the over all, and safety net, budget. I agree I'd rather see tax money go to help people in need than line the pockets of CEOs and pols, but $500 billion is still a huge chunk of change in light of the $3 trillion+ deficit we're facing. If it were up to me I'll snag all the bailout corporate bonuses and purchase a grocery cart full of soda for every poor family. I doubt you'll find anyone here who thinks those b*st*rds should have got a dime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I really can't believe it! Food stamps are to fill the gap for your family NOT to feed others at your child's bday party or to provide goodies for halloween! The FS should take enough stress off your budget so you can save for your child's bday party and halloween goodies. This is just so appalling to me! It is the epitome of the sense of entitlement that I've been talking about all day. FS is for the family that went to the office and qualified for it to feed their family NOT to provide food to others! I think your holier than though judgemental atitude is appaling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I agree I'd rather see tax money go to help people in need than line the pockets of CEOs and pols, but $500 billion is still a huge chunk of change in light of the $3 trillion+ deficit we're facing. Yes, but food stamps only account for 68 of that 500 billion. And that 500 billion only accounts for 14%. An important 14%, to be sure! But not the 14% I am likely to stake my life on. IOW, not my hill. ;) (And since I am being lazy, I have no idea what the percentage 68 is of the over all budget or the safety net budget.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clarkacademy Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 Yes, it's a choice. Perhaps not an easy or fun one, but life is full of hard and unfun choices. I make hard and unfun choices every day, and my family is not rolling in money. My husband hasn't worked full time in nine months. I'm not a stranger to financial hardship. My point was that no one is forced to accept food stamps, so restricting what food stamps can be used to purchase does not equal telling people what they can and cannot eat. Tara So the disabled child who requires full time care chose that? He chose to get food stamps. The mother who lost her teaching job and husband took off chose that? You are out of your mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Embassy Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I doubt you'll find anyone here who thinks those b*st*rds should have got a dime. But our government has consistently over time done things that would financially benefit the rich and we argue about a few dollars that a poor family spends on soda. Seems rather ludicrous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mejane Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 So the disabled child who requires full time care chose that? He chose to get food stamps. The mother who lost her teaching job and husband took off chose that? You are out of your mind Nice. Tara is pointing out that some people, including herself, do choose not to exercise the option of receiving benefits. I know several people as well who qualify but don't use them. It is a choice, whether you want to believe it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cindergretta Posted June 3, 2011 Share Posted June 3, 2011 I totally agree. I have no problem with using food stamps to buy organic strawberries and milk or sustainably-raised meat. I wouldn't even eliminate ice cream, but Diet Coke is not food nor is anything else where "natural flavoring" is the only natural ingredient. Food stamps should be for food. Christine W The problem is, there are a LOT of people who do NOT think FS recipients should be allowed to buy organic and free range, etc. "If I can't afford it for my family, why should they get it?" And that is kind of the point. Who gets to decide what is Ok and what isn't? I am all for labeling soda as non - food, by the way. We pay tax on it in my state, and we don't pay tax on food. ;) OTOH, when my state (briefly) tried to tax candy, what a JOKE!! Red Vines were NOT on the taxable candy list because they have flour in them!!!!!! :001_huh: But yogurt covered raisins were candy! So, you can see what a Hollywood production it would be to get anyone to agree on what is junk and what isn't. <sigh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts