Food Stamps at restaurants?

[Mom in High Heels]

Have you heard about this? Yum Foods, who owns KFC, Long John Silver, Taco Bell and a few other chains wants people on food stamps to be able to use them at their restaurants. Wouldn't that cost too much?

I have nothing against food stamps at all, but I don't think they should be used at a fast food restaurant. The money spent on one meal could go a lot further at the grocery store. I'm not saying I think people on fs don't deserve to go out every now and then, but I don't think fs should be used for it.

Thoughts?

[SKL]

Oh sure, no problem. Yet another tax-funded program to help people become less healthy and less happy.

 

Not much different from the school lunch program though, if you think about it.

[TXMomof4]

I didn't think FS could be used for prepared foods - even at the grocery store. Right? No rotisserie chicken, no prepared pizzas, etc. I'm not sure how Taco Bell would fit in there....

[SKL]

I have a couple of questions for the proponents:

 

1) How exactly does one prove one is homeless?

 

2) Who says that you have to "cook" if you get your food at a grocery store? I hardly ever cook and all my grocery purchases would be food stamp eligible if I qualified.

[Annie G]

I don't understand all the convoluted rules, but I do know that people can use their food stamps at Walmart for a decorated cake. I makes cakes there part time and I can't begin to tell you how many $38 specialty cakes I have done for people on food stamps. I'm talking about the stacked cakes with Toy Story toys and such. We ask customers to pay for those in advance because it's no fun getting stuck with them if the customer bails- and they can use food stamps. I know because we staple the receipt to the order and it shows payment method.

 

How is a decorated cake different than a rotisserie chicken? I'd rather they be allowed to buy the chicken. I can see elderly people, disabled, and homeless benefitting from buying prepared food, and some prepared food is better than others, but where do you draw the line?

[tearose]

I don't understand all the convoluted rules, but I do know that people can use their food stamps at Walmart for a decorated cake. I makes cakes there part time and I can't begin to tell you how many $38 specialty cakes I have done for people on food stamps. I'm talking about the stacked cakes with Toy Story toys and such. We ask customers to pay for those in advance because it's no fun getting stuck with them if the customer bails- and they can use food stamps. I know because we staple the receipt to the order and it shows payment method.

 

How is a decorated cake different than a rotisserie chicken? I'd rather they be allowed to buy the chicken. I can see elderly people, disabled, and homeless benefitting from buying prepared food, and some prepared food is better than others, but where do you draw the line?

 

I think that eligibility depends on the temperature of the food, and hot foods aren't allowed. Prepared coleslaw, for instance, would be okay, but hot/warm rotisserie chicken isn't. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

[SKL]

I don't understand all the convoluted rules, but I do know that people can use their food stamps at Walmart for a decorated cake.

 

Ugh. I wonder how that happens. Maybe it's categorized along with store-baked bread, which is generally a reasonable purchase.

 

There are people who do not receive food stamps who are lucky to have a home-baked cake for their kids' birthdays. So now I have another thing to be irked about.

[serabi]

Ugh. I wonder how that happens. Maybe it's categorized along with store-baked bread, which is generally a reasonable purchase.

 

There are people who do not receive food stamps who are lucky to have a home-baked cake for their kids' birthdays. So now I have another thing to be irked about.

 

poverty isn't exactly fun. why begrudge someone who gets enough food stamps to squeak out a fun cake for their kid the cake?

[2_girls_mommy]

I think it is the temperature that is the thing... no hot foods. Is taco bell going to serve them uncooked burritoes? I guess they want the rules changed so they can have some of that $. I can't see how this would happen ever.

[SeekingSimplicity]

I didn't think FS could be used for prepared foods - even at the grocery store. Right? No rotisserie chicken, no prepared pizzas, etc. I'm not sure how Taco Bell would fit in there....

 

We can only buy cold prepared foods like the 'lunch boxes' groceries have made up with a sandwich, chips and cookie, or a premade cake. We can't buy hot prepared foods like chickens or lunch plates at the deli. However... you can order a pizza at a gas station around here and pay for it with ebt if you pay for it before the food is cooked. That way you;re paying for cold foods not prepared, hot pizza.

[----]

.

Edited October 21, 2011 by amana

[LittleIzumi]

We can only buy cold prepared foods like the 'lunch boxes' groceries have made up with a sandwich, chips and cookie, or a premade cake. We can't buy hot prepared foods like chickens or lunch plates at the deli. However... you can order a pizza at a gas station around here and pay for it with ebt if you pay for it before the food is cooked. That way you;re paying for cold foods not prepared, hot pizza.

 

Here you can get a take & bake pizza or sushi, but not a rotisserie chicken. Which is :confused: as a chicken will feed us for a couple of days, as opposed to a couple of bites of sushi. Ah well. I'm glad to have my food, period.

[Rivka]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

[WeeBeaks]

I think that eligibility depends on the temperature of the food, and hot foods aren't allowed. Prepared coleslaw, for instance, would be okay, but hot/warm rotisserie chicken isn't. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

How bizarre. I always end up shaking my head at the really strange laws we have in the US. Truly.

 

Good thing I read the WTM forums or I would never know this stuff. :tongue_smilie:

[jennynd]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

 

 

This is a good point. U always have people need the system and people who abuse system. 38 dollars cake and lobster rolls does seem excessive. we have good income and I never ever buy a 38 dollars cake nor lobster rolls. 10 dollar grocery cake seem just fine for a kids birthday.

But I do agree that elderly/disables who might not be able cook their own food will benefit from some hot prepared food

[elegantlion]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

 

Thank you.

 

Exactly

 

I'll just stand with Wendy, serabi, and others on this side of the line. :glare:

[scrapbookbuzz]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

 

And who's to determine that eligibility at the time of purchase? It's not exactly an easily enforced "rule."

 

There was a time I would have liked to have qualified for food stamps. They had even sent us an EBT card and THEN sent us a letter stating we didn't qualify. We've often been "stuck in the middle". I agree that the rules seem convoluted but really, just allow them to eat, regardless of where they purchase their food.

 

If you're going to get up in arms with "well, I pay those taxes!" I could easily turn around and say, "I'm a veteran. I spent time defending your freedom" and then make suggestions about how I think you should enjoy that freedom. But I won't. It is a FREE country, not a perfect one. Let the people eat.

[Parrothead]

I think it is the temperature that is the thing... no hot foods. Is taco bell going to serve them uncooked burritoes? I guess they want the rules changed so they can have some of that $. I can't see how this would happen ever.

That is is right there in bold. This company is not looking out for the wants/needs of the indigent. They are looking for another way to make a buck.

 

I don't care what people do with their FS after they get them.

[Rivka]

And who's to determine that eligibility at the time of purchase? It's not exactly an easily enforced "rule."

 

I would assume that it would be determined at the time of food stamps eligibility testing, and then encoded in the EBT card. I'm sure they wouldn't expect cashiers to determine whether someone is disabled.

[Annie G]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

 

That's a good point- I think I mentioned those groups in my rant about prepared birthday cakes. I know a lot of elderly people living alone and think they could stay independent longer if they could purchase some ready to eat foods rather than trying to cook for themselves all the time. When dh's grandfather was alive, we'd bring a meal of takeout food when we visited- and his eyes would light up.

[serabi]

yea, I really don't get why rotisserie chickens aren't allowed. those actually aren't a bad buy usually when compared to just buying a regular chicken and roasting it.

[FaithManor]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

 

 

This.

 

And I'd like to say that it still gripes me that the community center in the town over is not eligible to take food stamps. They put on a lovely, hot lunch every single day from November - March. There are usually two kinds of healthy, yummy, filling, body warming soups, some salad fixings, and one or two kinds of fresh fruit and they encourage people to take an apple or an orange with them when they leave. They are supported by those that sell at the local farmer's market and a couple of area greehouses, but still, they have to purchase supplies and on just about zero budget. All they charge is $2.00 a person or $5.00 per family. So, it would really make me see red if Taco Bell could get food stamps, but the wonderful people at the community center could not advertise to those that cannot cook. Shoot, there is even a community bus that runs a lunch route to bring those that have no transportation to the center. Things like this....that is what our tax dollars should be supporting.

 

But, again, in winter it is important for the elderly who may have little heat, those that are too disabled to cook, and the homeless to have warm food. I just feel that food stamp dollars would be far better spent running a kitchen with wholesome eats than for it to go into the pockets of fast food establishments.

 

Faith

[MrsBasil]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

 

Good points. I remember hearing a radio interview with a mom who left an abusive husband to live in a shelter. She qualified for food stamps and I recall her saying she wished she could have used them to take her kids to McD's or something once in a great while. She would have liked to give them some kind of normalcy while they adjusted to life in a shelter and without dad. I guess she had access to the kitchen at times, but food storage was an issue.

 

Anyway, for me it was good slap in the face since my knee jerk reaction to this was, "what a terrible idea."

 

I assume(and pray) living in a shelter=homeless?

[SKL]

Something is just very wrong with a system that taxes my kids to pay for a $38 birthday cake for someone else's kid - when I would never spend anywhere near that myself. And no, that does not make me an uncharitable person.

 

I hear this and then I hear that these folks can't afford apples and carrots. Come on.

 

ETA: As for "poverty isn't exactly fun": neither is working full-time, seven days per week, and still having to take money out of the kids' education fund to pay the tax bill.

 

PS, my kids don't eat at McDonalds (except in rare situations) or Taco Bell either. I wouldn't consider that needed "normalcy."

Edited October 21, 2011 by SKL

[kewb]

poverty isn't exactly fun. why begrudge someone who gets enough food stamps to squeak out a fun cake for their kid the cake?

 

:iagree:

 

However, I don't think you should be able to use food stamps at a restaurant.

[SKL]

Again, how do you prove homelessness?

[BatmansWife]

Have you heard about this? Yum Foods, who owns KFC, Long John Silver, Taco Bell and a few other chains wants people on food stamps to be able to use them at their restaurants. Wouldn't that cost too much?

I have nothing against food stamps at all, but I don't think they should be used at a fast food restaurant. The money spent on one meal could go a lot further at the grocery store. I'm not saying I think people on fs don't deserve to go out every now and then, but I don't think fs should be used for it.

Thoughts?

:iagree:

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

Was it going to turn into that? :confused: If anything...your comment is what would set that off. I'm trying not to be offended by that, but there are a lot of people (not all) on food stamps who are not lazy....poor, yes...but not lazy.

[elegantlion]

Something is just very wrong with a system that taxes my kids to pay for a $38 birthday cake for someone else's kid - when I would never spend anywhere near that myself. And no, that does not make me an uncharitable person.

 

I hear this and then I hear that these folks can't afford apples and carrots. Come on.

 

The money is given to the families to do as they choose with it, per what is allowable. Perhaps they bought a $38 cake (which I wouldn't do myself, but...) and lived on Ramen for a few weeks to budget it into their food stamps. To say they bought a cake and now can't afford apples and carrots is not valid. Perhaps they bought apples and carrots in addition to the cake.

 

Your taxes probably pay for lots of things you wouldn't chose to do. So do mine.

[kitten18]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

That's a really good point. I have no problem with it.

 

 

yea, I really don't get why rotisserie chickens aren't allowed. those actually aren't a bad buy usually when compared to just buying a regular chicken and roasting it.

I buy a rotisserie chicken every week at Sam's. I am always amazed at how many meals we get out of that one chicken, it is a great value.

[SKL]

To say they bought a cake and now can't afford apples and carrots is not valid. Perhaps they bought apples and carrots in addition to the cake.

 

 

I was referring to the popular rhetoric that people in poverty are overweight because they can't afford healthy food.

 

As for the target population of the proposal this thread is discussing - I wonder if it would make more sense to have a program similar to WIC, allowing limited types of hot prepared food (at grocery stores) for folks who specifically qualify under a narrow definition.

 

But again, I don't cook and my kids aren't dying, so I'm not convinced that hot food is as important as nutrition.

[Rivka]

Was it going to turn into that? :confused: If anything...your comment is what would set that off. I'm trying not to be offended by that, but there are a lot of people (not all) on food stamps who are not lazy....poor, yes...but not lazy.

 

I think food stamp threads online always do. I said "devolves" because I think it's an unfortunate tendency. But I do think it's pretty predictable that, given a mention of food stamps and restaurants, many people will be ready to complain about people who are too lazy or thriftless to cook.

 

For the record, I'm in full support of the food stamp program, and I'd be happy to pay higher taxes if it meant more families would be covered. And I don't give a d*mn how people budget their food stamp money - if they want to buy a cake or a jar of caviar or only rice and beans, it's none of my business. I understand, however, that my opinions on this subject aren't universal. Which is why food stamp threads get so extremely long.

 

AprilMay, I'm sorry that my response caused you pain.

[akmommy]

I think it is the temperature that is the thing... no hot foods. Is taco bell going to serve them uncooked burritoes? I guess they want the rules changed so they can have some of that $. I can't see how this would happen ever.

 

I just looked Alaska FS website and under items not allowed it does go on to say "items meant to be eaten in the store", I'm guessing that would cover most deli purchases.

 

food items that CAN BE purchased with food stamp BENEFITs

 

All food or food products meant to be eaten by people.

Vegetable seeds and food producing plants, roots, and trees. Also, seeds and plants to produce spices and herbs used in cooking foods.

Items considered "health foods" like wheat germ, brewers yeast, and seeds packaged to be eaten by people.

Baby formula, diabetic and diet foods.

Items used in preparing or preserving foods such as spices and herbs, pectin, and shortening.

Snack foods like candy, potato chips, chewing gum, and soft drinks.

Meals prepared for and delivered or served to elderly or disabled food stamp recipients if the public or private organization is authorized to accept food stamps.

Distilled water and ice, if labeled "For Human Consumption".

 

items that CANNOT BE purchased with food stamp BENEFITs

Alcoholic beverages and tobacco.

Nonfood items such as soap, toiletries, cleaning products, paper products, cooking utensils.

Items not meant to be eaten by people such as laundry starch, pet foods, seeds packaged as birdseed, and decorative dye; items for food preservations such as pressure cookers, canning jars and lids, paraffin freezer containers and wrapping paper.

Therapeutic products such as vitamins and minerals in any form.

All health aids such as aspirin, cough drops or syrups, and other cold remedies, antacids, and all patent medicines.

Items used for gardening such as fertilizer and peat moss.

Prepared hot foods and hot food products sold in grocery stores, that are hot at the time of sale and ready to be eaten immediately.

Any prepared food (hot or cold) sold and meant to be eaten at the store.

[6packofun]

:iagree:

 

However, I don't think you should be able to use food stamps at a restaurant.

 

I agree. Cake OK, restaurants NO. And we're on food stamps.

 

I'm OK with cutting out sugary drinks, too, but I don't feel as strongly about that as I do the restaurant thing. lol I'd be OK with cutting off "luxury" foods like filet mignon or lobster, but I also wish there were a way to allow hot foods AND vitamins/supplements...but can see how their might be "abuse" (whatever that could be) in those areas. I know these things would make it more complicated, though. It's so sticky!

Edited October 21, 2011 by 6packofun
...

[BatmansWife]

I think food stamp threads online always do. I said "devolves" because I think it's an unfortunate tendency. But I do think it's pretty predictable that, given a mention of food stamps and restaurants, many people will be ready to complain about people who are too lazy or thriftless to cook.

 

For the record, I'm in full support of the food stamp program, and I'd be happy to pay higher taxes if it meant more families would be covered. And I don't give a d*mn how people budget their food stamp money - if they want to buy a cake or a jar of caviar or only rice and beans, it's none of my business. I understand, however, that my opinions on this subject aren't universal. Which is why food stamp threads get so extremely long.

 

AprilMay, I'm sorry that my response caused you pain.

 

It's fine Rivka. Thanks for explaining.

:001_smile:

[elegantlion]

I was referring to the popular rhetoric that people in poverty are overweight because they can't afford healthy food.

 

 

 

Ah, that wasn't mentioned in your initial statement, thank you for the clarification of your thoughts.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I was referring to the popular rhetoric that people in poverty are overweight because they can't afford healthy food.

 

Clearly you don't understand the "popular rhetoric." Cost is a factor in some ares due to the lack of reasonably priced fruits and vegetables and/or people on food stamps being located far from grocery stores that offer a better variety of foods. The issues of food availability and quality for those on lower incomes is much more complex than you are implying.

 

As for the target population of the proposal this thread is discussing - I wonder if it would make more sense to have a program similar to WIC, allowing limited types of hot prepared food (at grocery stores) for folks who specifically qualify under a narrow definition.

 

That would help in some cases, but not all. In many neighborhoods it is much easier to find a Taco Bell than a grocery store with a deli.

 

But again, I don't cook and my kids aren't dying, so I'm not convinced that hot food is as important as nutrition.

 

I guess if you ignore the target audience and decide to intentionally misunderstand the purpose of the policy, then it becomes much easier to reach this conclusion.

[Mergath]

Something is just very wrong with a system that taxes my kids to pay for a $38 birthday cake for someone else's kid - when I would never spend anywhere near that myself. And no, that does not make me an uncharitable person.

 

I hear this and then I hear that these folks can't afford apples and carrots. Come on.

 

ETA: As for "poverty isn't exactly fun": neither is working full-time, seven days per week, and still having to take money out of the kids' education fund to pay the tax bill.

 

PS, my kids don't eat at McDonalds (except in rare situations) or Taco Bell either. I wouldn't consider that needed "normalcy."

 

There are quite a few people now sharing tiny hotel rooms with extended family that have no referigeration or means of cooking anything. Far more than you would think. And for them, being able to buy a hot meal now and then would be a big deal.

 

There are a lot of people that would be grateful to have the opportunity to work seven days a week. And to be able to have a college fund at all. If you're jealous of those living in poverty because they buy cakes and don't have to work all the time, I'm sure any one of them would trade with you in a second.

[In2why]

Something is just very wrong with a system that taxes my kids to pay for a $38 birthday cake for someone else's kid - when I would never spend anywhere near that myself. And no, that does not make me an uncharitable person.

 

I hear this and then I hear that these folks can't afford apples and carrots. Come on.

 

ETA: As for "poverty isn't exactly fun": neither is working full-time, seven days per week, and still having to take money out of the kids' education fund to pay the tax bill.

 

PS, my kids don't eat at McDonalds (except in rare situations) or Taco Bell either. I wouldn't consider that needed "normalcy."

 

 

Quite a few people on food stamps also work full time jobs. We qualified for food stamps while my father was in the military. Many families qualify for food stamps while working hard.

 

Once a person qualifies for food stamps what they do with them is really none of our business. I am just glad that they have the card now instead of the actually foodstamp money. That way nosey people who want to be judgemental about what is another person's cart have to work harder before they get indignant.

[LittleIzumi]

Something is just very wrong with a system that taxes my kids to pay for a $38 birthday cake for someone else's kid - when I would never spend anywhere near that myself. And no, that does not make me an uncharitable person.

 

I hear this and then I hear that these folks can't afford apples and carrots. Come on.

 

ETA: As for "poverty isn't exactly fun": neither is working full-time, seven days per week, and still having to take money out of the kids' education fund to pay the tax bill.

 

PS, my kids don't eat at McDonalds (except in rare situations) or Taco Bell either. I wouldn't consider that needed "normalcy."

 

I wouldn't buy a $38 cake with my food stamps anyway--that is a big chunk of my food stamps and I would like to actually eat food the entire month, esp feeding two kids with food allergies. Just because you technically "can" buy something with food stamps doesn't mean it's feasible. :)

[Nakia]

I think it says something about society when people will begrudge others food, period. How sad.

[SKL]

OK, people, again. I am not saying people on food stamps should not be able to feed their kids actual food. I take issue with custom-made $38 birthday cakes. I take issue with the idea that McDonalds is a necessary component of "normalcy" in a child's life. I take issue with the idea that anyone needs to eat hot ready-to-eat foods as opposed to cold ready-to-eat foods. (And I do understand why they exclude the hot foods. It's because the cost of having food service personnel on site to prepare it is not something taxpayers need to cover in order to keep folks from starving.)

 

Keep in mind that there isn't a lot of difference financially between many families who don't qualify for food stamps and those who do. Or between many taxpaying families and those on public assistance.

 

And yes I am sure many food stamp recipients work and some would even want my work schedule (but probably not my tax bill, which is higher than my pay these days). But that does not change the fact that the food stamp system was designed to support substistence, not luxury. And yes, a $38 cake or eating at McDs is a luxury. As a kid I probably ate at McDs 4x from birth to HS graduation, and my parents bought me a total of 1 (small, not personalized) birthday cake (only because my mom was in the hospital recovering from my brother's birth at the time). So yes, "luxury" is a fitting word in my opinion.

 

My kids have a college fund because I was extremely frugal and saved before I became a parent. I'm a single mom and will be 60 when they go to college. Already a fourth of the money has been taken out to pay taxes in the past two years. So maybe you can understand why I don't like seeing tax money misappropriated.

 

Of course you all are entitled to your opinion on how tax money should be collected and spent. But don't assume those who disagree are ignorant, spoiled rich people.

[SKL]

I think it says something about society when people will begrudge others food, period. How sad.

 

In my opinion, cake is not food. The $35 premium paid to make the cake pretty and personalized is certainly not food.

 

"People will begrudge others food" is just an unfair comment.

 

If you could see how much I've gladly donated over the years to make sure people had "food," . . . .

[BatmansWife]

OK, people, again. I am not saying people on food stamps should not be able to feed their kids actual food. I take issue with custom-made $38 birthday cakes. I take issue with the idea that McDonalds is a necessary component of "normalcy" in a child's life. I take issue with the idea that anyone needs to eat hot ready-to-eat foods as opposed to cold ready-to-eat foods. (And I do understand why they exclude the hot foods. It's because the cost of having food service personnel on site to prepare it is not something taxpayers need to cover in order to keep folks from starving.)

 

Keep in mind that there isn't a lot of difference financially between many families who don't qualify for food stamps and those who do. Or between many taxpaying families and those on public assistance.

 

And yes I am sure many food stamp recipients work and some would even want my work schedule (but probably not my tax bill, which is higher than my pay these days). But that does not change the fact that the food stamp system was designed to support substistence, not luxury. And yes, a $38 cake or eating at McDs is a luxury. As a kid I probably ate at McDs 4x from birth to HS graduation, and my parents bought me a total of 1 (small, not personalized) birthday cake (only because my mom was in the hospital recovering from my brother's birth at the time). So yes, "luxury" is a fitting word in my opinion.

 

My kids have a college fund because I was extremely frugal and saved before I became a parent. I'm a single mom and will be 60 when they go to college. Already a fourth of the money has been taken out to pay taxes in the past two years. So maybe you can understand why I don't like seeing tax money misappropriated.

 

Of course you all are entitled to your opinion on how tax money should be collected and spent. But don't assume those who disagree are ignorant, spoiled rich people.

 

Those on public assistance don't pay taxes??

[SKL]

I would also say that the attitude that people should spend their food stamps that way in order to let their kids feel "normal" is just encouraging choices that harm their and their kids' health. So I'm glad some of you consider yourself so much more kind than others.

[SKL]

Those on public assistance don't pay taxes??

 

Relatively, no, though I should have clarified that I was talking about income taxes.

[Paige]

Before this thread inevitably devolves into rants about the lazy poor vs. good hardworking people, I'd like to point out that the proposed rule change would only apply to food stamp recipients who are elderly, disabled, or homeless - three groups who presumably have difficulties with grocery shopping and cooking.

 

I think it is a good idea. I used to deliver meals on wheels and money wasn't always the barrier to them having food, it was being able to make the food.

[Nakia]

In my opinion, cake is not food. The $35 premium paid to make the cake pretty and personalized is certainly not food.

 

"People will begrudge others food" is just an unfair comment.

 

If you could see how much I've gladly donated over the years to make sure people had "food," . . . .

 

I'm not trying to be rude, but what you have gladly donated means nothing here. I'm sure we could all list what we've "gladly donated", and it still wouldn't change the fact that people need assistance. Do I think there are problems with the system? Of course, anyone with eyes and a brain can figure that out. Do I think the problem is that some poor working mother uses her food stamps to buy her kid a fancy cake or take them through the drive-thru? Heck no.

 

I don't really care if my comment was unfair. I think it's unfair that people are sometimes judged for doing the best they can.

[SKL]

You don't cook? :lol:

 

Do tell...:D

 

Most days I serve only cold / room temp foods. But we have balanced meals. Lots of produce, milk/cheese/yogurt, pbj, whole grain bread, cereal bars, etc. We don't eat meat unless someone else cooks it.

[SKL]

I'm not trying to be rude, but what you have gladly donated means nothing here. I'm sure we could all list what we've "gladly donated", and it still wouldn't change the fact that people need assistance. Do I think there are problems with the system? Of course, anyone with eyes and a brain can figure that out. Do I think the problem is that some poor working mother uses her food stamps to buy her kid a fancy cake or take them through the drive-thru? Heck no.

 

I don't really care if my comment was unfair. I think it's unfair that people are sometimes judged for doing the best they can.

 

1) I never said people don't need assistance. People are smart here; why do they pretend to misread those they disagree with?

 

2) I didn't judge anyone. I said there is something very wrong with a system that allows using food stamps for a $38 birthday cake.

 

3) You, however, are very much judging me and feeling pretty good about it.

 

4) I have fed more families, voluntarily, than most of the people on this board. I've lived a very frugal life while doing so. That does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion about food stamp abuse.

[ChristineW]

I'm not trying to be rude, but what you have gladly donated means nothing here. I'm sure we could all list what we've "gladly donated", and it still wouldn't change the fact that people need assistance. Do I think there are problems with the system? Of course, anyone with eyes and a brain can figure that out. Do I think the problem is that some poor working mother uses her food stamps to buy her kid a fancy cake or take them through the drive-thru? Heck no.

 

I don't really care if my comment was unfair. I think it's unfair that people are sometimes judged for doing the best they can.

 

But wouldn't it be better to provide more funding to organizations that deliver healthy meals (and companionship) for the elderly, disabled and homeless rather than letting McDs or KFC make a profit at the tax payers expense?

 

I don't begrudge anyone food. In fact, I think government should increase its financial support of food banks and other nutritional programs to cover all those who are food insecure (and not just those who qualify for stamps). But allowing food stamps to be spent at Taco Bell and McD's is just a big corporate giveaway.