Food Stamps at restaurants?

[serabi]

I think they are a terrible value, but not the worst thing to blow food stamps on. You figure you can get a chicken for 99 cents a pound on sale in my local supermarket. The rotisserie chickens cost $6.99 for a chicken that is around 2 pounds.

 

Ahh yea...here I can get a 3lb chicken for $4.99. and you don't have to cook it, which right there means you don't have to own a pan or a working oven. $7 for a 2lb chicken though? that's not as good of a deal.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

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. That does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion about food stamp abuse.

 

How could you possibly know that? :confused:

[elegantlion]

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.

 

Really? This board is a pretty diverse group. :confused:

[Nakia]

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.

 

For someone who has been on this board such a short time, you sure do think you know me and everyone else here very well. Interesting.

 

I would love to discuss this with you more, but I have to head out to work. Gotta pay for those $38 cakes and all those burgers. :001_rolleyes:

[SKL]

How could you possibly know that? :confused:

 

Because I know about giving statistics. I have been in the nonprofit and low-income world for a long time.

 

It sucks to donate multiple times what I spend on myself for many years, and volunteer thousands of hours, only to be accused of being uncharitable. It happens all the time, and I'm sorry, but it struck a nerve. To be accused of not wanting people to eat.

[SKL]

I would love to discuss this with you more, but I have to head out to work. Gotta pay for those $38 cakes and all those burgers. :001_rolleyes:

 

Good for you. I hope your net income isn't negative like mine is.

[elegantlion]

Because I know about giving statistics. I have been in the nonprofit and low-income world for a long time.

 

It sucks to donate multiple times what I spend on myself for many years, and volunteer thousands of hours, only to be accused of being uncharitable. It happens all the time, and I'm sorry, but it struck a nerve. To be accused of not wanting people to eat.

 

If it happens all the time, perhaps you should examine your own attitude about giving. Perhaps you're giving off a superiority vibe that strikes a nerve with those you are attempting to help.

[Bluegoat]

People qualify for this kind of assistance because of their income level. If they are in hard enough straits to qualify, then they presumably need it unless they are fraudulent, which is a different story.

 

However they manage the grocery money, the taxpayer is given them the same amount - they aren't losing out because someone buys a cake instead of a loaf of bread.

 

It isn't like food stamps can go in a college fund, so they might as well all be spent, and if someone budgets so well they can buy a cake, great for them. If they can't afford it, they are causing themselves pain which hopefully they will learn from.

 

And it is hard to know what is going on enough to make a real judgement. Maybe they sold something to help pay for the party? Maybe a grandma offered to help out a bit that month, brought over some grocery so the kid could have a really nice party. But it might still make the most sense to use the stamps for the cake rather than pay cash.

 

Now a great idea I think is to offer food budgeting seminars to people using food stamps. (But then I guess they might buy a cake with what they save and get people all ticked off at them.)

 

When I worked as a cashier, I saw very few people being extravagant with assistance. There were a few who clearly didn't know how to budget or shop, but I don't see that as the same thing. Most were very frugal, even though they might have a treat in there.

[serabi]

Good for you. I hope your net income isn't negative like mine is.

 

I don't see how it is possible to have a negative net income. :confused:

[Moxie]

Good for you. I hope your net income isn't negative like mine is.

 

You pay to go to work???

[SKL]

If it happens all the time, perhaps you should examine your own attitude about giving. Perhaps you're giving off a superiority vibe that strikes a nerve with those you are attempting to help.

 

It happens all the time in the anonymous world, I mean. I should not let it get to me.

 

What I said at first had nothing to do with the fact that I give. I simply had an opinion about food stamp abuse. (Not use, but abuse.) For that I was accused of not wanting people to eat. So I countered with info on my past giving.

 

Point is, it's wrong to assume that someone is selfish just because she doesn't agree with the way a certain policy is administered. It's no better than judging poor people for being poor (which I do NOT do).

[SKL]

I don't see how it is possible to have a negative net income. :confused:

 

I gotta go, but briefly, it's because of the way the tax system works. On top of charging me a high tax rate, I have to add back stuff like my state income tax, because that's "tax preference" that I apparently shouldn't be allowed to deduct. I have to include the money my business took in and also some money we expect to receive in the future, but I'm not allowed to deduct cash we spent to buy and rehab a building. Stuff like that. Since I joined this business, my taxes have been more than my actual income, so I have to pay them out of my kids' college fund. And some people think I ought to pay more. It's frustrating.

[Mergath]

It happens all the time in the anonymous world, I mean.

 

Well, if you go around telling people you just KNOW you're the most charitible, giving person on any given website, I can see why. There are a lot of people here who give generously in a multitude of ways. Placing yourself above them all just because you read a statistic once is quite rude.

[TravelingChris]

I don;t like the current food stamp system at all. I think it should be replaced with a WIC type program and then there wouldn't be any lobsters bought or $38 cakes. It would also help ensure nutritious foods.

 

I am with some other posters who say they would be much happier with food stamps being used at senior center lunches, homeless shelters, etc. Places where hot meals are already being served and done so in a non-profit way. My church has dinner on Wednesday night and I appreciate that, because more than half the time my dh is travelling and by Wednesday, I am ready not to cook. But meals like that is what I would rather be funding. We have a nutritious meal that costs $5 and includes a meat dish, vegetables, pasta, roll, salad, cake and drink. It costs less for children.

[Mergath]

I don;t like the current food stamp system at all. I think it should be replaced with a WIC type program and then there wouldn't be any lobsters bought or $38 cakes. It would also help ensure nutritious foods.

 

Is that really feasible, though? Having been on WIC in the past when dd was a baby, I know that we ended up with a lot of junk we'd never eat, and couldn't buy the healthy produce we really wanted. If the food stamp program became more like WIC, how would they accomodate people with food allergies, people who choose to be vegetarian or vegan, people with religious dietary restrictions, and all the other people who can't eat certain things for whatever reason? I think something like that would probably cause a lot of waste.

 

And we all have our own ideas about what constitutes nutritious foods. I was almost kicked off WIC because I wouldn't force feed my daughter pureed meat when she was under a year old.

[Jenny in Florida]

It is a FREE country, not a perfect one. Let the people eat.

 

What a great way to say that.

 

Thank you.

[Jenny in Florida]

4) I have fed more families, voluntarily, than most of the people on this board.

 

I cannot imagine how you could possibly claim to know that.

[zenjenn]

So let me get this straight - we have a childhood obesity (and adult, for that matter) epidemic in this country - a problem which is particularly prevalent among the lower class, and folks are defending the appropriateness of $38 cakes and fast food on the taxpayer's dime?

 

This is a free country, and if folks want to use a good chunk of their private food budget to purchase cake, that is their prerogative, and I fail to see how it is an appropriate use of food stamps. We can not and should not stop someone else from feeding their kids junk as a substantial portion of their diet, but if we are collectively paying it.. we should absolutely be drawing a line!

 

IMO, food-stamps should only be eligible to a list of approved food items with consideration for cost-output ratios and how much actual food sustenance the item provides.

 

It is not depriving anyone of food to expect that if the taxpayer pays, choices/freedom are limited. There are Americans who are not on food stamps who eat meals of rice and beans in order to balance their household budgets. Why is it somehow cruel or unreasonable to extend the same line of thinking in order to help get our national budget back on track?

 

And IMO is actually condescending to the poor to suggest that an extravagant child's birthday cake is going to be the highlight of their week. I'm sure the poor are capable of finding meaning in their lives that do not depend on wealth.

Edited October 21, 2011 by zenjenn

[emzhengjiu]

So let me get this straight - we have a childhood obesity (and adult, for that matter) epidemic in this country - a problem which is particularly prevalent among the lower class, and folks are defending the appropriateness of $38 cakes and fast food on the taxpayer's dime?

 

It saddens me that poor people in this country or anywhere in the world are refered to as "lower class." Has it come to that? We may be low income but we are not lower class.

 

Ann

[Unicorn.]

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

 

Neither is working for a living, being just above the poverty line, and not being able to afford to buy your kid a cake mix, much less a $38 prepared cake.

 

ETA: I know a lot of people are on food stamps, because they are out of work through no fault of their own. I don't begrudge people FS. I just see a lot of abuse of the system, and there have been plenty of times where we couldn't afford the basics, much less the luxuries. It just really bothers me that some people feel entitled to the expensive stuff when we work so hard and just scrape by.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Unicorn

[Farrar]

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.

 

I feel like the person who gets such a benefit should be able to use it as they wish, even at Taco Bell (:ack2:). However, knowing how our government works, how the lobbying is probably being done by the fast food industry for this, and how the process to become certified to take the food stamps may be really onerous for small businesses and restaurants, which are more likely to be the ones providing healthy options, I also can't help but feel like this is just a boon for corporations. Sure, it's better to have the option of fast food than no food, but still. Things are starting to change with people on food stamps able to buy from farmer's markets in some places finally though, so maybe there would be better options too.

[twoforjoy]

However, knowing how our government works, how the lobbying is probably being done by the fast food industry for this, and how the process to become certified to take the food stamps may be really onerous for small businesses and restaurants, which are more likely to be the ones providing healthy options, I also can't help but feel like this is just a boon for corporations.

 

:iagree:

[serabi]

Neither is working for a living, being just above the poverty line, and not being able to afford to buy your kid a cake mix, much less a $38 prepared cake.

 

ETA: I know a lot of people are on food stamps, because they are out of work through no fault of their own. I don't begrudge people FS. I just see a lot of abuse of the system, and there have been plenty of times where we couldn't afford the basics, much less the luxuries. It just really bothers me that some people feel entitled to the expensive stuff when we work so hard and just scrape by.

 

but why is buying a bakery cake automatically mean someone feels they are entitled to that cake? we wouldn't say that about someone not on food stamps, why are we saying it about someone on food stamps?

[Unicorn.]

but why is buying a bakery cake automatically mean someone feels they are entitled to that cake? we wouldn't say that about someone not on food stamps, why are we saying it about someone on food stamps?

 

Why can't they buy the mix, and make it themselves? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for a fancy cake for someone, when I can't afford the same thing for my child?

[elegantlion]

Why can't they buy the mix, and make it themselves? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for a fancy cake for someone, when I can't afford the same thing for my child?

 

Because the food stamp money goes to individuals and families, those we have deemed that in this FREE country can make choices, good or bad, with the money they are allotted each month.

[Element]

Many Subway restaurants and all Papa Murphy's Pizza places accept food stamps already. When my town finally got a Papa Murphy's, they put it right next to our largest public housing community (and I don't think this was a coincidence.) In the delis of grocery stores, a lot of them have gotten around the "no hot food" rule by totally cooking the food and then displaying it in a cold deli case.

 

I don't really have a stance on any of this, though. Live and let live. You can't really make a list of "approved foods" when so many families have special diets (vegetarian, vegan, GF, etc.)

[serabi]

Why can't they buy the mix, and make it themselves? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for a fancy cake for someone, when I can't afford the same thing for my child?

 

I'm sorry you can't afford a bakery cake...I really am. It's not in our budget either. I still don't see how that makes the people who qualify for food stamps and budget their food stamps so that they can afford a bakery cake entitled.

 

And re: the rest - what elegantlion said. :)

[Unicorn.]

Because the food stamp money goes to individuals and families, those we have deemed that in this FREE country can make choices, good or bad, with the money they are allotted each month.

 

So by this logic, you would be ok w/ them spending the money on beer or wine?

[elegantlion]

So by this logic, you would be ok w/ them spending the money on beer or wine?

 

You equate a bakery cake with alcohol? :001_huh: Alcohol is not allowed in the current system, cake is.

[Unicorn.]

You equate a bakery cake with alcohol? :001_huh: Alcohol is not allowed in the current system, cake is.

 

You said it was a free country and people should be able to spend their food stamps on whatever they wanted. I was just pointing out they shouldn't have the freedom to buy whatever they wanted. It was supposed to be ridiculous to prove a point. Just because they want something, doesn't mean they should be able to buy it.

 

IMHO FS shouldn't be used for luxury items like fancy cakes (or wine), or at fast food restaurants. They should be used for basic necessities.

 

Obviously we are going to disagree on this point, and I don't want this to get ugly. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree. Have a good evening!

[fourcatmom]

Most of the time if a place says they take "food stamps" it's only the "cash" part of the card. Most say EBT okay but it can't actually come off of the "food" portion. So if there is a pizza place that takes it, you can use the cash portion to pay for it. I know that you can use it for Papa Murphy's pizza since it is not cooked and for cold deli sandwhiches at a grocery store but that's about that I know of if you are using the "food" portion from an EBT card.

Edited October 22, 2011 by fourcatmom

[elegantlion]

You said it was a free country and people should be able to spend their food stamps on whatever they wanted. I was just pointing out they shouldn't have the freedom to buy whatever they wanted. It was supposed to be ridiculous to prove a point. Just because they want something, doesn't mean they should be able to buy it.

 

IMHO FS shouldn't be used for luxury items like fancy cakes (or wine), or at fast food restaurants. They should be used for basic necessities.

 

Obviously we are going to disagree on this point, and I don't want this to get ugly. I respect your opinion, I just don't agree. Have a good evening!

 

No, I said that we give the allotment to individuals and families that are free to make choices, within the parameters of the allowable foods.

 

By your logic then we should be able to buy toilet paper and toothpaste with food stamps, you can't. So the food stamps are not for "basic necessities", they are for "food". Cake is a food product, obviously not a basic necessity. Wine is not a food product, wine is an alcoholic beverage.

[foxbridgeacademy]

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::iagree::iagree:

Seriously, this was the best thing my sister (single mother of 3) could do for her kids birthdays. No money=no presents, after all FS don't pay for that. At least she could get them a cool cake. As for what can and can't be bought not my right to decide what ANYBODY puts in their stomaches, even if it's paid for by taxes or not.

[NanceXToo]

Not expecting to change anyone's mind- this is obviously a subject some people like to pass judgment on (or feel entitled to pass judgment on because of "tax dollars")- but just wanted to say that I think it's ridiculous to begrudge someone a cake just because they are on food stamps, and that it's really nobody else's business what food items someone chooses to buy at a grocery store, regardless of how they are paying for it.

[jennynd]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Seriously, this was the best thing my sister (single mother of 3) could do for her kids birthdays. No money=no presents, after all FS don't pay for that. At least she could get them a cool cake. As for what can and can't be bought not my right to decide what ANYBODY puts in their stomaches, even if it's paid for by taxes or not.

 

I never think that.... That make me sad and as much as I feel "welfare"

should not support luxury. I can see a Mom does what she can best to make their children have a happy birthday...

[Dustybug]

But what happens when someone deems something like fresh produce a "luxury item" because it's cheaper to buy it in a can (packed in sugar) or meat a "luxury item" because after all, you CAN just survive on beans and rice. Where does the line get drawn? Sure cake isn't healthy, but if you are okay with a cake mix, why not the whole cake? Neither is nutritious. You never know how someone using food stamps is budgeting. Maybe they scrimped and saved to get that cake, just like they may have done when they weren't on public assistance.

 

When my DH lost his job two years ago, we never would have made it without the public assistance that we received at the time, so I do have perspective on this. I also think that I spent years paying into the system, my DH has spent even more years paying into it, so it isn't just YOUR(a general 'your') tax dollars. When we needed the help, we were glad to have paid into a system that could GIVE us that help. I find it so disheartening that people are so caught up in something like this when there are SO many other things that our tax dollars go to that are more controversial.

[Rivka]

Why can't they buy the mix, and make it themselves? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for a fancy cake for someone, when I can't afford the same thing for my child?

 

It's not like they get extra food stamps so they can buy the cake. They get the same amount of assistance whether they buy rice and beans or lobster and caviar. The benefit amounts are set according to formulas based on income, family size, and local food prices. Like anyone else's food budget, when it's gone, it's gone.

 

If families on food stamps were forbidden to buy expensive cakes, that wouldn't reduce the cost of the program, or your tax burden, one iota. (BTW, if you can't afford a cake on your kids' birthdays, are you really paying a lot of federal income taxes?)

 

Proposals for limitations on the types of purchased food don't actually save money, so what *are* they about? They often come off as being more about requiring a certain level of humility in recipients. If you're poor, you shouldn't be allowed to have "rich food," because you might forget to be ashamed of being poor. You might think you're as good as people who aren't on assistance.

 

I think that unspoken subtext is what makes the reactions in these discussions so heated.

[NanceXToo]

It's not like they get extra food stamps so they can buy the cake. They get the same amount of assistance whether they buy rice and beans or lobster and caviar. The benefit amounts are set according to formulas based on income, family size, and local food prices. Like anyone else's food budget, when it's gone, it's gone.

 

If families on food stamps were forbidden to buy expensive cakes, that wouldn't reduce the cost of the program, or your tax burden, one iota. (BTW, if you can't afford a cake on your kids' birthdays, are you really paying a lot of federal income taxes?)

 

Proposals for limitations on the types of purchased food don't actually save money, so what *are* they about? They often come off as being more about requiring a certain level of humility in recipients. If you're poor, you shouldn't be allowed to have "rich food," because you might forget to be ashamed of being poor. You might think you're as good as people who aren't on assistance.

 

I think that unspoken subtext is what makes the reactions in these discussions so heated.

 

Great post! And I think you're exactly right.

[Dustybug]

 

Proposals for limitations on the types of purchased food don't actually save money, so what *are* they about? They often come off as being more about requiring a certain level of humility in recipients. If you're poor, you shouldn't be allowed to have "rich food," because you might forget to be ashamed of being poor. You might think you're as good as people who aren't on assistance.

 

I think that unspoken subtext is what makes the reactions in these discussions so heated.

 

:iagree:

[Joanne]

Really, people? All these pages for a mythical $38 cake? Honestly, it's a red herring.

 

So let me get this straight - we have a childhood obesity (and adult, for that matter) epidemic in this country - a problem which is particularly prevalent among the lower class, and folks are defending the appropriateness of $38 cakes and fast food on the taxpayer's dime?

 

This is a free country, and if folks want to use a good chunk of their private food budget to purchase cake, that is their prerogative, and I fail to see how it is an appropriate use of food stamps. We can not and should not stop someone else from feeding their kids junk as a substantial portion of their diet, but if we are collectively paying it.. we should absolutely be drawing a line!

 

IMO, food-stamps should only be eligible to a list of approved food items with consideration for cost-output ratios and how much actual food sustenance the item provides.

 

It is not depriving anyone of food to expect that if the taxpayer pays, choices/freedom are limited. There are Americans who are not on food stamps who eat meals of rice and beans in order to balance their household budgets. Why is it somehow cruel or unreasonable to extend the same line of thinking in order to help get our national budget back on track?

 

And IMO is actually condescending to the poor to suggest that an extravagant child's birthday cake is going to be the highlight of their week. I'm sure the poor are capable of finding meaning in their lives that do not depend on wealth.

 

Obesity is complex, and highly debated in the scientific community. Many now believe that losing weight is NOT a function of eat less, move more.

 

The reason that many people who qualify for food stamps eat packaged foods with little nutritional value is because of VOLUME. Truly. Most people on food stamps know that brocolli is better than Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. But they also know that their families need volume of food to feel satiated; that physiological cycle manifests in a metabolic syndrome that craves more carbs, and eventually decreases the body's ability to maintain stasis or lose weight.

 

I used to hold some very assumptive, unkind, and inaccurate views.

 

There is MUCH less abuse than I thought when I was in a life of comfort. I worked for pay, and reported it, during the entire time my family qualified for benefits. I was never unemployed. The stereotype I held of the system, and people using it, was dead wrong.

 

ETA: I don't believe in using food stamps at restaurants. I *might* consider a separate program for homeless, elderly, and other situaitons in which preparing food is not an option.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Joanne

[Serenade]

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?

 

I'm not in favor of this at all. People are on food stamps supposedly because they don't have enough money to buy food. So much more food can be bought at a store, even an expensive store, than can be bought at a restaurant. Now, if some restaurant personally wanted to subsidize meals for these populations, as a charity, I might be able to support that. For example, a meal that would cost $6, would maybe only cost $3 in food stamps, with the restaurant accepting a loss of $3.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm not in favor of this at all. People are on food stamps supposedly because they don't have enough money to buy food. So much more food can be bought at a store, even an expensive store, than can be bought at a restaurant. Now, if some restaurant personally wanted to subsidize meals for these populations, as a charity, I might be able to support that. For example, a meal that would cost $6, would maybe only cost $3 in food stamps, with the restaurant accepting a loss of $3.

 

It may help if you read which groups would be allowed to purchase restaurant food with this policy, and why it would help them out to some degree.

[SKL]

Well, if you go around telling people you just KNOW you're the most charitible, giving person on any given website, I can see why. There are a lot of people here who give generously in a multitude of ways. Placing yourself above them all just because you read a statistic once is quite rude.

 

I did not say that, not any of that. I should not have said anything at all, I was just reacting to being accused of wanting people to STARVE just because I don't believe food stamps are for luxuries. I do believe that what I said is true, however.

 

I do recognize that many people give a lot and volunteer a lot. I wish more people did more voluntarily.

 

I apologize for saying anything about my giving even if it was true.

 

However, I notice that nobody thinks there's anything wrong with my being judged as having low morals, just because I have an opinion on food stamp regulations.

 

Everyone needs to get off their "don't judge" high horse, because I did NOT judge and many of you have.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I did not say that, not any of that. I should not have said anything at all, I was just reacting to being accused of wanting people to STARVE just because I don't believe food stamps are for luxuries. I do believe that what I said is true, however.

 

I do recognize that many people give a lot and volunteer a lot. I wish more people did more voluntarily.

 

That was a silly statement to make, and you have no idea if it is true or not. You can believe it, but that doesn't make it so.

 

However, I notice that nobody thinks there's anything wrong with my being judged as having low morals, just because I have an opinion on food stamp regulations.

I personally have no opinion about your morals. It is obvious from your statements that you are woefully uneducated and ill informed in regards to certain realities for some people on assistance.

[silliness7]

Why can't they buy the mix, and make it themselves? Why should my tax dollars go to pay for a fancy cake for someone, when I can't afford the same thing for my child?

 

Here's the thing with food stamps. You have a certain amount. When you spend it, you're done. Anything else you need or want comes out of your cash. However, if you budget well and eat rice and beans and have left-over you can't take that left-over and turn it into cash. That's how the food budget works when you're not on food stamps. You scrimp and eat mac n' cheese and then you have more cash.

 

It's quite enormously possible that a family on food stamps was once previously NOT on food stamps and learned how to eat quite frugally. It's quite enormously possible that when that family finds themselves on food stamps that they've been allowed a great deal more in benefits than they were used to spending. It's quite enormously possible that they will go to the store and buy things like birthday cakes because they CAN. And, well, why not? There is absolutely nothing else to do with it. It's not like they can eat rice and beans to save up for some needed shoes or pay the electric bill. If they eat rice and beans then the only thing they can save and splurge on is fun food.

 

I can completely understand the need to keep the system free from abuse. I just don't see how determining a family's dollar amount to be X but then micro-managing how they spend their X to achieve that goal. In fact I think the more micro-managing that is done, the more convoluted the system becomes and the more expensive it is to administrate. I think any reform that needs to happen needs to happen prior to determining eligibility. Once a family qualifies for X, give them X and let them deal with it how they will. If some people need to qualify for prepared meals due to homelessness or disability by all means let them get prepared food.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Here's the thing with food stamps. You have a certain amount. When you spend it, you're done. Anything else you need or want comes out of your cash. However, if you budget well and eat rice and beans and have left-over you can't take that left-over and turn it into cash. That's how the food budget works when you're not on food stamps. You scrimp and eat mac n' cheese and then you have more cash.

 

It's quite enormously possible that a family on food stamps was once previously NOT on food stamps and learned how to eat quite frugally. It's quite enormously possible that when that family finds themselves on food stamps that they've been allowed a great deal more in benefits than they were used to spending. It's quite enormously possible that they will go to the store and buy things like birthday cakes because they CAN. And, well, why not? There is absolutely nothing else to do with it. It's not like they can eat rice and beans to save up for some needed shoes or pay the electric bill. If they eat rice and beans then the only thing they can save and splurge on is fun food.

 

I can completely understand the need to keep the system free from abuse. I just don't see how determining a family's dollar amount to be X but then micro-managing how they spend their X to achieve that goal. In fact I think the more micro-managing that is done, the more convoluted the system becomes and the more expensive it is to administrate. I think any reform that needs to happen needs to happen prior to determining eligibility. Once a family qualifies for X, give them X and let them deal with it how they will. If some people need to qualify for prepared meals due to homelessness or disability by all means let them get prepared food.

 

No, no, no.

 

You are missing the point. Someone who eats rice and beans and then splurges on their child's birthday cake is bum who is living it up on the backs of taxpayers.

 

Oil companies who receive billions in subsidies while making record profits during times of record high gas prices are fearless job creators standing steadfast against the dirty socialists who infest this great nation.

 

'Tis true, cuz I read it on the interwebz.

Edited October 22, 2011 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Nakia]

I did not say that, not any of that. I should not have said anything at all, I was just reacting to being accused of wanting people to STARVE just because I don't believe food stamps are for luxuries. I do believe that what I said is true, however.

 

I do recognize that many people give a lot and volunteer a lot. I wish more people did more voluntarily.

 

I apologize for saying anything about my giving even if it was true.

 

However, I notice that nobody thinks there's anything wrong with my being judged as having low morals, just because I have an opinion on food stamp regulations.

 

Everyone needs to get off their "don't judge" high horse, because I did NOT judge and many of you have.

 

Oh good grief. Nobody said you want people to starve. Nobody said you have low morals. You are getting very worked up about a lot of things nobody said.

 

I just really can't believe people are seriously arguing that someone on food stamps shouldn't be able to use those food stamps for a flippin' cake for their kid. This has nothing to do with cake anyway. It has to do with "us vs. them" attitudes, and frankly, I am sick of it.

[EJCMom]

Here's what *I* find interesting about threads like these: It's the *corporations* that want people on food stamps to be able to use their foodstamps there. This isn't a situation where people on assistance were storming the capitol steps, demanding to be able to use their food stamps to buy a $5 Big Box meal at Taco Bell. Yet, it is the people on assistance who usually end up denigrated in threads like these. They are just the, "lazy, entitled PA recipients who want to be able to live high on the hog on the taxpayers' dime." Why is nobody calling this what this really is? This is really more corporate welfare. I'm sure these fast food chains' bottom lines have been hit hard by this recession, and they are looking for a way, any way, to make up the revenue. But, as usual, it's the poor people in America who get the blame. Like I always say: Americans are very easily manipulated.

[twoforjoy]

I gotta go, but briefly, it's because of the way the tax system works. On top of charging me a high tax rate, I have to add back stuff like my state income tax, because that's "tax preference" that I apparently shouldn't be allowed to deduct. I have to include the money my business took in and also some money we expect to receive in the future, but I'm not allowed to deduct cash we spent to buy and rehab a building. Stuff like that. Since I joined this business, my taxes have been more than my actual income, so I have to pay them out of my kids' college fund. And some people think I ought to pay more. It's frustrating.

 

Why are you working? I mean that in all seriousness. If you are losing money by working like you claim to be--and I don't really understand that, since the highest marginal tax rate is 35% or so--why work? Wouldn't your family actually be financially better off if you didn't work? I'm not aware of any situation where that would be possible to actually owe more in taxes in a given year (I'm not talking about things like owing back taxes) than you bring in in income, but should such a thing be possible, it sounds like continuing on that path is not very wise.

 

If you are actually busting your butt working seven days a week so you can lose money, wouldn't it make more financial sense to just not work?

[twoforjoy]

Here's what *I* find interesting about threads like these: It's the *corporations* that want people on food stamps to be able to use their foodstamps there. This isn't a situation where people on assistance were storming the capitol steps, demanding to be able to use their food stamps to buy a $5 Big Box meal at Taco Bell. Yet, it is the people on assistance who usually end up denigrated in threads like these. They are just the, "lazy, entitled PA recipients who want to be able to live high on the hog on the taxpayers' dime." Why is nobody calling this what this really is? This is really more corporate welfare. I'm sure these fast food chains' bottom lines have been hit hard by this recession, and they are looking for a way, any way, to make up the revenue. But, as usual, it's the poor people in America who get the blame. Like I always say: Americans are very easily manipulated.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

This may indeed be a good option for people on food stamps who can't cook, for whatever reason. But, this is happening because it will benefit corporations and corporations were asking for it, not because it will benefit the poor (whether it will or not) or because poor people were asking for it.