Food Stamps at restaurants?

[ravinlunachick]

Thank you, Nakia and EJCMom.

[silliness7]

I'll just chime in to say that we went through a really horrible time, when dh lost his job and was then seriously underemployed for 2 years. He was working 50 hours a week, hardly ever seeing his kids, and yet we qualified for food stamps. We couldn't have kept our home if we hadn't had that help. We lived so frugally that I had unit priced everything, even single eggs and tablespoons of butter, so that I could be sure the meals I had planned wouldn't cause us to run out of FS money by the end of the month.

 

But once, for dh's birthday, when I couldn't afford to buy him a gift, I used some of our food stamps to buy him a t-bone steak. I scraped together enough change to buy a single pint of Guinness, and that was his birthday surprise. Attitudes like SKL's are the reason why I felt so ashamed in the grocery line. I just *knew* people were judging me harshly. Someone probably went home and ranted to their spouse about that "welfare queen with 3 kids buying steak and beer with food stamps." I felt lower than dirt, and all I wanted to do was a tiny little nice thing for my very hardworking (and taxpaying!) dh. Even now, I'm tearing up writing about it.

 

I suppose my point is to remind people that we never really know the whole story behind the fleeting glimpses we see, and it's much better all around to give people the benefit of the doubt, IMnsHO.

 

 

Exactly!!!

[Shawna in Texas]

nvm

Edited October 24, 2011 by Shawna in Texas

[Renee in NC]

I'll just chime in to say that we went through a really horrible time, when dh lost his job and was then seriously underemployed for 2 years. He was working 50 hours a week, hardly ever seeing his kids, and yet we qualified for food stamps. We couldn't have kept our home if we hadn't had that help. We lived so frugally that I had unit priced everything, even single eggs and tablespoons of butter, so that I could be sure the meals I had planned wouldn't cause us to run out of FS money by the end of the month.

 

But once, for dh's birthday, when I couldn't afford to buy him a gift, I used some of our food stamps to buy him a t-bone steak. I scraped together enough change to buy a single pint of Guinness, and that was his birthday surprise. Attitudes like SKL's are the reason why I felt so ashamed in the grocery line. I just *knew* people were judging me harshly. Someone probably went home and ranted to their spouse about that "welfare queen with 3 kids buying steak and beer with food stamps." I felt lower than dirt, and all I wanted to do was a tiny little nice thing for my very hardworking (and taxpaying!) dh. Even now, I'm tearing up writing about it.

 

I suppose my point is to remind people that we never really know the whole story behind the fleeting glimpses we see, and it's much better all around to give people the benefit of the doubt, IMnsHO.

 

:grouphug: Trust me, I know how you feel.

 

Everytime one of these threads came up in the past couple of years, it would make me feel like the worst, most worthless person around. I couldn't even look at the cashier when I went to the store because I couldn't think of anything else than that person leaving their shift and telling a message board full of people about the contents of my cart.:001_huh:

 

And yes, those threads made me cry. Especially the ones where we were accused of STEALING from others. I offered to pay the one person the $4 my food stamps cost her personally every year.:glare:

 

Now? I don't care anymore. Write your congressman, ya know?:tongue_smilie: My dh and I are doing the best we can for our children - if you don't like HOW we are handling it, keep it to yourself because it really isn't your business. I could've put the dc in public school (including 3 with IEPs) and cost the taxpayers WAY more than my food stamps. We chose a different route - the law allows us to do that.

 

And yes, I did use food stamps to buy a decorated cake for one of my dc (it was $18, not $38.) Why? Because not only was it his birthday, but we were getting ready to relocate him away from family and friends again, so it was a good-bye party, too. The motorcycle on top of his Harley cake was his birthday present from us - it was the only thing he wanted!

[twoforjoy]

Again- please read my post- the whole thing... Like the last paragraph. Again- I ask- do you all think that is the norm? Not the exception? To me, it seems one would be ebaying all that shtuff to help the family's bottom line. Just my .02.

 

I do think it's the norm. I would assume that the majority of people on food stamps who have a nice car or nice clothes either 1) received the item as a gift, 2) bought the item before they fell on hard times, or 3) are poor but may have gotten those items in shady/illegal ways. I would assume that only a tiny minority of those people were actually rich folk perpetrating food stamp fraud.

 

Because, why bother? I mean that quite seriously. Why would somebody who was doing just fine financially go through all the effort of food stamp fraud just to have a couple of hundred dollars of grocery money--which they can only spend on groceries--each month?

 

I qualify for WIC; I don't get it because we don't need it and, quite frankly, it's enough of a hassle that I don't feel like dealing with it. I think that situation is far more likely--that people qualify for FS but don't bother to get them because they are scraping by okay and don't want to deal with the hassle--than people who have enough money to buy new cars and designer clothes scamming the system.

 

Does fraud happen? I'm sure. But, honestly, I don't think food stamp fraud is a widespread problem. I've seen no evidence to indicate that it is.

 

To the extent that it does happen, I honestly don't think it's well-off people illegally getting them; I think it's far more likely misuse of the stamps, and people trading them for cash. I was once approached by a man in the grocery store who offered me a $15 EBT card if I'd give him $10 cash. (I obviously turned him down.) He appeared to be homeless, addicted, and/or mentally ill (very likely all three), and I'm assuming he was trying to sell his food stamps so that he could buy alcohol or drugs. But, I see no reason to assume that he didn't actually qualify for food stamps, and every reason to assume that he did. Misuse of food stamps is probably the larger issue, fraud-wise.

[jennynd]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/detriot/2m-michigan-lottery-winner-defends-food-stamps-172712202.html

[jennynd]

http://www.wlwt.com/r/18949036/detail.html

 

again, every system have loopholes. gov should do better fixing those loophole and give $$ to people who need it

[DawnM]

I have been hearing about this on the news. Several on Food assistance have commented that they don't need policing.

 

I tend to agree to an extent. However, I understand the logic in not allowing it. Food Stamps only cover XX amount of dollars and some may spend it all in the first week on eating out.

 

But I don't begrudge anyone for wanting a treat. We all need them.

[Upward Journey]

I would assume that only a tiny minority of those people were actually rich folk perpetrating food stamp fraud.

 

Because, why bother? I mean that quite seriously. Why would somebody who was doing just fine financially go through all the effort of food stamp fraud just to have a couple of hundred dollars of grocery money--which they can only spend on groceries--each month?

 

I qualify for WIC; I don't get it because we don't need it and, quite frankly, it's enough of a hassle that I don't feel like dealing with it. I think that situation is far more likely--that people qualify for FS but don't bother to get them because they are scraping by okay and don't want to deal with the hassle--than people who have enough money to buy new cars and designer clothes scamming the system.

 

Does fraud happen? I'm sure. But, honestly, I don't think food stamp fraud is a widespread problem. I've seen no evidence to indicate that it is.

 

To the extent that it does happen, I honestly don't think it's well-off people illegally getting them; I think it's far more likely misuse of the stamps, and people trading them for cash. I was once approached by a man in the grocery store who offered me a $15 EBT card if I'd give him $10 cash. (I obviously turned him down.) He appeared to be homeless, addicted, and/or mentally ill (very likely all three), and I'm assuming he was trying to sell his food stamps so that he could buy alcohol or drugs. But, I see no reason to assume that he didn't actually qualify for food stamps, and every reason to assume that he did. Misuse of food stamps is probably the larger issue, fraud-wise.

 

This., esp. the bolded. We've qualified for the past 2 1/2 years and never applied. There were just too many hoops to jump. I can't see putting in that kind of effort for so little gain, if you don't actually qualify :001_huh:

[Renee in NC]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/detriot/2m-michigan-lottery-winner-defends-food-stamps-172712202.html

 

This must be a Michigan issue, because in NC and FL you cannot have more than $2000 in assets. Winning the lottery would be considered incomefor that month, at least, and the money would be an asset that would disqualify you.

[lovemyboys]

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.

 

I remember days of choices like this. Like you, I don't begrudge people the food stamps, the program is there to help. But it wasn't intended to cover everything, just like health insurance doesn't need to cover cosmetic plastic surgery. If you want a treat now and then, go for it, budget for it, just like people who aren't using food stamps.

[Renee in NC]

http://www.wlwt.com/r/18949036/detail.html

 

again, every system have loopholes. gov should do better fixing those loophole and give $$ to people who need it

 

:iagree: While I always thought the asset limits were ridiculously low, there does need to be some limit.

 

I looked up OH law and it doesn't match what the article states. I wonder what the rules really are?

[lovemyboys]

 

Personally, I can't imagine becoming so materialistic that I could ever be jealous of a poor kid's birthday cake. But that's just me.

 

I don't think it's materialism. I think the "forest" that we're missing is a gov't program that's gotten so huge w/ so many regulations and restrictions that bureaucrats in DC are trying to micromanage someone's shopping choices hundreds of miles away. And that person's situation is different than the woman two aisles over shopping w/ food stamps too.

 

Underlying that is also the assumption that people can't possibly be left to the responsibility of making nutritious responsible choices on their own.

 

And then there's the inevitable fraud that comes w/ big non-local programs like this.....which calls for more regulations. How is the clerk at taco bell supposed to know if the customer meets a requirement to use food stamps?

[Lady Florida.]

Assuming food stamp fraud is the norm, is similar to assuming drug use among welfare recipients is the norm. Florida began drug testing welfare and food stamp applicants in July, and so far approximately 2.5 percent of applicants have failed. Another 2 percent refused to take the test, making them ineligible.

 

This is the real waste of my tax money IMO. Applicants are required to pay for the test up front, but if they pass, they are reimbursed by the state. That means Florida has paid (with my tax money) for 97.5 % of the required drug tests. So far the testing proves that welfare/food stamp applicants are not, as a whole, drug users. The testing is really about humiliating the poor. Just as policing how one spends their food stamps is about humiliating the poor.

[Impish]

Assuming food stamp fraud is the norm, is similar to assuming drug use among welfare recipients is the norm. Florida began drug testing welfare and food stamp applicants in July, and so far approximately 2.5 percent of applicants have failed. Another 2 percent refused to take the test, making them ineligible.

 

This is the real waste of my tax money IMO. Applicants are required to pay for the test up front, but if they pass, they are reimbursed by the state. That means Florida has paid (with my tax money) for 97.5 % of the required drug tests. So far the testing proves that welfare/food stamp applicants are not, as a whole, drug users. The testing is really about humiliating the poor. Just as policing how one spends their food stamps is about humiliating the poor.

I don't know about the drug testing thing.

 

So many employers demand it these days, that I can see how parallels can be drawn w/that.

 

If its not humiliating to the employee, who derives an income from the employer, can the same argument not be made for someone on assistance?

 

ETA: One aspect that I do wonder about is how is someone in need of assistance able to afford to pay for a drug test? When you're already broke, how can you scrounge up the extra $?

Edited October 24, 2011 by Impish

[Renee in NC]

Assuming food stamp fraud is the norm, is similar to assuming drug use among welfare recipients is the norm. Florida began drug testing welfare and food stamp applicants in July, and so far approximately 2.5 percent of applicants have failed. Another 2 percent refused to take the test, making them ineligible.

 

This is the real waste of my tax money IMO. Applicants are required to pay for the test up front, but if they pass, they are reimbursed by the state. That means Florida has paid (with my tax money) for 97.5 % of the required drug tests. So far the testing proves that welfare/food stamp applicants are not, as a whole, drug users. The testing is really about humiliating the poor. Just as policing how one spends their food stamps is about humiliating the poor.

 

What is really frustrating about that is a poor person who qualifies for a program to give them food because they can't afford is supposed to come up with the money for the drug test and then have to wait to be reimbursed? I wouldn't have been able to do it!:001_huh:

[Daisy]

I don't really understand why a parent would spend $38 on a birthday cake when that same amount could feed a family for nearly a week. Yeah, I find it a little hard not to think that is irresponsible. I imagine a child would much rather eat all week then have a birthday cake, but perhaps these families are not as financially bad off as I assume.

 

There are plenty of ways to buy pre-packaged single serving types meals for seniors, disabled, etc. We prepare those types of care packages at the food bank all the time. There is no genuine need to federally subsidize people's desire for fast food.

 

I applauded the inclusion of farmer's markets in the food stamp program, but fast food & restaurants? No way.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Daisy

[annandatje]

I truly wish that our moderators would consider public assistance threads as falling under the spectrum of political threads.

 

These threads invariably devolve into certain people feeling entitled to scrutinize and criticize the spending habits and dietary habits of those on public assistance. This is deeply hurtful to the hardworking people facing uphill struggle to care for their families.

 

Of course there is some fraud in the system as in all government programs. The difference is that corporations do not go through the grocery store checkout line to get their government aid. And yes, it is a handout when the government is paying in excess of fair market value for goods and services. People smugly criticize the well dressed government aid recipient or the unwed teenage mother while doing little about the corporate welfare and other wasteful spending. It is similar to a serial killer worrying about a parking ticket.

 

I think what it boils down to is that some people need to have someone to look down on. If they can convince themselves that most poor people are poor due to their own faulty decision making, then it follows that they consider themselves "not that kind of poor" should they ever have to seek out public assistance. Even if someone is poor due to their own shortcomings, should their children be denied sustenance?

 

Really there is enough humiliation built into the public assistance acquisition process itself. We do not need to throw more shame toward people who meet the governmental standards to receive aid.

[OnTheBrink]

 

But I don't begrudge anyone for wanting a treat. We all need them.

 

I don't, either. And, who's to say that family didn't eat beans and rice most of the month to be able to get that child a birthday cake? I just can't get worked up over that.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the restaurant issue. If the EBT cards are programmed to only go to that population, then fine. If it means someone will be able to buy a meal with dignity, fine by me. I think it's disgusting that people go hungry in this nation. I think offering education on how to shop more wisely and how that can lead to eating better would be a reasonable requirement of those receiving aid (maybe have the class each year when the benefits are renewed?) but again, that wouldn't force people to apply those skills.

[OnTheBrink]

I truly wish that our moderators would consider public assistance threads as falling under the spectrum of political threads.

 

These threads invariably devolve into certain people feeling entitled to scrutinize and criticize the spending habits and dietary habits of those on public assistance. This is deeply hurtful to the hardworking people facing uphill struggle to care for their families.

 

Of course there is some fraud in the system as in all government programs. The difference is that corporations do not go through the grocery store checkout line to get their government aid. And yes, it is a handout when the government is paying in excess of fair market value for goods and services. People smugly criticize the well dressed government aid recipient or the unwed teenage mother while doing little about the corporate welfare and other wasteful spending. It is similar to a serial killer worrying about a parking ticket.

 

I think what it boils down to is that some people need to have someone to look down on. If they can convince themselves that most poor people are poor due to their own faulty decision making, then it follows that they consider themselves "not that kind of poor" should they ever have to seek out public assistance. Even if someone is poor due to their own shortcomings, should their children be denied sustenance?

 

Really there is enough humiliation built into the public assistance acquisition process itself. We do not need to throw more shame toward people who meet the governmental standards to receive aid.

 

I can see how these discussions could be considered hurtful by those who receive aid. But they're not really political discussions in the sense that it's not a "those rotten (pick a political party) want to do (whatever) to (those of the other political party)" discussions. I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle wants children to go hungry. Solving the hunger issue shouldn't even be a partisan discussion because it affects everyone.

 

:grouphug:

[elegantlion]

I don't, either. And, who's to say that family didn't eat beans and rice most of the month to be able to get that child a birthday cake? I just can't get worked up over that.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the restaurant issue. If the EBT cards are programmed to only go to that population, then fine. If it means someone will be able to buy a meal with dignity, fine by me. I think it's disgusting that people go hungry in this nation. I think offering education on how to shop more wisely and how that can lead to eating better would be a reasonable requirement of those receiving aid (maybe have the class each year when the benefits are renewed?) but again, that wouldn't force people to apply those skills.

 

A requirement? That's making the assumption that people on food stamps have no knowledge of how to eat or budget well. Which falls back to the argument that the only people on food stamps are uneducated. This is untrue. I would support the availability of a program, but not the requirement.

 

Again, using my family as an example. We currently receive food stamps and if a class were a requirement it would probably require attendance during daytime working hours. This would mean my dh would have to take work time to attend, I would have to have to scrap a day of school. The class would probably take place in our county headquarters (large rural county) and would require over 90 minutes of travel time total, plus the class, plus the gas money. Gas money is at a premium around here.

 

I already know how to budget and eat well. Our previous food budget when dh was working full time was smaller than our food stamp benefit. The class would be a waste of our time, and the county's limited resources.

[unsinkable]

I truly wish that our moderators would consider public assistance threads as falling under the spectrum of political threads.

 

These threads invariably devolve into certain people feeling entitled to scrutinize and criticize the spending habits and dietary habits of those on public assistance. This is deeply hurtful to the hardworking people facing uphill struggle to care for their families.

 

Of course there is some fraud in the system as in all government programs. The difference is that corporations do not go through the grocery store checkout line to get their government aid. And yes, it is a handout when the government is paying in excess of fair market value for goods and services. People smugly criticize the well dressed government aid recipient or the unwed teenage mother while doing little about the corporate welfare and other wasteful spending. That's an assumption on your part, isn't it? That the smug criticizers are doing little about corporate welfare and wasteful spending... It is similar to a serial killer worrying about a parking ticket.

 

I think what it boils down to is that some people need to have someone to look down on. If they can convince themselves that most poor people are poor due to their own faulty decision making, then it follows that they consider themselves "not that kind of poor" should they ever have to seek out public assistance. Even if someone is poor due to their own shortcomings, should their children be denied sustenance?

 

Really there is enough humiliation built into the public assistance acquisition process itself. We do not need to throw more shame toward people who meet the governmental standards to receive aid.

 

.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

don't know about the drug testing thing.

 

So many employers demand it these days, that I can see how parallels can be drawn w/that.

 

If its not humiliating to the employee, who derives an income from the employer, can the same argument not be made for someone on assistance?

 

ETA: One aspect that I do wonder about is how is someone in need of assistance able to afford to pay for a drug test? When you're already broke, how can you scrounge up the extra $?

 

 

I did find it quite humiliating to take a drug test, particularly the last time. I was pg with my last child and handed the woman who worked there a cup that looked like it was full of red kool-aid. She said,"Uh, I thought you said you were pregnant?!" I said,"I am. I'm going straight to the Dr. from here". That was the day that I found out that I was bleeding a lot and in danger of losing the baby. It was a moment I would have preferred to have in my own bathroom or at my Dr. office, not with a woman in a drug testing facility.

 

I find peeing into a cup humiliating, even though it will come out negative. It still feels like a violation or an assumption that I have to prove my worthiness. :glare: My worthiness should have been proved on my resume or during reference checks, not by my urine.

[Impish]

I did find it quite humiliating to take a drug test, particularly the last time. I was pg with my last child and handed the woman who worked there a cup that looked like it was full of red kool-aid. She said,"Uh, I thought you said you were pregnant?!" I said,"I am. I'm going straight to the Dr. from here". That was the day that I found out that I was bleeding a lot and in danger of losing the baby. It was a moment I would have preferred to have in my own bathroom or at my Dr. office, not with a woman in a drug testing facility.

 

I find peeing into a cup humiliating, even though it will come out negative. It still feels like a violation or an assumption that I have to prove my worthiness. :glare: My worthiness should have been proved on my resume or during reference checks, not by my urine.

I understand. :grouphug:

What I'm saying, though, is if its ok for an employer to request, then I can see the validity of the argument for the state to do so as well.

[T'smom]

Assuming food stamp fraud is the norm, is similar to assuming drug use among welfare recipients is the norm. Florida began drug testing welfare and food stamp applicants in July, and so far approximately 2.5 percent of applicants have failed. Another 2 percent refused to take the test, making them ineligible.

 

This is the real waste of my tax money IMO. Applicants are required to pay for the test up front, but if they pass, they are reimbursed by the state. That means Florida has paid (with my tax money) for 97.5 % of the required drug tests. So far the testing proves that welfare/food stamp applicants are not, as a whole, drug users. The testing is really about humiliating the poor. Just as policing how one spends their food stamps is about humiliating the poor.

 

 

I'm not sure how I feel about the drug test thing, but if only 2.5% failed the drug screen then food stamp recipients must be MUCH less likely to be on drugs than the average worker! Part of my dh's job is administering drug tests at the company he works for- granted the jobs these people are doing are not highly paid jobs- but the number of people that fail is astounding. Truly. Probably close to half of the people that apply fail the initial drug screen and if there is an accident everyone involved is screened again- probably half of those fail. I know this is off topic, but at least a couple times a week he comes home with stories of people failing the tests and you just wouldn't believe it. At least, I have a hard time!

[Lady Florida.]

What is really frustrating about that is a poor person who qualifies for a program to give them food because they can't afford is supposed to come up with the money for the drug test and then have to wait to be reimbursed? I wouldn't have been able to do it!:001_huh:

 

And one has to wonder how many of that 2% refused because they didn't have the money for the test, not because they were afraid of the results.

[astrid]

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.

 

Yes. This. Exactly.

 

astrid

[justamouse]

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.

 

Yes.

[astrid]

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.

 

This would make me :lol: if it didn't actually make me :crying:

 

astrid

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I'm not sure how I feel about the drug test thing' date=' but if only 2.5% failed the drug screen then food stamp recipients must be MUCH less likely to be on drugs than the average worker! Part of my dh's job is administering drug tests at the company he works for- granted the jobs these people are doing are not highly paid jobs- but the number of people that fail is astounding. Truly. Probably close to half of the people that apply fail the initial drug screen and if there is an accident everyone involved is screened again- probably half of those fail. I know this is off topic, but at least a couple times a week he comes home with stories of people failing the tests and you just wouldn't believe it. At least, I have a hard time![/quote']

 

 

While doing child welfare I once had a mother tell me that her positive drug test result was NOT because she used drugs, but because 'all the guys' she had had sex with over the weekend did drugs and her body must have absorbed it from the sexual contact. :001_huh:

 

(And, yes men do sometimes put coke/other drugs on their 'part' and rape a woman, thereby drugging her at the same time, but that was not what she was saying.)

[kalanamak]

If I were homeless in bad weather, I would find the ability to sit in KFC for an hour nursing a meal really good for the feet.

[Jen in PA]

I think the idea of splurging like that on a cake might not be as much of a splurge as one might guess. I think a family of 4 in my state can get over $600 a month on food stamps (assuming not much other income). I have never in my life spent that much on groceries for a month, and since food stamps can only be used for food, it's not as if a balance that is left can be used to cover a utility bill or buy a bus pass. I am sure that there are families who choose to use any extra at the end of the month on things that seem like splurges.

[In2why]

Again- please read my post- the whole thing... Like the last paragraph. Again- I ask- do you all think that is the norm? Not the exception? To me, it seems one would be ebaying all that shtuff to help the family's bottom line. Just my .02.

 

 

Of course there is fraud. There always has been and there always will be, but it is the tiniest fraction of our national budget but gets blown out of proportion until anyone on assistance are welfare queens. My problem is that the solutions don't make sense. To stop all fraud would mean creating more government oversight jobs and would cost more than the fraud itself, or it would mean making it so hard to get assistance that people who really need it wouldn't get it. Either way would probably cost more money than would be saved. I figure that people who screw the system will get theirs in the long run. I also believe that they are the exception rather than the norm.

[AngelBee]

I think part of the benefit of the doubt is also recognizing wasted energy.

 

Its far more pleasant to the mind and body to give someone grace, to consider alternatives, than to get angry and worked up over something that you have absolutely 0 control over, and stew and gnash your teeth.

 

Think of the wasted energy, the robbing of positive emotions to yourself and those around you by deciding something is fraud rather than extending grace.

 

There's a difference btwn KNOWING something is fraud (report it, do something about it constructive) and a 30 second snap shot of someone's life viewed through your own personal filter.

 

Give you an example:

 

To look at me, you'd never realize I'm disabled. You just wouldn't. But, I've been dealing with a severe chronic pain disability that's cost me about 80% (or more) use of my dominant hand and arm. I've been dealing with Workers Comp for over 3 yrs now.

 

There are those that would judge me, decide I'm faking, etc. Just b/c a) its not a visible disability and b) I do my very, very best to NOT allow ppl to see the pain I'm in. Unless its really bad, you wouldn't know...until you watched me try to do something that normally takes two hands.

 

I too am disabled and no one would know. I can not bare weight long on joints. Extremely limitating, but I look totally normal. And usually am in pain. :(

[serabi]

I haven't read through all the pages- but I do want to share my opinion on negativity about FS. I am all for FS being applied to pretty much anything in a grocery store- I don't care if it's a custom made cake or rotisserie chicken or any other prepared food. Don't care. Their food budget is whatever it is- if the FS recipient runs out of stamps because of inappropriate purchases (outside of budget for example) it's not like they get more FS's next month from what I understand. Equally, I have X number of dollars for our grocery budget. If I go over- it has to come from somewhere else. I just don't see the difference.

 

That said... I do have a big chip on my shoulder when I see the mom wearing juicy couture, pulling her Louis Vuitton wallet out of her matching purse for her FS card- and then watching her get into her BMW suv. That irks the hell out of me. (is it obvious that I just saw these specific details last week at publix?). My first job was cashiering- and I would say 60% FS customers looked totally average, another 20% looked very down on their luck, but another strong 20% appeared at the store wearing a shirt that I am sure may be worth twice their food budget. I really wish more folks would concentrate on fraud, than the actual purchase.

(disclaimer: yes I do realize that some of whom I am complaining about could be in the middle of a divorce, etc- and just wearing or driving what they had in the marriage... But surely that has to be the exception in the group- not the norm)

 

 

or they could be a foster parent and be using their foster child's food stamps. which is totally legit, as long as you're buying food for the child.

[silliness7]

I understand. :grouphug:

What I'm saying, though, is if its ok for an employer to request, then I can see the validity of the argument for the state to do so as well.

 

 

I can see why an employer wouldn't want to hire someone using drugs. And yes, society doesn't want people doing drugs either. But I don't think it should be policed through the food stamp system. It says drug addicts aren't worth feeding.

[silliness7]

This would make me :lol: if it didn't actually make me :crying:

 

astrid

 

It made me :lol: 'cause I thought she was being sarcastic and had forgotten the ;). Maybe I misread it.

[phathui5]

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

 

Well, the elderly part is easy to figure out and disability is something that would be decided when someone got their EBT card.

[jennynd]

I can see why an employer wouldn't want to hire someone using drugs. And yes, society doesn't want people doing drugs either. But I don't think it should be policed through the food stamp system. It says drug addicts aren't worth feeding.

 

I am sorry but they are not worth feeding. I know a relatively who is a drug addictive. For her child's sack, I wish she didn't have the welfare with the drug usage

[Wabi Sabi]

I am sorry but they are not worth feeding. I know a relatively who is a drug addictive. For her child's sack, I wish she didn't have the welfare with the drug usage

 

So she's a drug addict and somehow it would benefit the child to starve...? How does that make sense? :confused:

[Mergath]

I am sorry but they are not worth feeding. I know a relatively who is a drug addictive. For her child's sack, I wish she didn't have the welfare with the drug usage

 

Wow. That's harsh. I don't think a person addicted drugs is so evil that they deserve starvation. A lot of them are also mentally ill, and most can't afford the rehab they need to get clean.

[kolamum]

I think if Yum really wanted to "make a difference" they'd offer this group of people the food at either discounted prices or for free. Thus they wouldn't have to use the precious food stamp money that never goes far enough anyway.

 

I understand that in a depleted economy everyone is hurting, and I'm not suggesting that multimillion dollar companies go broke. However, I think they could afford to feed the homeless for a year and still do just fine. Why? Because people would respect a company like that and thus spend their money there.

[jennynd]

So she's a drug addict and somehow it would benefit the child to starve...? How does that make sense? :confused:

 

she took drug when she was preg, Have she not have welfare, she will have to eat before she get drugs. the welfare in a way helps her to buy drugs, Have she not have the welfare, she won't be able to raise the child, the grand parents will have the right to get the kid and raise her up right. Now follow the trend, that kid gonna is going nowhere.

 

You didn't see the drug addict and you didn't see the poor kid. And there is NOTHING we can do to help the kid

Edited October 24, 2011 by jennynd

[Mergath]

I just wanted to add that, as far as people wearing expensive clothing and using food stamps, it doesn't mean they're committing fraud. I've always bought all my dd's clothing at the three thrift stores we have here, because I can get a bag full of clothing for next to nothing. It's a fairly affluent area, so my dd ends up wearing a lot of Ralph Lauren and stuff from the Gap. She has a few things from designers so expensive I haven't even heard of them, but I can tell from the clothing it was obscenely expensive new. When we were getting food assistance, I'm sure more than one person thought we were somehow committing fraud because she was dressed nicely. Obviously, that wasn't the case.

[Mergath]

No, she took drug when she was preg, Have she not have welfare, the grand parents will have the right to get the kid and raise her up right. Now follow the trend, that kid gonna is going nowhere

 

So... you want them to take away her welfare so she can't support her child and thus will lose her? :confused: That's demented. Maybe you should offer your help to the poor woman, instead.

[In2why]

I am sorry but they are not worth feeding. I know a relatively who is a drug addictive. For her child's sack, I wish she didn't have the welfare with the drug usage

 

 

Jenny I don't agree but I know how you feel. I know a drug addict who has had years of rehab, jail, and put his family through he**. I really feel he is a waste of oxygen, and sometimes wish he would just OD already so his family would get a break.

 

I agree with drug testing with assistance for the same reason Imp mentioned. There are very few jobs that can be had if you can't pass a drug test, and whether it is work or assistance it is another reason to either get clean, or never start in the first place. They also have safety nets for children in cases where the parents fail the test.

[LittleIzumi]

I just wanted to add that, as far as people wearing expensive clothing and using food stamps, it doesn't mean they're committing fraud. I've always bought all my dd's clothing at the three thrift stores we have here, because I can get a bag full of clothing for next to nothing. It's a fairly affluent area, so my dd ends up wearing a lot of Ralph Lauren and stuff from the Gap. She has a few things from designers so expensive I haven't even heard of them, but I can tell from the clothing it was obscenely expensive new. When we were getting food assistance, I'm sure more than one person thought we were somehow committing fraud because she was dressed nicely. Obviously, that wasn't the case.

 

:iagree:Dd just got fancy Naartjie suede boots that were a splurge at $4. We have some nice thrift stores.

[In2why]

So... you want them to take away her welfare so she can't support her child and thus will lose her? :confused: That's demented. Maybe you should offer your help to the poor woman, instead.

 

 

It sounds harsh until you care for an 8 year old who was pimped out for Mommy's drugs.

[jennynd]

So... you want them to take away her welfare so she can't support her child and thus will lose her? :confused: That's demented. Maybe you should offer your help to the poor woman, instead.

 

well, we did, we offer to tutor her and pay for her GED, she won't accept it, It is much MUCH easier just to get welfare and taking drug

[Mergath]

It sounds harsh until you care for an 8 year old who was pimped out for Mommy's drugs.

 

And in a situation like that, the person would go to prison and the child would be placed somewhere else. Regardless of what a person has done, though, they have the basic right to food.