Thanks to that old food stamps thread

[...................]

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation. What are you teaching your children by using food stamps?

 

My grandmother came here with 7 kids, no education, and never took a dime from

The government and never has. All of her children have pooled together to survive hard times such as divorce or job loss and have risen to economic prosperity. Rather than take from the government, my grandmother showed her children what it was to survive and work through. She therefore raised 7 children who also didn't take from the government.

 

Obviously if you have no family to help you, and you can't get a job (which, for the next few months, you can't), and are suffering from unhealthy/inadequate food, not enough money for heating bills or medical visits, then that's what it's there for, and there's no shame in accepting it!

 

I'm glad to live in and contribute to a merciful country with people, kind people like in this thread, who want to help others.

 

But I also know that the decisions I make affect my children and grandchildren and their view of the world.

[Cricket]

In our state you have to reapply for food stamps every 6 months. If you need help and apply, it isn't a long-term commitment. If you can't afford car repairs and other family expenses, then I say apply. It can give you some breathing room. That is what it is for. A big problem with some assistance programs is that they won't help you unless you are on the verge of losing your house or getting disconnect notices from the power company, etc. Don't wait until you are in dire straights before getting some help. Then it's much, much harder to dig yourself out.

[Heidi]

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation. What are you teaching your children by using food stamps?

 

My grandmother came here with 7 kids, no education, and never took a dime from

The government and never has. All of her children have pooled together to survive hard times such as divorce or job loss and have risen to economic prosperity. Rather than take from the government, my grandmother showed her children what it was to survive and work through. She therefore raised 7 children who also didn't take from the government.

 

Obviously if you have no family to help you, and you can't get a job (which, for the next few months, you can't), and are suffering from unhealthy/inadequate food, not enough money for heating bills or medical visits, then that's what it's there for, and there's no shame in accepting it!

 

I'm glad to live in and contribute to a merciful country with people, kind people like in this thread, who want to help others.

 

But I also know that the decisions I make affect my children and grandchildren and their view of the world.

 

So well said. I agree 100%

[Aelwydd]

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation. What are you teaching your children by using food stamps?

 

 

Says you. We were on WIC years ago, and on food stamps last year when dh was laid off. We're so dependent and self-entitled now that I'm employed in a full-time job that brings in almost twice the income we had before. It's even worse, though, in that now I'm paying taxes into the system, and therefore spreading my awful habits of dependency to poor people everywhere.

 

As far as what it taught my son--how about, I didn't hold my personal pride as more important than feeding my family?

 

 

 

My grandmother came here with 7 kids, no education, and never took a dime from

The government and never has. All of her children have pooled together to survive hard times such as divorce or job loss and have risen to economic prosperity. Rather than take from the government, my grandmother showed her children what it was to survive and work through. She therefore raised 7 children who also didn't take from the government.

 

Obviously if you have no family to help you, and you can't get a job (which, for the next few months, you can't), and are suffering from unhealthy/inadequate food, not enough money for heating bills or medical visits, then that's what it's there for, and there's no shame in accepting it!

 

I'm glad to live in and contribute to a merciful country with people, kind people like in this thread, who want to help others.

 

 

Yes, I think it's important to emphasize kindness and sharing, and that's why I find myself frustrated with those who insist on discouraging others from accepting help.

[Scarlett]

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation. What are you teaching your children by using food stamps?

 

My mom got FS at various points while raising my brother and me. It taught me that sometimes good people end up in desperate situations and assistance was there for those people. I was happy to always have food and yeah sometimes she bought a liter of Pepsi or made us brownies.

 

My mom on the other hand has a bitter memory of her very poor and very proud parents refusing all assistance and charity. She feels she and her siblings suffered needlessly.... She called the way her dad acted 'false pride'.

[GWOB]

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation. What are you teaching your children by using food stamps?

 

My grandmother came here with 7 kids, no education, and never took a dime from

The government and never has. All of her children have pooled together to survive hard times such as divorce or job loss and have risen to economic prosperity. Rather than take from the government, my grandmother showed her children what it was to survive and work through. She therefore raised 7 children who also didn't take from the government.

 

Obviously if you have no family to help you, and you can't get a job (which, for the next few months, you can't), and are suffering from unhealthy/inadequate food, not enough money for heating bills or medical visits, then that's what it's there for, and there's no shame in accepting it!

 

I'm glad to live in and contribute to a merciful country with people, kind people like in this thread, who want to help others.

 

But I also know that the decisions I make affect my children and grandchildren and their view of the world.

 

Wow. This is completely unhelpful to the op, a woman who is struggling to make ends meet during this Holiday season.

 

So, let me just ask. Are you implying that everyone who has ever accepted government help is dependent and entitled? I'll be sure to tell that to my veteran dh, whose family was on WIC while he was deployed to a war zone. Well, I'll tell him when he gets home from his professional, well-paying job.

 

OP, please use those benefits if you qualify. Temporarily using food stamps and/or WIC is NOT in fact sentencing your family to a life of dependency. The system was designed to help families just like yours.

[Joanne]

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation. What are you teaching your children by using food stamps?

 

My grandmother came here with 7 kids, no education, and never took a dime from

The government and never has. All of her children have pooled together to survive hard times such as divorce or job loss and have risen to economic prosperity. Rather than take from the government, my grandmother showed her children what it was to survive and work through. She therefore raised 7 children who also didn't take from the government.

 

Obviously if you have no family to help you, and you can't get a job (which, for the next few months, you can't), and are suffering from unhealthy/inadequate food, not enough money for heating bills or medical visits, then that's what it's there for, and there's no shame in accepting it!

 

I'm glad to live in and contribute to a merciful country with people, kind people like in this thread, who want to help others.

 

But I also know that the decisions I make affect my children and grandchildren and their view of the world.

 

 

This assumes facts not in evidence. (That is the nice way to say it)

 

The not nice way would be, how freaking insulting and assumptive are you?

 

I can answer your question, though. When I accepted and acted on my need for foodstamps, I taught my kids that normal, hardworking, sober/clean, ethical people sometimes need help.

 

I was working 2 jobs, by the way. And every penny was above the table and reported.

 

"Take from the government" is a heavy, judgment laden, and stereotype heavy phrase.

[...................]

Hmm. Your list provides an excellent anecdotal. Definitely worth considering! ...But that's why my words "avoid" and "if at all possible" come into play, as well as what the OP's situation is.

 

If the children are going to suffer and want for lack of nourishing food, warmth in winter or adequate clothing, and the OP has no family to help, then you are right. The bitter memories of being too proud to accept assistance would be a sad legacy.

 

 

 

[LucyStoner]

 

 

There is certainly shame and a stamina attached.

 

Just because there IS doesn't mean there SHOULD be.

 

People need to eat and when you look at the numbers, charity alone is far from enough to address the full problem. Most people who are on assistance are on as a stop gap measure. Only 10% of SNAP (food stamp) recipients are also receiving TANF (welfare) payments. Most are too young, or too old or too sick to work and most of the balance are working. I see it mainly as an either an investment in my neighbors (kids and adult working to improve their situation) or as a thank you/payback for a lifetime of work (retirees who desperately need it). The few abuses on the system should not be assigned to the majority of recipients who have a legitimate need.

 

 

I was on food stamps and in subsidized housing as a child for most but not all of the time. I was also at times homeless. Thanks to the modicum of stability provided by that aid + my own hard work, I was the first high school grad in my mom's family. Later thanks to grants (more government aid!), I was the first college graduate as well. I have worked most of my life from ages 12-up, I went into a career for the common good despite a skill set and degree that could earn a bigger paycheck in the private sector, and have both paid taxes and made a huge contribution to the non-profit sector by fundraising millions of dollars for families and homeless people. I don't say this to toot my own horn. I share it to show that food stamps and other programs have the capacity to change lives. Without at least some security of food and housing as a child, I likely would have never finished high school and probably would not be raising/educating two middle class sons who have many opportunities and have never experienced poverty, hunger and homelessness.

 

Like you I know people who prefer to skip meals and cut serious nutritional corners rather than accept assistance. To me, that is fine if you are an adult making the choice. But I don't understand why anyone would deprive their children of food if they qualify. I encourage folks to take the help and try and use it a a hand up in life.

[...................]

Hmmm. Wow! Ducking for cover.

 

I don't think the OP either should or should not accept food stamps because I do not have enough info.

 

I only shared my view of why, in general, accepting government assistance should be avoided. I didn't tell her not to do it, and i honestly don't know. And I think I clearly stated that I am glad to contribute to FS.

 

I think my post was helpful. I don't think I was being ugly or offensive.

 

[Lady Florida.]

OP, I think you should at least apply. There is no shame in accepting help. The way I look at it is help from the government is help from your fellow citizens. I truly don't understand why some people (and I'm generalizing, not pointing fingers at anyone from this or recent threads) think it's okay to go to get food from a church food pantry but not "The Government" (said in booming scary tone). Either way you are getting help from people.

 

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation. What are you teaching your children by using food stamps?

 

I disagree. We lived in government housing for 3 years when I was a kid - what was then known as "the projects"*. What that taught me was that my mother thought it was more important to give her kids a decent roof over their heads than to be able to say "I never took government assistance". It taught me about my mother's love. The culture of dependency and expectation was that I could depend on my mother and I should expect her to take care of my brother and me when we were too young to be on our own. That's the culture of dependency and expectation it bred in us.

 

For more of that same "culture" read the quoted posts below.

 

 

Says you. We were on WIC years ago, and on food stamps last year when dh was laid off. We're so dependent and self-entitled now that I'm employed in a full-time job that brings in almost twice the income we had before. It's even worse, though, in that now I'm paying taxes into the system, and therefore spreading my awful habits of dependency to poor people everywhere. As far as what it taught my son--how about, I didn't hold my personal pride as more important than feeding my family? Yes, I think it's important to emphasize kindness and sharing, and that's why I find myself frustrated with those who insist on discouraging others from accepting help.

 

My mom got FS at various points while raising my brother and me. It taught me that sometimes good people end up in desperate situations and assistance was there for those people. I was happy to always have food and yeah sometimes she bought a liter of Pepsi or made us brownies. My mom on the other hand has a bitter memory of her very poor and very proud parents refusing all assistance and charity. She feels she and her siblings suffered needlessly.... Se called the way her dad acted 'false pride'.

 

 

 

*Rabbit trail - Do they still call government housing the projects?

[elegantlion]

The wheels on the bus go round and round, the same topic on a different thread goes round and round. :driving:

 

OP, if you qualify and you need the assistance, apply. If it will help for a few months apply.

 

I

[butterflymommy]

I'd go on them in a heartbeat. We qualified when DH was laid off years ago but he refused to enroll. We've paid so much tax money to the system I'd use the safety net without any shame if ever in that situation again. This isn't to suggest people who haven't paid a lot of taxes should feel shame, just explaining why I wouldn't hesitate.

 

And no I don't think FS should be regulated. What is life without chocolate chip cookies?

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

What is life without chocolate chip cookies?

 

 

Or cupcakes. :D

[Heidi]

OP, if you need help, then by all means go for it. It is a personal decision and one should not feel ashamed to get help through the government if they feel they need it.

 

However, there is a difference between accepting charity when one needs it and excepting government's free handouts just because one qualifies or because one want a slightly higher standard of living. My gripe is that we have an out of control government/welfare state that is breeding dependency and an entitlement mindset.

 

The majority of the world lives below poverty level. What makes our country, with about half of its citizens on some sort of government welfare, think we "deserve" to live at a certain level of wealth? Sure, I wish everyone could have a nice home, good food, and free healthcare. If wishes were fishes. However, it is not realistic to provide those things for everyone through taxation. We lose jobs that way. We lose our freedom that way. We lose our country. I want to preserve my freedom and my country. Do not label me as being selfish because I voice my concerns about the welfare state. It has nothing to do with not wanting to provide for the poor and needy. In fact it is exactly the opposite.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

OP, if you need help, then by all means go for it. It is a personal decision and one should not feel ashamed to get help through the government if they feel they need it.

 

However, there is a difference between accepting charity when one needs it and excepting government's free handouts just because one qualifies or because one want a slightly higher standard of living. My gripe is that we have an out of control government/welfare state that is breeding dependency and an entitlement mindset.

 

The majority of the world lives below poverty level. What makes our country, with about half of its citizens on some sort of government welfare, think we "deserve" to live at a certain level of wealth? Sure, I wish everyone could have a nice home, good food, and free healthcare. If wishes were fishes. However, it is not realistic to provide those things for everyone through taxation. We lose jobs that way. We lose our freedom that way. We lose our country. I want to preserve my freedom and my country. Do not label me as being selfish because I voice my concerns about the welfare state. It has nothing to do with not wanting to provide for the poor and needy. In fact it is exactly the opposite.

 

Half of the citizens in the US are NOT on some form of "government welfare". Mitt's little jibe included federal employees, service members, and Social Security recipients, none of which are welfare recipients.

 

Call me strange, but when we have corporations using our infrastructure, resources, and often our military to generate billions in profits, I somehow believe that we as a nation should be able to make sure the vast majority of our fellow citizens have food, shelter, and at least some healthcare. Frankly, it is good for all of us. (FYI - little know fact, but when the origins of the food stamp plan began in the 30s, it was supported by the US military due to the number of potential recruits suffering from health issues related to malnutrition.)

I don't believe you are selfish. Misguided, but not selfish.

[elfgivas]

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation.

 

calming tea, this statement you made baffles me. could you source that for me? preferably with more than one source?

in my experience the statement you made is both unhelpful and unfounded, but oft repeated. If there is a new study that shows it isn't unfounded, i would really want to know that.

 

what reliable source are you quoting that factually demonstrates that applying for WIC or foodstamps "breeds" a culture of dependency and expectation?

(i put "breeds" in quotes, because it is one of those emotionally loaded verbs that doesn't really belong in a fact-based discussion, but is the one you used)

 

how many people become dependent? what percentage of applicants is that?

 

what is it they expect? is that unreasonable? unjustified? bewildering? (fwiw, my experience with applicants is that they expect to be rejected, and put down)

 

if they are in long-term need, how many of those are dealing with psychiatric difficulties for which they cannot afford or cannot find assistance? medical needs? housing needs? childcare needs?

 

how many of those are veterans? (please do the reading. it is very sobering.)

 

conversely, how many people are helped by temporary use of WIC or food stamps?

there have been real people here sharing their experiences. there are many more of them.

 

one thing i love about homeschooling is how we all continue to learn and grown....

 

blessings,

ann

[Truscifi]

OP here. Thank you all for your responses. I am going to call and at least get more info. Based on the info on the website, we absolutely qualify for WIC and qualify for FS at least based on income, though there are other qualifications like assets and adults working or participating in a back to work program that I need to find out more about.

[Sukale]

I am not up with politics at all. I know I have always lived in a pretty sheltered world. I feel that if you are able to, you work . If you still need some help you should happily take it with NO shame. But if you CAN work and help your self but you just don't want to then you shouldn't be able to get any help. I remember many times hearing my dad say "help those that help themselves." So to OP I would take the FS now. No one is saying you have to take them forever. Your husband is working and doing the best he can. In my opinion you are the people who should be taking the help.

[Ghee]

There is reasoning and research behind the qualification process and income limits.

 

It is exceedingly difficult to *survive* adequately under certain income levels. At "food stamp qualification level", families often have to make choices about car repair, doctor co-pays, not seeking dental care, increase in volume food vs. quality food, etc.

 

Go ahead and apply.

 

People above those limits are often making those decisions. If you qualify, then I would say you for sure should apply.

[Ghee]

*Rabbit trail - Do they still call government housing the projects?

 

It is here (rural West TN)

[Embassy]

In general, I think government assistance should be avoided if at all possible. It breeds a culture of dependency and expectation. What are you teaching your children by using food stamps?

 

My grandmother came here with 7 kids, no education, and never took a dime from

The government and never has. All of her children have pooled together to survive hard times such as divorce or job loss and have risen to economic prosperity. Rather than take from the government, my grandmother showed her children what it was to survive and work through. She therefore raised 7 children who also didn't take from the government.

 

 

 

How can someone live in a country without taking a dime from the government? Were government schools, roads, police, courts, fire, military protection, or other government services not used?

[Georgiana Daniels]

OP here. Thank you all for your responses. I am going to call and at least get more info. Based on the info on the website, we absolutely qualify for WIC and qualify for FS at least based on income, though there are other qualifications like assets and adults working or participating in a back to work program that I need to find out more about.

 

 

Glad you are looking into it! You alone know what your family needs.

[kalanamak]

 

 

I suppose this is a WWYD.

 

I took some charity medical care when I was in college. I later donated to the organization, and have also "paid back" through labor. If you feel funny taking a handout, make a plan to "play it forward". That made it palatable to me.

[Aelwydd]

 

 

How can someone live in a country without taking a dime from the government? Were government schools, roads, police, courts, fire, military protection, or other government services not used?

 

That's right. And eating our government subsidized Cheerios, before heading to work in our cars fueled by government subsidized gasoline, while talking our fool heads off on our cell phones, using communications technology that was developed, in part, by the government.

 

 

Oh yeah, aren't we communicating on medium that was first developed by government technology? According to the classes I've taken through my private corporate employer (communications/technology company), we can thank the government for that, too.

[happyhomemaker25]

In our state you have to reapply for food stamps every 6 months. If you need help and apply, it isn't a long-term commitment. If you can't afford car repairs and other family expenses, then I say apply. It can give you some breathing room. That is what it is for. A big problem with some assistance programs is that they won't help you unless you are on the verge of losing your house or getting disconnect notices from the power company, etc. Don't wait until you are in dire straights before getting some help. Then it's much, much harder to dig yourself out.

 

Yeah, we have to reapply every 6m here and even though our income has changed not at all our coverage keeps going down. LOL Well last time it was because DH had 4days of OT on his paycheck. Not a common occurrence and I'm still upset over that. He still makes just above minimum wage. Those 4 days were nice to get some bills paid down, but golly it was a one time thing. Because every time we reapply our coverage goes down (still don't know why despite various appeals) we are down to half of what we used to get. Guess that's my "entitlement" talking. :o I spend all of our beneifits on the most expensive things for our family. Meat, cheese, fruits and veggies. I still put out almost $100 a week of our money on the fill in stuff. Beans, rice, frozen veggies, tomato products, pastas, rice, flour, eggs, milk. Food prices are going up and benefits are going down....

 

Sorry, tangent. Anyway, OP we lived on our unemployment for 2 years. I did not want to get FS until we absolutely needed it. I still won't touch WIC with a 10 foot pole, but that's a personal, prideful thing, I have nothing to justify it. When Dh's unemployment ran out and we did not have any job prospects we signed up. It was a huge relief. We qualified for almost the max amount. (this is not the amount I'm talking about above. The amount above is since he started working) I had to spend no money out of pocket on groceries and that was good, because the little bit of money we had coming in was all that was keeping our lights and water on and gas in our car.We lived like that for two more months before something gave and DH got a job making just above minimum wage. He works his butt off though and I do everything I can to keep all of our expenses down. Do you know you can duct tape shoes to keep the water out of holes?? LOL Just for DH and I, the kids all have a good pair of sneakers. DH has a good job prospect right now and a REALLY good job prospect right now. Of course we are hoping for the REALLY good job, but the good one would help as well. We hope to be off FS next year.

The only experience I had with gov. benefits up to this point was some of my family members who are drug addicts and really do whatever they can to not work, ever. We found the system so hard to navigate that I think it must be a FT job just getting whatever they get to keep them going. However, I now have such a new perspective of FS and especially WIC. I always want to cry for these mama's in line with their WIC checks and people behind us are being rude because face it WIC checks take forever in the line. Of course at least one thing they grabbed was the wrong size or brand or whatever and there has to be some shuffling and replacing. I try to smile at them or keep the babies entertained whenever I can. I can only imagine how frustrating and embarrassing it is for them.

Don't be ashamed. Get the benefits. Use them to better your home life. It is stressful trying to keep up when money is short. One thing you don't have to worry about is groceries. Well at least you don't have to worry about it as much. I could probably feed us on just my EBT benefits if I had to. It would be a lot of canned food, ramen, and other things that I don't consider nutritious and would get me dirty looks apparently.. LOL, but I could do it. It's hard being diabetic though because I do rely more on protein and less carbs. You know the cheap filler food.

It has helped our family tremendously.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

WIC in PA gives each recipient $20 (so $40 if it's a baby and a postpartum mom) in vouchers to use at farmer's markets in the summer. And each month, they give you vouchers to use at the regular grocery stores that will buy fresh, frozen, or canned fruits/veggies too. It's not a ton, but if you shop the sales, you can get a fair amount.

 

Also, to the OP, if you do get the food stamps, see if any of your local farmer's markets have a program like this: around here, if you use your food stamps at the farmer's market, they'll double what you use, up to $10 at a time. So if you swipe your regular debit card and ask for $10 worth of tokens, you get $10 worth of tokens. But if you swipe your EBT (food stamp) card and ask for $10 worth of tokens, you get $20 worth of tokens. (And our farmer's markets, in the summer, are often cheaper for apples, peppers, cucumbers, etc. than the grocery store.) I think that is a fantastic program! People disagree on high-fat vs. low-fat, whole grain vs. low-carb, etc., but everyone agrees that more fresh fruits and veggies are good, so what a great incentive!

 

That is a great idea, IMO.

[Tap]

Honestly, I look at it like this......the state you live in, says that if you make x amount and are a family of x....they will help you out a bit with food.

 

If you fit those parameters, and are being honest, then apply for them. If you feel guity (which you shouldn't but if you do) then make sure you are using the money appropriately and if you have a bit left at the end of the month then make sure you are investing it into the health and safety of your family. Car repairs absolutely qualify for that and so does a modest savings.

[Free]

...and the OP has no family to help.

 

If the OP is a citizen then she already has access to help in the form of food stamps. Why should she be begging family for support?

[Free]

I discovered today that we qualify for food stamps. I was reading that thread, and googled FL food stamps out of curiosity, to see what it said they can be used on. I saw the income info while I was there, and yep, we qualify now that we are a family of 4 instead of 3. I am currently processing this - I admit it hurt my pride a bit to realize we are below the income limits.

 

But I'm also debating whether I should apply. It would certainly help, as we have a pretty tight food budget right now. Plus we have our new little guy to think about - help with food would free up more money for the inevitable baby expenses. And I need to do some car repairs that we keep putting off because of finances, so we might actually be able to get those done if we had some extra help. On the other hand, we've been doing better in the last year, and we can get by without it. We're even looking at taking a little vacation for ds9's bday present (made possible largely because SIL and her dh are going too and will cover much of the cost, but still). Dh says it is up to me because I will be the one dealing with it since he will be at work.

 

I suppose this is a WWYD.

 

 

Such programs are not charity - your country is making an investment in you and your kids. When you live in a country that provides you with resources to better your station and that of your kids, then the wisest thing to do IMO, is to use them.

[thebacabunch]

Wow. One of these days you're going to have to let us know how you get around without driving on state-funded roads.

 

Actually, that is what I want my taxes to pay for; roads, hospitals, fire, police, etc. It is not my benevolent government who throws me a bone, they are my employees.

[mommaduck]

Actually, that is what I want my taxes to pay for; roads, hospitals, fire, police, etc. It is not my benevolent government who throws me a bone, they are my employees.

And many of those people that build and upkeep those roads also receive assistance...just like many in the military that protect many of your precious freedoms.

[Mrs Mungo]

Let's talk about entitlement and what it really means.

 

At one time people were able to support a family on a regular job. That is no longer true because major corporations are paying extremely low wages in order to rake in millions or even billions personally. Who is paying for THAT? The taxpayers. The taxpayers are the ones funding food stamps, Medicare and assistance for those low-wage employees.

 

Here is what *their* kids do with that money (Michael Dell's kids, for example, have been featured):

http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/

 

So, if you want to talk about entitlement, stop using the word to talk about people who are just trying to feed their families on low income jobs. The "entitled" people in our society are the VERY rich living off the backs of the poor, the taxpayers (you and me) and the stockholders (if you have an IRA, 401k, mutual fund or 529, then this is you and me again). It makes you look like a character out of a Dickens novel to keep blaming the working poor.

 

Let's take the Hostess example. The union was blamed for the company's failure in most media outlets. There was little mention of the millions of dollars of bonus payouts to execs or the raiding of the company's pension fund.

[RoughCollie]

It is not my benevolent government who throws me a bone, they are my employees.

 

That is good news! Please order your employees to do something to correct a policy with which you disagree. If you are successful, I'll believe you. (Be sure to tell us what it is first.)

 

Or go live in a national park. Just squat there and refuse to leave. When a government employee tries to throw you out, remind him that you are his employer and that, furthermore, you own the park! Do you think that will work? (Hint: It won't. Why? You don't own the park, and you are not his employer.)

[speedmom4]

 

It makes you look like a character out of a Dickens novel to keep blaming the working poor.

 

 

 

 

No child should go hungry. No momma should ever have to watch her children go hungry either.

 

Get the FS. Poor nutrition now can lead to health problems later in life. You shouldn't feel bad or ashamed. We should all have compassion for those who are going through hard times. You never know when you will be in the same position and need a helping hand. Compassion for others is the hallmark of a moral society.

 

God Bless,

Elise in NC

[Heidi]

Let's talk about entitlement and what it really means.

 

At one time people were able to support a family on a regular job. That is no longer true because major corporations are paying extremely low wages in order to rake in millions or even billions personally. Wait a second. So major corporations USED to pay better wages, but now they are paying extremely low wages? I thought minimum wage was going up, not down. I'm confused by what you mean by this. What has made that "no longer true"? Who is paying for THAT? The taxpayers. The taxpayers are the ones funding food stamps, Medicare and assistance for those low-wage employees. Yes, but keep in mind that raising taxes on the owners of companies does exactly the same thing. It won't be coming out of their pockets, it comes out of employees pay, or by laying off employees, or by closing their doors because business is no longer profitable enough.

 

Here is what *their* kids do with that money (Michael Dell's kids, for example, have been featured):

http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/

 

Sorry, if we're not supposed to care how poor people spend other people's money, we definitley shouldn't care how rich people spend their OWN money, right?

So, if you want to talk about entitlement, stop using the word to talk about people who are just trying to feed their families on low income jobs. The "entitled" people in our society are the VERY rich living off the backs of the poor, the taxpayers (you and me) and the stockholders (if you have an IRA, 401k, mutual fund or 529, then this is you and me again). It makes you look like a character out of a Dickens novel to keep blaming the working poor.

 

Let's take the Hostess example. The union was blamed for the company's failure in most media outlets. There was little mention of the millions of dollars of bonus payouts to execs or the raiding of the company's pension fund.

:)

[Denisemomof4]

OP here. Thank you all for your responses. I am going to call and at least get more info. Based on the info on the website, we absolutely qualify for WIC and qualify for FS at least based on income, though there are other qualifications like assets and adults working or participating in a back to work program that I need to find out more about.

 

 

I am glad you are calling. :)

 

 

And PLEASE feel no shame!!! :grouphug:

[Mrs Mungo]

hmsmith:

At one time people were able to support a family on a regular job. That is no longer true because major corporations are paying extremely low wages in order to rake in millions or even billions personally.

Wait a second. So major corporations USED to pay better wages, but now they are paying extremely low wages? I thought minimum wage was going up, not down. I'm confused by what you mean by this. What has made that "no longer true"?

 

Are you suggesting that you believe most companies have always paid minimum wage or less? That you believe the largest employer in the United States, which rakes in billions of dollars in profits should pay little more than minimum wage for no other reason than it's legal.

 

Who is paying for THAT? The taxpayers. The taxpayers are the ones funding food stamps, Medicare and assistance for those low-wage employees. Yes, but keep in mind that raising taxes on the owners of companies does exactly the same thing. It won't be coming out of their pockets, it comes out of employees pay, or by laying off employees, or by closing their doors because business is no longer profitable enough.

 

I didn't suggest raising taxes, that wouldn't be my suggestion. Never the less, Wal-Mart is THE largest employer in the nation. Other companies follow its lead *because* it is the largest employer in the nation. Its owners, the 6 heirs of the Walton family, control over $93 billion, more wealth than the entire bottom 40% of the nation. They *routinely* help (and sometimes strong-arm) manufacturers into moving out of the country, meaning that communities are losing decent paying manufacturing jobs. You are suggesting that if they raise wages or have to pay a little more in taxes that it will suddenly not be profitable enough and have to close?

 

Average Wal-Mart wages are $8.81. A typical "full-time" employee works 34 hours. This means they are at 70% of the poverty line. Why should the taxpayers at OUR level pay for those people's Medicaid and food stamps so that the Walton heirs can continue to grow their already massive fortune? Because THAT is what is happening. You should be mad at those employees, you should be mad at the mega-rich company owners who are paying them so little. Food assistance programs in the USA? To include Food Stamps and Child Nutrition? Is around $34 billion. The Wal-Mart heirs could easily foot that bill for the entire county. Do you understand how much money we're talking now?

 

 

Sorry, if we're not supposed to care how poor people spend other people's money, we definitley shouldn't care how rich people spend their OWN money, right?

 

Except, they are spending OUR money because they are using OUR tax dollars to fund the living expenses of their employees. It's every bit as much welfare as the people who need to feed their kids. You're talking a cake versus a gold-plated AK or bathing in Dom. Which do you think is a REALLY extravagant waste of our tax dollars? Because they are reling on our tax dollars to pay their employees as little as they possibly can, not to be "profitable" but to be richer than almost half of the country combined. You don't think that's excessive? Considering they are making that money off of OUR backs?

[Heidi]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html?_r=0

 

I thought this was interesting. It is from the NY Times.

 

Here is a quote from the article:

 

"The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement."

 

This is what chaps my hide (lol, funny saying) about government benefits. This is NOT OK.

[Free]

Wait a second. So major corporations USED to pay better wages, but now they are paying extremely low wages? I thought minimum wage was going up, not down. I'm confused by what you mean by this. What has made that "no longer true"?

 

According to the graph in this article, minimum wages have increased in nominal value but have decreased when adjusted for inflation. According to the same article "The minimum wage had its highest purchasing value ever in 1968, when it was $1.60 per hour ($10.64 in 2012 dollars)."

 

 

Yes, but keep in mind that raising taxes on the owners of companies does exactly the same thing. It won't be coming out of their pockets, it comes out of employees pay, or by laying off employees, or by closing their doors because business is no longer profitable enough.

 

Personal income tax is different from Corporate taxes. Profitability of a business does not depend on personal income taxes of the business owner.

[Heidi]

hmsmith:

At one time people were able to support a family on a regular job. That is no longer true because major corporations are paying extremely low wages in order to rake in millions or even billions personally.

Wait a second. So major corporations USED to pay better wages, but now they are paying extremely low wages? I thought minimum wage was going up, not down. I'm confused by what you mean by this. What has made that "no longer true"?

 

Are you suggesting that you believe most companies have always paid minimum wage or less? That you believe the largest employer in the United States, which rakes in billions of dollars in profits should pay little more than minimum wage for no other reason than it's legal.

No, I was just asking you if you knew why a family can't support themselves on a regular job anymore. I don't know why. Do you? What has changed? I'm not arguing with you.

 

Who is paying for THAT? The taxpayers. The taxpayers are the ones funding food stamps, Medicare and assistance for those low-wage employees. Yes, but keep in mind that raising taxes on the owners of companies does exactly the same thing. It won't be coming out of their pockets, it comes out of employees pay, or by laying off employees, or by closing their doors because business is no longer profitable enough.

 

I didn't suggest raising taxes, that wouldn't be my suggestion. Good :) Never the less, Wal-Mart is THE largest employer in the nation. Other companies follow its lead *because* it is the largest employer in the nation. Its owners, the 6 heirs of the Walton family, control over $93 billion, more wealth than the entire bottom 40% of the nation. They *routinely* help (and sometimes strong-arm) manufacturers into moving out of the country, meaning that communities are losing decent paying manufacturing jobs. I agree. This is NOT good. You are suggesting that if they raise wages or have to pay a little more in taxes that it will suddenly not be profitable enough and have to close? Doesn't sound like it. They could pay more and do just fine. But you're talking about the largest coorporation in the US too.

 

Average Wal-Mart wages are $8.81. A typical "full-time" employee works 34 hours. This means they are at 70% of the poverty line. Why should the taxpayers at OUR level pay for those people's Medicaid and food stamps so that the Walton heirs can continue to grow their already massive fortune? I understand the problem, but where does it end? What standard of living does a cashier deserve to earn? How much income is enough? Should we make everyone middle class? Isn't that called socialism? Because THAT is what is happening. You should be mad at those employees, you should be mad at the mega-rich company owners who are paying them so little. Food assistance programs in the USA? To include Food Stamps and Child Nutrition? Is around $34 billion. The Wal-Mart heirs could easily foot that bill for the entire county. Do you understand how much money we're talking now?

 

 

Sorry, if we're not supposed to care how poor people spend other people's money, we definitley shouldn't care how rich people spend their OWN money, right?

 

Except, they are spending OUR money because they are using OUR tax dollars to fund the living expenses of their employees.Isn't it the rich that pay the majority of taxes? It's every bit as much welfare as the people who need to feed their kids. You're talking a cake versus a gold-plated AK or bathing in Dom. Which do you think is a REALLY extravagant waste of our tax dollars? Because they are reling on our tax dollars to pay their employees as little as they possibly can, not to be "profitable" but to be richer than almost half of the country combined. You don't think that's excessive? Considering they are making that money off of OUR backs? Again, isn't it the ultra rich that pay most of the taxes? I don't know about you, but I get a tax refund on tax day.

 

I'm not angry at rich people. They earned their money, they can spend their money as they wish. I would not want to put a cap on how much they can make, nor resent their earnings. That is what freedom is.

 

 

:) Our language is getting colorful.

[Heidi]

According to the graph in this article, minimum wages have increased in nominal value but have decreased when adjusted for inflation. According to the same article "The minimum wage had its highest purchasing value ever in 1968, when it was $1.60 per hour ($10.64 in 2012 dollars)."

 

Thanks.

 

Personal income tax is different from Corporate taxes. Profitability of a business does not depend on personal income taxes of the business owner.

 

 

Yes, but if a person's business or corporation is taxed, wouldn't the fallout come out of employee's paychecks to make up the difference? I am not educated on how these things work. I'm just using a little common sense and guessing. I could be wrong. ;)

[flyingiguana]

Go ahead and apply -- although if you have much in the way of assets, you may find you're not eligible until you spend down those assets. Just a word of advice -- don't declare anything unless it really is an asset. I knew a guy who declared all his books (he had a LOT) because he was proud of his collection. He valued it rather highly, and was forced to sell them all off before he could qualify. The fact that he actually only got very little money for them didn't seem to matter to anyone.

 

As far as feeling guilty, the government (read: all of us who live here) have an interest in keeping a reasonably healthy population. There are lots of reasons why, involving public health, crime, etc, that would affect all of us adversely. Food stamps are a really, really cheap way for the government (yes, that's us) to ensure that we don't end up with bigger problems down the road that will cost more.

 

This article says a bit more about the junk food on food stamps debate:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/12/13/health/food-stamp-spending-junk-food/

You really have to read it all, not just have feelings validated by the first few paragraphs. Towards the end they talk about how people buying a few sweets isn't really an issue, and that regulating that would be an expensive nightmare.

 

There are a lot dumber things our govt spends money on. Frankly, I wish they'd increase the program. Food shelves are a bit anachronistic, really (although I contribute to them often). Fact is, if they handed out more in food stamps to people who are eligible, there might be more healthy food being purchased on the program. Foods and vegetables aren't cheap. One reason people may be buying junk is because it may be cheaper per calorie.

 

I have been on food stamps. They're great. That's ONE thing you don't have to worry about, and if you can manage to feed yourself and your kids with healthy food, you'll be a lot less stressed about everything else. There are some administrative hurdles to jump through involving sitting a long time in an office during the application, but it can be so worth it.

 

Around here, we also have some programs where you can spend your food stamps (or your own money, if that's what you have) on much cheaper food. You might want to look into those:

http://www.emergencyfoodshelf.org/OurFamilyOfPrograms/ffa/

is the one near us. It's kind of heavy on the meat -- if you do a lot of beans and lentils instead, this kind of program wouldn't save you any money, but it's good for people who do meat. And our farmer's markets also do the EBT thing -- where you can get loads of cheap produce.

[AimeeM]

 

Yes, but if a person's business or corporation is taxed, wouldn't the fallout come out of employee's paychecks to make up the difference? I am not educated on how these things work. I'm just using a little common sense and guessing. I could be wrong. ;)

You aren't wrong, in my experience. The business has a bottom line to meet and if they are paying more out, they are bringing less in (less in profit and less to go towards the overhead) - the outcome is that employee hours are cut, people are cut, or they simply do not hire as many employees.

[mommaduck]

Companies like WM intentionally pay as little as they can get away with, undercutting hours, so that they don't have to pay out in benefits, etc. They actually rely on the fact that their employees qualify for assistance. Companies like WM are the ones raiding the system, just indirectly. I saw an in-company management memo from one of the biggest known companies in the US this past year. It stated that they knew they, and other companies with the same type of workers, were intentionally underpaying these particular workers, that they could pay more, but why when there are plenty of workers out there due to the economy and they were taking full advantage of that.

[mama2cntrykids]

Personally, I would and have. If you qualify for it, there's a good chance it's needed. Besides, if your family is paying taxes, you're paying for the program anyway.

[Free]

No, I was just asking you if you knew why a family can't support themselves on a regular job anymore. I don't know why. Do you? What has changed? I'm not arguing with you.

 

Here is why.

The benefits of increased productivity over the last 35 years have not gone to the middle.

Also this is why:

After-Tax Income Grew More for Highest-Income Households

And this:

Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low

And this:

America’s Growing Income Gap

This is a really interesting interactive that you can play around with:

When income grows, who gains?

 

I understand the problem, but where does it end? What standard of living does a cashier deserve to earn? How much income is enough? Should we make everyone middle class? Isn't that called socialism?

 

I linked to graphs and articles above. Some of those are really interesting and show how the high profits of the corporations and high incomes of the rich come at the cost of middle and low income earners even with increase in productivity. This clearly shows who is taking the unfair share here.

 

Again, isn't it the ultra rich that pay most of the taxes? I don't know about you, but I get a tax refund on tax day.

 

Not true. Please check this graph. The share of total income and the share of total income tax often go hand in hand. If you want the lower income groups to pay more taxes, then you need to fix the imbalance in income share.

 

I'm not angry at rich people. They earned their money, they can spend their money as they wish. I would not want to put a cap on how much they can make, nor resent their earnings. That is what freedom is.

 

Except that the data (which I linked above) shows that the richest are directly feeding off low and middle wage earners.

[flyingiguana]

Sure, I wish everyone could have a nice home, good food, and free healthcare. If wishes were fishes. However, it is not realistic to provide those things for everyone through taxation. We lose jobs that way. We lose our freedom that way. We lose our country. I want to preserve my freedom and my country. Do not label me as being selfish because I voice my concerns about the welfare state. It has nothing to do with not wanting to provide for the poor and needy. In fact it is exactly the opposite.

 

Actually, it's extremely realistic to provide these things. And it does not result in lost freedoms. Most people on these programs who are not elderly or children will not stay on them for long. And I see no reason not to have children on them, for heaven's sakes, even though they aren't wage earners. Our society is going to be in serious trouble if we don't take good care of our future citizens. Do we want a bunch of stupid kids growing up to run this country -- stupid because they didn't get enough food when they were growing?

 

There are plenty of things the govt could quit spending money on -- things that would make a serious dent in the budget. Food stamps is definitely not one of them. Think defense budget. Think foreign wars we should never have got involved in. There are fights to pick and fights not to pick, and the wars the US has been involved in lately have not, for the most part, been ones we should have gotten into. They're also VERY expensive.

 

BTW -- the health care bill is not about free health care. It's about insuring a large enough pool of individuals that we can, as a country, save money on health care. One can argue about whether this will accomplish this, but to say it breeds dependency and provides free health care is just misinformed.

 

I certainly do not want to live in a society that does not keep people from starving or dying of easily treatable diseases. Or who doesn't want to educate its citizens. And I really doubt anyone else does either. However, a few of the comments on this and the other thread make the posters look like that's what they're saying. A baseline of help for those on the bottom makes our society a real society and not just anarchy where no one is safe. Anyone who doesn't understand that is speaking from a lack of understanding of these programs -- how much they actually cost vs how much they end up saving. And how awful our country would be if we didn't have them.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You aren't wrong, in my experience. The business has a bottom line to meet and if they are paying more out, they are bringing less in (less in profit and less to go towards the overhead) - the outcome is that employee hours are cut, people are cut, or they simply do not hire as many employees.

 

 

 

That isn't the whole story. The level of profitability and return on investment are factors in the business decision as well.

[Heidi]

Here is why.

The benefits of increased productivity over the last 35 years have not gone to the middle.

Also this is why:

After-Tax Income Grew More for Highest-Income Households

And this:

Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low

And this:

America’s Growing Income Gap

This is a really interesting interactive that you can play around with:

When income grows, who gains?

 

 

 

I linked to graphs and articles above. Some of those are really interesting and show how the high profits of the corporations and high incomes of the rich come at the cost of middle and low income earners even with increase in productivity. This clearly shows who is taking the unfair share here.

 

 

 

Not true. Please check this graph. The share of total income and the share of total income tax often go hand in hand. If you want the lower income groups to pay more taxes, then you need to fix the imbalance in income share.

 

 

 

Except that the data (which I linked above) shows that the richest are directly feeding off low and middle wage earners.

 

 

 

Thanks. Stuff to think about.