Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.
If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.
It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.
It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.
It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.
So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?
Just for discussion, I do too. For the same reason that I would not agree that any money that goes to Planned Parenthood goes to fund abortions if they use it to fund an entirely different program (like say contraceptives or gyno exams for poor women).
Not to go off on THAT particular tangent, I'm just talking about how to determine what is being funded/subsidized.
This is an interesting point, thank you for bringing it up.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Noreenmarie1234 wrote: »
No it's actually easy you don't need proof you pay for everything they take your word and have no idea if our parents are helping you out and can't proove how much you make or anything. All they asked for was proof of rent statement everything else they just asked me and relied on me telling the truth.TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »Student benefits. It's not that easy to get "food stamps". You have to prove that you are independent from your parents and live alone on a very small paycheck/salary. Pay your own bills/rent. File taxes as such. You cannot have too much money in savings/checking or a car that is too high in value (I think under 2 grand). You actually have to be very poor.
It can be done if you have smart parents that really know how to hide money well, but all this for $200 a month? Federal Fraud risk? Jail time and fines?
This is going to be true of any type of assistance. You can't get the assistance and be claimed as a dependent by your parents, but the government is never going to have the resources to police every dollar your parents make to be sure they aren't giving you cash or paying your rent for you.
And if this happens the parents are giving up a deduction. (Or else risking penalties.)0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.
We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.
I can understand individual parents making that distinction. I mean, when I was a kid we were not allowed to snack on chips because it's really easy to eat the whole bag.
I just don't think that makes chips non-food. It's just a kind of food that's for many people to overeat.2 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.
We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.
I can understand individual parents making that distinction. I mean, when I was a kid we were not allowed to snack on chips because it's really easy to eat the whole bag.
I just don't think that makes chips non-food. It's just a kind of food that's for many people to overeat.
lol See, there really is a difference. If we reached for the cookie jar we were scolded and told to get food instead - everything edible was not food.0 -
I was on food stamps for a while. I was okay with the "no soda" thing (my state forbids soda from being bought with them, though, oddly, I could buy as much Halloween candy as I wanted on the state's dime). The killer was diapers, toilet paper and medicine. I don't have kids, but watching others in the EBT line (where poor people go to buy food) paying two or three times for different kinds of items while on the verge of a nervous breakdown was heartbreaking. Also, diapers, toilet paper and medicine are crazy expensive and far more necessary than candy, IMO. I didn't make the rules...if I had they'd make sense.
Edited to clarify: I really think food stamps should cover everything, or cover nothing. Presumably we can trust adults to make their own choices regarding food and basic needs? It's not like food stamp funds are unlimited.
I always had two kids in diapers and I used cloth flats. Great way to diaper on the cheap (and I mean cheap)
Back during that time I also made my own laundry detergent, to save money on washing them.
Also-prices do vary, but I pay .59 for 4 rolls of toilet paper (Aldi brand). I definitely don't consider that to be one of my pricier purchases. And also varying by location, but a lot of dollar stores carry some medicines now, as well as Dollar General. Manufacturers also give out coupons on their websites frequently.3 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Back when my kids were in the traditional school system we opted to not participate in bringing in food for classroom parties, nor did we bring in b-day treats for the classroom. If someone doesn't have the extra funds to provide a treat then they just don't bring in a treat-it's really not a big deal. My kids were never belittled/picked on for not bringing in anything, nor did the teacher pull me aside to talk about it. And actually the whole 'treats in the classroom' is a pretty controversial topic and some schools are getting away from it.
Wow, I really do feel like I'm on a parenting board right now... I need to find a apple cider vinegar thread to balance things out
What school system are they in now? Most kids want to participate, traditional or not, and shouldn't be left out because some nut job in Washington, DC is banning junk food. People say the darndest things4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.
If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.
It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.
It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.
It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.
So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?
I do see a difference, yes.
Would you care to explain exactly what it is? I'm not not trying to be difficult, I'm just not seeing the relevance.
The source of the money. Do you really not see a difference in money from charity and money that you earned yourself?
If I give someone $5 for food, as a supplement to their grocery budget, and their total budget is $10, I don't consider it relevant whether or not they spend "my" $5 on soda or beans.
It's not that if I don't see a difference in money from charity (or in this particular case, the government) and money that I have earned myself. I'm saying that if food stamps form a portion of someone's grocery budget and they're going to be buying soda anyway, I don't consider it relevant whether they're using money from one source available to them as opposed to another.
I can see the logic in that but I don't see why it would affect the decision whether to exclude soda from being purchased with assistance money.
So... now Mary buys $5 of soda and $5 of Twinkies with SNAP and pays $10 of her own money for veggies. This is bad.
But after, Mary buys $10 of veggies with SNAP and $5 of soda and $5 of Twinkies with her own money, and this is good?
The difference is that Mary had to actually earn the extra money to burn on soda and twinkies...
She's earning the money either way -- in both examples she is spending $10 of her own money.
Mary isn't the only recipient. We're talking general rules and regulations.
I don't see what in my post made you conclude that I thought Mary was the only recipient.
You keep giving individual examples as if general rules and regulations should be set for these specific examples. The rules re: food stamps should be set at a higher level and should consider only the money provided by food stamps.
That was actually someone else's example.
But I don't see a problem with using individual examples to illustrate how a larger policy will impact people.
The rules, of course, will be set at a higher level. The impact will be felt by individuals and using examples can help us explore how a policy would actually work when it was implemented.
So lets turn this around. Why does it matter if soda is excluded if recipients can still get soda with their own money? They don't need assistance to get the soda, right?
If you're agreeing that it doesn't matter, then I consider the burden to be on those who want to change the current system to explain why they want it changed.
Obviously I'm not.
So we're right back where we started. If you think this would be a meaningful change, I'm asking why you think it's meaningful.
Still the same as when we started. The source of the money. It's the difference in buying yourself a soda vs. asking me to buy you a soda because you are hungry. Honestly if you can't understand a difference then I don't see a point in continuing the debate. I see a difference.
I understand your point that there is a subjective difference to you. I was hoping to dig into a discussion of, objectively, what the difference is but I respect that you don't wish to continue.
I don't mind continuing but I'm not sure what else I can say. The difference, the whole difference, to me is the source of the money. Asking others to buy you soda because you can't feed yourself vs. asking others to buy you food because you can't feed yourself and then spending your own money on a treat, which for you is soda.
You don't need soda, you do need food. (not you personally)
I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."
While it's true that we don't "need" soda, I don't think there is any single food item that a human needs in order to be healthy. We can see people thriving without eating fruit, without eating meat, without eating grains. We don't require any of those things.
If someone can buy a bag of granulated sugar with benefits, I don't understand why soda would be a problem (you may also support limits on sugar purchases, I'm not trying to attribute a position to you that you may not hold).
Or is this more like supporting a ban on purchasing any liquid with benefits? Is the argument that you do need food, but liquids other than water are unnecessary?
No, I think milk or milk substitutes should be covered. It's seeing soda as never being the better choice. If you have so little that you must ask others to buy your food, you don't need to consume a glass of sugar water. I doubt many people are eating a bag of sugar. They are using that as as ingredient. Sometimes soda may also be an ingredient but typically not.
Would I be correct in assuming you would also support restricting the purchase of juice, especially juices that are sweetened with additional sugar?
What about candy?
No, not juices. They provide more than sugar. IDK about sugar sweetened juice or candy. I'd have to know how those were defined.2 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?
Ah, that's where there's the disconnect then, because after researching into organic I definitely don't think it's any 'healthier'. Fresh fruit in season is reasonably priced-I have around 50lbs of berries in my freezer, that I picked from UPick farms earlier this year. Also-I frequently pay .35-.54lb for bananas, $3 or less for a bag of apples (9 apples), I'm paying $1.78 for 2lbs of fresh grapes tomorrow when I get groceries etc. And I can get bagged frozen chicken breasts for under $6, 1lb bags of frozen wild caught salmon for under $4. And yes, I do eat beans every day, as well as whole grains-I follow the DASH protocol and these are staples of the plan.
4 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?
Ah, that's where there's the disconnect then, because after researching into organic I definitely don't think it's any 'healthier'. Fresh fruit in season is reasonably priced-I have around 50lbs of berries in my freezer, that I picked from UPick farms earlier this year. Also-I frequently pay .35-.54lb for bananas, $3 or less for a bag of apples (9 apples), I'm paying $1.78 for 2lbs of fresh grapes tomorrow when I get groceries etc. And I can get bagged frozen chicken breasts for under $6, 1lb bags of frozen wild caught salmon for under $4. And yes, I do eat beans every day, as well as whole grains-I follow the DASH protocol and these are staples of the plan.
eta I'd be curious to compare menu plans and grocery lists with you, to see where we differ.0 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?
This is where nutrition counseling could be helpful. Organic or fresh foods are necessarily the healthiest. Frozen or canned vegetables provide plenty of nutrients. Dried beans and grains are very healthy. A ribeye at $15 per lb is not more nutrition than round steak at $4 per lb. Thinking that a balanced diet only comes from expensive foods shows a lack of nutrition knowledge.6 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »I was on food stamps for a while. I was okay with the "no soda" thing (my state forbids soda from being bought with them, though, oddly, I could buy as much Halloween candy as I wanted on the state's dime). The killer was diapers, toilet paper and medicine. I don't have kids, but watching others in the EBT line (where poor people go to buy food) paying two or three times for different kinds of items while on the verge of a nervous breakdown was heartbreaking. Also, diapers, toilet paper and medicine are crazy expensive and far more necessary than candy, IMO. I didn't make the rules...if I had they'd make sense.
Edited to clarify: I really think food stamps should cover everything, or cover nothing. Presumably we can trust adults to make their own choices regarding food and basic needs? It's not like food stamp funds are unlimited.
I always had two kids in diapers and I used cloth flats. Great way to diaper on the cheap (and I mean cheap) Back during that time I also made my own laundry detergent, to save money on washing them.
Also-prices do vary, but I pay .59 for 4 rolls of toilet paper (Aldi brand). I definitely don't consider that to be one of my pricier purchases. And also varying by location, but a lot of dollar stores carry some medicines now, as well as Dollar General. Manufacturers also give out coupons on their websites frequently.
True! I shop at Aldi now and love it, but when I was on food stamps I lived in a food desert in an extremely poor community with few stores (I pretty much had one strip mall within 30 miles to get my necessities from). My mom used cloth diapers and I did suggest them to many people but in some places it's just "not done," which I never understood...disposable diapers are hugely expensive, and so is shopping the chain stores.
@LJGettinSexy, where the heck do you shop? Apples never retail for more than $3 a bag here, and carrots are 89c. Most fruits and veggies in season are cheap as dirt. Bananas are 49c/lb. at Pick N Save. I guess you live in a bigger city?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Average SNAP benefits per person are about $130 a month. It's hard to fit in nutritionally diverse foods in that budget. Despite all the Judgy McJudgersons out there, people on SNAP have to get creative about feeding their families. Yes, there are ways to eat healthy and stretch a budget and I know that it's possible because 1) I've done it and 2) at least once a week there is a thread on here about how to eat healthy for cheap. Eating healthy doesn't have to be expensive, but it DOES require an education into food economics.
Many people, to include those who don't depend on assistance, don't have the basic knowledge of how to make healthy, cheap meals. People who do need assistance are just like everyone else - they're trying to feed their families the best way that they know how. Why should we demonize them for making sub-optimal nutritional choices? Do YOU make perfect food choices at the grocery store every week? I don't . . ..
@DamieBird, that may be the average, but that's like adding in a senators average wage to a fast food workers wage and announcing to the nation that the "average" working American makes $20 an hour so the government dont understand how Americans can possibly be struggling. In this case their are more single people or people who just needed a "little" help and averaging it with those who have larger families. My grandpa "qualifies" for $32 a month food stamps because of his disability check. After taking out his rent and bills, he can still afford to drink 2 beers a day and buy cartons of cigs. Then he complains that they aren't giving him enough food stamps to live on. Technically he doesn't need them at all!
Average that into a family of 4 getting $500 a month because neither parent works. It looks so much better saying that "On average they are ONLY getting $281.." Sounds ugly saying "Elderly man can't afford food but smokes and drinks and two parents can't find work conveniently in 10 years. My brother quits and finds new jobs often enough that I know that to be a lie!
There ARE hard cases out there! I don't believe that's the case for the majority of them on stamps. I learned that self-preservation can be a powerful motivator for people. I also learned that if you give then something for free everyday, then suddenly stop, they become enraged and demand to know why you are no longer giving it to them.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
i don't think that it's a single instance by far. i'm curious as to why anecdotal evidence of people buying lobsters or otherwise fraudulently obtaining or misusing welfare programs are ok to label as indicative of widespread problems, but the far more common occurrence of a child's birthday is a one-off and not a valid consideration.
ETA: @DamieBird - just saw you posted a similar thought.14 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?
Ah, that's where there's the disconnect then, because after researching into organic I definitely don't think it's any 'healthier'. Fresh fruit in season is reasonably priced-I have around 50lbs of berries in my freezer, that I picked from UPick farms earlier this year. Also-I frequently pay .35-.54lb for bananas, $3 or less for a bag of apples (9 apples), I'm paying $1.78 for 2lbs of fresh grapes tomorrow when I get groceries etc. And I can get bagged frozen chicken breasts for under $6, 1lb bags of frozen wild caught salmon for under $4. And yes, I do eat beans every day, as well as whole grains-I follow the DASH protocol and these are staples of the plan.
As I stated before, where I buy groceries...0 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Average SNAP benefits per person are about $130 a month. It's hard to fit in nutritionally diverse foods in that budget. Despite all the Judgy McJudgersons out there, people on SNAP have to get creative about feeding their families. Yes, there are ways to eat healthy and stretch a budget and I know that it's possible because 1) I've done it and 2) at least once a week there is a thread on here about how to eat healthy for cheap. Eating healthy doesn't have to be expensive, but it DOES require an education into food economics.
Many people, to include those who don't depend on assistance, don't have the basic knowledge of how to make healthy, cheap meals. People who do need assistance are just like everyone else - they're trying to feed their families the best way that they know how. Why should we demonize them for making sub-optimal nutritional choices? Do YOU make perfect food choices at the grocery store every week? I don't . . ..
@DamieBird, that may be the average, but that's like adding in a senators average wage to a fast food workers wage and announcing to the nation that the "average" working American makes $20 an hour so the government dont understand how Americans can possibly be struggling. In this case their are more single people or people who just needed a "little" help and averaging it with those who have larger families. My grandpa "qualifies" for $32 a month food stamps because of his disability check. After taking out his rent and bills, he can still afford to drink 2 beers a day and buy cartons of cigs. Then he complains that they aren't giving him enough food stamps to live on. Technically he doesn't need them at all!
Average that into a family of 4 getting $500 a month because neither parent works. It looks so much better saying that "On average they are ONLY getting $281.." Sounds ugly saying "Elderly man can't afford food but smokes and drinks and two parents can't find work conveniently in 10 years. My brother quits and finds new jobs often enough that I know that to be a lie!
There ARE hard cases out there! I don't believe that's the case for the majority of them on stamps. I learned that self-preservation can be a powerful motivator for people. I also learned that if you give then something for free everyday, then suddenly stop, they become enraged and demand to know why you are no longer giving it to them.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
i don't think that it's a single instance by far. i'm curious as to why anecdotal evidence of people buying lobsters or otherwise fraudulently obtaining or misusing welfare programs are ok to label as indicative of widespread problems, but the far more common occurrence of a child's birthday is a one-off and not a valid consideration.
ETA: @DamieBird - just saw you posted a similar thought.
My mentioning the lobster but just an anecdotal remark not an "example". Though in my area buying expensive meats with food stamps and selling them happens, I do not think it's the norm or should drive policy. Other than it being illegal, of course, which it already is.1 -
LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Back when my kids were in the traditional school system we opted to not participate in bringing in food for classroom parties, nor did we bring in b-day treats for the classroom. If someone doesn't have the extra funds to provide a treat then they just don't bring in a treat-it's really not a big deal. My kids were never belittled/picked on for not bringing in anything, nor did the teacher pull me aside to talk about it. And actually the whole 'treats in the classroom' is a pretty controversial topic and some schools are getting away from it.
Wow, I really do feel like I'm on a parenting board right now... I need to find a apple cider vinegar thread to balance things out
What school system are they in now? Most kids want to participate, traditional or not, and shouldn't be left out because some nut job in Washington, DC is banning junk food. People say the darndest things
We now do school of choice into a district that has an online program-it's a hybrid program of public school and then homeschooling. Technically my kids are still public school students but do most of their schooling at home
eta: that also means my kids eat all their lunches at home now, and I fit that into my small grocery budget as well.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.
That is just disgustingly shameful
@Christine_72 That's not shameful. That's arbitrage. In every country in the world any government that gives any kind of chattel for any limited purpose to citizens will find those citizens, were they to watch, converting the chattel to fungible assets.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Average SNAP benefits per person are about $130 a month. It's hard to fit in nutritionally diverse foods in that budget. Despite all the Judgy McJudgersons out there, people on SNAP have to get creative about feeding their families. Yes, there are ways to eat healthy and stretch a budget and I know that it's possible because 1) I've done it and 2) at least once a week there is a thread on here about how to eat healthy for cheap. Eating healthy doesn't have to be expensive, but it DOES require an education into food economics.
Many people, to include those who don't depend on assistance, don't have the basic knowledge of how to make healthy, cheap meals. People who do need assistance are just like everyone else - they're trying to feed their families the best way that they know how. Why should we demonize them for making sub-optimal nutritional choices? Do YOU make perfect food choices at the grocery store every week? I don't . . ..
@DamieBird, that may be the average, but that's like adding in a senators average wage to a fast food workers wage and announcing to the nation that the "average" working American makes $20 an hour so the government dont understand how Americans can possibly be struggling. In this case their are more single people or people who just needed a "little" help and averaging it with those who have larger families. My grandpa "qualifies" for $32 a month food stamps because of his disability check. After taking out his rent and bills, he can still afford to drink 2 beers a day and buy cartons of cigs. Then he complains that they aren't giving him enough food stamps to live on. Technically he doesn't need them at all!
Average that into a family of 4 getting $500 a month because neither parent works. It looks so much better saying that "On average they are ONLY getting $281.." Sounds ugly saying "Elderly man can't afford food but smokes and drinks and two parents can't find work conveniently in 10 years. My brother quits and finds new jobs often enough that I know that to be a lie!
There ARE hard cases out there! I don't believe that's the case for the majority of them on stamps. I learned that self-preservation can be a powerful motivator for people. I also learned that if you give then something for free everyday, then suddenly stop, they become enraged and demand to know why you are no longer giving it to them.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
i don't think that it's a single instance by far. i'm curious as to why anecdotal evidence of people buying lobsters or otherwise fraudulently obtaining or misusing welfare programs are ok to label as indicative of widespread problems, but the far more common occurrence of a child's birthday is a one-off and not a valid consideration.
ETA: @DamieBird - just saw you posted a similar thought.
My mentioning the lobster but just an anecdotal remark not an "example". Though in my area buying expensive meats with food stamps and selling them happens, I do not think it's the norm or should drive policy. Other than it being illegal, of course, which it already is.
but an anecdote is a story used to illustrate an example. tbh, i really don't care about the semantics, ignoring the lobster specifically - what i meant was: i see a disconnect with many people who are happy to extrapolate from anecdotal evidence a widespread pattern of abuse but who are less willing to acknowledge that special circumstances are just as much if not more prevalent in the other direction.
edited spelling typo12 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »I was on food stamps for a while. I was okay with the "no soda" thing (my state forbids soda from being bought with them, though, oddly, I could buy as much Halloween candy as I wanted on the state's dime). The killer was diapers, toilet paper and medicine. I don't have kids, but watching others in the EBT line (where poor people go to buy food) paying two or three times for different kinds of items while on the verge of a nervous breakdown was heartbreaking. Also, diapers, toilet paper and medicine are crazy expensive and far more necessary than candy, IMO. I didn't make the rules...if I had they'd make sense.
Edited to clarify: I really think food stamps should cover everything, or cover nothing. Presumably we can trust adults to make their own choices regarding food and basic needs? It's not like food stamp funds are unlimited.
I always had two kids in diapers and I used cloth flats. Great way to diaper on the cheap (and I mean cheap) Back during that time I also made my own laundry detergent, to save money on washing them.
Also-prices do vary, but I pay .59 for 4 rolls of toilet paper (Aldi brand). I definitely don't consider that to be one of my pricier purchases. And also varying by location, but a lot of dollar stores carry some medicines now, as well as Dollar General. Manufacturers also give out coupons on their websites frequently.
True! I shop at Aldi now and love it, but when I was on food stamps I lived in a food desert in an extremely poor community with few stores (I pretty much had one strip mall within 30 miles to get my necessities from). My mom used cloth diapers and I did suggest them to many people but in some places it's just "not done," which I never understood...disposable diapers are hugely expensive, and so is shopping the chain stores.
@LJGettinSexy, where the heck do you shop? Apples never retail for more than $3 a bag here, and carrots are 89c. Most fruits and veggies in season are cheap as dirt. Bananas are 49c/lb. at Pick N Save. I guess you live in a bigger city?
Back when I cloth diapered it was unheard of lol. But now that my youngest is 9 it's become really popular here, it's a part of the whole AP movement that's big right now.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.
That is just disgustingly shameful
Yes, why would the small country store do that? It doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense, and thus I'd be ashamed to call myself a merchant!
Both the store and the people doing this should be penalised IMO.
The state government of Maine under the term-limited Governor LePage tried to reduce government generosity, mostly because Gov. LePage had been on welfare and knew how the game was played. It actually worked to get people back to work while he was Governor, but with him out and of Canadian birth we'll never hear of him again.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »What is the purpose of food stamps? Is this intended to be a short term aid with the end goal of having the individual no longer needing assistance? Is this intended to be a long term supplement for those who lack the ability to provide basic needs?
This seems to be a devolving debate on preconceived thoughts and scenarios concocted to pass judgment on those holding an opposing view on the matter.
In my mind, it's a mix of both. There are some people on food stamps as a temporary measure (my family was in this situation for a while) and there are people who do lack the ability to provide for their basic needs over a longer term (I'm thinking of people who are very ill or elderly, for example).
I think this is a key distinction to make and it makes little to no sense to treat this on anything other than a case by case basis. I think most will agree that the current system is not managed well and I doubt if those in administration are in alignment with the electorate over the purpose of the food stamp program is.
I wonder do those in administration publish metrics on the success rate of people using this as a temporary measure and getting back on their feet?
My state does publish those metrics.
https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/rsdata.htm
Your state is my state too! (sing-songy John Jacob Jinglehimerschmidt)
I see the output, but don't see a specific metric for success rate. Not familiar with the specific terminology for this so possibly overlooking it.
You have to compare year-to-year to determine how many people go on and off the rolls. Comparing those data points to those in the work program can also reveal trends.
As a food stamp beneficiary I also got an annual report with the work program that broke down statistics for how many of us were working, had children, etc. I haven't needed food stamps in years, so I don't get that anymore.
Yup, but this is conflated with people going on and off the plan and not specifically showing success of the program itself.
Just a point, but I believe this would be an invaluable indicator highlighting successes. Much like politicians singling out success stories, but on a projected scale.
Thank you for sharing your insight.0 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Average SNAP benefits per person are about $130 a month. It's hard to fit in nutritionally diverse foods in that budget. Despite all the Judgy McJudgersons out there, people on SNAP have to get creative about feeding their families. Yes, there are ways to eat healthy and stretch a budget and I know that it's possible because 1) I've done it and 2) at least once a week there is a thread on here about how to eat healthy for cheap. Eating healthy doesn't have to be expensive, but it DOES require an education into food economics.
Many people, to include those who don't depend on assistance, don't have the basic knowledge of how to make healthy, cheap meals. People who do need assistance are just like everyone else - they're trying to feed their families the best way that they know how. Why should we demonize them for making sub-optimal nutritional choices? Do YOU make perfect food choices at the grocery store every week? I don't . . ..
@DamieBird, that may be the average, but that's like adding in a senators average wage to a fast food workers wage and announcing to the nation that the "average" working American makes $20 an hour so the government dont understand how Americans can possibly be struggling. In this case their are more single people or people who just needed a "little" help and averaging it with those who have larger families. My grandpa "qualifies" for $32 a month food stamps because of his disability check. After taking out his rent and bills, he can still afford to drink 2 beers a day and buy cartons of cigs. Then he complains that they aren't giving him enough food stamps to live on. Technically he doesn't need them at all!
Average that into a family of 4 getting $500 a month because neither parent works. It looks so much better saying that "On average they are ONLY getting $281.." Sounds ugly saying "Elderly man can't afford food but smokes and drinks and two parents can't find work conveniently in 10 years. My brother quits and finds new jobs often enough that I know that to be a lie!
There ARE hard cases out there! I don't believe that's the case for the majority of them on stamps. I learned that self-preservation can be a powerful motivator for people. I also learned that if you give then something for free everyday, then suddenly stop, they become enraged and demand to know why you are no longer giving it to them.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
i don't think that it's a single instance by far. i'm curious as to why anecdotal evidence of people buying lobsters or otherwise fraudulently obtaining or misusing welfare programs are ok to label as indicative of widespread problems, but the far more common occurrence of a child's birthday is a one-off and not a valid consideration.
ETA: @DamieBird - just saw you posted a similar thought.
My mentioning the lobster but just an anecdotal remark not an "example". Though in my area buying expensive meats with food stamps and selling them happens, I do not think it's the norm or should drive policy. Other than it being illegal, of course, which it already is.
but an anecdote is a story used to illustrate an example. tbh, i really don't care about the semantics, ignoring the lobster specifically - what i meant was: i see a disconnect with many people who are happy to extrapolate from anecdotal evidence a widespread pattern of abuse but who are less willing to acknowledge that special circumstances are just as much if nor more prevalent in the other direction.
I don't think buying lobsters with food stamps is widespread nor did I suggest that the other examples weren't valid or more prevalent. I would absolutely say they are. That changes nothing I said in any previous post.1 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.
1. Have you ever been on food stamps?
2. Have you ever been poor in your life?
3. Are you still poor?
Answer those and maybe we can have a deeper discussion
I actually grew up dumpster diving sometimes, alongside my parents and sisters, so if you'd like to have a deeper discussion about poverty I'd be more than willing to have one with you. You probably won't like what I have to say though
And I stand by what I said-I feed a family of 5 on a very tight grocery budget, and I eat a very 'healthy' diet (I follow the DASH protocol), and my family eats a fairly balanced diet as well. Nutrient dense foods are not automatically more expensive, and I've found that they're actually cheaper than convenience foods. This idea that that 'healthy' is more expensive is just not true many times.
eta: actually, no I'm not going to go there, because my past is a pretty dark place and I have no interest in revisiting it, especially on a public forum. Needless to say, yes I know what it's like to be truly poor, probably more than most posters in this thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my pp, which is that I feed myself and my family a well balanced, 'healthy' diet and do so on a very tight grocery budget, ($100 a week for 5 people/2 cats, and it also includes non-food items). Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, bagged frozen chicken etc are usually inexpensive options and are staples in my house. The idea that 'healthy' automatically means more expensive is false.
We all have dark places that we don't want to visit and that's why it's absurd to try to think for someone else. You don't know another person's circumstance so they shouldn't be judged simply by what they buy in a grocery store. We all have to learn that, you of all people since you were a dumpster diver. When I go to buy groceries, I've noticed that food is expensive and getting higher by the day. Organic food is outrageously priced and that's supposed to be the healthiest. Fresh fruit is ridiculously high and fresh squeezed juice, no way. You can't buy a single piece of fruit for less than a dollar unless it's a banana. Now imagine feeding a family of 4. Yeah you can buy only grains and wheat, but what do you do with that? You need a balanced diet to eat healthy and trying to buy all four food groups for a growing family is expensive. BTW, chicken is not inexpensive, who eats beans and what is whole grains and how do you just eat them?
Ah, that's where there's the disconnect then, because after researching into organic I definitely don't think it's any 'healthier'. Fresh fruit in season is reasonably priced-I have around 50lbs of berries in my freezer, that I picked from UPick farms earlier this year. Also-I frequently pay .35-.54lb for bananas, $3 or less for a bag of apples (9 apples), I'm paying $1.78 for 2lbs of fresh grapes tomorrow when I get groceries etc. And I can get bagged frozen chicken breasts for under $6, 1lb bags of frozen wild caught salmon for under $4. And yes, I do eat beans every day, as well as whole grains-I follow the DASH protocol and these are staples of the plan.
eta I'd be curious to compare menu plans and grocery lists with you, to see where we differ.
I know you were talking to someone else to compare grocery lists, but I find this interesting. At my local store (which is ~30 miles away and is the only store within an hour's drive), here's what I would pay for the listed items:
Bananas - .79/Lb (currently on sale for .69) [conventional, not organic]
Apples - Currently on sale for 1.49- 1.99/lb (bagged apples (~5 or 6) are about $4 for Red delicious, which aren't delicious at all!)
Grapes - 3lb for $6 (currently on sale for $5)
Chicken Breast - I couldn't find an online price for frozen, but the cheapest version of fresh is 2.99/lb
Frozen Salmon - 13.99/ 12oz (Fresh Wild Caught is currently on sale for 5.99 [definitely picking up some of that this week!])
To be clear, I completely agree that eating more nutritionally dense food can be less expensive than less nutritionally sound options, so I'm not challenging your premise in any way!2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.5 -
Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.5 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?4 -
Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
a model similar to what the military offers - the Navy Fleet Family Services is who I used - could be beneficial - maybe linked it at local job employment agencies etc2 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.
I have a large number of First Cousins. One of them, who was one year older than I, was added to the welfare rolls at age 12 when her father died and she received U.S. Social Security benefits for being an orphan. Those expired when she turned 18, but college was free to her because of her orphan status. Preparing for that, she started producing children at age 16 so that she had government benefits for unmarried mothers and their children to replace her government benefits to orphans when she turned 18. At 19 she agreed to marry a man who was quite unable to produce an earned income and she kept receiving generous government assistance for her needy children, her low-income household, and oh-by-the-way her medical care was free, too. It was to her benefit that her older brother was a prosperous schmuck who provided her rent and grocery money unknown to the government. That's the cousin. I have a sister whose decidedly different course of life has been showered with great wealth. One day my sister was speaking with my cousin and asked her directly, "Why don't you get a job?" My cousin replied, "I make more money on welfare than I could at minimum wage."
It is that one person's story, my cousin, that more influences all my thoughts on government assistance to the needy than any other. She died of cancer 14 years ago because the free government medical care was a bit less than timely at delivering care.
We, as a society, don't need to be cruel as you parody, but we don't need to be schmucks, either.
I know this wasn't your point, but it does make me wonder at a society that pays so little in minimum wage that people in some circumstances are better off receiving aid instead of working . . . .
There was a documentary a couple of years ago, and I can't remember what it's called, but one of the people who was in it was a young single mother. Over the course of the documentary, all she wanted to do was find a job and get off of 'welfare'. She did end up finding a full time job, but realized that it put her over the cap pf being able to qualify for assistance but below what she actually needed to feed her kids. Obviously it's slanted (because it's a documentary), but I wonder how many people we have in the US in similar situations?
it wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few - another book I read a year or so ago was called The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near Poor in America and it was about those people who are just above the poverty line so don't get a lot of the benefits, but not really middle class either - http://amzn.to/2ivvjFw2 -
Realizing that this may derail the thread, but I think this is a great conversation.
As part of any temporary benefits application process what would be your opinion on mandatory education of the following (as applicable):
Nutrition/Weight Management
Cooking
Budgeting
Home Economics
Thinking back to my military service, where if one applied for financial assistance they had to first attend a basic finance course and have their budgets reviewed by a counselor. This was a very effective program with an extremely low rate of repeat applications.
I think all of these could be useful. Given limited resources, I'd prioritize in this order: Budgeting, Home Economics, Nutrition, and Cooking. Ideally, a hybrid class that offers a bit of all with follow on classes in individual subjects that people attend based on an assessment from a case worker or class instructor.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions