Food Stamps

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No, but the schools exist. You have to make the best of what you have. This is typical liberal idiocy where they demand equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. You're certainly not going to be learning anything if your butt isn't in a seat and you're not paying attention. Any education is better than no education. You act like if you're trying to dig yourself out of a pit, you shouldn't bother to try because someone, somewhere has a bigger shovel than you do. That's downright stupid.



Maybe they should try being responsible and keeping their legs together. And don't think I'm not blaming the men, I think they need to keep their pants on. Nobody should have a kid until they are financially prepared to do so and responsible enough for the consequences.



Of course you're going to try to turn this into something racist, it's the liberal way.



I don't care if it is. Everyone has to be responsible for their own decisions, for their own actions and for their own lives. Stop being such a liberal.



But what you don't believe in is personal responsibility. That much is painfully clear.



Actually, I was. I never got anyone pregnant, I never broke the law, I never went to jail, I never joined a gang and I graduated as class valedictorian. I'm sure you'll find something snide to say about that.

Good for you for making it. So do what you say Christians should do, look at it as just your experience and isn't applicable to others, also who said I was liberal? I certainly do believe in personal responsibility, I also believe in giving people the capability to be able to exercise that the most that they can.

 

[Falvlun]

I agree that living on a tight budget is hard- but not That hard. The question is what is a tight budget? $489 dollars a month is a tight budget for a family of four. That is the average benefit in 2011. So, when someone suggests they could survive on way less, I question it. I know that doing so is not impossible. My life is an example of the possibility. But, the assumption- "oh people just need to make better choices" is ridiculous. With constant coupon cutting, with purchasing on sale items, with hunting and gathering, the hard becomes easier. There is a spectrum.

I don't think it's a ridiculous expectation for people getting assistance to use their money in a conscientious manner. Yes, that means putting in the extra effort to not waste the money, and to make sure they are spending it on nutritious food.

I understand that many people, particularly poor people who have been raised to know no different, do not have the skills or knowledge of how to eat healthy, or to cook, or what they can do to save money (like going to a grocery store instead of the convenience store, etc). It probably wouldn't be bad if the gov could make a class for users of food stamps to give them ideas, information, and maybe even some training.

I do think that $489 sounds a bit excessive, but I won't venture whether it is too excessive. Remember, this is food assistance. I don't think it really should be the sole money that can go to food purchases for this family. And while you would have to be careful to eat well for $489/mo, I really don't think I'd consider it to be exceptionally tight.

But, let us not forget that there are still people without stoves, without fridges, without fishing tackle or hunting supplies, without homes. So, let's just give them some hamburger, buns, corn and potatoes? Yeah, that works. Get real Favlun.

I really don't think that we should be creating a food assistance program on the assumption that some people won't have basic food storage and cooking abilities. That would be a separate problem.

give me a shopping list. Show me a meal plan that is nutritionally sound. you are telling me that you only spend $5.83 on food and drinks a day? Sure, I believe that it is possible, but that sure ain't "much less" than food stamps. Show me three meals a day for a month for four people for $489. People do it all the time.

If you acknowledge that people "do it all the time", then doesn't that mean it's already been shown to be possible?

Also a note: You don't need to buy drinks, besides milk. Water from the tap is just fine, and a healthier option anyway, as most drinks contain high sugar and empty calories.

But cutting the program down. Or complaining about someone squeezing in a candy bar?

I have no problem with people using their own money to buy a candy bar. There is absolutely no justification for them to use government assistance for it, however.

This is not "hating on the poor" or even blaming them for their condition. I think that we do have an ethical mandate to aid those who are struggling, to feed those who are hungry. But snacks are luxuries, not necessities.

I am in favor of restricting the food stamp program to model it more like WIC, where only certain kinds of food are purchasable with the card.

 

[Curious George]

You obviously do not know how to shop. Look up the prices on 50lbs of potatoes, bananas, oatmeal, flour, sugar, milk, whole chicken, pork combo packages, white bread, frozen vegetables, 10lbs of rice. Calculate what your family needs for a month and let me know what it comes out to. Also shop around for a month and buy things on sale and at the store that sells each item the cheapest. Buy in bulk, especially frozen items, meats that can be frozen, and canned goods. Also let me know who in the family is overweight.

Once you change your parameters of thinking then living cheaply is easily obtainable. Also the system does suck. How about the government subsidizing purchases, through the stores, of those things which are affordable and nutritious through the SNAP program?


By the way, I'm neither greedy, selfless or delusional. Tell me how many other people than your family you personally helped to feed this year. I'm up to about 6 this year.

Alright- we can add some of the bulk foods, but the prices I listed were by no stretch of the imagination- foolish shopping. I acknowledge that it is possible to buy in bulk and coupon cut. However, this will still not land a person "way less" than food stamps. Less, perhaps- but only with much effort.

But you bring me to my larger worry- How exactly does one even shop in for deals like frozen veggies, bulk products, or scratch materials when they have no stove to cook on, or no home to store their purchase. Again you are looking for an easy answer- a simple solution. If that helps you sleep- good for you. Some of us live in reality though.

Trust me you don't want to get into a urinating contest on how many people I've personally helped feed.

 

[Curious George]

Who is telling them to survive off less than food stamps? If you're given $X in food stamps, spend the X. Nobody is saying to spend 1/2 X. Just don't spend X and come back with your hand out for more. It's the same as an job. You work, you get X salary. You have to budget X salary to last until your next paycheck. If you do not, you cannot go back to your employer and ask for more money because you cannot live within your means. This is basic economics 101.

Good, I am glad you do not want to reduce benefits. I got the distinct impression that others did.

No one is saying the system can't be improved, but neither can we say that the poor are not at fault for the position they are in. there are a lot of really, really bad decisions that went into the mix before people found themselves destitute. If they hadn't made those bad decisions, if they worked hard, they'd be able to dig themselves out of that pit of poverty. However, the government rewards them for not working hard, it tells them that working hard is a bad idea because they get penalized for actually getting a job, even a low paying job, so they can develop their skills. This is where the system has problems, it takes the poor and keeps them poor. It doesn't create the poor, it just doesn't help them very well.

The self made man is a bed-time story we like to tell ourselves, so we can look down at others, and pat ourselves on the back. Wake up!

 

[Cephus]

Good for you for making it. So do what you say Christians should do, look at it as just your experience and isn't applicable to others, also who said I was liberal? I certainly do believe in personal responsibility, I also believe in giving people the capability to be able to exercise that the most that they can.

If you're not, you're sure working out of their playbook. Most people "make it" because we hold them accountable for doing so. I extend that to absolutely everyone. If we can give them a helping hand, fine. We should not have to keep them on permanent welfare because they're too stupid or lazy to make it on their own.

 

[Cephus]

Good, I am glad you do not want to reduce benefits. I got the distinct impression that others did.

You'd have to take that up with others then.

The self made man is a bed-time story we like to tell ourselves, so we can look down at others, and pat ourselves on the back. Wake up!

Until you are one, of course. There are lots of self-made men out there. You just don't want to see them so you can keep telling yourself that fairy tale.

 

[Curious George]

No, not 4 cents per day, 4 dollars per day. Get a calculator.

I thought I already addressed this. Get some glasses.

And you know something? I spend less than that, on average, per month for a family of 4. I go to the store once a week and spend approximately $100 per trip. I do that, in 2013, when the average food stamp outlay has gone up.

So please, try again.

Great, lets hear your weekly shopping list and see your meal plans. I will gladly check the prices in my area and comment about whether or not you are providing adequate nutrition. I have no problem doing the leg work. Jeremy posted a link which suggested the average price per person per meal was 1.50. So let's crack the numbers. I will gladly lift the blinders from your eyes. I do not think it is impossible to survive, or even supply balanced meals with the amount people receive. I think that it is a lot harder than most make it seem. If someone does this and thinks that it is not hard- that is likely because of advantages that are not available to everyone else.

But seeing as you are so thifty- I would also like to hear what your plan would be if you had no fridge or stove.

 

[Curious George]

No, but the schools exist. You have to make the best of what you have. This is typical liberal idiocy where they demand equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

That is the worst spin I have heard yet. He was talking about equal opportunity. Denial gets you nowhere.

 

[Curious George]

I don't think it's a ridiculous expectation for people getting assistance to use their money in a conscientious manner. Yes, that means putting in the extra effort to not waste the money, and to make sure they are spending it on nutritious food.

I understand that many people, particularly poor people who have been raised to know no different, do not have the skills or knowledge of how to eat healthy, or to cook, or what they can do to save money (like going to a grocery store instead of the convenience store, etc). It probably wouldn't be bad if the gov could make a class for users of food stamps to give them ideas, information, and maybe even some training.

So you understand part of the disconnect but still think it is a valid expectation? or just not a ridiculous one? I would agree that it is not ridiculous to expect people to use their money conscientiously- but I also do not think it is a reasonable expectation given the variety of people receiving assistance.

I do think that $489 sounds a bit excessive, but I won't venture whether it is too excessive. Remember, this is food assistance. I don't think it really should be the sole money that can go to food purchases for this family. And while you would have to be careful to eat well for $489/mo, I really don't think I'd consider it to be exceptionally tight.

For which family. A family that is 130% below the poverty line? we are not talking about a little struggle here.

I really don't think that we should be creating a food assistance program on the assumption that some people won't have basic food storage and cooking abilities. That would be a separate problem.

I completely disagree. This is the reality. We should not create a system bassed on the assumption that all people won't have basic food storage and cooking capabilities, however we should not neglect the large and growing populations that do not have basic food storage and cooking abilities.

If you acknowledge that people "do it all the time", then doesn't that mean it's already been shown to be possible?

I never once said it was impossible. What I suggest people lie about is the ability to support a family with adequate nutrition on "way less" than what food stamps offers. Moreover, a possibility is not something that necessarily addresses the problem in any sufficient or acceptable manner.

Also a note: You don't need to buy drinks, besides milk. Water from the tap is just fine, and a healthier option anyway, as most drinks contain high sugar and empty calories.

I didn't list any other drinks besides milk on the "meals" which I listed. You however stated how much you spend. So, I asked for a break down- but I expect you to include any coffee, tea, soda or juice you might consume- since that would account for spending. If you just deleted that from your list and gave the $ amount you spent sans beverages- then that would not be intellectually honest. However, if they are actually not there then you they aren't there.

I have no problem with people using their own money to buy a candy bar. There is absolutely no justification for them to use government assistance for it, however.

This is not "hating on the poor" or even blaming them for their condition. I think that we do have an ethical mandate to aid those who are struggling, to feed those who are hungry. But snacks are luxuries, not necessities.

Are they necessities? no. But that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is how does preventing someone from buying a candy bar help anything? It is not helping with nutrition, because there are plenty of other foods still available which are arguably worse. It does not help with cost, because there is no special allotment for treats. It does not help with abuse, because abuse is still possible. Thus, the only purpose it serves is punitive.

I am in favor of restricting the food stamp program to model it more like WIC, where only certain kinds of food are purchasable with the card.

Restricted to the level of WIC or just restricted? It is already restricted. one cannot just buy whatever they like with EBT. So- poor people shouldn't have access to other foods beyond that which available through WIC?

 

[Curious George]

You'd have to take that up with others then.



Until you are one, of course. There are lots of self-made men out there. You just don't want to see them so you can keep telling yourself that fairy tale.

Whatever it takes for you to sleep at night.

 

[Falvlun]

So you understand part of the disconnect but still think it is a valid expectation? or just not a ridiculous one? I would agree that it is not ridiculous to expect people to use their money conscientiously- but I also do not think it is a reasonable expectation given the variety of people receiving assistance.

I do not think we should cater to the least common denominator, no.

For which family. A family that is 130% below the poverty line? we are not talking about a little struggle here.

Food assistance is based upon necessity, right? I'm honestly not sure where your $489 figure came from-- is that the max amount a family could get?

I completely disagree. This is the reality. We should not create a system based on the assumption that all people won't have basic food storage and cooking capabilities, however we should not neglect the large and growing populations that do not have basic food storage and cooking abilities.

Well we are going to have to disagree, then. I don't think that a food assistance program should factor in whether people have stoves, and increase food assistance on the assumption that they don't. It's just not practical, nor should it be the aim of the program.

I never once said it was impossible. What I suggest people lie about is the ability to support a family with adequate nutrition on "way less" than what food stamps offers. Moreover, a possibility is not something that necessarily addresses the problem in any sufficient or acceptable manner.

You yourself said that "many people do it". This suggests to me that not only is this thing possible to do, but that it is not particularly difficult to do, since "many people" are able to do it.

I'm not sure who said "way less", or even what "way less" money means. Yes, I think the current amount is likely more than adequate to meet the needs of people, and in some cases excessive (I know my sister would have such a surplus at the end of the month that she'd go on a spree buying a whole lot of expensive, fun food, since she couldn't keep the unspent money.) But, as I said before, I wouldn't venture a guess what specific amount would be more appropriate.

I didn't list any other drinks besides milk on the "meals" which I listed. You however stated how much you spend. So, I asked for a break down- but I expect you to include any coffee, tea, soda or juice you might consume- since that would account for spending. If you just deleted that from your list and gave the $ amount you spent sans beverages- then that would not be intellectually honest. However, if they are actually not there then you they aren't there.

Milk is the only beverage I buy on a regular basis. Well, that and beer.

I primarily drink water. I remember this one time, a homeless guy approached my group in a food court and asked for money for food. We all pitched in, and gave him enough to buy himself a nice lunch. But he came back, and said he didn't have enough for a drink. I hadn't even bought a drink. I had asked for a cup and filled it at the water fountain.

Are they necessities? no. But that is not what we are discussing. What we are discussing is how does preventing someone from buying a candy bar help anything? It is not helping with nutrition, because there are plenty of other foods still available which are arguably worse. It does not help with cost, because there is no special allotment for treats. It does not help with abuse, because abuse is still possible. Thus, the only purpose it serves is punitive.

Because we can't possibly prevent all abuse we shouldn't do what we can to prevent some abuse? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

I also deny that it is punitive. It is not punitive to expect that money meant to provide people with necessary food goes towards necessary food. Such restrictions could also perhaps work to change the culture: Instead of being fed chips and pop for dinner, suddenly you must be fed rice and beans and broccoli.

Restricted to the level of WIC or just restricted? It is already restricted. one cannot just buy whatever they like with EBT. So- poor people shouldn't have access to other foods beyond that which available through WIC?

I don't think it should be as strict as WIC, but certainly WIC-like. As for current restrictions, isn't the only restriction alcohol? I wasn't aware of any other.

As for what poor people should have access to: they have a right to a nutritious, filling meal. They do not have a right to frills, until they are able to afford to feed themselves.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If volunteer groups were handling the need, then we wouldn't have needed welfare in the first place.

Exactly.....:yes:

 

[Curious George]

I do not think we should cater to the least common denominator, no.

nor should we cater to the most advantaged.

Food assistance is based upon necessity, right? I'm honestly not sure where your $489 figure came from-- is that the max amount a family could get?

Yes it is based on necessity see Jeremy's link it is good. The amount varies depending on need.

No, it is the average for a four person household in 2011- a year with a higher per person spending than 2012- and 2013 is not out yet.
A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Benefits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.htm

Well we are going to have to disagree, then. I don't think that a food assistance program should factor in whether people have stoves, and increase food assistance on the assumption that they don't. It's just not practical, nor should it be the aim of the program.

I think any program that intends to benefit a group should take that group into consideration not simply take a portion of the group into consideration.

You yourself said that "many people do it". This suggests to me that not only is this thing possible to do, but that it is not particularly difficult to do, since "many people" are able to do it.

That many people do it does not suggest that it is not particularly difficult. Many people climb to base camp on Everest. Many people run marathons.

I'm not sure who said "way less", or even what "way less" money means. Yes, I think the current amount is likely more than adequate to meet the needs of people, and in some cases excessive (I know my sister would have such a surplus at the end of the month that she'd go on a spree buying a whole lot of expensive, fun food, since she couldn't keep the unspent money.) But, as I said before, I wouldn't venture a guess what specific amount would be more appropriate.

I do not agree with "more than adequate." And I do not believe you if your sister is shopping for a family of four- unless there is some unspoken advantages such as living in an environment where fish and game are plentiful and hunting and fishing are available, living in an environment where the climate and her land support the growth of many different foods which she also can access (i.e. apples, mushrooms, strawberries, nuts, corn, squash etc.)

Milk is the only beverage I buy on a regular basis. Well, that and beer.

I primarily drink water. I remember this one time, a homeless guy approached my group in a food court and asked for money for food. We all pitched in, and gave him enough to buy himself a nice lunch. But he came back, and said he didn't have enough for a drink. I hadn't even bought a drink. I had asked for a cup and filled it at the water fountain.

Well then make sure to add the cost of beer that you purchase. I am sorry to hear about your experience- I can relate to dealing with people who are self-entitled, I understand that it is frustrating. After all, some people are so self-entitled they wish to reap all the benefits of society but never pay their share- not because they can't but because they think it's unfair.

Because we can't possibly prevent all abuse we shouldn't do what we can to prevent some abuse? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

Out of context. Assuming that you just have not read my earlier statements on this I will elaborate. Imagine "Z" is getting food stamps. "Z" has a friend "Y," whom Z knows is getting ready to go shopping. "Z" goes with and lets "Y" pick out items that Y would normally buy but are not on the excluded list. "Z" then uses EBT to purchase $80 worth of groceries and gives them to "Y" who gives "Z" $50. The abuse still exists. Nothing is blocked by blocking "treats." People who engage in this kind of behavior will continue to engage in this kind of behavior whether "treats" are on the menu or not.

I also deny that it is punitive. It is not punitive to expect that money meant to provide people with necessary food goes towards necessary food. Such restrictions could also perhaps work to change the culture: Instead of being fed chips and pop for dinner, suddenly you must be fed rice and beans and broccoli.

Since there is no other valid reasoning besides-"it's unfair- I don't want to pay for that," it is punitive. It is punitive because you are limiting a group of people for no rational reason. Shifting the entire system to a healthier system would very much be a rational reason. But this is not the case. People expect the poor to use their Aid to buy foods the most unhealthy beef, the most unhealthy vegetables, and the most unhealthy grains. Yet, a candy bar is off limits? Think of it. The idea is well I wouldn't want that, or that or that... but when the candy bar pops up- people say "Hey, I like those, I buy my children those too, the poor person shouldn't get that when I have to work for it!!" So, if we are talking a healthy shift wherein we promote and provide truly healthy foods- sure. But don't complain over the occasional candy bar when an occasional candy bar hardly creates the real health hazards.

I don't think it should be as strict as WIC, but certainly WIC-like. As for current restrictions, isn't the only restriction alcohol? I wasn't aware of any other.

no there are others. And these even vary from state to state. Some states do not allow soda for instance, while other states do.

As for what poor people should have access to: they have a right to a nutritious, filling meal. They do not have a right to frills, until they are able to afford to feed themselves.

I still do not think that an occasional candy bar or steak qualify as frills. I think if this does qualify as frills than I am supporting such frills on the basis of the emotional health. Sometimes, splurging can release stress and improve health.

 

[Sunstone]

There are lots of self-made men out there.

Self-made men? Around these parts, we call them "hermits".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well we are going to have to disagree, then. I don't think that a food assistance program should factor in whether people have stoves, and increase food assistance on the assumption that they don't. It's just not practical, nor should it be the aim of the program.

So, assume all they have is a microwave, they buy frozen dinners, and then they require more assistence when their health falters. It doesn't matter which route you take, either one will require abit more money to be invested. Only with medical bills there is no such thing as "abit of money."

 

[Curious George]

Self-made men? Around these parts, we call them "hermits".

And even hermits are a product of their environment. Some environment has advantages over other environments. The idea that anyone can be truly self-made is a lie. It is truly humbling to recognize that our victories are not ours alone.

 

[Cephus]

I thought I already addressed this. Get some glasses.

In case you hadn't noticed, you addressed it after I wrote the response.

Great, lets hear your weekly shopping list and see your meal plans. I will gladly check the prices in my area and comment about whether or not you are providing adequate nutrition. I have no problem doing the leg work. Jeremy posted a link which suggested the average price per person per meal was 1.50. So let's crack the numbers. I will gladly lift the blinders from your eyes. I do not think it is impossible to survive, or even supply balanced meals with the amount people receive. I think that it is a lot harder than most make it seem. If someone does this and thinks that it is not hard- that is likely because of advantages that are not available to everyone else.

But seeing as you are so thifty- I would also like to hear what your plan would be if you had no fridge or stove.

No, you've already made it clear that you're not open to being proven wrong, that everyone has blinders except you, so it's not worth going through the motions, you'd just claim victory regardless of the results. The fact remains, many people do it. I do it. Others here have said they do it. You seem to be the only one around claiming it can't be done.

Feel free to have whatever delusions you like.

 

[Cephus]

That is the worst spin I have heard yet. He was talking about equal opportunity. Denial gets you nowhere.

And they have the opportunity to get an education. They cannot exercise that opportunity if they drop out of school or don't pay attention. Do try again.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

And they have the opportunity to get an education. They cannot exercise that opportunity if they drop out of school or don't pay attention. Do try again.

You do realize that equality isn't all there is to it right? For instance if I give you my shoe because you lost yours, we are both equal cause we have shoes...but what if my shoe doesn't fit you? I say focus on what societal changes we can do to eliminate disparities, so that people don't have to stay on welfare and that way it's the people who really need it who get it.

 

[Curious George]

In case you hadn't noticed, you addressed it after I wrote the response.

Me: post 196, you: post 212. My calculator won't tell me is 196 < 212?

No, you've already made it clear that you're not open to being proven wrong, that everyone has blinders except you, so it's not worth going through the motions, you'd just claim victory regardless of the results. The fact remains, many people do it. I do it. Others here have said they do it. You seem to be the only one around claiming it can't be done.

Feel free to have whatever delusions you like.

So? Challenge not accepted. The fact remains that people are posting- I do this, but when I ask for an explanation they won't take the time. Really, you are so spend-thrift but you don't keep a receipt? You plan all your meals but can't be bothered to write them down?