Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1. Food Stamps are not Welfare. Welfare (now called TANF) is practically non-existent and nearly impossible to get unless someone in the household is severely disabled and cannot work.
2. 80-90% (depending on what study you look at) of Food Stamp recipients are working.
3. You need to ask yourself why you think people who are poor need to be punished and humiliated for being poor. The larger problem is with this attitude.
These are all valid points. It's actually very surprising how many seemingly ordinary, middle-class families rely on supplemental food assistance (food shelves or programs like SNAP). This is especially true in very rural areas where losing a job may mean a long period of financial hardship. Back when I lived in the Midwest, there were several news articles about the levels of poverty happening in the northern parts of the states, due to job loss and other unforeseen financial issues (health, etc). However, since these people didn't look 'poor' in the sense that most Americans expect, the issue went unnoticed until local food shelves reported that they simply couldn't keep up with demand.
In America there's a very strange need for us to want our poor people to appear both poor and miserable. If you're 'poor' by definition (i.e. anyone participating in any sort of government assistance program), there's a general consensus that you should not dress well or be seen to have nice things. It's this sort of mentality that fails to realize that most middle-income Americans are just a few paychecks, a job or a chronic illness away from SNAP themselves. And, when it happens, you may still retain those vestiges of 'wealth', which appear to enrage so many. In fact, with the student loan bubble inflating further, we may see a rise in more young people who struggle simply to put food on the table while dealing with the job search and huge loan payments. This is simply the reality of the world we live in.
Yes, there is corruption in the system. But in a country where it is entirely possible to lose your home and all your savings due poor healthcare coverage and a single chronic illness, it shouldn't be so hard to imagine that that so many at the lower end of the income scale struggle with hunger. It's extremely expensive to simply survive in the United States, much less prosper. Hopefully we can find a way to improve the system while decreasing the exploitation, but until then, I don't think it is necessary to call into question the motives of all people who receive food assistance.
We already have a system in place that works better - it's called WIC. It's for pregnant and nursing women, and children under 5 yrs old. It provides only certain nourishing foods (formula, milk, eggs, fruits, vegetables, peanut butter, bread, etc.) in specified amounts. It cannot be used to buy sub sandwiches, soda, chips, etc. It's much more difficult to convert into cash by selling at a discount, since what you can "buy" with it is limited and specific.
Moving SNAP to a system like WIC will help cut down on fraud, waste, and diversion. It will also improve nutrition for the poor.
Some commentators need to get a grip. None of us are insulting welfare recipients. We're not talking about cutting anybody off. We are discussing the fraud committed by some. Fraud is an expense to the taxpayers. We have every right to discuss a means of lessening the fraud without hurting the recipients.
I don't really care if welfare recipients were able to buy "junk food" snacks. That only means they'd have to learn how to budget and plan meals around those purchases. Gosh, why such a big deal?
Someone brought up the issue of toiletries and other non-food items. I'm sorry, but what makes you think the taxpayer should pay for everything? There are many ways of making enough money to buy those extras -- raking leaves, shoveling driveways, walking dogs, washing cars, etc. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected to take care of all needs and wants of people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If we make welfare too comfortable to be on, everyone will want to be on it.
Some commentators need to get a grip. None of us are insulting welfare recipients. We're not talking about cutting anybody off. We are discussing the fraud committed by some. Fraud is an expense to the taxpayers. We have every right to discuss a means of lessening the fraud without hurting the recipients.
I don't really care if welfare recipients were able to buy "junk food" snacks. That only means they'd have to learn how to budget and plan meals around those purchases. Gosh, why such a big deal?
Someone brought up the issue of toiletries and other non-food items. I'm sorry, but what makes you think the taxpayer should pay for everything? There are many ways of making enough money to buy those extras -- raking leaves, shoveling driveways, walking dogs, washing cars, etc. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected to take care of all needs and wants of people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If we make welfare too comfortable to be on, everyone will want to be on it.
I don't think tampons or toilet paper are "extras".
You're also asserting that we have a labor shortage (we need to get people off welfare and working) when in reality we have a labor surplus.
Some commentators need to get a grip. None of us are insulting welfare recipients. We're not talking about cutting anybody off. We are discussing the fraud committed by some. Fraud is an expense to the taxpayers. We have every right to discuss a means of lessening the fraud without hurting the recipients.
I don't really care if welfare recipients were able to buy "junk food" snacks. That only means they'd have to learn how to budget and plan meals around those purchases. Gosh, why such a big deal?
Someone brought up the issue of toiletries and other non-food items. I'm sorry, but what makes you think the taxpayer should pay for everything? There are many ways of making enough money to buy those extras -- raking leaves, shoveling driveways, walking dogs, washing cars, etc. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected to take care of all needs and wants of people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If we make welfare too comfortable to be on, everyone will want to be on it.
Many of those necessities that you listed are donated to food banks that offer them up along with pet food, along with other food for the people who need help. I have visited a food bank with my neighbor when my car wasn't working, and she asked me if I wanted a ride to the store to get food. (I could have walked there, it was just over a mile away, and had done so many times...so again, I don't have sympathy for those who are "inconvenienced" by having to take time out of their day to get groceries), and her first stop was the food bank. She got toothpaste, toothbrush, toilet paper, cat food for her cat, dog food for her dog, a bottle of shampoo, and then food. After that, we went to the store where she bought food using her EBT. I didn't pay much attention to her food as I was buying my own, but that food bank definitely saved her a good $20 or more on her bill in that one trip. From my understanding, they were allowed to go once a week.
The difference being that donated is because a person wants to help, not that they are being forced to help.
Also, that was in Maine, where there's not a lot of people...I can only guess what a food bank looks like in a city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt
What's to stop the Welfare Store from running like a company store, e.g. overly high prices?
Considering that government is going to have a good idea the amount that people get for food stamps in a specific area, you set the prices according to the area. Generic labeled food doesn't cost as much as name brand.
The entire plan is essentially a takeoff on what existed in the latter years of the former Soviet Union. Only the small number of Party members had access to a limited number of better shops featuring higher-quality goods. Naturally, the system collapsed under the weight of its own chains, and the only uniform involved in the deal was a clown suit worn by a strange guy named McDonald.
With the former North American economic dominance of the globe continuing to erode, a status-conscious, media-driven society increasingly-able to define "desirable" vs. "undesirable" jobs, and growing concerns over the control of immigration, I dread to think what might be coming "down the road".
We have a free exchange of goods, services and labor that is supposed to address this, but far too often, the "losers" will run whining and complaining to politicians rather than take a had look at their own options -- and prejudices.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-21-2016 at 12:52 PM..
I don't think tampons or toilet paper are "extras".
You're also asserting that we have a labor shortage (we need to get people off welfare and working) when in reality we have a labor surplus.
Three Wolves in the Snow has provided you an excellent answer to the "extras" question.
There are many ways to make money, but only if you're striving for self-sufficiency rather than dependency. If you want dependency, I want you off my back.
I have the upmost respect for people on welfare who hate being on welfare. They want better for themselves than a lifetime of handouts. Those are the people who will find a way to pull themselves out of the system. They are the ones I don't mind helping.
Many churches offer the extras that government doesn't. Food banks are just one way. How many of us give the food banks a buck or two every time we grocery shop? I'll wager a guess that most of us do, so long as were not hurting ourselves.
Some commentators need to get a grip. None of us are insulting welfare recipients. We're not talking about cutting anybody off. We are discussing the fraud committed by some. Fraud is an expense to the taxpayers. We have every right to discuss a means of lessening the fraud without hurting the recipients.
I don't really care if welfare recipients were able to buy "junk food" snacks. That only means they'd have to learn how to budget and plan meals around those purchases. Gosh, why such a big deal?
Someone brought up the issue of toiletries and other non-food items. I'm sorry, but what makes you think the taxpayer should pay for everything? There are many ways of making enough money to buy those extras -- raking leaves, shoveling driveways, walking dogs, washing cars, etc. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected to take care of all needs and wants of people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If we make welfare too comfortable to be on, everyone will want to be on it.
No, you need to get a grip. You and several other posters here are definitely insulting both welfare recipients and food stamp recipients. Your constant pejorative referrals to food stamp and welfare underscore your disdain for poor people. The fact is that most of SNAP recipients are either the working poor, the disabled or the elderly. As others have noted, most Americans are a job loss, a health crisis or some other catastrophe away from qualifying for SNAP themselves.
If you want a welfare crusade, I suggest you start with the multi-millionaire beneficiaries of corporate welfare, including some who are running for POTUS.
Three Wolves in the Snow has provided you an excellent answer to the "extras" question.
There are many ways to make money, but only if you're striving for self-sufficiency rather than dependency. If you want dependency, I want you off my back.
I have the upmost respect for people on welfare who hate being on welfare. They want better for themselves than a lifetime of handouts. Those are the people who will find a way to pull themselves out of the system. They are the ones I don't mind helping.
Many churches offer the extras that government doesn't. Food banks are just one way. How many of us give the food banks a buck or two every time we grocery shop? I'll wager a guess that most of us do, so long as were not hurting ourselves.
You assume all areas have sufficient food banks. You assume if you make cash on the side and report it your FS wond decrease.
Look a person gets X amount of "$$" according to their income, etc., etc. Who gives a flip what kind of food they buy with it or if they trade half of it for cash to buy toliet paper, cigs, lotto tickets or beer? YOU contribute a very small amount of your tax dollars to that program and people wont get any additional assistance because they squandered their allotment. That is their problem.
Your tax dollars pay people to administer the program. These people should be diligent in approving applications. The state should be diligent in addressing and preventing fraud. They are not. That is where the problem is. If a person qualifies and is approved for 101$/month in food purchases why do you care where that money goes. You should be concerned that the state and employees dont give a hoot if an applicant is lying about their income/situation.
Have you ever reported suspected FS fraud? How did that go?
Three Wolves is correct. Honestly, where I live there are tons of older and elderly (really old) people and they can't even get any one to shovel snow or mow their lawn. The "pantry" is always booming though. There is something about "free" that is just attractive.
Also, for the poster saying she/he didn't care how they spent the money, junk food, etc. that they would have to learn to budget, ah, no, that isn't what they do. They blow the food stamp allotment the first 10 days of the month and then beg the rest of the month from charitable groups to the point that someone constantly wants us to give either money or canned goods (always canned meats, individual serve/instant etc.). I quit giving because I got tired of it since here, the food stamps are for the anchor babies and they won't feed the whole family for the month. When the charitable foods/money go to help our own citizens, I will contribute again.
It would definitely help with fraud if it is handled like the WIC vouchers. Otherwise, a program like I mentioned in my last post where food is passed out. They can eat it or go without. I have eaten a lot of things I didn't particularly care for because that is what we could afford at that time.
Prison time for any one buying or selling food stamp benefits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
