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.
Well, I guess that's you Suburban. If you don't care how they use the funds, good for you. Many of us do care because it is "our" money being spent on these items. If the system was a bit more restrictive maybe people wouldn't get so comfortable using them. Perhaps they'd try a little harder to do better for themselves so that they could buy the foods they would rather have. Welfare programs are not meant to be life-long benefits. They are meant to be a hand up not a hand out. But when you allow people to do as they please with tax payer money, there is no incentive to ever get off of the program. If these people were at least restricted to certain foods they could use the stamps to purchase, they might just work a bit harder so that they can have the luxury items they crave.
In order to have restrictions, one must be able to audit the receipts. That level requires auditors which require funding to run a auditing division. With current technology a auditing division will cost more than is actually lost to cheaters. A single person's max is $192 (2018). When we have the technology in place for all retailers to economically transmit full receipts (like Amazon & Staples do) instead of dollar amounts, then it may be economical to create a auditing division. If we look at the IRS, we find the chance of being audited pretty slim.
I'm sure some of the same people up in arms over how people spend their EBT checks are the same people that turn a blind eye to, or even support worse forms of tax payer waste and pork barrel nonsense. Like the tens and tens of billions of dollars that simply vanished from Iraq and Afghanistan. That's right, gone with no one knowing what happened to the money. And we're still wasting billions there. At least EBT is helping our own citizens with food.
Yes, indeed! I would much have my taxes pay for food, even lobster for a dog, than dump it down a rat hole of endless war.
There is another thing worth pointing out, and that is, nobody knows, unless the person chooses to say, how the food will be used in the home. I can take a pound of steak, and by combining it with other things, like beans, rice, or both, provide dinner for two people for at least two days, and possibly three. Same thing with shrimp. There's really no point in complaining about anyone buying so-called luxury items unless you know their cooking habits.
In order to have restrictions, one must be able to audit the receipts. That level requires auditors which require funding to run a auditing division. With current technology a auditing division will cost more than is actually lost to cheaters. A single person's max is $192 (2018). When we have the technology in place for all retailers to economically transmit full receipts (like Amazon & Staples do) instead of dollar amounts, then it may be economical to create a auditing division. If we look at the IRS, we find the chance of being audited pretty slim.
Ah, yes, the practical considerations.
Imagine the work and cost involved in deciding, one by one, which items would be allowed, and which would not. I've seen proposals that would disallow, for example, steak and seafood. Okay, fine. Does seafood include canned tuna and Mrs. Paul's fish sticks? Does steak mean filet mignon only, or does it include round steak, which is often cheaper than hamburger? What about ground sirloin? Is it okay, because it's ground, or is it forbidden, because it's sirloin? Someone else referred to non-fancy fruit. How does one define "fancy?" Are pineapples fancy when they are on sale for a dollar each, and cheaper than Honeycrisp apples? What about canned pineapple?
Or, I guess we could base the blacklist on cost, on the grounds that it is "simpler." That would be fun, given how much prices can fluctuate from week to week, or even day to day, as items that are about to expire are frequently marked down. I can see it now: store employees racing around every day, updating the list of what can and cannot be purchased with food stamps. The only upside is that it might increase employment, if it didn't halt productivity altogether.
I can see possibly disallowing a few items, like candy, soda, and chips, although even that has its downfalls (What do we do about ingredients that might be made into candy? Do we allow bottled water?) Other than that, implementing all of these wonderful restrictions would be a practical and economic nightmare of epic proportions.
If people want to spend them on sodas or other foods that are not 'healthy,' so what (and meat, dairy, and eggs are not healthy by the way). What business is that of ours. I as a taxpayer don't give a toss how EBT is used as long as it's used for food and not traded illegally.
At least the lobster went to a nice dog which is better than most.
I was cashier in a grocery store in the Denver area during the last recession as a cashier. I will always remember the expensive lobsters, expensive steaks, artisan bakery items and cold gourmet items they would buy in the deli.
I was a cashier and the only thing surprising in the video is that she didn't buy a filet mignon also.
Luckily, there is President Trump who is planning common sense welfare reform after his middle-class tax cuts that will make the tax system much more simple and easy to understand.
If people want to spend them on sodas or other foods that are not 'healthy,' so what (and meat, dairy, and eggs are not healthy by the way). What business is that of ours. I as a taxpayer don't give a toss how EBT is used as long as it's used for food and not traded illegally.
And that's the problem. People trade their ebt for cash and they are used to buy soda and other junk foods for dishonest store owners. Example ebt is worth $500. Dishonest owner of EBT card sells it for $300 cash to dishonest small store owner. That person takes it to Walmart buys soda with it to stock his shelves.
There should be limits on what it can be used for. Our charity should not be so easily abused.
A dog will not eat mushrooms or shellfish. I think its just too foreign or they're using instinct not to eat something that may be poisonous. Our dogs have eaten fish, some like carrots, I've even shared grits with our dog.
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.
