|
Lets start with a quick explanation as to why I am even raising this question.
I recently graduated from college. I am working two jobs at the moment. I do some IT work for the business school of my college, and during the weekends I have been helping out a family friend for a while at their small convenience store. As such, I have seen many people come and go, making purchases on all kinds of edibles using their EBT food stamp cards.
The kinds of purchases they are allowed to make using their credit are food items such as general grocery items, sodas, candy, chips, etc. Energy drinks aren't allowed with the exception of redbull, full throttle, and a couple others (Don't ask me why. For some reason, the values are listed as nutritional on those energy drinks as opposed to supplemental).
I see so many people, even young teenagers waltz in all the time buying a shit ton of candy, soda, and other random unhealthy unnecessary things that in no way contributes to their well being. Seriously, you would assume that there would be stricter regulations on what kind of items can be purchased using this kind of welfare service, that comes directly from tax dollars that everybody else works for. I just finished a transaction for two youngsters, both of them immensely overweight, that included nothing but an overwhelming amount of candy and soda. The total amounted to something near 40 bucks. Trust me, you can buy a lot of candy and pop with that.
I understand that the real motive and underlying reasoning behind foodstamps are of a good nature. Unfortunately, the actual effect of having foodstamp programs seem pretty damn distanced from the intended.
I live with my girlfriend, an almost 7-month old daughter. We have had trouble making some payments in occasion, but usually we manage our finances fine and are able to get by. We had previously discussed the possibility of applying for food aid, but my principles are such that I could never apply for it - unless I felt it was absolutely necessary to feed myself and my family.
It just pisses me off seeing so many people not attempting to further their current situation in life. They are just content with living the way they are, leeching whatever they can from the rest of the workers in society. Don't get me wrong though. There definitely are people that really need the help, and it usually isn't a hard ordeal making that distinction. When someone walks in, very poorly dressed, looking somewhat slummy, buying real food, it is obvious that they need the help. As opposed to people that stroll in rocking their brand-name clothing, clean sneakers, purchasing a ton of shit that they don't need.
So the conflict is fairly obvious. These sorts of services need to remain, but it is clear that there is much changes that need to take place. They need to better regulate how they determine the eligibility of these welfare services. And they also need to disallow people from buying shit like candy and soda.
I know it was long, I know a lot of people skipped through it. But if you did happen to read the whole thing, I'm really curious to know if you are feeling the same way I do about this.
  
|
A thing being administered badly is not an argument against that thing in itself, and does not imply that it cannot be administered well.
edit: we might consider, why are such items allowed for EBT? are there perhaps lobbyists from junk food companies who make it so?
|
I agree with that. Every time I see muscular 20-somethings buy subs with welfare cards, it makes me wonder why can't they take construction jobs or some sort of work. I mean yes there's unemployment, but they could do under-the-table sort of work (for less than minimum wage) while the purchasing power of welfare is slowly shrunk. So they'd get some subsistence, but they'd still need to make a few hundred dollars every month for anything beyond the bare minimum.
|
There are millions of others who use their EBT to buy food to feed their families. In the scope of the federal budget, EBT money is a drop in the ocean. It just happens to be a drop that you see every day working at a convenience store.
|
On September 17 2012 08:07 sam!zdat wrote:
A thing being administered badly is not an argument against that thing in itself, and does not imply that it cannot be administered well.
edit: we might consider, why are such items allowed for EBT? are there perhaps lobbyists from junk food companies who make it so?
to your second question, yes, I definitely think it could be a possibility.
I'm sure there is an agency dedicated to determining what is considered nutritional as opposed to supplemental. And we all know money runs things from top to bottom.
|
The program is undergoing a bit of a change, somewhat due to a few of the things you pointed out: people abusing the program by buying poor nutritional / junk food is the leading charge. The program is now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) as a way to leave the negative image and connotation of food stamps behind. Using a few examples to generalize the entire population who need this program is incredibly ignorant.
There is a reason why people need these social services. Many of those who are on it are lower class citizens and over-represent minorities who live in urban areas (though whites are the biggest users of the system). They lack the most basic resources to "get ahead" in the United States and the most important of these is educational opportunities. Without an education and schooling, you cannot get ahead in the United States. There are pretty much two type of jobs in the United States, thanks to the de-industrialization of the United States and the exportation of these jobs to the third world. You either need a technical skill requiring education or working a service job that pays the minimum. Working a full-time job that pays the minimum wage (was 7.25 an hour back in 2009 as mandated by the federal government) nets an adult individual roughly $15,000.
|
As Obama mentioned in his DNC speech there will always be people who take advantage of whatever systems that are in place to help the needy but the benefits to the honest people out weigh the damage to the economy caused by moochers.
My parents were able to feed me and my older sisters healthy meals every day due to this program untill I got a little older and they made enough money without the program. So yeah, as someone who would be a lot less healthy if not for the food stamp program, I have to say I support it.
Buying candy and Red Bull with food stamps is fucking stupid though there is no good reason to allow that.
|
Yeah, sorry for the misinterpretation of my op.
I definitely do understand the importance of the program. It was more a rant on the flaws and misuse I see.
I just think that the whole process of application and the types of foods allowed should definitely be given a newer and stricter look into.
|
On September 17 2012 08:01 BlueRoyaL wrote:
I live with my girlfriend, an almost 7-month old daughter.
Whoa there.
On topic, I don't think anyone would be opposed to stricter regulations on what you can and can't buy, especially when candy is on the list. At the same, food is one of the essentials of life. Literally. If the government doesn't provide it to people who need it (theoretically, not the people who just say they need it and then buy junk food), then people will either starve, steal, or give up some other life essential like shelter. So then I guess the question is really should the government be providing these services at all?
I think I'd be more in favor of people run kitchens that provide meals to the poor, but of course to run one properly is much much much more messy then just giving out stamps so it's understandable why the system is the way it is
|
I don't mind foot stamps, but I think that the amount that people get should be reduced (right now I think it's >= $5 per day for single people), and the annual income limit should be reduced further, so that fewer people who don't actually need food stamps will be able to get it.
I've read many blogs/articles about people who successfully live off of 1 dollar per day, so maybe food stamps should pay single people about 2-3 dollars per day, and families should get just a tad less per person since they have economies of scale working for them. It's definitely possible for a person to maintain a healthy diet off of that much money as long as it's high in grains, soy protein, and maybe some cheap meat as well (and they should also consume a 15 cent multivitamin every day.)
Everyone eligible for food stamps should also have the option of getting a weekly food ration instead, so that the people who either don't have the time to make a food plan or are too stupid to figure out how to eat healthily will not start suffering from involuntary malnutrition.
As for whether we should prohibit people on food stamps from buying unhealthy food... I think we should, but only as long as hospitals are required to treat poor who walk into emergency rooms for free, and as long as government pays the medical bills of poor people on medicare. Since in the U.S. it's entirely possible for poor people to get medical care for free (in fact, homeless people make an average of one trip to the emergency room per week,) people on food stamps who just eat junk food don't actually feel the financial cost of their unhealthiness that society has to bear.
TLDR - I agree with excluding unhealthy foods from being paid for by food stamps, and I also think that the food stamps budget could be massively cut without involuntary starvation or malnutrition resulting from it, especially since Obama just recently expanded access to it and increased how much money is being handed out.
|
On September 18 2012 07:24 airtown wrote:
I don't mind foot stamps, but I think that the amount that people get should be reduced (right now I think it's >= $5 per day for single people), and the annual income limit should be reduced further, so that fewer people who don't actually need food stamps will be able to get it.
I've read many blogs/articles about people who successfully live off of 1 dollar per day, so maybe food stamps should pay single people about 2-3 dollars per day, and families should get just a tad less per person since they have economies of scale working for them. It's definitely possible for a person to maintain a healthy diet off of that much money as long as it's high in grains, soy protein, and maybe some cheap meat as well (and they should also consume a 15 cent multivitamin every day.)
Everyone eligible for food stamps should also have the option of getting a weekly food ration instead, so that the people who either don't have the time to make a food plan or are too stupid to figure out how to eat healthily will not start suffering from involuntary malnutrition.
As for whether we should prohibit people on food stamps from buying unhealthy food... I think we should, but only as long as hospitals are required to treat poor who walk into emergency rooms for free, and as long as government pays the medical bills of poor people on medicare. Since in the U.S. it's entirely possible for poor people to get medical care for free (in fact, homeless people make an average of one trip to the emergency room per week,) people on food stamps who just eat junk food don't actually feel the financial cost of their unhealthiness that society has to bear.
TLDR - I agree with excluding unhealthy foods from being paid for by food stamps, and I also think that the food stamps budget could be massively cut without involuntary starvation or malnutrition resulting from it, especially since Obama just recently expanded access to it and increased how much money is being handed out.
Dude. I don't care what youtube video you've seen. Try living off of 2-3 dollars a day and tell me how it goes.
|
My parents were on WIC when they had me and my 2nd brother. If you need it... USE IT. I'm not sure yet, but my wife might be using WIC for our baby that is due next year.
The programs were made for a reason. If you're making low income, the programs are meant to help you during those rough times. I rather low income people use government supplement programs... then robbing/pillaging. Government does a decent job of playing "Robin Hood" imo.
*edited post*
|
One of the really messed up things about America is how food is priced. I'm not defending people buying unhealthy foods on food stamps, but there are several reasons for why this is the case. The first is that obviously, unhealthy foods tend to taste good, and if you don't know better (possibly due to lack of education) or lack the motivation to make the sacrifices needed for better health (and this is common not just among the poor), it's the natural choice.
Secondly, fruits and vegetables and other good stuff costs a shit ton more than chips and soda. Junk food is pretty much subsidized by the government - namely, with corn ridiculously subsidized to the point it is, corn syrup and other corn related products are nearly free, making junk food a lot cheaper than it ought to be.
If you're on a limited budget, let's say 10 dollars, you can buy maybe a bundle of vegetables and a few pounds of fruit. If you're lucky, maybe you can even afford some real juice, and not some 3% juice "drink" if it's on sale. That same money will get you several liters of soda, a container of salsa, and 3 jumbo bags of chips, all ready to eat out of the bag.
If you're eligible for them, you should use them, ideally to supplement whatever else income you have. In the long run, it's much better to eat stuff that's actually good for you, and having that little extra money just might help you choose vegetables over chips. It's arguably in the government's best interest to limit the types of products that can be bought by food stamps, but of course you would then have people complaining about big government nanny-state control (just look at how the Republicans went after Michelle Obama for her - in my opinion - quite reasonable attempts to fight childhood obesity). Also, for maximum effectiveness it would really have to go in tandem with programs teaching people about nutrition and how to cook, and that takes too much effort and funding on the part of the government, and state budgets are strapped as it is. It's so much easier to just blame those lazy poor who refuse to better themselves. (I'm not directing this last line at the OP, but rather illustrating the attitude many in America hold towards those on welfare/government assistance)
|
As with cigarettes, I doubt much will change no matter how reasonable an argument is.
|
On September 18 2012 09:59 Funnytoss wrote:
Secondly, fruits and vegetables and other good stuff costs a shit ton more than chips and soda. Junk food is pretty much subsidized by the government - namely, with corn ridiculously subsidized to the point it is, corn syrup and other corn related products are nearly free, making junk food a lot cheaper than it ought to be.
The corn lobby is, no joke, one of the single biggest threats to america
|
On September 18 2012 08:21 rogzardo wrote:
Dude. I don't care what youtube video you've seen. Try living off of 2-3 dollars a day and tell me how it goes.
It's possible. I've done it for months. Years no but I lived off aboutt that much my last year of school (2 quarters, 11 weeks each).
Per 1 week:
Oatmeal for breakfast. I bought the generic microwave brand at my grocery store, about 4 dollars a week. For lunch I had a sandwich with plain white bread which perhaps lucky for me was a dollar a loaf. The inside stuff I'll leave for later. For dinner I ate angel hair pasta. 1 package was 1.18, I ate about 1/3 a day. Pasta sauce was 3 or 4 bucks depending on brand or if a sale was going on, which also lasted me about a week. So for breakfast +dinner for 7 days is about 7 dollars total. Living off 2 dollars a day would be 14 dollars, giving me 7 dollars to spend on lunch for the week. 2 loafs of bread, and you can spend 5 bucks and have peanut butter sandwiches for lunch. For 3 dollars a day you can have jelly too, or buy a fruit on the side.
Not saying it's healthy, not saying I'd recommend it, also not saying that just because I can do it, anyone can, but I'm saying if you're starving, you can probably make do 2-3 dollars a day. I also brought can food and some other stuff from home, and ate out with friends occasionally (maybe 5 times the whole year). Our school also had a food pantry for free (limit x items a day) for starving people so I was fine for food if I needed more. For reference, I was about 5'10 (178cm) and pretty darn underweight at 115lb (52kg), note that I've pretty much been underweight my entire life but not due to not getting enough to eat. I had enough energy to bike to and from class everyday, about 5 miles a day, and stay awake and focus for my 24-28 unit load(6-7 college classes at a UC).
At the end of the day yea, cutting money would prevent people from buying crap they don't need and it has kind of amazed me through college to realize how little I need to eat to be happy, but it'd be better to just not let them buy crap in the first place.
|
It can be done, but as you've noted, it's in no way healthy. Don't you think paying a person perhaps $4-7 dollars a day (or whatever it takes to allow for breads/pastas/rice that aren't just pure carbs, and some fruits and vegetables and juices) instead of $2-3 is really in the long-term interest of the country? I mean, ideally the goal is to get people into better positions of life, and making them stretch to the extent that you did probably doesn't help motivation. We don't want people starving, we want them energized (to a reasonable extent) and more able to work than they would be otherwise. $4-7 isn't enough to really live on comfortably as it is, so it doesn't decrease incentive to work too badly, in my opinion.
|
On September 18 2012 14:57 phiinix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 08:21 rogzardo wrote:
Dude. I don't care what youtube video you've seen. Try living off of 2-3 dollars a day and tell me how it goes. It's possible. I've done it for months. Years no but I lived off aboutt that much my last year of school (2 quarters, 11 weeks each). Per 1 week: Oatmeal for breakfast. I bought the generic microwave brand at my grocery store, about 4 dollars a week. For lunch I had a sandwich with plain white bread which perhaps lucky for me was a dollar a loaf. The inside stuff I'll leave for later. For dinner I ate angel hair pasta. 1 package was 1.18, I ate about 1/3 a day. Pasta sauce was 3 or 4 bucks depending on brand or if a sale was going on, which also lasted me about a week. So for breakfast +dinner for 7 days is about 7 dollars total. Living off 2 dollars a day would be 14 dollars, giving me 7 dollars to spend on lunch for the week. 2 loafs of bread, and you can spend 5 bucks and have peanut butter sandwiches for lunch. For 3 dollars a day you can have jelly too, or buy a fruit on the side.
That's your food budget
(kids...)
|
@sam!zdat: He was only talking about food as that´s the whole topic of discussion. Imo you should read all numbers talked about in here in that context unless specifically specified otherwise. So when people say they can live of 2 dollar a day they mean for food. Stating this not included housing / clothing etc is useless in this context imo.
That being said and back on topic: I always wondered why vegetables were so expensive compared to junkfood in the United States. I kinda knew the corn sector was heavily subsidized but I never made the connection so thanks for making me aware about the impact of this.
The solution for the foodstamp problem would be to limit it´s use only to vegetables/fruit/meat/grains etc. To do this it will most likely be neccesary to increase the amount of money available per person so they can buy enough healthy food to feed their family. The money for this could potentially come from lowering the corn subsidizing. This would have as an added benefit junk food would get a bit more expensive and thus perhaps a bit less tempting to buy for all people.
I think btw a foodstamp is more elegant solution as what we have in the Netherlands. Here we have for the very poor a so called foodbank where 1 time a week they can get a box of food for free (you can only go there if your welfare handler put you on the list). Although this sounds good and the box contains mostly healthy goods, these goods are not the freshest. A lot of the contents are donated by supermarkets when the experationdate is (almost) reached.
That´s the positive thing about the foodstamp. If you choose to buy healthy food, you can get fresh products.
|
On September 18 2012 16:52 Golden Ghost wrote:
@sam!zdat: He was only talking about food as that´s the whole topic of discussion. Imo you should read all numbers talked about in here in that context unless specifically specified otherwise. So when people say they can live of 2 dollar a day they mean for food. Stating this not included housing / clothing etc is useless in this context imo.
LOL my bad I must have been stoned
edit: but wait, when people talk about people living on 2-3 dollars a day don't they usually mean TOTAL? And then this university student compares that to his food budget?
|
You can survive off of zero dollars a day if you have to. I just wanted to point out that airliner's view of giving everybody 2-3 dollars a day (and "a tad less for families") is not well thought out. In fact, it was stupid.
|
On September 19 2012 08:23 rogzardo wrote:
You can survive off of zero dollars a day if you have to.
What?
teach me, master
|
On September 19 2012 08:32 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2012 08:23 rogzardo wrote:
You can survive off of zero dollars a day if you have to. What? teach me, master
Be homeless, steal, etc. Anything is possible is my point.
Just like its possible to live off of 2-3 dollars a day for food. But I think airliner was being foolish for thinking it would be good government policy to give that little money for food stamps. You won't get enough calories, and you won't eat anywhere near healthy.
|
That's not living off 0 dollars, that's living off of somebody else's dollars. Also, "be homeless" is not a way to live on zero dollars, that's why homeless people... beg for money.
(I don't know that we disagree, I'm just a pedant. If you're going to talk about things like this you must get your accounting straight)
|
Semantics. 2-3 dollars is not enough to live off of.
Happy?
|
On September 19 2012 09:16 rogzardo wrote:
Semantics. 2-3 dollars is not enough to live off of.
Happy?
Please don't use "semantics" to imply meaninglessness... semantics is the study of meaning. Without semantics, one is unable to say what one means.
But yes, that will do quite nicely. I assent to your proposition.
|
I think this is a good thread. I think about it every day, whenever I see a homeless person or someone that looks like they're struggling. I think to myself: "That could be me..."
So I don't think the food stamp program is bad. I honestly don't think that people that are on welfare truly can look themselves in the mirror and feel proud of it. They may lie and say that they enjoy living off government expenses, but I believe deep down inside they want to get out of the "hole" that they're in.
I mean some cashiers have to take a course on reacting to food stamp/WIC customers. They can't be like "Oh shit, you're on WIC!" Some people are legitimately embarrassed by being on this program.
It's hard to judge someone when you've never been in their shoes before. I've slept outside all night before several times before years ago during the winter. It fucking sucks. (Long story) So I try to stay humble when I look at topics about poverty/welfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
