It's impossible to nail down what amount of resources somebody would need in order to meet the bare minimum. So it's pretty pointless to argue about 50 bucks or so. We don't have a system that can quantify these things so precisely, so we'll end up with a little excess here and there, it's inevitable. But it doesn't change the fact that this money that went to a luxury item could have, and should have, been spent on a necessity. I know that when I'm barely scraping by, a couple of nights eating out can sometimes make the difference between paying my bills and not paying my bills. You're pointing out the exception to the rule in order to make your case, and quite frankly, it's not really effective. The concept of this argument is supported by more than just a freak incident or a photoshopped receipt from a grocery store. It's an actual problem that has real world consequences. And trying to excuse it with hypotheticals is a real waste of time and energy IMO. Just because it is difficult to try and nail down a properly structured and funded assistance program that minimizes abuse doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying.
It's pretty apparent that many of you folks have neither been poor, nor associated with, or worked among the poor. The vast majority of all food stamp recipients are working poor. Working. Poor. What benefits that are not spent in a single month will roll over to the next month. It is not uncommon to accumulate a large balance over a period of time, especially if you have young children who do not eat as much as an adult. Making a large purchase of meat or fish is neither an act of fraud nor an indication the person was not eligible in the first place. I am not going to begrudge any family for an occasional extravagance.
I agree the systems need fixing but I don't think a single purchase can tell that a person does not need or receives too much aid as there are too many ifs and things we do not know.
Great none of those look like any evidence you could put together a meal plan out of junk food that is cheaper than healthy food. I don't care how cheap HFCS makes things, it cannot compare to non prepackaged food on cost and certainly not on nutrition. The only thing that can is frozen produce.
You are very wrong about that. I'm guessing your definition of healthy/junk food is a lot different from mine. So, we're at an impasse.
This isn't about outright fraud but accountability in terms of you as a taxpayer and voter of how the government spends/distributes money and how people use that money. Your argument in the post I cited essentially says that you have no say in how the government spends money. I find that a very troubling. What is the purpose of having a food stamp program? If you view it as stimulative program then it probably doesn't matter how the money is spent but if you view it as a safety net welfare program then it should matter very much how individuals are spending it. You seem to agree with the latter noting you would agree to restrictions. If you abdicate though seeing if the program is actually being used as intended, a safety net, then you are largely throwing accountability out the window. At that point you are just saying that we have this intention but we are not going to follow up on whether that intention is being met. As far as this being a violation of rights my understanding is that receipts are a matter of public record. If they were private I don't see how the government could ask for them for tax purposes. Further if you are spending money that is given to you by another party with an express purpose they are fully entitled to ask for receipts.
Because the food stamps are meant for a specific purpose as a safety net and not to provide luxuries. Your tax refund is yours with no string attached.
You just spent 3 pages arguing if it is OK to care how your tax dollars are spent but cannot debate a little on what is considered junk food? lol
That's a lot of assumptions there. I've had periods of poverty and frankly with the architecture business so bad am not that far off from poverty. I am certainly not saying we punish the poor or blame the poor. I am all for the food stamp program but you have to ask yourself what is the reasoning behind having the program? I see it as a safety net of last resort. I don't begrudge someone taking that safety net but it is with the understanding that you are doing so to stave off starvation. I fully understand that having an occasional extravagance is important for one's sense of well being but paying for it with the safety net is going against the reason for having the safety net. I agree that a lot of people on food stamps and other aid are the working poor. I have no problem with them having an occasional extravagance but if so they should do it with money besides food stamps. Let me give you another example. Lets say I am on a business trip. Its been a really crappy trip with all sorts of problems. I have the company credit card which I am paying for the trip with. Now lets say at the airport bar I decide this has been such a hard trip that I am going to have a martini with top shelf gin and vodka before I get on the plane home. Now I could use the company credit card but technically this is an extravagance to make me feel better but isn't the purpose of them giving me the card since it doesn't have to do with my work. If I use the company card the company would be fully justified to see my receipts and demand recompense for that expense.
One other thing I think needs to be said: A lot of people take this as an attack on the poor/downtrodden. I don't really blame them for taking advantage of the system. That is very much human nature to figure out ways to exploit things to your advantage. I'm pissed at the social engineers who green light flawed systems and then don't fix them. Not blaming poor people for soaking up excess and dragging this country down, or any of the other 'dey took our jerbs' nonsense. It's about doing things efficiently and effectively, and a penny wasted is a penny lost, be it on bread or on bombs.
WIC limits the type of purchase you can make, but go overboard. Food stamps need to find a happy medium between where WIC is and where they are currently. I know somebody that has 4 children and he buys lobsters and steaks on his food stamps. By the time the second week has gone by, they are completely out of food stamps. Since neither him or his wife have jobs, they have no other way to pay for food, and they just let the kids go hungry the rest of the month. Its very sad. I'm bothered when I see people who use food stamps buying beer, soda, and cigarettes. The truth of the matter is, if these people had good financial sense, most of them wouldn't be eligible for food stamps.
True but the result is the same. The same amount of money and food stamps would be spent either way. I don't see how it matters.
I hadn't read this thread. If YOU don't buy lobster and steak with your hard earned money, but someone else buys lobster and steak with their not-so-hard-earned money... WTF is the problem? Don't complain right now about the rules and laws set forth by the people you voted into office.
If food stamps were $100,000 per month, would you be okay with that? You can't tell them how to spend it.
No. I'm not OK with that. As I said I have no problem changing the requirements for food stamps. I only have a problem if someone qualifies for it, telling them how they can or can't use it. If the law was that they would get 100K a month, I would have a problem telling them how to spend it. They are within the law. I wouldn't like the law, and I would argue to change it. But I wouldn't argue they did anything wrong if they spent the money (however foolishly) within the law.
Interesting. You have no problem with a violation of the spirit of the law as long as it doesn't violate the letter of the law. That's certainly a unique perspective.
