Yes but we don't know about this particular person which has riled everybody up so we cannot necessarily say it was wasted but neither can we say it was for good use.
We already have rules in place for certain consumables, it seems to work fine there. If somebody can afford a luxury item and still subsist, then they're either 1) getting too much aid or 2) not in need of aid at all.
Hell, I'm assuming the receipt is fake to begin with. However, even operating under the assumption that it is real, the fact remains that this person was able to purchase luxury items and yet still subsist. Therefore that person was either 1) receiving too much aid or 2) not needing it in the first place.
I find this opinion very surprising coming from someone who has previously spoken out about the need for accountability in government spending.
It is pretty cut and dry. I can't think of a single circumstance where someone who buys luxury items like this, yet does not starve to death, isn't either 1) getting too much aid or 2) not deserving of aid in the first place. You can't really justify (in any reasonable scenario that doesn't involve him trading steak or lobster for a profit or something) them purchasing this stuff if they are on a "holy s**t i'm going to starve and i need every single penny i get to go as far as possible" dietary budget.
In your "tax refund" scenario, you have someone who was obviously given too much aid relative to their income. If he is able to afford steak and lobster, while not going hungry, then he was given too much aid, period. A person who is in need of this assistance should not have any resources to spare on items like this. There is no way to escape this conclusion, unless you just believe that expensive, higher-end food items should be considered bare necessities. In which case, we'll never agree and just have to stop there.
Again, look at the date of the receipt. How do you know a tax return did not supplement the income during that time period giving them the ability to afford something luxurious? My sister treats her and her family to Red Lobster and Chili's and what not around this same time period but for the rest of the year it is pretty much Hamburger Helper, mac and cheese, balogna and yes ramen noodles among other things. Are you saying her and others like her shouldn't receive aid simply because they can go all out, using the phrase loosely, a few times a year? That's seems pretty shortsighted.
Small portion of low grade steak is pretty cheap. So you are saying the one shouldnt be allowed to get this type of steak as well?
I'm not eligible for aid of any kind but I still received a pretty nice tax refund of nearly $1000. What type of refund do you think a person with 3 kids and a job paying half the salary of mine or even less gets back? It can be pretty substantial and assist in allowing this sort of thing. That doesn't mean they make too much or receive too much aid.
Well, it could be a number of things: - Ask your butcher for the best cut of steak in your price. Look for marbling. The more marbling in the coloration a steak has the more tender it will be. - Stay away from salt. Never salt you meat until it is completely done cooking. Salt will dry up the steak's natural juices. - Never pierce or cut your steak in the middle of cooking this will release all of the natural juices and guarantee a tough piece of meat. - Sear the steak first. Get a pan very hot on high heat for about 2 minutes. Throw the steak on the sizzling pan for about a minute on each side of the steak. (if you don't hear the sizzle sound your pan was not hot enough.) EDIT: I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about........nevermind.
Since she can't afford to feed her family without government assistance, then she shouldn't be splurging like that, no. Cover the basics first. How can you justify someone who supposedly can't afford the basic necessities of life spending money on dining out?
Depends. That argument could be used to qualify or disqualify almost any food item up for inclusion to a food stamp eligibility program. It's not some huge secret that meat protein, especially red meat, is one of the most expensive food items in terms of price per calorie/nutrient out there. It's not easy to raise, slaughter, package, transport, etc. But hey, if you wanna eat radiated Grade F Krusty Brand Cow-Like Products, then go for it, I guess?
If that tax refund doesn't go towards covering the bare necessities of life, then yes, it does mean they're receiving too much aid.
If this was a situation where because the person was getting a tax refund they felt they could afford to splurge shouldn't they have paid for that luxury using their tax refund, which I think everyone will agree is their own money and not the government's?
I mentioned earlier that fraudulent waste should be held to account. That's true with food stamps, or defense budget. Itemized accounting for defense budget expenditures is reasonable. Listing how much money is given in food stamps also seems reasonable, and if it needs to be adjusted that's fine. I just draw the line and individually looking at each item a person purchased with their allotment of food stamps. I think once they have the food stamps it's up to them how to allocate that budget. If there are restricted items like liquor or fast food then I'm fine with restricting those items. I don't want to throw accountability out of the window in either case. Also investigating DoD expenditures doesn't infringe on individual rights while investigating each food stamp recipient's grocery receipts might.
Why does that matter? If they have cash and food stamps, and use food stamps their cash lasts longer. If they use cash their food stamps last longer. Why does it matter which way they allocate their resources?
It's a one or two time thing.....PER YEAR, that's it. Otherwise it is me or my mother or somebody else paying when we do go out. Most of her tax refund is spent on vehicle upkeep, paying bills, buying necessities, buying what others consider necessities and so on or what I see as necessities. She does a pretty good job of budgeting what she does get and has to because it is not like she is getting $500+ a month in food stamps. If she wants to take 2-3% of her refund for a little something extra I don't see why that is an issue, it's not like that can be spread out over months to make a significant difference in her budget.
