Current Events > Why do people get butthurt over food stamps

(+) Yeah! (+)

hockeybub89 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

A safety net is not supposed to be a hammock.

You can't throw out the net because some people use it as a hammock.

No, but you can harass the guy taking a nap on the net.

Some people don't have any idea what it's actually like to be poor, and so they examine the world through their privileged lenses.
---

oh, like UI?

that's different since it isn't means-tested
---

You would think that welfare recipients would have a strong sense of self-enforcement within that "community" when it comes to reporting, but I don't really get the sense that's the case.
---

Under the best of circumstances social programs are always going to be judged as someone taking another's hard earned money to avoid getting a job themselves.

If you're talking about cashiers specifically, they probably aren't a whole lot better off financially, AND they have to put in work to do it. I've been there, seeing the guy getting a disability or welfare cheque for doing diddly dick that's only 2 - 3 hundred less than my take home pay for working my ass off at minimum wage and reduced hours. At that point "sir on your ass and get paid for doing nothing" is less of a joke than an honest alternative to stress and effort for only a fraction more money.
---

Balrog0 posted...

oh, like UI?

that's different since it isn't means-tested

Did you miss a quote, or post in the wrong thread?
Context is missing here.

omarssikins posted...

It's not unreasonable to see people buying chips or candy for their children with welfare, because they're goddamn fucking children that like junk food they're not goddamn vegans or on a diet- they're children

Fat American Syndrome

You think kids 60 years ago were eating Cheetos? Drinking Redbulls?

Like I don't blame you, I used to have this mindset, until I became disciplined.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Did you miss a quote, or post in the wrong thread?
Context is missing here.

I was just responding to you. The adminstrative oversight for UI is different from SNAP, because SNAP is means-tested and therefore requires more rigorous reporting generally than UI, which is more tied to past earnings that are easily verifiable and which only typically has job search requirements.

SNAP, on the other hand, is tied to your current income and has no hard time limit for most recipients. The oversight for able bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) is a bit more like the oversight for UI, but they aren't most SNAP recipients
---

Balrog0 posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Did you miss a quote, or post in the wrong thread?
Context is missing here.

I was just responding to you. The adminstrative oversight for UI is different from SNAP, because SNAP is means-tested and therefore requires more rigorous reporting generally than UI, which is more tied to past earnings that are easily verifiable and which only typically has job search requirements.

SNAP, on the other hand, is tied to your current income and has no hard time limit for most recipients. The oversight for able bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) is a bit more like the oversight for UI, but they aren't most SNAP recipients

Ah.

Monthly reporting is probably a bit much, since income reporting itself only happens annually.
I'll concede that.

I mean with UI, the oversight is basically a calculation and then random audits of job search reports. the program ends within x weeks of your start date or until you find a job. it's fairly binary

with SNAP, there's no presumption that you'll ever get off the program, the benefit amount changes based on your income level, and you could potentially get kicked off of it for having too many assets or whatever.
---

hyperpowder posted...

Fat American Syndrome

You think kids 60 years ago were eating Cheetos? Drinking Redbulls?

Like I don't blame you, I used to have this mindset, until I became disciplined.

True because none of those commodities existed back then and also, because you know wars/disease.

Look I get the reasoning, but you honestly can't impose that unreasonable and unrealistic standards on parents who are already struggling to meet ends or their children who likely know no other means of joy other than the occasional junk food they get per week.

Like for us who have an actual well paying or even live-able paying job can afford to buy or make our own healthy snacks or even have the mind set for it because we have no real monetary problem and thus our mindset isn't as burdened but you can't apply your living situation to people whose living circumstances are vastly different.
---

omarssikins posted...

hyperpowder posted...

Fat American Syndrome

You think kids 60 years ago were eating Cheetos? Drinking Redbulls?

Like I don't blame you, I used to have this mindset, until I became disciplined.

True because none of those commodities existed back then and also, because you know wars/disease.

Look I get the reasoning, but you honestly can't impose that unreasonable and unrealistic standards on parents who are already struggling to meet ends or their children who likely know no other means of joy other than the occasional junk food they get per week.

It's hardly unreasonable, and it's even historic. Both my parents came from deep poverty. I've been regaled with stories of ice cream as their annual treat. And I'm talking cheap Dairy Queen soft serve, not baskin robbins. I've been there. I wanted pop, I got water. I wanted pizza, I got ramen. I wanted the cafeteria, I got cheeze whiz on stale bread. Crying and complaining didn't put better food in my mouth.

The thing about our modern society is we've convinced ourselves we NEED some luxuries when we really are just afraid to do without.
---

"No you can't have any soda or steak or shrimp. You're poor and you're on food stamps, so only rice and beans for you. You can't enjoy anything until you stop needing food stamps."

Average person on EBT gets $84 a month last time I checked.

That's not a whole lot so w/e.
---

Transcendentia posted...

"No you can't have any soda or steak or shrimp. You're poor and you're on food stamps, so only rice and beans for you. You can't enjoy anything until you stop needing food stamps."

Only in America can not having luxuries because you can't afford them be seen as some kind of unfair punishment.
---

lightwarrior78 posted...

Transcendentia posted...

"No you can't have any soda or steak or shrimp. You're poor and you're on food stamps, so only rice and beans for you. You can't enjoy anything until you stop needing food stamps."

Only in America can not having luxuries because you can't afford them be seen as some kind of unfair punishment.

then why don't we forcibly limit all food stamp money to just rice and beans?

omarssikins posted...

Like for us who have an actual well paying or even live-able paying job can afford to buy or make our own healthy snacks or even have the mind set for it because we have no real monetary problem and thus our mindset isn't as burdened but you can't apply your living situation to people whose living circumstances are vastly different.

Who are you speaking for? Because I'm on Snap, and I have a 2 year old.

Just because you're accustomed to eat a certain way doesn't mean everyone else does.

I don't think you understand that fruits, oats, yogurt can be considered snacks and taste great.
---

hyperpowder posted...

Just because you're accustomed to eat a certain way doesn't mean everyone else does.

The irony.
---

Also don't welfare programs reduce crime, meaning that taxpayers save in the long run? I don't have stats on hand.
---

omarssikins posted...

hyperpowder posted...

Just because you're accustomed to eat a certain way doesn't mean everyone else does.

The irony.

Fair enough, but my eating habits doesn't lead to heart problems, diabetes, and other problems later in life.
---

Johnny_Nutcase posted...

Then you take a look at all the regulations requiring restaurants to throw out food

Ive seen the freshest food and TONS of it being thrown away. The Chef told me it was for safety from food-borne illnesses
---

Transcendentia posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

Transcendentia posted...

"No you can't have any soda or steak or shrimp. You're poor and you're on food stamps, so only rice and beans for you. You can't enjoy anything until you stop needing food stamps."

Only in America can not having luxuries because you can't afford them be seen as some kind of unfair punishment.

then why don't we forcibly limit all food stamp money to just rice and beans?

There has to be a happy medium between field rations and open reign on junk food.

Of course if it were up to me, I'd just take a lot of choice out of the equation and just deliver food to the recipients. Allowances would be made for medical needs and reasonable preferences (ie if you don't like fish, rice, or carrots you can replace with chicken, noodles, or peas) and to prove I'm not evil, treats for pre-approved special occasions (cookies for christmas, cake for birthdays), but chips, soda, chocolate, ice cream would either not be there or limited to a very small amount per month. It would be hampers of bread, pasta, canned / frozen vegitables and fruits, soup, meat, rice, powdered milk, etc.
---

Im an attractive person. If im attractive then theres literally no reason to be ugly. Thats why i hate ugly people so much.
---

hyperpowder posted...

omarssikins posted...

hyperpowder posted...

Just because you're accustomed to eat a certain way doesn't mean everyone else does.

The irony.

Fair enough, but my eating habits doesn't lead to heart problems, diabetes, and other problems later in life.

Can't really tell people how to enjoy life, it's an eating choice they have to make eventually but it's not on you specifically to mandate how they eat just because you eat a certain way because if that was the case it'd be just easier to ban junk food altogether and not give them the option.
---

omarssikins posted...

hyperpowder posted...

omarssikins posted...

hyperpowder posted...

Just because you're accustomed to eat a certain way doesn't mean everyone else does.

The irony.

Fair enough, but my eating habits doesn't lead to heart problems, diabetes, and other problems later in life.

Can't really tell people how to enjoy life, it's an eating choice they have to make eventually but it's not on you specifically to mandate how they eat just because you eat a certain way because if that was the case it'd be just easier to ban junk food altogether and not give them the option.

It does have its own effects on the economy,taxes, and healthcare if a person gets sick.

Why do you think there is taxes and age limitations for cigarettes? It's because the health effects of cigarettes cost tax payers billions of dollars.

Eating unhealthy is just as bad as smoking. I don't think unhealthy food should be banned, I do think it should be regulated with food stamps.

The government shouldnt be enabling a bad habit.
---

I used to be on EBT. No shame, either. The government fucks me AND you frequently.
---

Transcendentia posted...

lightwarrior78 posted...

Transcendentia posted...

"No you can't have any soda or steak or shrimp. You're poor and you're on food stamps, so only rice and beans for you. You can't enjoy anything until you stop needing food stamps."

Only in America can not having luxuries because you can't afford them be seen as some kind of unfair punishment.

then why don't we forcibly limit all food stamp money to just rice and beans?

Because, our goofy mix of capital-socialism means the true beneficiaries of food stamps are grocery stores and gas stations.

Otherwise, we'd ship a 50-pound bag of rice and a 50-pound bag of beans every now and then to everyone on SNAP, and loudly complain when they sell that to buy smokes.

omarssikins posted...

Everyone craves junk food, people have children that like junk food and the average person consumes at least $10-20 of junk food per week. It's not unreasonable to see people buying chips or candy for their children with welfare, because they're goddamn fucking children that like junk food they're not goddamn vegans or on a diet- they're children.

They totally can do that, with their other funds. The cash they are blowing on lottery tickets and cigarettes. Food stamps should be for food, and that is just how it should be. When your means are small, it doesn't mean you should count on your habits being subsidized, it means that you work within your means.
---

nesplayer posted...

Instead of "Instead of asking what your government can do for you, ask what you can do for your government" it's became the opposite of that

Good. If governments don't exist to serve the people, why do we have them?

JE19426 posted...

nesplayer posted...

Instead of "Instead of asking what your government can do for you, ask what you can do for your government" it's became the opposite of that

Good. If governments don't exist to serve the people, why do we have them?

Because the government should serve everyone. Why should the government take money from me and give it to someone else to blow on lottery tickets and energy drinks?

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Because the government should serve everyone. Why should the government take money from me and give it to someone else to blow on lottery tickets and energy drinks?

Because you touch yourself at night.
---

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Because the government should serve everyone.

Way to not read my post.

JE19426 posted...

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Because the government should serve everyone.

Way to not read my post.

I explained why current government is bullshit.

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

I explained why current government is bullshit.

Which has no relation to my post.

Why should the government take my money if it's supposed to benefit everybody?

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

Why should the government take my money if it's supposed to benefit everybody?

What does that have to do with my post?

You said the government should exist to serve.

SSJ-Spiderman posted...

You said the government should exist to serve.

No, I asked why else it would exist.

That is why it exists. And I explained why it should do a better job of serving everyone equally.

poor people should only be allowed to buy water and bread only
---

OwlRammer posted...

poor people should only be allowed to buy water and bread only

B-b-b-b-b-ut they need to be able to buy candy and soda to fulfill their lives!

Sylph posted...

omarssikins posted...

Everyone craves junk food, people have children that like junk food and the average person consumes at least $10-20 of junk food per week. It's not unreasonable to see people buying chips or candy for their children with welfare, because they're goddamn fucking children that like junk food they're not goddamn vegans or on a diet- they're children.

They totally can do that, with their other funds. The cash they are blowing on lottery tickets and cigarettes. Food stamps should be for food, and that is just how it should be. When your means are small, it doesn't mean you should count on your habits being subsidized, it means that you work within your means.

They don't all do that and also, they probably need that money for rent/utilities/gas/car insurance etc.

Thankfully my family has always been in the middle class since I returned to my mother when I was 6. I was born here but was sent back to my mother's country with my grandma when I was 1 because my mother's job was very restrictive [my parents worked their asses off for me, illegal immigrant parents fleeing a civil war where child soldiers we're being used in El Salvador eventually passed the citizen test and now own a house upper middle class now and I work for the CA courts] and I've never known what it is to want or crave some chips or junk food I can't have since I returned to my mother but I remember my 4-5 years where my grandma whom I was living with could not afford chips or junk food so I just had to watch other kids eating chips hoping. My mother sent what she could but you know it was still rough.

Telling kids "No you cant have chips because we're poor and people think just because we're poor we're not allowed to enjoy anything small like junk food" is kind of a downer and pretty much heart breaking to see if you had any sort of human emotion. Do you know what kind of psychological damage that does to a kid? Knowing they're so poor they can't enjoy even chips? That because they're so poor they can't even do normal things we do for granted? You don't, don't talk like you do.

Them buying junk food is not a crime and it's not really feeding any addiction- so really sod off and just let the damn kids have something they like like chips or soda. Technically it's still food [just not very healthy one] so kind of a moot point.
---

The Top Crusader posted...

I don't think there is anything wrong with being a little annoyed when you have to work really hard and someone else gets rewarded for bad decision making

Frank Grimes vs Homer Simpson???
---

Whats it matter if someone buys cigarettes/booze over food? Just means they (by choice) go more hungry.

Shit goes back into the economy no matter what you spend it on.

I really don't have many issues with Food Stamps. I don't think many qualify for ridiculously large amounts, it's not like they're receiving paychecks that are enough to really live off on (as far as paying for rent/mortgage among other bills). It's just there so people can get some damn food. If they choose to sell their stamps for drug money or some shit, then how do they eat? That's not going to be sustainable for them over time. And if they choose to buy name brand shit, then that's their choice. It means they can't buy other things. We shouldn't say they can only buy certain low-quality foods either. If they buy $40 worth of steaks to cook one night, then that's less money allocated to long-term sustaining foods, and that's their decision and will have to deal with it.

Not saying there aren't people out there that take advantage of it, but like I said if they make bad decisions with the money they're given it's going to cost them in the end because it's not really sustainable. But I'd wager most of the people use the card responsibly and just need it to help them out with the grocery bill so they can actually save money without having to starve themselves. If 80% of the people are being legitimately helped out this way, I'd rather look at the positives of that than letting the minority of the cardholders ruin it for them.
---

This kid wanted a lollipop back when I lived in the states, kid with him mom. I bought it for him. I felt pretty good about it. If you could see how his face lit up, I was almost in tears.

I think if people could see the way some people lived and give a bit and see how different-- how much it helps it'd be great, but people only see it as money lost.

Though I do admit, there should be an internal budget on what you use the cards for. That lady who bought all that soda on food stamps pissed me off.
---

toyota posted...

Whats it matter if someone buys cigarettes/booze over food? Just means they (by choice) go more hungry.

Shit goes back into the economy no matter what you spend it on.

Because I shouldn't have to pay to feed someone's addiction.

Dear CE...

There's a lot of people that get EBT cash because they are foster parents.

So helping out a homeless child is a no no here?

BTW, the state goes after the original parents to get that money.

but please CE, keep on assuming everyone is just a lazy piece of shit for having a EBT card.
---

Thrillwell posted...

but please CE, keep on assuming everyone is just a lazy piece of shit for having a EBT card.

Nobody said that.

Tropicalwood posted...

Buying brand name food on the tax payers dime.

The Top Crusader posted...

I think the majority of people realize that most people using EBT are using it because they need to and don't take significant issue. That being said there is always the minority that should honestly be irritating to anyone who is paying taxes (or anyone using EBT responsibly). I mean, it does kind of suck that my wife and I had to work full time while paying for college and taking classes and scrimping by on cheap food and no significant luxury, but then a single mom can get a free college ride, free food, free childcare, be able to attend college without having to worry scheduling classes and studying around work, etc.

Vindris_SNH posted...

I've always thought it was better to help people by giving them the tools to help themselves, rather than just giving them what they need. In some cases that's not possible, and it's great to be able to help people when they really need it. Problem is, I think a lot of people on various forms of welfare are just taking advantage of the system, and could be paying for themselves instead of feeding off of taxpayers.

Tropicalwood posted...

vashmoto posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

Buying brand name food on the tax payers dime.

Should all stores have a section for EBT-acceptable low quality food products?

>Person with actual job goes to Walmart
>Buys great value food

>Foodstamp bum goes to walmart
>Buys brand name junk food.

Also
>Food stamp bum trades for drugs

Yeah, no one...
---