Current Events > Why do people want people on food stamps to be miserable?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I find a lot of the folks who complain about people on food stamps are folks who make just barely too much to qualify for the assistance, but not enough to really get by without living check to check. Not enough to really save or prosper.
---

To qualify for food assistance, the person has to have an income below a certain amount. There's other qualifying factors, but the income is the paramount one.

You might be surprised just how much consumables someone can still buy when they don't have to spend their minimal income on groceries to feed themselves. I'm saying...well duh, yeah you're going to see some people on food stamps suddenly have enough spendable money to buy cigarettes and booze. Because they don't have to spend that money on food. Food can be quite an expenditure depending on the household and location.

If you're automatically equating that expendable income as "raking in money while abusing the system", you don't see the whole picture. See people who make less enough to qualify for food stamps can still manage to have spending money for other things (that's actually one of the goals of the program). If they want to blow that cash on booze and smokes, that's basically their business. It's hardly a fortune...

It's not a perfect system, no government program is. And there are ways to abuse food stamps. Being on food stamps and still buying stuff with cash is not one of them. That's not abusing the system, neither by rules nor principles.
---

Kineth posted...

k darkfire posted...

Work for your food. That's what we used to do. If you can't afford to eat, you just don't. Theres always a way to get money to eat. Too many people game the system.

Reminder, this guy would love for black people to starve and is just using a cover story as an excuse.

Why do you think that's his reason?

Going by race, more food stamps go to white people than any other group.
---

Esrac posted...

I find a lot of the folks who complain about people on food stamps are folks who make just barely too much to qualify for the assistance, but not enough to really get by without living check to check. Not enough to really save or prosper.

---

DifferentialEquation posted...

Kineth posted...

k darkfire posted...

Work for your food. That's what we used to do. If you can't afford to eat, you just don't. Theres always a way to get money to eat. Too many people game the system.

Reminder, this guy would love for black people to starve and is just using a cover story as an excuse.

Why do you think that's his reason?

Because he's been a racial troll for the better part of a decade.
---

ITT: ignorant people think other people get welfare for literally doing nothing and spend most of their money on garbage
---

Darkman124 posted...

you understand that WIC has significant restrictions, yeah?

Uh... yeah. That's exactly why I brought it up. I take it nobody is reading my earlier post, so I'll just quote it:
Vertania posted...

They should at least do it like the WIC program. Give people paper checks with specific items on them and put all kinds of tedious, arbitrary limitations on what they can buy. Not only would that help prevent wasteful spending and abuse, but it might motivate them to get off the food stamps.

With the bolded part, if EBT were half as tedious and restrictive as WIC, people would have to pay out of pocket for certain food choices and may even decide to use their extra money just to avoid the hassle. The ones that really need and appreciate the assistance wouldn't mind the extra steps.

My family was on food stamps for a while after my dad passed.

Can't say I'm particularly proud of it, but that occasional steak dinner certainly helped ease things into better times.
---

miserable? they live like kings compared to what people in 3rd world country have to go through

-Gavirulax- posted...

Miserable? They get free food, at the very least they should (barring disability and old age) work for it like everyone else.

---

When you get down to it, it comes down to "MY taxes are payin' for your food! You better not be spendin' it on stuff I don't agree with". Granted, there may be some merit to that sentiment, but the reason for the view is usually very self-centered.
---

People who care about this stuff are usually very bitter and lonely people who are angry at the world because their lives are not what they want them to be.

I am 38 years old and know plenty of people/families on or have been on food stamps at one point in thier life, not one of them is really well off finacially. I have no problem with food stamps, the few that abuse it far outweigh the many that just barely get by because of them and I feel we as a society should do our best to at least give all fellow, law abiding humans a somewhat decent life.
---

darkbuster posted...

When you get down to it, it comes down to "MY taxes are payin' for your food! You better not be spendin' it on stuff I don't agree with"

If it's a middle or upper class family, then maybe.

If it's a working class person who makes too much to qualify for assistance but is still struggling (like Esrac pointed out), it's more like "I'm working, you're not. It's not fair that you're eating better than me."

I'm miserable and work. I can get 200 a month for my food bill if I'm lucky. The prices are outrageous at the grocery store.
---

The number of employed people on food stamps has dramatically increased due to added restrictions with the last few years, particularly able-bodied individuals without dependents. You're now required to attend employment pursuit training to maintain qualification for food assistance. If you refuse, you lose your benefits.

Basically the program has become more focused on getting people off of food stamps by aiding them in finding employment and eventually earning an income where they no longer need assistance. You can be employed and still need food assistance because your income is not sufficient to dependably survive off of. A common example are recipients who are working part-time and attending college to get a better career while on food stamps.

The goal is to offer enough assistance to the needy person that they receive adequate sustenance so they can work towards finding better employment (job hunting is work in itself). Being hungry can make people wish they had a job, but it's not helpful in finding one...

Telling a starving person to find a job so they can eat is often putting the cart before the horse. Their lack of nutrition can already be a hindering problem. That is why recent changes to such assistance programs now involve both food stamps and employment skill training. Just giving them one or the other was clearly not as effective.
---

Vertania posted...

Darkman124 posted...

you understand that WIC has significant restrictions, yeah?

Uh... yeah. That's exactly why I brought it up. I take it nobody is reading my earlier post, so I'll just quote it:
Vertania posted...

They should at least do it like the WIC program. Give people paper checks with specific items on them and put all kinds of tedious, arbitrary limitations on what they can buy. Not only would that help prevent wasteful spending and abuse, but it might motivate them to get off the food stamps.

With the bolded part, if EBT were half as tedious and restrictive as WIC, people would have to pay out of pocket for certain food choices and may even decide to use their extra money just to avoid the hassle. The ones that really need and appreciate the assistance wouldn't mind the extra steps.

So you just want to make things so much more difficult and tedious that poor people would rather be hungry than deal with it

what
---

Vertania posted...

Darkman124 posted...

you understand that WIC has significant restrictions, yeah?

Uh... yeah. That's exactly why I brought it up. I take it nobody is reading my earlier post, so I'll just quote it:
Vertania posted...

They should at least do it like the WIC program. Give people paper checks with specific items on them and put all kinds of tedious, arbitrary limitations on what they can buy. Not only would that help prevent wasteful spending and abuse, but it might motivate them to get off the food stamps.

With the bolded part, if EBT were half as tedious and restrictive as WIC, people would have to pay out of pocket for certain food choices and may even decide to use their extra money just to avoid the hassle. The ones that really need and appreciate the assistance wouldn't mind the extra steps.

You're trolling right?
---

SomeGuyUO posted...

Only want nasty food to be eligible for food stamps.

You know vegetable seeds are eligible for food stamps? There is nothing saying these people have to eat garbage. They CHOOSE to eat garbage rather than put the work in to have more good food. That's why they don't deserve sympathy.
---

Crazyman93 posted...

SomeGuyUO posted...

Only want nasty food to be eligible for food stamps.

You know vegetable seeds are eligible for food stamps? There is nothing saying these people have to eat garbage. They CHOOSE to eat garbage rather than put the work in to have more good food. That's why they don't deserve sympathy.

Right?

Why don't poor people just have a farm?
---

-Gavirulax- posted...

YourAlt posted...

-Gavirulax- posted...

Miserable? They get free food, at the very least they should (barring disability and old age) work for it like everyone else.

So you shouldn't get assistance if you are seeking a job?

Not after a certain amount of time, should be forced into a program like Work for the Dole like Australia uses.

Australia has unlimited welfare all the Conservatives would cream there pants in rage.
---

In San Jose you can buy fast food like Burger King with food stamps. It's fucking disgraceful.
---

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

In San Jose you can buy fast food like Burger King with food stamps. It's fucking disgraceful.

Google tells me this is for elderly, disabled, and homeless people aka people who may not be able to cook for themselves.
---

pegusus123456 posted...

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

In San Jose you can buy fast food like Burger King with food stamps. It's fucking disgraceful.

Google tells me this is for elderly, disabled, and homeless people aka people who may not be able to cook for themselves.

Google is wrong. It's for everyone on food stamps. You can even buy Starbucks with food stamps when it's one of those smaller ones inside grocery stores.
---

Because the middle class is as awful as the upper class that they idolize.

It's like I keep saying; Not enough lamp posts.
---

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

pegusus123456 posted...

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

In San Jose you can buy fast food like Burger King with food stamps. It's fucking disgraceful.

Google tells me this is for elderly, disabled, and homeless people aka people who may not be able to cook for themselves.

Google is wrong. It's for everyone on food stamps. You can even buy Starbucks with food stamps when it's one of those smaller ones inside grocery stores.

So one one hand we have the government website for EBT.

And on the other we have a troll so dedicated to trolling that he's made like a dozen accounts.
---

pegusus123456 posted...

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

pegusus123456 posted...

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

In San Jose you can buy fast food like Burger King with food stamps. It's fucking disgraceful.

Google tells me this is for elderly, disabled, and homeless people aka people who may not be able to cook for themselves.

Google is wrong. It's for everyone on food stamps. You can even buy Starbucks with food stamps when it's one of those smaller ones inside grocery stores.

So one one hand we have the government website for EBT.

And on the other we have a troll so dedicated to trolling that he's made like a dozen accounts.

Post your dozen alts, troll, so I can tag them accordingly.
---

Vertania posted...

darkbuster posted...

When you get down to it, it comes down to "MY taxes are payin' for your food! You better not be spendin' it on stuff I don't agree with"

If it's a middle or upper class family, then maybe.

If it's a working class person who makes too much to qualify for assistance but is still struggling (like Esrac pointed out), it's more like "I'm working, you're not. It's not fair that you're eating better than me."

Why is working some kind of qualifier to access to food? Who gives a shit about said persons shitty job, like it's beneficial,to society or something. Nobody gives a fuck that you shill your time to boost somebody's profits and don't get paid enough for it
---

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

In San Jose you can buy fast food like Burger King with food stamps. It's fucking disgraceful.

False, you fucking liar.

pegusus123456 posted...

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

In San Jose you can buy fast food like Burger King with food stamps. It's fucking disgraceful.

Google tells me this is for elderly, disabled, and homeless people aka people who may not be able to cook for themselves.

---

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/ruth-riley-helps-break-myths-misconceptions-food-stamps/story?id=35449196
Five myths and misconceptions about SNAP in America

1. People on food stamps (SNAP) don't work. According to a 2013 article from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the majority of SNAP recipients who can work do so.

"Among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP," the article reads, "and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children -- more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year."

Many SNAP recipients cannot work. According to Share Our Strength, 44.7 percent of SNAP recipients are under the age of 18 and two-thirds of those live in single-parent households. Approximately 20 percent of recipients are elderly or on disability

2. SNAP is a drain on taxpayers. According to the USDA, every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of economic activity. The ability of families to receive SNAP assistance frees up money for families to spend on transportation, medical care, clothing, home repairs and child care.

3. Fraud and abuse is a significant issue with SNAP. According to the statistics provided by the USDA, SNAP's accuracy rate in providing correct benefits to low-income people is 96.34 percent.

Of the 3.6 percent error rate, 0.7 percent is underpayment, and 2.96 percent is overpayment. The error rate has been falling for more than a decade.

As a point of comparison, the SNAP error rate was 8 percent in 2002. The rate of SNAP benefits that were "trafficked" -- sold for cash or traded for goods -- dropped to 1.3 percent from 2009 to 2011, according to the USDA.

4. People use SNAP to buy cigarettes and alcohol. According to the USDA, households may use food stamps to buy foods, such as breads and cereals; fruits and vegetables; meats, fish and poultry; and dairy products. Also, they can buy seeds and plants which produce food to eat. (In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.) Households may not use food stamps to buy beer, wine or liquor; cigarettes or tobacco; pet foods; soaps; paper products; household supplies; vitamins and medicines; food that will be eaten in the store; hot foods.

5. Most people are on food stamps for life. Most households under the SNAP program receive benefits for a six-month period before requiring renewal.

SNAP has strict time limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents may receive only three months of SNAP during a three-year period unless they are working in a qualifying job-training program. Benefits decline based on every dollar a SNAP participant earns.

pegusus123456 posted...

So you just want to make things so much more difficult and tedious that poor people would rather be hungry than deal with it

what

That's not at all what I said. If they're really that desparate for food, they'll deal with it; if they have extra money, they might choose to avoid the extra steps. They won't have to go hungry in either case.

YourAlt posted...

Why is working some kind of qualifier to access to food? Who gives a shit about said persons shitty job, like it's beneficial,to society or something. Nobody gives a fuck that you shill your time to boost somebody's profits and don't get paid enough for it

It's not; it's a qualifier for access to better food (or it should be, at least).

And until automation replaces shitty jobs, someone still has to do them. So they are benefiting society, actually.