Food stamps should not exist in America today. FULL STOP.

[TheBigotBasher]

Food stamps are disgusting, they are a disgrace in a Country that pretends to claim any civility at all. The poor and low paid should not suffer the ignominy of food stamps, support should be proper cash support. People should be free to choose whether that support should be for clothes or food, or even alcohol.

Food stamps are another way of smashing the pride of poor and working people. It is a way of separating the poor at a store.

While the Democratic Party has time in office, they should be working to rid the system of disgraces like this, looking for real ways to ensure that work pays and finding ways to support people who want to put a foot on the ladder and pull themselves up.

If you want an answer to the social problems of the US, ask why America has to spend more than every other nation put together on the arms industry?

If Democrats spent $1 million in a housing project, knocked it down and replaced it with another $1 million project, Republicans would be all over them. Yet how much does the American Government spend on bombs, which are quite literally $millions dropped from the sky?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. If we just gave them cash, they'd use it for objectionable things they can't be trusted with.

Alcohol, for example. Or soda. Or rap music. Or condoms. Or art supplies. Or communist literature. Or miscegenation.

[TheBigotBasher]

14. "They cant be trusted with"

Not one other Country with a decent welfare state submits poor people to this ignominious crime for being poor. Not one other Country pays people using food stamps or a pre paid debit card that charges them for the crime of being poor.

Fuck Bush and Blair and their war crimes in Iraq. The US and UK Government by smashing the homeless on the head with disgraceful levels of indignity are guilty of crimes against their own people.

[AngryAmish]

63. Uganda, for example.

[blindpig]

57. Did you forget the 'sarcasm' tag?

Please tell me.

[Dappleganger]

82. If you can't tell

that was sarcastic, that's pretty sad.

[blindpig]

86. Given some of the stuff people say around here

it was a sadly relevant question.

[Dappleganger]

105. Too true.

[jonnyblitz]

119. I wouldn't be so sure of that , considering the source. nt

[kestrel91316]

2. When people on food stamps go to the grocery, they pay with a plastic card

that looks exactly like a credit card and functions the same way. You can't even tell anymore who is on them.

[Orrex]

16. Aside from the shape, it doesn't look all that much like a credit card

It looks like you're waving a big sign that says "I'm paying with food stamps."

In Pennsylvania, at least, EBT cards are a hideous, sickly blue-green with a bold, bright yellow logo across the front. It's just about impossible to mistake it for a credit card.

[cali]

51. I see no big deal about that card. And in most places, no one will even see you swipe it

only the cashier will know.

[Orrex]

56. YMMV, but that's entirely inconsistent with my experience.

I live in an economically troubled area where Access cards are common, and if you're swiping your card through the scanner yourself, it's in plain view and easily seen.


I'm absolutely not suggesting that there's any reason to be ashamed or self-conscious about it; I'm just saying that it's not true that the transaction is indistinguishable from a purchase with a credit card.

[tonysam]

98. Only people like you pay attention to what other people are doing.

And it's really none of your business how people pay for the food.

[Orrex]

107. Well, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

115. Intelligent people notice things.

It's not Orrex's fault that he/she can look at the world and make judgments based on details. It's an important part of our evolutionary heritage. Early hominids needed a complex, 3D internal model of the outside world. Thus our grossly oversized brains. This results in things like recognizing an EBT card when you see it. I can hardly it nosy to see something in somebody's hand and recognize what it is.

[tonysam]

97. There is no big deal with them.

I have used them, and I didn't feel a sense of "shame," by the way.

There are millions of people on them.

[Orrex]

109. Nor have I suggested anywhere that anyone should "feel a sense of 'shame'" by the way

That's your own projection.

[Gormy Cuss]

122. That hideous graphic is probably intended to differentiate it from bank credit and debit cards

It would help clerks recognize it as a restricted purchase card in the event that someone tried to use it to buy only items that aren't allowed, or tried to use it in a store without working card swipe machines or in stores that don't sell food.

It's an obvious EBT card but that's a big improvement over coupon books of play money in terms of discreet transactions.

[Orrex]

123. You're certainly right that it's an improvement

But stores' computers are coded to allow only certain items to be rung up as EBT-eligible. That's true even if the card-swipe is offline.

I suppose there could be a potential problem if the register or the store's computer isn't working, but when that happens stores invariably put up a sign that says "SORRY--CASH ONLY" (if they don't simply close their doors) because nobody has those old carbon-press credit card machines anymore.

[Gormy Cuss]

126. But making it stand out simplifies the process when the cashier or manager needs to explain why

they can't accept it for payment. I'd even bet that supermarkets lobbied for it because I remember in early discussions that one of the perceived benefits of moving to EBT was that these customers would no longer stand out in the checkout lines.

[Orrex]

130. That's possible, but I'm not convinced

The issuing of a card comes after a meeting with a caseworker who explains the program or--at the very least--gives a brief packet of information outlining what can and can't be purchased by the card.

The switch from tickets to cards is absolutely an improvement, but I don't see why the card needs to "stand out" at all.

[Gormy Cuss]

136. Oh, I agree that there's no need for them to stand out.

What I meant in the other post was that it simplifies identifying the reason for the denied amount from the perspective of the store, not the customer. Even though the caseworkers have tools to explain program limits to participants, some others in the household --children, for example--don't get that guidance. Most of us learned the hard way.

[Lars39]

3. What's disgusting is the small amount of food those food stamp cards will buy.

There will always be a need for a safety net.

[TheBigotBasher]

28. A proper safety net

that helps people in to work, without shame or indignity.

[tonysam]

99. Many people can't work, and those with small children shouldn't.

Besides, nobody is going to propose a guaranteed annual income.

Forget it. It's a pipe dream.

Just quit trashing food stamps and people who use them.

[LoZoccolo]

4. You should post this

as a poll

[babylonsister]

5. Ugh. Flame bait from you? Why? nt

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. What an utterly incoherent jeremiad. Stick to one subject.

You have no logical link at all between your bullshit statement that food stamps being limited to food is evil idea and your claim that the military should get less money.

Sorry, but an intelligent person would realize these are two entirely separate items.

So let me say: 1) no, food stamps are not evil, and we should not just give money to people to use however the hell they want; and 2) yes, the military gets too much money

[NYC_SKP]

19. +1 n/t

[Luminous Animal]

49. Why? Why should we not have a guaranteed income in this country?

Certainly we are (or so we've been told) the richest country in the world. And, there is no argument that competition has enabled us to be the richest country in the world. And, of course, in any competition, there will be winners and losers.

If we, as a capitalist society, acknowledge the fact that there will be winners, then we must acknowledge that there will be losers. For any reason... luck, stupidity, sloth, mental illness, attachment to family, lack of opportunity, a factory closing down... A certain percent of us (according to the capitalists) is guaranteed to be without a job, without an income, in order maintain a capitalist system.

[pipoman]

55. A certain percentage

are not interested in contributing to society in any meaningful way too. I know people who are in their 40's and 50's who have never kept a job for more than several months, not because they are incapable of working but because they choose not to. It comes down to the same phenomenon as giving kids things, not requiring them to work for them, they don't appreciate, or care for the things they are given. OTOH people who are temporarily down on their luck or who are disabled should (and in most cases do) have resources available to them...they are not going to get rich but most are able to get by with at least the basic necessities of life. Could our system be better? Yes. Could it be worse? Damn straight it could..I don't believe the answer is to just start printing and handing out money willynilly. Just my $.02

[leftstreet]

128. +1

[TheBigotBasher]

69. Food stamps are wrong

because they restrict the choice of the poor and limit them to only approved shops.

There is an opportunity cost in public expenditure, if you are paying to build a bomb,then you are not paying to build a house.

[tonysam]

100. Oh bullshit

You can use them in any grocery store--they are FOOD stamps.

They prevent people from starving. I am glad they exist.

[Rabrrrrrr]

120. You're still incoherent.

You have not yet made the link between thinking food stamps are evil and military expenditure.

In fact, given that you think that designating money to people for anything specific is an evil, then how dare you imply building a house for someone? What if they don't want a house? What if they don't like the design that's being forced on them? What if they don't like the location?

Why do you restrict the free choice of the poor and limit them only to approved items?

Seriously, that's fucked up - food stamps are not evil. They allow people who can't afford food to at least get something to eat. Not much, but something.

By your logic (twisted and incoherent as it is), if a guy comes to me and says "I'm hungry", and I say, "Let me give you some food", then I am doing something evil. The only morally correct response (again, according to you, based on what I can learn from slogging through your writings here) is for me to say "Let me give you money to spend on whatever you want" but I cannot actually give food, nor give a gift certificate to the grocery store, nor do anything at all that might, in some way, imply that the person who has no food has to get food.

Yeah, that's fucked up.

[TheBigotBasher]

125. Give them the money

allow them to choose what stores (including as someone said the overpriced organic market stall). If they want to include alcohol in their budget let them decide.

I am not arguing to abolish help to the poor, I arguing to remove the indignity of having someone else decide what you can and can not have.

[beyurslf]

7. I don't have a problem with food stamps. It looks like a debit card, which is how everyone

pays. It isn't announced over a speaker that someone is paying with food stamps. In my state, the card gets you tax free food while non food stamp purchases are taxed. Cash assistance is a whole other story. I say keep food stamps though.

[KittyWampus]

8. people shouldn't be on the dole either... except there isn't an industrialized nation in teh world

that doesn't either have welfare and/or food stamps.

European countries spend a tiny fraction of what we do on military... and yet they have citizens on the dole.

My opinion? Bring back Government cheese. (half kidding)

[eShirl]

11. they should starve instead

:sarcasm:

[KittyWampus]

13. hence GOVERNMENT CHEESE. Or food stamps.

[eShirl]

22. oh sorry

Thought by replying to the OP with 'they shouldn't be on the dole EITHER' you meant neither dole nor foodstamps. Well good, then we would be allowed foodstamps to buy needed roughage to go with the cheez.

[TheBigotBasher]

17. They have a "dole"

but no food stamos. Cash. Paid directly to a bank account.

[Orrex]

20. And what a life of luxury it grants them!

You can live pretty high on the hog for $600 per month.

[Hello_Kitty]

9. In most places you get a card that looks for all the world like a debit card.

You swipe it and push the applicable button and no one is the wiser.

I'm actually a fan of food stamps. My crazy idea for the stimulus was to give pretty much everyone food stamps. Food stamps generate $1.40 in revenue for every dollar spent on them. If you gave nearly every American household $400 a month or so in food stamps they'd go out and spend it right away at their local grocery stores.

Food stamps not bombs! :)

[surrealAmerican]

92. Do you have a link for that?

I haven't read elsewhere that food stamps generate revenue. It makes sense, but where did you get the numbers?

[Melinda]

118. Two Studies: USDA and Moody's

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/outreach/business-case.htm

As part of this effort, FNS conducted an analysis to examine the economic impact, by State and for the Nation, of a five percentage point increase in the participation rate. The national participation rate for fiscal year 2007 was 66 percent. If the national participation rate rose just five percentage points, 1.9 million more low-income people would have an additional $978 million in benefits per year to use to purchase healthy food and $1.8 billion total in new economic activity would be generated nationwide. This analysis demonstrates that even a small increase in participation among those eligible for food stamp benefits can have a substantial economic impact for States and communities.


and

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Economic_Stimulus_House_Plan_012109.pdf

Increased income support has been part of the federal response to most recessions, and for good reason: It is the most efficient way to prime the economy's pump. Simulations of the Moody’s Economy.com macroeconomic model show that every dollar spent on UI benefits generates an estimated $1.63 in near-term GDP.x Boosting food stamp payments by $1 increases GDP by $1.73 (see Table 2).

[quiller4]

93. I've read studies that claim even higher revenue generation. I'm

a big fan of food stamps, too. My state moved away from coupons and to a debit card a decade ago. The same card is also used for cash assistance and works like a debit card for purchases or cash withdrawals.

[sandnsea]

10. Actually, most weapons are scrapped

And it costs billions to scrap them, and then we build a "new generation" of weapons, which will undoubtedly need to be scrapped in another 20 years.

I object to food stamps going to the private agolopoly. We need food co-ops or starvation. That's what I think. :sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

12. If food stamps paid for alcohol then some addicted parents wouldn't use them

to buy food for themselves and their children. Sorry, but I'm glad food stamps don't cover alcohol.

[Incitatus]

24. +1

Some people just don't get it.

[shawcomm]

36. What is with the default view that poor people are addicts?

Just because one is poor doesn't mean they consume more alcohol than the wealthy. In my estimation, purely due to the sheer purchasing power of the rich, they use far more abusive substances than the poor, yet the poor are the ones branded as low-life addicts by many.

[pnwmom]

41. I said "some" people. Poor people have at least the same number of alcohol

addicted as other people and there is nothing wrong with making sure that the money will be spent on the necessity of food, not on alcohol.

I'm not sure you're correct about the numbers, though. People seriously addicted to alcohol tend to lose jobs -- and can end up in poverty even if they didn't start there.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Sorry, but losing job due to addiction is a class thing as well

I have worked with highly compensated stinking drunks many times. Many of the wealthiest people I have known have been drunks and drug addicts, for entire careers. You can not fire a key person, who is actually key. So you do not, over a thing like a drink. So they drink. Like fish.
My Uncle owned car dealership and he and his wife were full tilt drunks. They wandered through life, spending, never counting, never ever challenged by anyone over the drinking. Their drinking served others, so others served their drinking.
Now. Tell me how you are 'making sure' that food is on table by doing 'food stamps only'? Are you under the impression that one can not trade a standing rib roast for a balloon of smack if one needs to? I mean, I know people who grow food, and they trade it for all manner of things, not smack, but I do know one guy who pays his rent in food. Food is a traded commodity on ever social level.

[pnwmom]

78. The reason there is so much public support for helping people with food aid

is that food is a necessity of life. If the same money were available to purchase alcohol, public support of the program would drastically decline.

[aquart]

43. FOOD stamps are for FOOD.

And you can buy any damn FOOD you want with them.

Helps to know how to cook.

[Dappleganger]

84. Alcohol is a cheap drug for the depressed...

and it's probably cheaper and easier for a poor person who is quite often depressed to get that then go to a doctor and go on anti-depressants.

[Xithras]

116. You have it backward.

It would be a lie to say that 90% of poor people are addicts. It would be the truth to say that 90% of addicts are poor people. Being an addict MAKES you poor. Even if you start out with money, becoming an addict will quickly strip you of it.

Nearly every addict I've ever dealt with (and living in an area with serious drug issues, there have been a lot) has been on one form of public assistance or another. For most, it's the only way they can survive. If you think a meth addict would choose FOOD over DRUGS, then you've obviously never spent any time around meth addicts. Give them cash, and it will go straight to their dealer. Give them food stamps, and at least SOME of it will probably be spent on food.

There is nothing progressive about helping people to feed their addictions in the name of pride.

[TheBigotBasher]

108. So everyone on food stamps should have their life controlled

because of some people?

[frazzled]

15. Friday nights on DU

When all the incoherent "the government should give you money for alcohol" threads get posted.
Second one I've run across tonight.

The winos are starting to congregate on our corner. Next up: better wages for squeegie men + why did we support the mujahadeen.

I'm going to bed now.

[Dappleganger]

85. Squeejie men???

How dare you be sexist against squeejie women!!

<s>

[mrcheerful]

18. Yeah right guess you missed all the posts on how poor folks shouldn't spend their

food stamps on soda pop, some posters even wanted to dictate what foods the poor could have using food stamps and suggested beans and rice. This was on DU, can you imagine the out cry by non progressives? Also another problem with what you suggest is the poor would use food money on bills or buying other stuff besides food which was why the government came up with food stamps instead of a check or cash grant that folks could use for food, people rarely spent as much of cash grants on food.

Most of the welfare users don't get enough to pay rent except for the worst excuses of rental property with the building in suck bad condition that it is on the verge of being condemned by the city. In the county I live in welfare expects a single mother of one to pay $215 a month on rent, $70 a month on gas and electric and $30 on personal needs. The problem is most apartments are renting for $400 a month and there is a 2 year waiting list to get into housing that rent is decided by income. Then theres another problem because in the 1990's there is a 5 year limit on welfare help for life. Meaning after your 5 years are up so is your state welfare grants and you only get food stamps after unless your case worker gives you an extension on your grant.

[Terra Alta]

21. Food stamps should be avaliable to all.

Food, like health care, should not be something people should have to pay for. Why does America spend billions and billions on wars and weapons, when there are millions of people starving right in our backyard?

[RedRubberBall]

27. How high up on 'Maslow's hierarchy of needs' should the Gov't stop providing? n/t

n/t

[Rabrrrrrr]

76. They should provide all the way up to grand estates with fields, servants, and workers.

We should all be guaranteed at least our own 1000 acres and a gentleman's life.

[pipoman]

60. Really?

I don't remember the last time I read of anyone around here dying of starvation.

And then the question of who will pay for the production of all of this free food and health care?

[Terra Alta]

135. Quit spending billions on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

and we will be able to make sure every man, woman, and child in America has food and health care.

And yes there are people starving and malnourished in America; just because the media isn't reporting it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Incitatus]

23. If someone is so poor that they cannot afford to put food on the table, they deseve food stamps.

If someone will trade their food stamps for alcohol, then they either do not need food stamps or they need to therapy.

I consider myself to be pretty far to the left, but to say food stamps should cover alcohol - WOW!

[TheBigotBasher]

26. The view that food stamps should be continued

makes you further to the right of EVERY European Conservative Party.

[shawcomm]

35. How much booze and entertainment

is bought by the rich with money kept from their tax cuts? They are the ones taking away from everyone else and purchasing booze and entertainment, and they do it when they have plenty. That's far worse than the idea of some poor guy buying a beer with foodstamps, at least to me.

[pipoman]

61. The real question you are asking

is, 'How much booze and entertainment is bought by the rich with their after tax income?'. The answer? Who cares. If there is a problem with tax rates, fine, that should be handled. To equate how a person spends money which they earn through their labor to how a person spends money who is given that money from the efforts of others is silly IMHO. I work most every day, I pay for my gas and transportation to get there, I do the best I know how while I am there, my labor is taxed, I contribute some of my after tax dollars to causes which are important to me. Beer for the poor is low on my list of 'causes which are important to me', in favor of things like soup kitchens and shelters who actually provide NEEDED sustenance and shelter to people...of coarse you are free to give your money to 'Wine for Winos' program, but you shouldn't be able to give mine for such an unnecessary cause.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. I guess then it is best if the addicts you speak of

mug your neighbors to get what they want?
I keep seeing your posts that describe your life as an example of one who 'contributes to society'. You seem to use yourself as the standard for all others. I could do the same, of course. In my world, those who reach age 25 without having earned a few hundred thousand and achieved a world wide reputation are not 'contributing to society'.
Just so you know, to me, you might not be on benefits, but you are on your own wee trip, about you, and 'laboring' for money. Your only contribution to society is in staying out of the way of those who have things to do.
So you look at another, and at yourself, and say 'they do less'. I look at you, then at myself, and I asy 'you do less'. I have some really rich pals, they look at me and say 'do you even pay taxes' or 'what happened to all your money'?
It is relative, kiddo, and only the grace of the gods and the odds differentiates you from me from the wino from the billionaire.

[pipoman]

138. So do you contribute to a wine for winos program?

If not, why not? Did you read the post I responded to? There are plenty of good causes and needy people..people actually needy of necessities of life. How about programs for detox for addicts instead of wars on drugs and giving public funds for beer, enabling the addict?

Now for the personal shit. Is there nobody on this site who can discuss differences civilly?

"Just so you know, to me, you might not be on benefits, but you are on your own wee trip, about you, and 'laboring' for money. Your only contribution to society is in staying out of the way of those who have things to do."

This is just rude, you don't know me, nor anything of my contributions to society. Further, to make such a declaration, requires far more illusions of self importance than any bogus examples of things I have said which you perceive to fit the accusations in this quote. Good day..

[TheBigotBasher]

25. Far too many are being way ti snobby about hiw the poor should spend money.

No other modern Country gives food stamos. Cash is paid to supplement or replace low wages. The recipient decides how that is spent, clothes, food, entertainment, education.

So the rich can be trusted but the poor can not be?

[Incitatus]

30. There are basic needs.

#1 being food. If you don't eat, you die.

The poor can use whatever other income they have for alcohol and entertanment. Those come second to food.

[Orrex]

32. "alcohol and entertainment"

Uh... What?

[TheBigotBasher]

37. No one, I mean no one

else does what America dies.

In the UK, if you are a single person, our Social Security system is somewhat crap.

If you have been working, your full rent is covered for 13 weeks, no matter how expensive. You get £65 ($100) a week to spend how you choose. All local taxes are paid.

In France, the same, except you get $200 a week.

In the UK, if you have a child, you can get up to $30,000 to help with child care costs and food costs so that you can remain in work.

There are also schemes to help you transition from unemployment benefits to in work benefits, including paying the full rent for the first month returning to work.

[pipoman]

65. Sounds like in one breath

you are saying that assistance programs in Europe are unconditional, and in the next breath you are lining out the conditions of assistance in Europe.

Then there is the question of unemployment rates..





and here is the UK, which has remained more static than the US or France, but has unemployment nonetheless.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=74&c=uk&l=en

My point being, each country has benefits available but administer them differently. No nation can be a free-for-all when it comes to such benefits.

[TheBigotBasher]

71. I do not think any Nation with a decent welfare system

has unconditional benefits, there are requirements to seek work if you are getting unemployment benefits. What they do not do is then limit how you spend your money.That is uniquely American and wrong.

[pipoman]

140. So, often, people who are receiving benefits

are people with children, who are qualifying for benefits or additional benefits for their children. Should these people be handed cash and all of them (or even most of them), be trusted to spend the money for the basic necessities for the children? I see nothing wrong with requiring conditions be met to receive subsidies. Food and shelter allowances must be spent on food and shelter.

[Fla_Democrat]

73. Fuckit, you've convinced me

Cash, paid directly to the individual. Once a year (hell, I'll say the first of the year), lump sum.

Why should the poor have to come around with their hand out once a month, it's degrading. Why should some government bureaucrat get to play 'father figure' to the poor 'children' who must look to him/her for an allowance? Why should the poor miss deals that come available through the year, cause it's just too close to the end of the month?

If people are adults, they should be treated like adults. If you can trust them to spend the money as they see fit, surely you can trust them to spend it when they see fit.

Can I get a +1? :evilgrin:

[Rabrrrrrr]

77. We must also have compassion on the fiscally deranged and give'em a year's wages the next month, too

It would be cold and heartless to expect them to spread their spending out!

[Fla_Democrat]

80. Hey, being and adult has consequences

If they blow through it in a short time, so.... Is that any different than worrying about how they spend the money? Now, if you* are of the belief that the money should be allocated for certain purchases (as in, oh, I don't know... food stamps), then yes, I can see how one could reach the conclusion that giving people a lump sum of money may not be the best idea.

However, if you* subscribe to the notion of... (what did he say..) "So the rich can be trusted but the poor can not be?", then it is only logical that the trust must be complete. Otherwise, it's a case of 'I know what's best for them, you* don't.' :shrug:


* you is used in the generic term, not an indication of any particular individual or poster.

[Rabrrrrrr]

117. I was being sarcastic

[Fla_Democrat]

133. Kinda figured

But, I wanted to approach the topic in a serious fashion to see if the OP would address the matter. I wanted to give the him the chance to support or explain any opposition to the proposal. So far, crickets. I'll have to bookmark and check later. :smoke:

[bluestateguy]

29. One school of thought says that receiving public assistance should be as humiliating as possible

I'm not saying that I subscribe to that view, but it is a point of view that is out there.

[TheBigotBasher]

31. It should not be a school of thought acceptable on a Liberal forum,

yet clearly it is.

[laughingliberal]

68. Out there, nothing. It's the view in here most days

Never effing mind I worked myself half to death as an RN for 25 years and my husband is old before his time after running his own business for years. The housing market tanked his business and the stress pushed me over the edge unable to function in the increasing demands of a profession which has doubled the amount we must produce over the past 20 years. We're poor now and that's all that matters. We shall be told what our daily needs are and ask for nothing else.

[shawcomm]

33. It's ridiculous...

you can buy food, but can't pay for the electricity to cook it. You're right, it's absolutely stupid that they don't just get the money. Besides utilities, etc., there's things like soap, cleaners, shampoo, tp, etc. that are vital to our standard of living yet people go without because they aren't given the money like adults to get what they need.

And yeah, we can pay for war-welfare, but not the well-being of our citizens.

[cliffordu]

34. I lived on them for years Get hungry and they're a godsend,

Those of you that think there's shame involved in using them better get on your fucking knees and beg whoever you pray to you never get hungry enough to need them

:puke:

[TheBigotBasher]

38. I helped to re-write the Social Security system in the UK.

In order to remove any shame. One of the reasons I was able to do it was because I came from a very very poor single parent back ground. I rewrite it from a background of being poor.

[cliffordu]

39. Well fed people should STFU about these matters

mostly.

[TheBigotBasher]

42. The Social Security system

should ensure that those who are not working, or those who are working in low paid jobs can be adequately fed and housed.

It seems ok to trust everyone else how to spend their money, but there is an assumption in here taht because you are poor, you will be feckless.

[cliffordu]

47. This goes right back to Regan, I believe...his constant

carping about the mythical welfare mother riding around in a cadillac while collecting multiple welfare checks.....

[laughingliberal]

70. Yep. Today we are busily creating more and more mythological creatures akin to his welfare queens

The new list:

People who bought more house than they could afford (although many could afford it when they bought but the economy brought them down)
Union workers who won decent health care benefits in hard fought battles in lieu of better raises
People who scraped by paycheck to paycheck and didn't build up a 401k

Just off the top of my head. There's more. One group that doesn't get mentioned enough is the upper 1% and the corporations who haven't paid their fair share for years and are, truly, the ones living off others.

[tonysam]

101. What the hell do you think UI came from?

The Social Security act.

You really don't know what you're talking about. I suggest you butt out of poor people's business.

[hfojvt]

103. my assumption is that most people are feckless

but for some reason, we in this country allow people to be feckless with their own money. What a shock, eh?

I have known a number of working people who regularly got paid on Friday and had no money by the next Tuesday. I have also known non-working people who got monthly checks on the 3rd and had no money left by the 12th. You will likely say that is because the checks were not big enough, but I would point to this person buying $50 of scratch-off tickets in one fell swoop.

[cliffordu]

104. That sounds EXACTLY like one of my republican, racist, classist stepfathers

used to say every week at the dinner table.

:puke:

[hfojvt]

106. perhaps he was right too

on at least one thing. I really did know those people. They were all white like me, and they worked in the same factory I did. So I am neither talking about a different race or a different class.

[cliffordu]

110. He was talking about 'welfare cheats' nudge nudge wink wink.

[anonymous171]

40. I agree. Everyone should recieve a guaranteed income. nt

[johnaries]

44. Most of the problems with Food Stamps could be fixed easily

with reloadable debit cards.

And this is coming from someone that as a teenager working in a grocery store who watched a couple pull up in a new convertible Caddy, both dripping in jewlery, buy 2 cartloads of groceries and pay for them with food stamps. I knew what they were doing. Food Stamps wouldn't pay for cigs or liquor, and I knew what the exchange rate for food stamps to cash was. I also recognized the types of food they were buying and knew that a lot of it would be exchanged for a profit.

This is coming from someone who also later worked in a C-Store and would watch a car pull up in the parking lot. The kids would come in and individually buy a 5 cent piece of bubble-gum with a $1 food stamp. Although we were required to give change for Food Stamps in Food stamps "if available", FS don't come in less that $1 denominations and so anything less that $1 we had to give in regular change. So, the parent would send the kids in to buy cheap candy less than a dollar one at a time. Then, the parent would come in and buy a pack of cigs or a quart of beer and pay for it with the change I had already given back from the food stamps.

You would think that I would have been extremely jaded from these experiences. In a way, I am. Unlike other people who have seen personal experiences of people "gaming" the system, I beleive that the system helps a lot more people than the few people that "game" it. What we have to do is eliminate the waste and fraud so that the people who need help are get it, and the crooks go to jail.

Most people don't know the "power" of debit/credit cards. I do. My company does it everyday in a limited way. I know it's possible to do more.

With just a few minor reforms we could eliminate billions of fraud dollars - and demolish Republican "spin".

[Bill McBlueState]

95. I think debit cards are standard practice.

That's what I got in Massachusetts a couple years ago.

[My Good Babushka]

112. I had no idea there was a second hand food market

Did they drive around selling food out of their trunks? How does that work?

[My Good Babushka]

113. Deleted. nt.

[Double T]

45. Democrats should be working on eliminating the PROBLEM that........

causes people to need food stamps; THEY are NOT! Replace ALL INCUMBENTS by voting THEM out of office in 2010.

[NoUsername]

46. I agree with you on the one hand.

And that is, in the "richest nation int the world", there should be no NEED for food stamps.

However, since the current system dictates certain requirements for those receiving food stamps, I would assume those same restrictions would apply to, say, banksters or Wall street billionaires receiving hundreds of billions in bailouts. Oh, but wait! The bailouts for the rich came with absolutely mo strings attached. What a suprise! OTOH, as for those at the "bottom of the ladder looking for/needing help, well, dammit, we need to scrutinize them and make them account for every bit of aid we might possibly consider giving them to make sure they aren't taking advantage of "the system." After all, that's how it works in the good ol' US of A.

[ThatPoetGuy]

48. I'm on food stamps. And I'm GLAD they can only be used for food.

If it were cash, I'd be tempted to pay my medical bills with it. And then I would have nothing to eat.

That isn't sarcasm. That's how hard life can be for some Americans.

I'm glad I have a reserve fund that can be spent for food and only food.

[cali]

50. ridiculous. the problem with food stamps- which are no longer "stamps" in

most places is that they don't buy enough

[proteus_lives]

52. All nations have a form of this.

And isn't a "food card" now? I've never actually seen food stamps before.

[TheKentuckian]

54. The stamps themselves were pretty hurtful to deal with as a kid

it seemed most of the cashiers wanted to embarrass the shit out of you. It seemed like every time my mother sent me to the store they figured some way to make it hard or me a mockery.

Still, I believe that virtually every soul should get a minimum amount. It would be stimulus of the 1st order. It bugs the hell out of me that someone is hungry in this country right now and I'm sure it would help some families lift out of poverty or to be able to put a little away.

[quiller4]

94. That was in the days when people still used coupons instead of electronic

purchase cards that are identical to debit cards. I remember those days, too.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[midnight]

58. I like this idea.... K&R.

[elocs]

59. I have a food assistance EBT card and nobody but the cashier really notices I use one.

I don't get much because it takes 2 months before I have enough to buy a week's worth of food, but I appreciate it. I can buy a lot of good and healthy food for my usual under $50 a week. I buy simple foods and cook a lot from scratch and really do not eat meat, but mostly fish. I do have some, but not a lot of goodies, but I don't feel deprived in any way.

[cali]

72. my food budget is also about $50 a week and I eat very well.

It's all buying non-processed or minimally processed foods.

[AngryAmish]

62. It is a crime that the poor are not provided with free booze

It is difficult enough to get through a day here in Amerikkka without a few beers or some cocktails to take the edge off.

Yet booze is priced so high and taxed so much that it places some poor in the difficult position of food, rent, medicine or booze.

I make a good living. I can afford my booze. I just think it is unfair not to give the poor the same opportunities for joy as the rest of us. Racist, too.

[SOS]

131. Should you ever lose your good living and need booze

Find a retailer who will debit the card, give you 50% in cash and head for the liquor store.

[ipaint]

64. Your absolutely correct.

But neo liberals are nothing if not cruel, control freaks. So the poor will continue to be created and exploited as cheap labor, a warning to the middle class reminding them what will happen should they get out of line and a convenient whipping boy for selfish conservatives across the political spectrum who need the lower classes to give them the feeling of superiority they crave. Stripping folks of all dignity is just punishment for failing to acquire enough money to survive according to the comfortable classes.

Reagan democrats have resurfaced with a vengeance.

[cali]

67. supporting the food stamp program is not a neo liberal position

particularly if one supports a generous program. the OP is full of it and his knowledge of the program (and American politics in general, I've noticed) is limited.

[Kalyke]

66. Um.... they don't give you food stamps anymore.

You get a debit card. No one can tell the difference.

[TheBigotBasher]

75. Except you can

You are limited for a start to certain approved shops. These are not always the cheapest.

Allow people to make their own decisions about welfare.

[FLDCVADem]

81. Yeah, limited...

...to every single grocery store chain I've ever seen, convenience stores, and in my area, many locally owned food stores.

Bottom line, you're full of crap and appear to know little, if anything, about how the food stamp program works in this country.

[tonysam]

102. Again, ALL grocery stores accept them.

Perhaps not your outdoor, organic farmer's markets with their overpriced produce, but grocery stores accept them.

[quiller4]

132. You are not limited in WA state. All the grocery chains and convenience

stores take them and COSTCO just started taking them.

[underpants]

89. and you can't sell the stamps for cash

well you can sell the card but the problem of having a different currency out there is gone

[blondeatlast]

83. "THEY" is a word being used far too often in this thread. It's "WE." nt

[Moosepoop]

87. +1 n/t

[underpants]

88. You are going to have a hard time convincing BigAgra to do away with "food stamps"

food programs (including school lunches) not only inflate demand but also are part of the core of their business model

but good luck with that :eyes:

[spanone]

90. poverty should not exist in america today.

[dysfunctional press]

91. i have no problem with food stamps as a concept...but the process should be better.

also- as i'm not familiar with them- is there a difference between 'wic' and 'food stamps'?
i know how frustrating it can be to be in line at the grocery, while the clerk has to spend an inordinate amount of time checking and inputing all sorts of numbers from various coupons and then it turns out that the item is the wrong item for some unknown reason or another...and yes, it's got to be extremely embarrassing for the person who's forced to rely on the program as well, to have to frustrated people glaring at them, etc...
and yet there are other programs that seem to use a debit card for purchases...:shrug:

while i can somewhat understand the idea behind some of the constraints- supposedly wanting to ensure that the money is being used to buy 'nutritious' food- it seems like there must be better ways to accomplish those goals, and make the programs work better for the recipients.
one thing that could be done would be to increase the overall quality of the 'food' that's being sold to everyone.

as for our bloated military spending- 'live by the sword, die by the sword' applies to countries as well as people.

[MissB]

121. WIC is Womens Infants & Children - nutritional support

for pregnant/nursing moms and their infants/children up to a certain age. There are very specific items that are allowed, so it is likely quite easy to grab the wrong item. It used to buy things like cereal, cheese, juice and milk. I think at least in our state it has expanded a bit, but recently has gone to more whole-grain healthy items. For example, white bread isn't allowed, but whole wheat is. Sugary cereals aren't allowed, but oatmeal is.

Anyway, WIC is designed to provide nutritional support for those that need it very much at a certain time in their life. WIC used to be issued as a paper coupon, but I don't know what format it exists in today.

Most states (maybe all?) use the debit-based food stamp program. There aren't nutritional constraints per se on the food stamps other than you can't buy hot food with it.

[Orrex]

124. In Pennsylvania, each WIC check is effectively a coupon for specific, named items

The customer has some range of choices, insofar as she can pick from several brands of juice, a bunch of different cereals, a variety of peanut butters, etc. You're right about the recent addition of whole-grain foods, and fresh produce has been added within the last few months as well.

In practice it might be easy to grab the wrong item from the shelf, but in that case it's very likely that the transaction won't go through. Cashiers are usually pretty savvy about spotting eligible items versus ineligible.

[LeftyMom]

137. That's how it works here. Most stores label the WIC-eligible items,

plus people getting WIC get a brochure showing exactly which items are eligible and which are not. It's also explained on the front of the check.

[tonysam]

96. I am glad they exist. By the way, most if not all states don't have coupons anymore.

They are debit cards.

Not everybody can work, either.

Obviously, you have never had to go on them.

[Odin2005]

111. I agree. We should not be shaming the poor and treating them like children.

[My Good Babushka]

114. I would like the Food Access cards to pay for anything in the store

Especially soap, shampoo, tampons, toothpaste, toilet paper, etc. Those things can be pricey.

[TheBigotBasher]

127. That is why I think it should be money

and not an EBT Card or food stamp.

Have it as a debit card, fine, although there should be no charges to withdraw money.

However how you spend that money should be entirely up to you.

[leftstreet]

129. K&InvisibleR

[pipi_k]

134. The Nanny State mixed message

Let's see...so people should be able to ask for help, and then complain because the help they get isn't good enough for them.

I'm not saying people getting food stamps should be shamed, but if they've asked the government for help getting food, why on earth should they be able to get money for things they haven't asked for?


Oh, and I was on welfare myself many years ago. Nobody gets rich on welfare. I received money to support myself and my two children and nobody told me how I should spend it. I received Medicaid. Nobody told me how many times I could take myself or my kids to the doctor, although there were some medications it wouldn't cover. And I received food stamps. They were for food. I couldn't buy soda, I couldn't buy alcohol.

I didn't like having to use food stamps because I felt ashamed.

In fact, I felt so ashamed that when my kids got older I went back to school, and after graduation, got a job. My kids were so proud of me. They didn't like being on welfare, either. They were just as ashamed as I was.

If not for that bit of shame, I might have used welfare as a way of life.

Sometimes a little bit of shame can be a great motivator.


But, back to my original point...The Nanny State is great, according to some, until it starts asking for a little responsibility from people. Then it sucks.

I dunno...seems like a mixed message

[Meldread]

139. I'm proud of you too, just for the record.

I love hearing stories like this, but I also have two questions.

1. As someone who has been on welfare, do you think it makes sense to require those who are mentally and physically able to either go to a trade school or college (or get a GED to qualify)? Naturally, this would also be subsidized by the government. I hear a lot about requiring people on Welfare to also have a job in some states, but I find that silly. Obviously, if someone on Welfare had a decent job they wouldn't need to be on Welfare in the first place.

However, at the same time I would like welfare to be viewed as a temporary system. You enter welfare when you need help, and it provides a path to lift you out of poverty. One of the easiest ways out of poverty is education. After graduation the system would help those on welfare find a job suitable to the skills they just learned.

I'm curious as to what you think of such a system.

2. I'd like to know what you think of limiting what food stamps can buy. More specifically, limiting food stamps to healthy food only. I think it's a shame that the cheapest food available is nutritionally valueless. It's junk. Even if it cost the system more to have food stamps limited to healthy food, I believe it would be worth it in terms of health for people on food stamps, who I think may be pressured into buying cheap food to get more out of food stamps.

I hope these questions don't seem too personally intrusive, but I am curious as to what you think.