Missouri may be banning steak and seafood from Food Stamp Program

[morgan98]

Where we live now, there are many "working poor" households. Kids are fed breakfast and lunch at school, snacks are sent home daily, and a weekend backpack of food is sent home from school on Fridays. Recent articles published in our local newspapers promoted the signups for Summer meal programs. The kicker, no income caps. Why are we feeding people who can pay for themselves?

I'm all for helping others, but we need to require education as part of the assistance. There are too many households that continue to have children, even though they do not have the means to provide for, support, and raise them. We have to do more than just throw money at the issue, as it is a growing pool of recipients being funded by a smaller pool of contributors.

I do not begrudge helping those who are down on their luck by providing food assistance. What some of these programs seem to be (like the free breakfast and lunch at school and summer lunch) are more or less long term food assistance programs. Again, I believe that children who are born into working poor households should not go hungry, however, there is another issue that seems taboo to discuss on these boards.

If these "working poor" households needs longer term food help because they have chronically low paying jobs and do not have the means to obtain skills to get higher paying jobs, why are there multiple children and why do they have more children if the family (through food stamps) and children (through free lunch programs) are already receiving government aid?

You can say all you want that I am heartless, or just don't understand, etc., but you know nothing about me or my background. However, I can tell you that I would not be having any more children if I was receiving one cent of government aid in the form of food stamps or welfare. It just boggles my mind that people have trouble providing for themselves, yet continue to add to their family.

I am childless and I am okay with that. However, I would probably not be childless if I had not tried to get all my ducks in a row before having children. It just so happens that life also through me the curveball of a divorce during the years where I thought I would become a mom. I think again this is where people are asking for more personal responsibility.

 

[luvsJack]

No, I did not miss the time factor at all. Like I said, you can cook AND spend time with your children. Just because you don't like oatmeal doesn't mean others feel the same and if it's a choice between going hungry and eating a food you don't like, well, most people, children included, will eat what they have. I'm sure most people at some point and time have had to make hard choices like that and you just suck it up and do what you need to do......or you can continue to make excuses so you don't get out of the cycle....

Any yes, sometimes kids have to do things they don't like, including eating something they might not like. Life is hard, kids get over it. It's not heartless, it's called growing up.

I did get out of the cycle, fyi.

The whole oatmeal thing started as why someone may be buying ready made cereal rather than oatmeal. It wasn't meant to imply that no one should have to eat oatmeal or sometimes have something that they would rather not. I simply meant that if your child hates oatmeal and you have the ebt to buy Frosted Flakes, you will buy Frosted Flakes. Or if Mom has to leave for work before the kid leaves for school and can't cook the oatmeal, chances are frosted flakes will be the choice. If we are talking about a child that hasn't eaten for days, that is a whole different ball game.

You can call it whatever you want to justify your feelings but to say that a young child should just suck it up and eat what he hates because he is poor is heartless. What's next "oh we can give the poor kids the soured milk, they'll eat anything".

I have seen kids cry because the lunch at school was their last meal that day and it was something they hated to the point that they couldn't eat it without gagging. They could see some of their classmates had the choice to bring something else, they didn't. It is not a happy sight, in fact it is heartbreaking. You would be surprised how many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or ham and cheese sandwiches one will make and bring with them on days like that.

Children don't have a choice to get out of the cycle. They follow their parents through it. They shouldn't be treated like second class citizens. They didn't make the mess, they just have to live in it.

I don't disagree that parents on food stamps should purchase food that is cheap, health and filling. I did the same thing. But they also have to do what works for their family the same as you and I do. If Mom isn't home to cook, she buys the easy fix stuff. If she doesn't have a working stove, she compensates. If she doesn't have water, she has to figure that one out too. To judge someone by what they have in their buggy because they are on food stamps is wrong. You don't know the whole story behind it. To say "well she should do xyz, because I did xyz" is not realistic. What works in your world may not work in their's.

 

[luvsJack]

This is getting ridiculous.

Family of 8, sole income earner is laid off, unemployment pays enough to cover mortgage and property taxes, no health insurance. EBT amount per month= $320 (approximately 1/4 of our food budget; and we're generally very thrifty). How can that be? Because there is abuse and because some people think they should dine on steak and lobsters. This happened 4 times over the course of 6 years; the first time being 3 months after our first home purchase. Great timing!

I had to stretch that $320 to get us through the month. Yes, my kids ate things that they weren't too pleased about. Yes, it sucked, but we lived and got through it. We ate lots and lots of oatmeal, eggs, legumes, and whole grains. We didn't buy things like the regular cheese that we used to as the cost per pound was too much to justify it. That's called life- life throws crap at you and you learn to adjust to it and strive to overcome it.

There are lots of families that are denied aid due to a few dollars difference in income. Maybe if people were more responsible in how they used the funds given to them, there would be more families able to get help. Maybe the family that gets a 1/4 of their food budget could get a little more. You don't want your child to eat oatmeal because he might gag? Well, that may mean that another child will go without ANY food!

The sense of entitlement is astonishing. Yes, life can deal out some very difficult situations, but that does not mean anyone should live high on the hog because of it. There was one woman on a message board that I used to post at; she qualified for food aid, and had no qualms about the fact that that money "freed" up money for her to buy a hot tub to enjoy. Shameful.

You did not receive $320 because someone is buying lobster and steak. You received that amount because its what you qualified for. If you own a car, a house and other assets, it counts against you.

No one is disqualified because of what someone else is doing. If they got everyone playing the system off welfare, you would still have gotten the same amount.

Good lord, the oatmeal was just an example of why someone might be buying cereal rather than oatmeal. For pete's sakes, let it go.

 

[undertheradar]

The ultimate issue for the majority is personal responsibility. In our ever growing PC society, we are not allowed to ask why some continue to procreate without the means to provide for themselves and children they may already have. These are the individuals who cause the regulations to be tightened. It used to be that having a child out of wedlock was something society frowned upon. Now it is glorified in movies and tv programs. In our current state here in the Midwest, this is the first year out of the 3 that we have lived here, that the first born baby of the new year was welcomed by married parents.

 

[luvsJack]

Agreed.

Maybe these people should also get vouchers to their favorite restaurants, after all, we shouldn't place any restrictions on where or what they should eat. What if they only enjoy dining out? Who are we to deny them that luxury?

I was raised by a single mom, who got zero child support (estranged father had checked in to state hospital, and being a ward of the state, he was able to avoid paying support; once he checked out, he disappeared and lost all contact with family). She worked, we got some government support, but during the summer, while she worked, I was in the care of a neighbor. The neighbor fed us boxed mac & cheese (4/$1) with cut up hot dogs for lunch. It made me gag every single time. Even as a young child, I recognized that our life situation was tough, and I didn't want to bring it up to my mom. I ate the food and dealt with it.

Why must people think they deserve what they want in every situation?! Your life circumstance may have happened through no fault of your own; this does not entitle you to have what you want, not in regards to food or anything else.

Go to extremes much? Turn it around. Should they be given the scraps of others? I mean they are hungry, they should be thankful for what they get and eat it right? If we are going to go to extremes less go to both ends of it.

 

[eliza61]

I did get out of the cycle, fyi.

The whole oatmeal thing started as why someone may be buying ready made cereal rather than oatmeal. It wasn't meant to imply that no one should have to eat oatmeal or sometimes have something that they would rather not. I simply meant that if your child hates oatmeal and you have the ebt to buy Frosted Flakes, you will buy Frosted Flakes. Or if Mom has to leave for work before the kid leaves for school and can't cook the oatmeal, chances are frosted flakes will be the choice. If we are talking about a child that hasn't eaten for days, that is a whole different ball game.

You can call it whatever you want to justify your feelings but to say that a young child should just suck it up and eat what he hates because he is poor is heartless. What's next "oh we can give the poor kids the soured milk, they'll eat anything".

I have seen kids cry because the lunch at school was their last meal that day and it was something they hated to the point that they couldn't eat it without gagging. They could see some of their classmates had the choice to bring something else, they didn't. It is not a happy sight, in fact it is heartbreaking. You would be surprised how many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or ham and cheese sandwiches one will make and bring with them on days like that.

Children don't have a choice to get out of the cycle. They follow their parents through it. They shouldn't be treated like second class citizens. They didn't make the mess, they just have to live in it.
.

but they are not treated like second class citizens. The reality luv is that when you are poor your options are limited. So yeah it does suck and the kids do have to deal with it. The soured milk is a poor analogy because of course it is detrimental to your health.
Yes it is hard to see them especially if they are interacting with other kids but the reality is other kids have parents who are in a different income level which once again means they have options that a poor child does not.
So what the answer is provide all kids with an equal enjoyable lunch because you don't want them to cry???
That is so unrealistic.

When did it get to the point where everyone had to have "equal" every thing? Now I agree there should be a basic level of nutritional value. the object should be to give kids healthy filling meals.
Some times that may mean the kid doesn't like it and yes, some times they will see their class mates with a bag of doritoes that they can't get.

You are absolutely right being poor is not a crime but it also does not mean that you are entitled to the same level of goods.

 

[leebee]

how to cook No bake oatmeal cookies in the Micro wave. They are yummy and cheaper then a package of premade cookies.

1. Directions
   1. Mix together sugar, margarine, milk, cocoa, and vanilla. Heat in microwave 2 minutes. Stir. Heat in microwave 2 more minutes. Stir in peanut butter until well blended. Add oats. Drop by spoonfuls onto wax paper. Allow time to cool.
   2. * Measure oats carefully; too much and they will be too dry.

And then wash all your dishes and pans in the bathroom sink, or maybe the tub, because living in a motel room is SO conducive to cooking and eating well.

 

[Dawnlight]

Go to extremes much? Turn it around. Should they be given the scraps of others? I mean they are hungry, they should be thankful for what they get and eat it right? If we are going to go to extremes less go to both ends of it.

No, of course not. But there needs to be better oversight and more restrictions. As it is now, there is precious little of either.

In our town it costs $350/child/year to ride the school bus from grades 7-12. It costs $300/year/student to participate in sports. If you are child in a family that receives government aid, both of those are free. Same for AP test costs and many other things that plenty of struggling families, who don't qualify for any aid, perhaps just barely, have to either 1) pay themselves or 2) do without.

Why should a child of a family that struggles financially, but doesn't meet the threshold to qualify for aid, have to forego school sports or AP classes? Why should their family have to make the tough choice to not get orthodontic treatment while others qualify to get it free on the taxpayers dime?

People make the decision to do without or do with less every single day. Why should people who get supplemental aid not have to do so?

 

[luvsJack]

but they are not treated like second class citizens. The reality luv is that when you are poor your options are limited. So yeah it does suck and the kids do have to deal with it. The soured milk is a poor analogy because of course it is detrimental to your health.
Yes it is hard to see them especially if they are interacting with other kids but the reality is other kids have parents who are in a different income level which once again means they have options that a poor child does not.
So what the answer is provide all kids with an equal enjoyable lunch because you don't want them to cry???
That is so unrealistic.

When did it get to the point where everyone had to have "equal" every thing?

Oh dear Lord. Everything will never be equal. I didn't say it should be.

If someone can't think about that child and have some empathy instead of worrying about their tax dollar, well I guess that shows where our society is headed.

The kid may not have a choice at school but what's so bad about him having a choice at home? Is it really so much skin off your nose for the kid to have a choice between spam and sandwich meat? (don't want to dare mention oatmeal again ) Or a choice between juice and kool aid or WHATEVER.

We want to judge these people to the point of taking away any choice on food. These kids already see that life is unfair. They can't take dance lessons or have the latest shoes or the toys that others have. Do you think they don't recognize that? But now we don't want them to dare eat the same food that those of us more fortunate eat? Seriously?

 

[undertheradar]

I did get out of the cycle, fyi.

The whole oatmeal thing started as why someone may be buying ready made cereal rather than oatmeal. It wasn't meant to imply that no one should have to eat oatmeal or sometimes have something that they would rather not. I simply meant that if your child hates oatmeal and you have the ebt to buy Frosted Flakes, you will buy Frosted Flakes. Or if Mom has to leave for work before the kid leaves for school and can't cook the oatmeal, chances are frosted flakes will be the choice. If we are talking about a child that hasn't eaten for days, that is a whole different ball game.

You can call it whatever you want to justify your feelings but to say that a young child should just suck it up and eat what he hates because he is poor is heartless. What's next "oh we can give the poor kids the soured milk, they'll eat anything".

I have seen kids cry because the lunch at school was their last meal that day and it was something they hated to the point that they couldn't eat it without gagging. They could see some of their classmates had the choice to bring something else, they didn't. It is not a happy sight, in fact it is heartbreaking. You would be surprised how many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches or ham and cheese sandwiches one will make and bring with them on days like that.

Children don't have a choice to get out of the cycle. They follow their parents through it. They shouldn't be treated like second class citizens. They didn't make the mess, they just have to live in it.

I don't disagree that parents on food stamps should purchase food that is cheap, health and filling. I did the same thing. But they also have to do what works for their family the same as you and I do. If Mom isn't home to cook, she buys the easy fix stuff. If she doesn't have a working stove, she compensates. If she doesn't have water, she has to figure that one out too. To judge someone by what they have in their buggy because they are on food stamps is wrong. You don't know the whole story behind it. To say "well she should do xyz, because I did xyz" is not realistic. What works in your world may not work in their's.

Many have been able to better themselves, there is evidence of that on this thread. Both my wife and I grew up poor. My wife has lived in over 25 states, not by choice, by reality. Her dad worked as a project manager, moving his wife and eight kids to wherever the work was. They sometimes had the pleasure of eating mayonnaise sandwiches, or for variety, ketchup sandwiches. The older kids worked jobs when they were old enough, with the dad taking the earnings to help feed and house the family. Imagine growing up never wanting to form strong friendships? It was not unusual for the family to move without any notice, if a contract was ended early, the dad just pulled up stakes and away they moved.

We are in a much better place. We waited to have kids until we knew we could provide and care for them. We didn't depend upon society to feed, house and provide for them. We didn't start out with much and have been realistic in what we have done with our money. We are able to afford better, nicer things because we had a plan to better ourselves. Our kids didn't ask to be born, we wanted to have them. Based upon our upbringings, it is troubling that so many believe that society should be the provider. There are many who need a little assistance to just get out of the hole, there are too many others who will never try to better themselves.

 

[Anesthesia Fine]

The ultimate issue for the majority is personal responsibility. In our ever growing PC society, we are not allowed to ask why some continue to procreate without the means to provide for themselves and children they may already have. These are the individuals who cause the regulations to be tightened. It used to be that having a child out of wedlock was something society frowned upon. Now it is glorified in movies and tv programs. In our current state here in the Midwest, this is the first year out of the 3 that we have lived here, that the first born baby of the new year was welcomed by married parents.

That's easy: comprehensive sex ed programs that aren't just "abstinence only" and having birth control readily available and free/cheap. But no one wants to make that a solution, either.

 

[kamik86]

My feelings on this are mixed. Because for every family I know that used the programs wisely I know someone like the following:

1) Wife has a decent job, husband has a seasonal job, so he is laid off every winter. Makes good money during the warmer seasons though. They have two kids and go on unemployment and wic etc every winter when he is "layed off" This is stupid that its allowed. It would be the same as a teacher beign considered unemployed and getting unemployment and assistance every year. If you spread out their yearly income every year over 12 months they wouldn't have qualified. (Seasonal jobs should not be able to consider you layed off each year, there needs to be a better way to track this)

2) Someone that works under the table and makes money but still qualifies for government aid. They are now off gov aid but are not complaining that they can't buy a house because the wife's credit is ruined from previously and on paper the husband doesn't have a job so they can't use his credit... of course they forget the reason they can't buy a house is because they avoiding taxes.

3) Someone that lives with the father of their children while they are a stay at home mom. Collecting government assistance because mom doesn't work and couldn't make enough to pay for two children in daycare. They don't marry the boyfriend/father though because then his job would have to count in their income and they would lose the government assistance. (If you live with the father of your children his income should count against your gov assistance)

 

[eliza61]

Oh dear Lord. Everything will never be equal. I didn't say it should be.

If someone can't think about that child and have some empathy instead of worrying about their tax dollar, well I guess that shows where our society is headed.

The kid may not have a choice at school but what's so bad about him having a choice at home? Is it really so much skin off your nose for the kid to have a choice between spam and sandwich meat? (don't want to dare mention oatmeal again ) Or a choice between juice and kool aid or WHATEVER.

We want to judge these people to the point of taking away any choice on food. These kids already see that life is unfair. They can't take dance lessons or have the latest shoes or the toys that others have. Do you think they don't recognize that? But now we don't want them to dare eat the same food that those of us more fortunate eat? Seriously?

I totally get it, believe me. like I said I've volunteered with the serious poor in Camden NJ which is consistently one of the poorest cities in the country. I think it's number one on the East coast.

Naah, actually us Yanks are obscenely empathic especially concerning our kids.

So the biggest problem is, we want to help them but we also want to make sure those truly needing help get it.

We also have to think "macro", not micro. this was very hard for me when my church started it's missionary work.

So for example, when our food pantry stocks up (not what folks volunteer, what we purchase to fill in the holes if we don't get enough donations), this is the thought process... You are right we know the lunch meat would be tastier and nicer than spam, and if it were ten families that would be no problem. But now think 1000 families and the thought process changes, we have to supply a lot of folks so unfortunately we're back down to spam. Now the thought is how can we feed these hundreds of kids for the entire week.

the same with juice boxes. It would be great if we could get them our the capri sun juice packs or the libby juice boxes and once again that would work it it were a few family but when the need is great, like after 2008 unfortunately it does come down to small water bottles.

One program that does well with addressing your concerns is an "adopt a family" program.
I fully admit that it is hard, there are times when I have to remind myself that I can't save every kid in Camden.
In the summer we know that we could be the only meal a bunch of these kids get so it is heart breaking when they hear the Mr. Softee truck coming and they can't get a thing.

 

[luvsJack]

No, of course not. But there needs to be better oversight and more restrictions. As it is now, there is precious little of either.

In our town it costs $350/child/year to ride the school bus from grades 7-12. It costs $300/year/student to participate in sports. If you are child in a family that receives government aid, both of those are free. Same for AP test costs and many other things that plenty of struggling families, who don't qualify for any aid, perhaps just barely, have to either 1) pay themselves or 2) do without.

Why should a child of a family that struggles financially, but doesn't meet the threshold to qualify for aid, have to forego school sports or AP classes? Why should their family have to make the tough choice to not get orthodontic treatment while others qualify to get it free on the taxpayers dime?

People make the decision to do without or do with less every single day. Why should people who get supplemental aid not have to do so?

Everyone isn't going to qualify. There has to be a cut off point somewhere. No matter where you put that point, someone will be just the outside of it.

Our area doesn't charge for riding the bus, its part of public school as are school sports. Other kids play sports before they get to the age for school, poor kids do not.

Medicaid rarely pays for orthodonic treatment so that doesn't work. DD had braces because we could afford insurance and the payments. Her friend on Medicaid whose teeth were horrible and hurting due to the way they were growing was told "its only cosmetic" and it was disallowed. As they tried and tried to get the work done, they found that Medicaid rarely allows braces.

If you think those that qualify for food stamps or receive welfare don't make choices to do without or with less, you are fooling yourself. They do. Not just in sports or braces. They make the choice of whether to put gas in their car or hope it makes it another day. They make the choice to buy their medicine or pay the light or gas bill. They make the choice of whether to take their child to the dr. or go to work and give the child some tylenol. They make the same choices you may make every day and then they have the choices to make due to lack of funds.

Not every person who qualifies for food stamps also qualifies for medicaid, welfare or other services. They have to make those choices too.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Lord knows I don't agree with you a lot LuvsJack BUT your last post hit the nail right on the head. Written by someone who has walked the walk and knows the truth, not like the majority of posters that have never been in the situation, put on their robes of judgments, and talk the talk.

 

[luvsJack]

I totally get it, believe me. like I said I've volunteered with the serious poor in Camden NJ which is consistently one of the poorest cities in the country. I think it's number one on the East coast.

Naah, actually us Yanks are obscenely empathic especially concerning our kids.

So the biggest problem is, we want to help them but we also want to make sure those truly needing help get it.

We also have to think "macro", not micro. this was very hard for me when my church started it's missionary work.

So for example, when our food pantry stocks up (not what folks volunteer, what we purchase to fill in the holes if we don't get enough donations), this is the thought process... You are right we know the lunch meat would be tastier and nicer than spam, and if it were ten families that would be the problem. But now think 1000 families and the thought process changes, we have to supply a lot of folks so unfortunately we're back down to spam. Now the thought is how can we feed these hundreds of kids for the entire week.

the same with juice boxes. It would be great if we could get them our the capri sun juice packs or the libby juice boxes and once again that would work it it were a few family but when the need is great, like after 2008 unfortunately it does come down to small water bottles.

One program that does well with address your concerns is an 'adopt a family program.

But we aren't talking about a food pantry, we are talking about what one family buys for one family on food stamps. They don't have to think about the 1000, they have to think about their household.

I don't care what is tastier or nicer. That wasn't the point. My kids have eaten Ramen noodles most of their lives and love them, can't get much cheaper and how anyone would call it tasty is beyond me. My point was simply that its not so much to think that the child who has so much against him, isn't going to really hurt that much by having choices.

Too many people look at what someone is buying at the grocery store with ebt and start yelling that they should buy X instead of Y because its cheaper without knowing why the person is buying something. Then we start in that if the kid is hungry he will eat it. Good heavens, a choice of lunch meat or a choice of breakfast cereal isn't going to hurt anyone else's pocket book.

 

[toystory1130]

That's easy: comprehensive sex ed programs that aren't just "abstinence only" and having birth control readily available and free/cheap. But no one wants to make that a solution, either.

That and add in some finance and home ec classes in high school. Our schools are so focused on the "STEM" and AP classes, they forget that once the kids get on their own they will need to handle their own money/pay bills and feed themselves.

 

[eliza61]

But we aren't talking about a food pantry, we are talking about what one family buys for one family on food stamps. They don't have to think about the 1000, they have to think about their household.

I don't care what is tastier or nicer. That wasn't the point. My kids have eaten Ramen noodles most of their lives and love them, can't get much cheaper and how anyone would call it tasty is beyond me. My point was simply that its not so much to think that the child who has so much against him, isn't going to really hurt that much by having choices.

Too many people look at what someone is buying at the grocery store with ebt and start yelling that they should buy X instead of Y because its cheaper without knowing why the person is buying something. Then we start in that if the kid is hungry he will eat it. Good heavens, a choice of lunch meat or a choice of breakfast cereal isn't going to hurt anyone else's pocket book.

Agreed to a point.
Not having a choice of his meal isn't exactly going to kill him either.
I am always amazed when that happens in the market. Mainly because I am so unaware, lol I never know how folks pay for their food. couldn't tell you what the person in front of me used to pay for his groceries is you promised to give me a million bucks.


Although I do know that when a kid comes in for lunch, if he's hungry and it's his only meal, he's eating.

 

[eliza61]

Lord knows I don't agree with you a lot LuvsJack BUT your last post hit the nail right on the head. Written by someone who has walked the walk and knows the truth, not like the majority of posters that have never been in the situation, put on their robes of judgments, and talk the talk.

You're right, I haven't been in the situation. I've also never been a man, I've never been raped, I've never lost a child or a thousand other things I have an opinion about.

It's called an opinion because I'm a thinking member of society.

Did a rule come out on the dis where you had to actual have experience in order to give your opinion on a subject???

 

[mnrose]

As always there is abuse of the system but yes, once again it's poor shaming. the banking and housing industry abuse also cost the tax payers gabillions of dollars and I won't even get into the college aide abuse that I have a bunch of candidates taking advantage of but those are ok because it's a middle class or rich crime.

True! Or the people who carefully structure their assets to make sure they are "poor" and therefore get Medicaid to pay for their nursing home care. My own Dad, as conservative as they come, wanted to do exactly this rather than use his own assets to pay for his own care. Gee, what a novel concept! I have zero issue with people getting aid when they need it, but we all know this goes on all the time. And, for BIG bucks (nursing home care is EXPENSIVE and makes whatever welfare fraud occurs seem trivial in comparison). But, structuring your assets to take advantage of government programs is seen as "smart" financial planning. Heaven forbid that someone on SNAP dares to eat a steak once per year. That's HORRIBLE and TERRIBLE and disgusting.

Sigh