Missouri may be banning steak and seafood from Food Stamp Program

[JanaDee]

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.

Don't be so sure of that.

 

[luvsJack]

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 other 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???

Well, I tried to multi quote and it didn't work.

Not having a choice isn't going to kill the kid. No, that is true, its not. All I am saying is that they have so little of the choices they want or need, is one over food really that bad?

People get so bent out of shape over something as simple as a food stamp mom buying sweetened cereal instead of oatmeal or a pack of ham instead of spam or canned ravioli instead of ramen noodles or whatever this weeks latest gripe is. And they don't even know why she is making the choices she is making. It's cheap, filling and my kids will eat it and I have time to fix it for them. That usually the criteria. But if that doesn't fit what the sahm, with 2 kids and a big house in a nice neighborhood with all the niceties thinks should be in the buggy of the food stamp mom, then she thinks she has the right to judge. And no, really she doesn't.

As for opinions, yes you have the right to an opinion. But the line really should stop at judgement. Not saying you are judgemental, but many are.

 

[Mkrop]

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.

And just as many kids who are craving the hot lunch that is served instead of all the uber organic stuff that mom packed. This is just what kids do, want what others have regardless of income level

 

[Wishing on a star]

OMG... so many sides and levels to this issue.
Before I jump in here, I will just state my general opinion on the actual topic of the thread.
My thoughts are based on both sides, as somebody like LuvsJack, who has BTDT as a child. We had NOTHING. And who is a financially independent tax-payer now... who would qualify for nothing.
Of course, I hate, abhore, and question the idea of limiting any healthy nutritious foods covered by these programs.
I am just inherently and very strongly against that kind of micro-managing Gov't control.

I do see why one might consider such a thing, however.
I can see that in a way, this a measure to help make sure that the young children actually get fed.
I feel like I have almost seen it all...
And, there are parents who would decide they just have to have that big steak, while letting the kids split a peanut butter sandwich... or consume a whole cheap bag of chips.

The truth of the matter is, health and obesity ARE, by all studies and accounts, linked to poverty.
Fresh, healthy, nutritious foods are NOT cheap!!!!
Kids that live on macaroni and chips and kool-aid, serve-N-save bologna, etc... are just not going to be healthy.
(I honestly think it should be almost criminal what the powers-that-be in this country allow as 'food for human consumption'.)

Do programs like WIC still exist???
They are programs that cover specific categories and foods that are designed to feed young children.

It is hard to find a middle ground here.
Because I do know that there those parents who would use the last of that benefit to buy that steak... a week before the next months comes in.
Just like they buy cigarettes, beer, etc...
In fact, my son once stayed with a good friend while we were away for a few days.
I left $100.00 with the mother to cover food, etc...
From what I hear, the kids (large growing boys) got a cheap burrito from Taco Bell as their supper, while the friend's mother had Mike's and Cigarettes in her car.
ETA: And I am just remembering, more recently, when my son's friend was with us, on our dime, he wanted to order a steak, for lunch.

This is one of those things where there are arguments and prejudices on both sides.
And could be argued from now to Kingdom Come without one opinion being changed.

 

[Happy Snowman]

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.

It's better than eating out of trash cans....you work with what you have and so what if they have to to wash dishes in the bathtub, at least they have a bathtub. Again, making excuses helps no one. The point you missed was that there ARE ways to eat healthy with limited funds and resources.....

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.

Including you.....you are assuming those of us on the opposing side haven't walked the walk, but then again, you would be wrong....but, feel free to keep judging...

 

[Colleen27]

The "system" (or at least the EBT portion) is set up in a way that actually PREVENTS users from "bettering themselves." Enrolling in college makes you ineligible for those benefits. So, if a "working poor mom" is trying to feed her family and needs EBT to do it, she can't also go to nursing school and work her way up to a high paying RN spot as a PP suggested, because if she started going to school she'd lose her benefits.

When I called to report this change to them, that I was back in school, the woman on the phone said "oooh, I wish you hadn't told me that. we're going to have to retract your benefits now. you can't be using EBT and attending a college program." I even asked her if that made sense to her, that because I was trying to better myself in a way that would help me get a better paying job (and therefore help me not need assistance), and now I had even more expenditures what with the cost of books and such and could afford to support myself even less, that I was no longer allowed to ask for help. She said it didn't, but there was nothing she could do and I just should have lied or hid the fact that I enrolled.

And this is a shining example of the unintended consequences of "feel good" changes to these programs... My mother worked her whole career for DHS and I remember when this change was made. It was in the wake of several controversial media reports of college kids from middle class families receiving food stamps because they were living on their own (in apartments their parents paid for) while attending college. Since their own income was negligible they were eligible for benefits. So the "fix" was to make college attendance a disqualifying factor, even though that means adults who need the assistance to feed their families are shut out of the most certain way to increase their earning power. But hey, we can all rest easy knowing that those spoiled college kids aren't scamming the system anymore, right?

 

[Colleen27]

the difference is everyone is making excuses of the why nots, how about a little they can do it if they choose too. Where there is a will to do something, you will find a way to get it done. period. Do you understand that if Im a mother on welfare working, I could use my free tax return to pay for almost a full year of local community college, to become a LPN. From LPN after a job I can still live poor and become an RN all in less then 6 years from being on welfare to making a livable wage????? why not take the money tax payers give you and turn it into something good.

Except as has already been mentioned, you lose that help the moment you enroll in college. There are some job training programs available through the welfare department, the kind of training that will take a person from unemployed or part-time retail/food service work to full time near-minimum-wage jobs in factories or offices, home health care, etc. Not a path out of poverty, but a path to long-term working poor status.

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?

As someone who has been involved in the discussions and planning of such a program, this is what it comes down to - processing the applications to determine eligibility is more expensive than just extending the program to everyone once the participation rate reaches a certain point. It costs more to screen everyone than to provide lunch for the (in the program I'm familiar with) 30% of kids who wouldn't qualify.

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?

People on assistance make those decisions too. We're in the orthodontic years with our kids and from what I've heard medicaid simply doesn't cover braces; at least for us it is a choice (an expensive choice that demands trade-offs, but still we do have the option - someone living on 20K/year has no choice but to let their child live with the consequences of uncorrected teeth). Our school is likely going to eliminate low-income fee waivers for sports and extracurriculars as part of this year's round of budget cuts; most schools in poorer areas have already done so. There has never (as far as I know) been a waiver of AP test fees.

And the hard fact is, you'll find people crying poverty at every income level. Odds are they can't afford those things because they have other things that the poor families can only dream of - a nice home, two cars (maybe even new cars with payments), regular vacations, etc.

 

[mom2AidanAndEli]

I'll admit up front that I have not read this entire thread---just too many posts! But I get the general gist of it and I've seen enough of these debates that I think I can guess pretty well what's included! But I'd like to share a story...

A number of years ago, I would go into the supermarket after work. I was dressed in a nice business suit, pulled up in not a luxury car, but a nice one. My shopping cart would be full of pre-made frozen foods, sugary cereals, chips, cookies, soda, canned soup, some fruits but very few fresh veggies, deli meats and cheeses, peanut butter and Fluff, and various other items considered unworthy. I'd then pull out an EBT card and pay for it all.

I'm sure many of you who have commented here would have been watching how I was dressed, what I drove, and what I was buying--especially once you saw the EBT card. I'm sure there would have been a number of harsh judgments and holier-than-thou attitudes.

But the food I was buying was for my disabled mother and disabled brother. My mom had had a stroke leaving her right arm and hand completely paralyzed and causing her great pain every day and the ability to only walk or stand for very short periods of time, and then it was using a cane or walker. My brother is autistic. He lived at home with her at that time--just the two of them. He was fairly high functioning, but certainly not completely independent (think Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man).

All the sweet stuff and junk food? That's all he would eat. And it had to be very specific--specific brands, specific flavors, etc. He actually had a routine of soup for dinner Monday, pizza Tuesday, chicken patties Wednesday, etc. etc. In his mind it had to be that regimented---all...the...time. We laugh that he's never eaten anything that ever lived on a plant! This is just his way of doing things and it's not going to change. He's also one of the healthiest people I know--I can only dream of having his cholesterol levels!

My mom would have preferred to eat healthier, but she wasn't physically able to prepare things from scratch. Putting Hot Pockets or a frozen meal in the oven was the best she could do many days. Healthy? Not really. But you have to do what you have to do.

Me? Yes, I was doing their shopping after work. I tried to help as much as I could. I didn't live with them but would be by checking on them several times a week and helping where I could. But I was also working two jobs and trying to take care of my own things. I would help with some meals but couldn't be there all day every day to do all the cooking. This was the system we worked out.

So go ahead and judge what the person in front of you is buying and how they're paying for it. And be thankful you don't have to trade places with them!

 

[bcla]

I certainly understand that there's supposed to be a little bit of dignity even when government assistance is involved. It is somewhat of a fine line, because I'm sure that I've come across people who truly need it, along with others intent on gaming the system.

 

[Wishing on a star]

Doesn't matter if steak or lobster is excluded, or not.
I don't see that this would keep anybody who really wanted to from 'gaming the system'.
I don't see that as an argument for or against this type of policy.

Back to how these people choose to spend their money and 'benefits'.
Another example, based on recent experience with my son.
As an Eagle Scout, one of the things he has done is to take our good heavy-duty dolly and cart the boxes of food to the vehicles during Food Bank Distributions. We picked him up later, and he was like, EVERY SiNGLE CAR reeked of chain-smoking, and I am sure he must have seen a lot of beer cans/bottles as well.

Sure, I can see the viewpoint that is hard to see MY hard earned dollars go to buy steak, beer, cigarettes, instead of filling some child's belly.
But, sadly, that is a fact of life. Just is... No denying it. There are way, way, too many people who will live for the moment, satisfy their own desires and vices, above making sound decisions to ensure that children are fed and warm and clothed and adequately bathed/hygiene.

The thing is, I don't see that this kind of policy would really have any direct benefit in making sure children are fed.

 

[luvsJack]

It's better than eating out of trash cans....you work with what you have and so what if they have to to wash dishes in the bathtub, at least they have a bathtub. Again, making excuses helps no one. The point you missed was that there ARE ways to eat healthy with limited funds and resources.....



Including you.....you are assuming those of us on the opposing side haven't walked the walk, but then again, you would be wrong....but, feel free to keep judging...

Its not excuses, its their reality. If you don't have a sink to wash a dish in, exactly what the heck are you going to do with fresh vegetables, meat, and dairy products? Chances are if you don't have a sink, you certainly don't have a fridge of enough size to store anything.

You have a mom who works 14 hours a day, comes back to a hotel room with dishes in the tub and hungry kids. And she has to figure out how to feed them. I don't think fresh salads and roasted veggies are going to be on the menu.

There are ways to eat reasonably healthy, I will give you that. Better than chips and coke but not nearly as good as fresh foods. But it depends on the situation. I could buy oranges and apples because I could store them. I could buy fresh milk because I had a fridge. But, if another mother is living without electricity or a working fridge or whatever, how do I say "well, she can do it, I did it" That isn't realistic.

You are the very one that suggested that neighborhood stores would suddenly start carrying fresh produce if that was all the EBT cards could buy. And you say you know where these folks are coming from? I don't think you get it. You may have been low on funds at one time, you may have had to make some hard choices but that doesn't mean you know the situation of every poor family in the country and what they have to deal with.

 

[luvsJack]

Doesn't matter if steak or lobster is excluded, or not.
I don't see that this would keep anybody who really wanted to from 'gaming the system'.
I don't see that as an argument for or against this type of policy.

Back to how these people choose to spend their money and 'benefits'.
Another example, based on recent experience with my son.
As an Eagle Scout, one of the things he has done is to take our good heavy-duty dolly and cart the boxes of food to the vehicles during Food Bank Distributions. We picked him up later, and he was like, EVERY SiNGLE CAR reeked of chain-smoking, and I am sure he must have seen a lot of beer cans/bottles as well.

Sure, I can see the viewpoint that is hard to see MY hard earned dollars go to buy steak, beer, cigarettes, instead of filling some child's belly.
But, sadly, that is a fact of life. Just is... No denying it. There are way, way, too many people who will live for the moment, satisfy their own desires and vices, above making sound decisions to ensure that children are fed and warm and clothed and adequately bathed/hygiene.

The thing is, I don't see that this kind of policy would really have any direct benefit in making sure children are fed.

Beer and cigarettes cannot be bought with food stamps. They aren't buying those and not using the food stamps unless they are buying someone food and that person is then buying those items for them. Not saying its ok for them to spend what money they do have on those things but don't want it to sound like something it cannot be.

I do think its a little unfair to make a statement that sounds as though you are saying that every single person needing help from the food bank was smoking and drinking. All poor people do not smoke and/or drink.

There are many more people who need the help and use it wisely than there are that scam the system. Always has been.

 

[morgan98]

Beer and cigarettes cannot be bought with food stamps. They aren't buying those and not using the food stamps unless they are buying someone food and that person is then buying those items for them. Not saying its ok for them to spend what money they do have on those things but don't want it to sound like something it cannot be.

I do think its a little unfair to make a statement that sounds as though you are saying that every single person needing help from the food bank was smoking and drinking. All poor people do not smoke and/or drink.

There are many more people who need the help and use it wisely than there are that scam the system. Always has been.

I don't think the point of this was that the people were using food stamps to buy cigarettes and booze, but rather if one is taking assistance from the government, maybe one should forego wasting what other limited funds they have on cigarettes and alcohol. Again, I think some of the issue is that yes, if you are poor, you do have less than others and that you may need to get by with less. Smoking and drinking is a waste of money (and I like my drinks) if you are struggling to make ends meet and need government assistance.

The resentment comes in when people use government funds for needs and then spends "their money" on non essential items.

 

[LBIJim]

How about you gladly donate that extra $1000 to a local food bank to help those people who, by just a few dollars, might not qualify for food aid, but are still struggling to feed their families.

ETA: Or to families who have qualified for food aid, but have exhausted the measly amount provided and need to resort to local food charities to carry them over until the next month.

I do gladly donate that extra $1000 (probably more) to various local food banks. Mostly in cash, sometimes with actual non-perishable food items. Any other suggestions?

I'm quite aware that an extra $1000 in taxes would likely result in less than $100 reaching the hungry, most of it being gobbled up by bureaucracy and administration. If 90% or more would go to the actual people in need, sure, raise my taxes.

The problem I have with these blanket "laws" is in general they don't work. that's like the stupid voter id law that's been shot down in quite a number of places.
First, is there a serious case of folks buying lobster and caviar with food stamps? I work with the seriously poor in Camden NJ. THEY DON'T HAVE A SUPERMARKET, more less one that carries lobster tails. LOL
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.

Did the Pathmark on Mt.Ephraim Avenue close down ?

 

[Gracie09]

I do gladly donate that extra $1000 (probably more) to various local food banks. Mostly in cash, sometimes with actual non-perishable food items. Any other suggestions?

I'm quite aware that an extra $1000 in taxes would likely result in less than $100 reaching the hungry, most of it being gobbled up by bureaucracy and administration. If 90% or more would go to the actual people in need, sure, raise my taxes.



Did the Pathmark on Mt.Ephraim Avenue close down ?

Yes it did

http://www.medicaldaily.com/camdens...eople-left-jobless-food-desert-expands-255944


http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/...this_fall_shoprite_not_coming_until_2016.html

 

[leebee]

We picked him up later, and he was like, EVERY SiNGLE CAR reeked of chain-smoking, and I am sure he must have seen a lot of beer cans/bottles as well.

Can you explain how you came to this (the bolded) conclusion/opinion?

Here is what I don't understand: Why is everyone so hot and bothered about how the money is spent? I can understand being upset/concerned about those who are scamming the system, lying to qualify, reselling food for cash, etc., but why are you so worried that someone will buy steak instead of burger? Recipients get a set amount of food credit every month. If they buy expensive food (like fresh veggies, organic meats, steak, lobster, etc.) the money will run out sooner. They don't get more money if they run out; they get their "allowance" monthly and it if runs out before the end of the time period, too bad, so sad to be you. Being as it's taxpayer money, one can hope that it will be used on nutritious food, but more than likely the money will be spent on whatever is cheapest that the family likes; that's the only way to make the benefit last until the end of the month. I shop the same way: I buy whatever is cheapest that I know my family will eat. Why do you care if I am purchasing chicken and green beans or hot dogs and tater tots?

At least steak and lobster are healthier than pizza rolls and chips!

 

[luvsJack]

I don't think the point of this was that the people were using food stamps to buy cigarettes and booze, but rather if one is taking assistance from the government, maybe one should forego wasting what other limited funds they have on cigarettes and alcohol. Again, I think some of the issue is that yes, if you are poor, you do have less than others and that you may need to get by with less. Smoking and drinking is a waste of money (and I like my drinks) if you are struggling to make ends meet and need government assistance.

The resentment comes in when people use government funds for needs and then spends "their money" on non essential items.

That's why I said, I agree that they should not spend what funds they do have on those items.

Too many times people do assume that these things can be bought with EBT funds and they cannot. The confusion comes in from other funds being put on the same cards or similar looking cards. Anything that comes from the state (in this state) is put on one of those cards. Which tells you right off the bat that many will judge someone for buying steaks on EBT and its not, its court ordered child support which certainly can be used to buy food for the family.

The pp was speaking of people coming to a food bank. Is she so sure that they are even food stamp recipients? The ones here have no income requirements. One sells boxes for a nominal fee and the other gives a box of food once a month. The ones here were set up to help those that a pp mentioned, that are just above the income requirement for assistance. So she and her son may have been judging people that are not on government assistance.

 

[morgan98]

That's why I said, I agree that they should not spend what funds they do have on those items.

Too many times people do assume that these things can be bought with EBT funds and they cannot. The confusion comes in from other funds being put on the same cards or similar looking cards. Anything that comes from the state (in this state) is put on one of those cards. Which tells you right off the bat that many will judge someone for buying steaks on EBT and its not, its court ordered child support which certainly can be used to buy food for the family.

The pp was speaking of people coming to a food bank. Is she so sure that they are even food stamp recipients? The ones here have no income requirements. One sells boxes for a nominal fee and the other gives a box of food once a month. The ones here were set up to help those that a pp mentioned, that are just above the income requirement for assistance. So she and her son may have been judging people that are not on government assistance.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but that is pretty bad if they are taking food from a food bank (even if they don't qualify for assistance) yet still have money for cigarettes and booze. That is just as bad. I cannot imagine showing up and taking food that I am not paying for from ANYWHERE while wasting the money I have on wants. This is where the resentment comes from.

 

[manning]

Computers could help here:

1. Standardize bar coding of all items. (not by brand name, by catagory
2. Require all items be purchased using a card.(swipe it like a credit card)
3. Check out is now done electronically. Everything bought has to be scanned. Program into the scanners items permitted to be bought.
4. first step at checkout is to have the card scanned.
5. Then scan all items. Anything not on the list has to be paid by cash.

4 and 5 can be done. IE at Costco the first thing done is scanning member card. No card you can't buy anything.

Not perfect, but sure go a long way in reducing fraud.

 

[LBIJim]

Yes it did

http://www.medicaldaily.com/camdens...eople-left-jobless-food-desert-expands-255944


http://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2014/05/camdens_first_grocery_store_to_open_this_fall_shoprite_not_coming_until_2016.html

Thanks....looks like that Pathmark in Camden closed about the same time as several others in the chain, including the one closest to me. I like how Shop Rite is coming in 2016, albeit in a different location. Strangely enough, the Pathmark that closed used to be a Shop Rite in the 1960s.

Camden used to have half a dozen supermarkets. Starting in the early 1970s, they gradually started closing.