Missouri may be banning steak and seafood from Food Stamp Program

[EMAW_KSU]

True, and it mainly goes (in sheer dollars) to the upper middle class and upper class people. No one complains about that one, though. One might question why, as a matter of policy, we subsidize the purchase of homes for otherwise rich people. Makes no sense to me.

I like the deduction and take advantage of it. If you look at the families taking advantage it it about 75% of the make over $100,000. But I do not know why you never see anybody point it out as an evil subsidy.

 

[Laura66]

I suspect that a lot of people on some sort of public assistance either hide income sources and/or avoid getting married because it might affect the assistance. Some may even decline raises. However, food stamps are piddly compared to other forms of assistance.

I remember one classmate in elementary school who got a free school lunch. She didn't seem to be from a poor background, and she said her family lied about her income to qualify. I certainly don't wish any kid to go hungry, but it's pretty obvious that there's traditionally a lot of abuse of various government assistance programs.

I work as an aid in a school cafeteria. You'd be surprised how many children qualify and use the reduced cost lunch program.
Did you ever think, for a moment, that maybe she lied because she was shamed and wanted to save face?

 

[LisaR]

I admit I didn't read all the posts. I just got done reading this article and came to the Dis to see this same topic being discussed. Hopefully the article hasn't been posted yet, but I think it is worth the read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...eyre-worthy-of-government-benefits/?tid=sm_fb

The double-standard of making the poor prove they’re worthy of government benefits

 

[moon]

My father used to own a small grocery store in a very poor area of town. Back then there was no card but they got actual "stamps". The kids would come in and use them because they lived with grandma or great-grandma and she couldn't get to the store. She could send them and yes sometimes they would add a candy bar or a bag of chips to the order because grandma said they could. I remember some of those kids so vividly and wonder what happened to them. There is no way under the sun I would ever want to take that treat away from them. They are still human and still children. And yes there may be a good reason the kid has the card.

Easter baskets? Really? You would take that away from these kids? I could see complaining if the adult was buying beer but its for a child.

As for the actually lobster and steak, I think that most ebt families need some information about stretching their food money through the month and how to feed their family healthy with the food, money and equipment that they have. I have a family member that is on ebt and she seems to think she has to spend it all the moment it goes on the card. Literally, she would stay up until midnight they night they put it on the card and go to Walmart and spend every bit of it at one time. I told her that if she would not spend it all at one time that she could keep back enough to buy milk and produce every week. She does buy the milk that way now, but very little produce.

I agree. And the Easter Basket? The poster was complaining about an Easter basket in a Dollar store. Seriously?

 

[bcla]

I work as an aid in a school cafeteria. You'd be surprised how many children qualify and use the reduced cost lunch program.
Did you ever think, for a moment, that maybe she lied because she was shamed and wanted to save face?

It was sixth grade and she was actually quite matter of fact about it. No embarrassment or anything.

 

[mnrose]

I like the deduction and take advantage of it. If you look at the families taking advantage it it about 75% of the make over $100,000. But I do not know why you never see anybody point it out as an evil subsidy.

Simple. The people with "power" (who complain about the benefits received by the poor) are the ones receiving it. No one complains too much about the benefits they receive. The only ones we (collective we) don't like are the ones that benefit other people. Anything *I* get is good. Anything *you* get is bad.

LOL.

While I am being somewhat sarcastic, it is, in fact, the truth and why our US budget is in such trouble. No one is willing to give up what *they* get....but we sure love to complain about and micromanage what other people get.

The cynical part of me thinks that there are corporate PACs and other lobbyists out there who DELIBERATELY keep SNAP and other such things in the public's viewfinder so no one looks too closely at corporate welfare, which makes SNAP look like pocket change (with tax credits, etc that go to large, wealthy corporations and their executives).

 

[SMD]

It was sixth grade and she was actually quite matter of fact about it. No embarrassment or anything.

So this was 20+ years ago. And relevant to the current EBT system or Missouri proposal how? Because your recollection about the way an 11 or 12 year old said something to you way back when is clear proof of systemic abuse?

 

[Dawnlight]

I suspect that a lot of people on some sort of public assistance either hide income sources and/or avoid getting married because it might affect the assistance. Some may even decline raises. However, food stamps are piddly compared to other forms of assistance.

I remember one classmate in elementary school who got a free school lunch. She didn't seem to be from a poor background, and she said her family lied about her income to qualify. I certainly don't wish any kid to go hungry, but it's pretty obvious that there's traditionally a lot of abuse of various government assistance programs.

Yes, this is true. I have one acquaintance, a preschool teacher, that has made the arrangement with her employer that every summer she gets laid off, collects unemployment, and qualifies for additional benefits- all the while enjoying her summer off at the beach. Sorry, there's something very wrong with that picture. Same person lives with their mother, who signs off that the adult daughter pays rent to live there, though she does not. This increases the benefits she qualifies for. The mother has altered her will so that the house will be in her sister's name instead of the daughter who lives there; in the event of her death, it will still look- on paper- that she's paying rent, doesn't own the home, and will keep her qualifications. It's a shell game, and many many people do it.

There needs to be better oversight of these programs.

 

[bcla]

I like the deduction and take advantage of it. If you look at the families taking advantage it it about 75% of the make over $100,000. But I do not know why you never see anybody point it out as an evil subsidy.

It depends on where you live. High cost real estate areas have lots of people using the mortgage interest deduction. In places where housing costs are lower, fewer people take the deduction unless it's a relatively expensive house, since the deduction tends to be less than the standard deduction.

Families making under $100K definitely qualify for it around here. Of course we're dealing with the median price of a 3 BR 2 BA house at around $700K.

 

[bcla]

So this was 20+ years ago. And relevant to the current EBT system or Missouri proposal how? Because your recollection about the way an 11 or 12 year old said something to you way back when is clear proof of systemic abuse?

There's always been abuse in every government assistance program. I don't think they all need to end, but the taxpayers who fund them are the ones who spur the politicians to make changes. Personally I don't think that any broad category of food should be eliminated from food assistance (which is an agricultural subsidy of sorts) but of course the abuses of the system get people talking and complaining.

 

[bcla]

Yes, this is true. I have one acquaintance, a preschool teacher, that has made the arrangement with her employer that every summer she gets laid off, collects unemployment, and qualifies for additional benefits- all the while enjoying her summer off at the beach. Sorry, there's something very wrong with that picture. Same person lives with their mother, who signs off that the adult daughter pays rent to live there, though she does not. This increases the benefits she qualifies for. The mother has altered her will so that the house will be in her sister's name instead of the daughter who lives there; in the event of her death, it will still look- on paper- that she's paying rent, doesn't own the home, and will keep her qualifications. It's a shell game, and many many people do it.

There needs to be better oversight of these programs.

I had a former employer with temporary cash flow issues that had a 20% involuntary reduction in work hours, and declared as a furlough. Apparently we even qualified for unemployment benefits for this time, although I talked to some coworkers and only a few people figured out how to qualify. I filed, but got a reply that I was still working so I didn't qualify. I took entire weeks off, although my employer said that we could take one day a week.

I'm a landlord and have dealt with a Section 8 (housing assistance) tenant. I have no proof of any fraud, but the tenant had an expensive vehicle and lots of expensive items. She also had a boyfriend. Guests are supposed to be short term (hint hint). Something just didn't click. I had no proof and nothing that I could report. Eventually I felt I needed to raise the rent to at least closer to market rate, but I was effectively locked out of it through a rent freeze. I could however terminate the tenancy. I also have some dealings with another proposed Section 8 tenant where it kind of soured me on the whole thing.

 

[Laura66]

It was sixth grade and she was actually quite matter of fact about it. No embarrassment or anything.

You will never know if she was telling the truth or not. There's a good chance she was - it's 6th grade - and I suspect she thought it was cooler to be matter of fact about it. Or maybe her parents didn't worry her about money and told her that.

 

[Colleen27]

I'm not sure if this has been asked, but do the monthly benefits roll over? If someone shops sales and only gets beans and makes soups for a month and has extra left over, its their's right? Its probably not very common to be able to have alot left over but lets say someone did because they wanted a steak dinner to celebrate a special event the next month. Why do we care? Its not like they get to go back and get more money, they get $X amount of dollars for FOOD, and since steak and seafood are food why should they not be allowed.

Yes, they do. And some people are really good at stretching. Around here, practically everyone has backyard gardens and I know my grocery bill drops by about $100/mo when we're eating mainly from mine (and we eat a lot less meat because I'm loading everything with veggies). I would assume the same is true for at least some of the members of my community who receive food stamps.

 

[tvguy]

Everytime I see someone buying $5.99 a gallon name brand milk instead of $2.25 a gallon store brand milk with vouchers I want to scream.

It will never happen, but I'd just as soon eliminate the cash benefit and just distribute the food directly. But the grocery stores would never stand for it.

Volunteering at the food bank I meet a lot of wonderful people who fell on hard times, and a few who work the system and expect the food bank to only provide their favorite brands.

 

[Missy1961]

Everytime I see someone buying $5.99 a gallon name brand milk instead of $2.25 a gallon store brand milk with vouchers I want to scream.

It will never happen, but I'd just as soon eliminate the cash benefit and just distribute the food directly. But the grocery stores would never stand for it.

Volunteering at the food bank I meet a lot of wonderful people who fell on hard times, and a few who work the system and expect the food bank to only provide their favorite brands.

I guess you didn't read the post a few pages back that mentioned that they may not be able to use their vouchers to buy the cheaper milk because it's not on the approved list. I guess it's just easier to judge.

 

[LBIJim]

So when do we get the post about the lady who couldn't buy dog food on ebt so she bought steak for her dogs? Or how about the one with the lady who buys $300 worth of groceries (or has it gone up to $500 now?) with ebt and goes out and gets in a brand new BMW (or Camri or Jaguar or whatever)? Or, I know, the one where the lady tells the cashier "I really need more money. Guess its time to have another kid".

I know they are coming, they always do.




Most of you here have no idea what is like to live on foodstamps. Even those that "work in the system" many times do not have a clue. Its not easy. Your kids are still normal kids that want treats. You say "they should buy oatmeal". So, if your child hates oatmeal and refuses to eat it, you only have enough money to buy oatmeal or Frosted Flakes for the month. Your kid will eat the Frosted Flakes or will not have breakfast if you get the oatmeal. What are you going to do? Well, why do you expect them to do any different?

Kids will eat cereal for a snack as well as breakfast. Not many will eat oatmeal for a snack. So, she buys enough cereal, she takes care of a meal and snack every day rather than one meal.

Its not excuses its actual facts to say they may not have a way to cook oatmeal. Or mom has to leave for work before the kids get up, cereal is safer than the kid cooking oatmeal.

Do we really want to give the government so much control over one group of society? They are poor so we "upper class" get to tell them how they should feed their kids? Give them education and information but telling them what they should be allowed to make the final choices.

I expected a serious post about a "welfare queen" long before you posted your facetious response. A couple of posts were heading in that direction but stopped short. Your post probably scared away anyone still thinking about it.

" Government should stay out of "our" lives.............but should tell others what to do."

Simple. The people with "power" (who complain about the benefits received by the poor) are the ones receiving it. No one complains too much about the benefits they receive. The only ones we (collective we) don't like are the ones that benefit other people. Anything *I* get is good. Anything *you* get is bad.

LOL.

While I am being somewhat sarcastic, it is, in fact, the truth and why our US budget is in such trouble. No one is willing to give up what *they* get....but we sure love to complain about and micromanage what other people get.

The cynical part of me thinks that there are corporate PACs and other lobbyists out there who DELIBERATELY keep SNAP and other such things in the public's viewfinder so no one looks too closely at corporate welfare, which makes SNAP look like pocket change (with tax credits, etc that go to large, wealthy corporations and their executives).

Yep, and those who complain the loudest about keeping government out of our lives would scream even louder if one of their welfare programs was curtailed. But of course it's OK for government to regulate those less "worthy."

 

[lauradis]

I think it funny, people who preach that tax payers should have the say what's bought with our tax payer money. Do you not realize that people on food stamps pay taxes as well? So many people have BAD misconception about people on foodstamps. Sure there are a few that are bad apples.Many are hard working people that know how to make good choices with the little money foodstamos give them.

In my book your not a tax payer if your tax liability is negative or zero dollars into the system.

 

[bcla]

I guess you didn't read the post a few pages back that mentioned that they may not be able to use their vouchers to buy the cheaper milk because it's not on the approved list. I guess it's just easier to judge.

I've seen people using WIC vouchers. Those are the primary ones that don't account for cost but specify sizes and type of food. I haven't seen anything that specifies brand. They'll typically say something like "1 GALLON MILK - NONFAT OR LOWFAT - NOT ORGANIC". So basically the customer with the voucher has the choice of store brand, name brand, etc. I know what I would gravitate towards if someone else was paying for it. It's human nature to pick the most expensive item if someone else is paying. Here's a picture I found of one:

I actually found the list referred to in that voucher. California's rules say any brand for milk.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/wic...horizedFoodListShoppingGuide-7-5-2011.pdf.pdf

And New York state. Says "Must buy the least expensive of the type of milk on your check", whatever that means. I think it means if it says 1 gallon 1% milk, it's got to be the cheapest of that type in the store.

https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4099.pdf

 

[LBIJim]

I do remember when there were paper food stamps, some recipients would sell them for various amounts. Maybe 25 to 35% cash on the dollar.

And one form of abuse back then was buying something for well under a dollar with a food stamp, then getting cash as change. Then repeating this multiple times a day. One favorite in some of my company's stores was buying a 25c mini Slim Jim meat snack with a food stamp and getting 75c cash.

A few times I told my mother that she should transfer all her assets to me, apply for food stamps, and then join the steak and lobster buying multitudes. Alas, she wouldn't go for it. Besides, she didn't have a Mercedes or Lexus, just a mere Buick Century.

 

[lauradis]

I love how we are so judgemental of people abusing the food stamp program - but check out the budget board and the theme park boards.
Members are all to happy to share tips on how to abuse the fast pass system, get away with sneaking more people than allowed in rooms, passing off your child as younger to avoid paying the more expensive ticket prices, find any loopholes to take advantage of . . .
I could go on but that's all I can think of at the moment.
Yet when we talk about less affluent people taking advantage of loopholes, cheating the system or eating unhealthy foods it's more distasteful or less acceptable.

Really because I see lots of posters telling then not to, that they are wrong or immoral for thinking of doing it.