Missouri may be banning steak and seafood from Food Stamp Program

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

I don't think it rises to that level of conscious malevolence. If you think about it, the logical inverse of the very American belief that anyone who works hard can "make it" is that anyone who isn't making it simply isn't working hard enough. If individual merit is the key to wealth, not circumstances of birth or native ability, then it follows that those mired in poverty are lacking in that merit. To admit otherwise about the poor and needy (at least those who are able-bodied/sound of mind) would also be to admit that we're also limited by circumstances outside of our control, and that goes against our most deeply held cultural myths. I think that's what underlies the viciousness of opposition to social welfare programs. It isn't intentional meanness, it is a reaction to the cognitive dissonance of believing in the American dream in the face of contradictory real-world experiences.

I agree with everything you are saying (and actually wrote something similar to what you posted above in the post of mine that you quoted, but thought I was becoming too esoteric so I deleted that portion), but I do not think they are mutually exclusive. In fact, I believe they are interdependent.

One of my secret shames is that I was a bully growing up. Not intentionally. Never intentionally. But looking back on my childhood and even early adult years, I was. Sometimes physically, sometimes intellectually, sometimes financially, and I never thought I was being mean. I actually don't think most bullies think they are bullies. They generally think they are right, as do we all. And therefore people who are bullies, when faced with that cognitive dissonance, end up being mean. And that is what I hate. And ironically even now, I can see myself doing it in this thread. I am doing exactly what I decry on the other side of the coin, and so I will back away because beating people over the head with my opinions is no more right nor helpful than the reverse.

 

[A_Princess'_Daddy]

This thread is turning too political, let's try and avoid getting it locked.

This thread has been political since its inception. It is now merely pan-political. That having been said, I will back away so it can stay open and the sharing of anecdotes about food stamp abuse can continue for those who enjoy that.

 

[Colleen27]

Put another way, in the medium of the Dis alone, I cannot find any threads that originated on the subject of corporate fraud in the past year but I was able to find over a dozen about food stamp and welfare fraud. It is possible that my search skills are failing me, but the ones on SNAP/"welfare"/"food stamp" fraud were easy to find. If people really want to be concerned with both, the number of threads should theoretically be equivalent. If they want to be concerned relative to the scale of the issue, there should be far more about corporate fraud. But they are not equal, or scaled, and that puzzles me when people then argue that "we can be concerned with both."

I sometimes think that's because people tend to give up on issues they don't feel can be changed. I'm like you - welfare 'abuse', especially in the sense of acceptable/legal use that I might not agree with, isn't something that I get worked up over. Corporate abuses are. But I also acknowledge the near-impossibility of any real change to the rules corporations play by in our money-based political system. So if someone was genuinely concerned with both issues they'd be likely to focus on the one that seems possible to change, not the one that has them lining up against billion dollar giants with teams of lobbyists and lawyers standing ready to block any meaningful regulatory efforts.

And BCLA's point about perception certainly factors in as well. We see food stamp use. We don't see corporate abuse because those benefiting from those abuses aren't living next door to the middle class, or shopping in the same stores, or sending their kids to the same schools. And we understand food stamps; not many people understand the complex devices that the financial industry has devised or the intricacies of the tax loopholes and shelters that allow the wealthiest to pay lower effective rates than the working stiffs.

 

[morgan98]

I don't think it rises to that level of conscious malevolence. If you think about it, the logical inverse of the very American belief that anyone who works hard can "make it" is that anyone who isn't making it simply isn't working hard enough. If individual merit is the key to wealth, not circumstances of birth or native ability, then it follows that those mired in poverty are lacking in that merit. To admit otherwise about the poor and needy (at least those who are able-bodied/sound of mind) would also be to admit that we're also limited by circumstances outside of our control, and that goes against our most deeply held cultural myths. I think that's what underlies the viciousness of opposition to social welfare programs. It isn't intentional meanness, it is a reaction to the cognitive dissonance of believing in the American dream in the face of contradictory real-world experiences.

This is a great post and I agree with what you are saying in theory. Quite frankly, I think where people disagree is with the statement about those who don't make it aren't working hard enough. In this day and age we do have more opportunities and knowledge available to us all. For example, getting a good solid education, not having children out of wedlock or before you can finish your education are two things within peoples' control. However, people choose to not take education seriously and have more children than they can afford. This is a situation that is hard to get out of.

It isn't just working hard, it is having discipline and self control to work through the hard parts. I am really trying not to sound elitist. My mother was born in Italy and immigrated to this country. My grandfather was a baker. They came here dirt poor, lived in a roach infested building, etc. they bartered with friends, my grandmother ironed for people in her home for extra money. They sent their daughters to college. This was not that long ago...late 1950's and early 1960's. Heck, I am 45 and my grandmother was still doing laundry for others when I was 12 years old. They never took government assistance or considered it an option.

All that being said, I absolutely understand the need for social safety nets and no one should go hungry in America in America. However, sometimes poor decision making is what results in people being in this vicious circle, yet we cannot talk about poor decisions. It is a taboo topic.

 

[Mkrop]

I think there is a disproportionate amt of welfare threads on the DIS because people can see this happening quite easily in their everyday life, I only need to look at some family members to see it and get quite frustrated. Where corporate fraud is more subtle and not in your face, more research would be needed for that. People are not "seeing" the corporate fraud touching their daily lives even though it most likely is, but when you only need to look at a cousin, a friend, a neighbor etc to see some fraud, it is easier to discuss.

 

[sasywtch]

<<< Again, try working in the system and seeing what really goes on. Yes, there are some people that need the TEMPORARY assistance that the welfare/food stamp system was designed to help, but it was NEVER set up to be a way of life. The system itself creates the problems by allowing the abuse to happen in the first place. When you give someone something for nothing, it will eventually create a system of entitlement. The system needs to require some "payback" in the form of volunteer work or paid work, along with an education requirement, plain and simple. However, that will never happen because no one wants to admit that the system is what it is.>>>>

I agree with you. I worked for an AFDC (called welfare previously) office, the largest in the area. At that time, you had to come to the office the first of the month to get your check and then wait in line to get the food stamps. Since I worked the front, I dealt with the attitudes (or thankful ones). When I brought the screen up, it had the first issue date on there. The percentage of long time users was 90%. It was a way of life for an extreme amount of people. Working there, you cannot pass judgement and must smile to all even though someone is berating you to your face. The nicest people were those who would tell me they came on hard times and was hoping to get a job soon so they didn't have to do this. The large majority 98% of the rude, demanding people were long time users who "just give me my money so I can get out of here" yelling I heard so often.

I'm not in agreement with limiting to certain foods (other than pre-made). The majority of those that this is a way of life are not interested in learning how to stretch their food dollar. Those few people who came across bad times, yes......those with the way of life......no. (there are exceptions but far and few between). It's wonderful to think the government can make people see the light that this shouldn't be a way of life, eat healthy, etc but until the long time users are made to do so, they aren't going to.

Disclaimer: A few years after working there, my husband left me with 4 children. I had left work to raise the kids, had a medical issue and had to go visit my old place of employment for help. I received enough cash/check to cover the rent and food stamps. I was one that went to an out of the way grocery store so I wouldn't be embarrassed using the food stamps and was one that did buy the oatmeal, hamburger, stretching type foods. Because these benefits are for those with kids, I would not be in favor of limiting some junk foods. Kids are kids and want some cookies like their friends. I did buy some chocolate, cake mixes for birthdays, etc and would hope it wasn't frowned upon.

My solution would be instead of limiting or banning foods, do a better work program. If you are healthy, work xx hours per week in a county sponsored job. I'd rather fund child care for those having to work to receive benefits. The AFDC is ran through the county here. Place people filing at the sheriff's office, working on the roads, learning office jobs at the AFDC office etc. It would not be known as "free money" any longer and then maybe, attitudes would change. I admit, it was rather nice to not work all day and get the money and food for the month. I can honestly see how it can become a way of life and especially for those who grew up that way. It's a cycle that needs to revert back to "in temporary need".

 

[lsyorke]

<<< Again, try working in the system and seeing what really goes on. Yes, there are some people that need the TEMPORARY assistance that the welfare/food stamp system was designed to help, but it was NEVER set up to be a way of life. The system itself creates the problems by allowing the abuse to happen in the first place. When you give someone something for nothing, it will eventually create a system of entitlement. The system needs to require some "payback" in the form of volunteer work or paid work, along with an education requirement, plain and simple. However, that will never happen because no one wants to admit that the system is what it is

https://www.mannafoodbank.org/hunger-101/fns-facts-myths/

 

[CPT Tripss]

Simple-minded, mean-spirited ideas about good poor people vs. bad poor people have a history that goes back many centuries. As early as England’s Elizabethan-era Poor Laws, distinctions between the “deserving” poor — respectable, virtuous folk who were believed to be poor through no fault of their own — and the “undeserving” sort — lazy, dishonest, unmotivated — were encoded into public policy. That ideology persisted, was enforced with particular cruelty during the Victorian period, and came back with a vengeance in the 1980s, when poor-bashing and victim-blaming became all the rage. It persists to this day.

But according to Washington University poverty expert Mark Rank, researchers have found that the behavior of poor people differs little from that of more economically advantaged folks:

You don’t become poor because you’re a terrible person or a defective human being. People are poor because of the way our economy and our society is arranged. As Mark Rank has written, “American poverty is largely the result of structural, rather than individual, failings. There simply are not enough viable opportunities for all Americans.” For example, compared to other rich nations, the U.S. has what is by far the highest proportion of its workers in low-wage jobs. Yet as hard as they work, those workers have found it impossible to work themselves out of poverty.

http://t.washingtonmonthly.com/wash...the-love-of-god-here,52b5d558025312186ca67a38


It's hard to accept this and maintain one's moral superiority

 

[scrapquitler]

What do you think? Too broad for me. What constitutes seafood? Steak? Perhaps it can be set up like WIC that only certain things can be purchased. That makes more sense than banning "steak and seafood".

Differing quotes from the article:



"This is the way I want to live and I don’t really see anything changing," Jason Greenslate explained to Fox. “It’s free food; it’s awesome."

"I don't see how it makes any sense to ban some of these foods. Fish is something that should really be in your diet. And steak, what does that mean in this context?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...steak-and-seafood/?wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1

I think it's kind of dumb because 'steak' can be cheaper than ground beef or chicken breast when it's on sale. Ditto with seafood, which by the way is a good healthy food that is part of a well balanced diet, you know, omega 3s and all. A couple years ago, my family ate lobsters several times a week because that summer, lobsters were cheaper per pound than hot dogs (and far healthier).

 

[smadath]

I become irate when the person in front of me in a grocery store is not ready to pay when the cashier is done checking their items. If you wait until the cashier reads your total before opening your purse to find your wallet, this means you! Or, if you waited until this time to decide you want cigarettes from behind the Customer Service Desk, when the bagger could have gotten them 5 minutes ago. Or, you can't remember which PIN goes with which card and you need to try a half dozen times...

I hate grocery shopping, and I want to leave! (My ice cream's melting, don't ya know.)

I surely hope that when I start glaring at someone and talking to myself in a "stage whisper" that no one mistakenly thinks it's because of what they're paying with, it's how long they're taking to do it. Move it along!

(ok, I'm not usually that bad, but I do have my moments! )