People in 17 states, including Maryland and Virginia, who tried to buy groceries using electronic food-stamp cards were turned away from supermarkets Saturday as a result of a computer outage.
The system failure affected low-income individuals and families who receive food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Women, Infants and Children program (WIC).
Belgian riot police are covered with foam sprayed by Belgian firefighters during a protest for better work conditions in central Brussels October 7, 2013. REUTERS/Yves Herman (BELGIUM - Tags: BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT CIVIL UNREST POLITICS TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)
The week’s best news photos
Here’s a quick way to catch up on the week’s news, through some of our favorite photos.
The outage occurred during a “routine test” of backup systems Saturday morning, Jennifer Wasmer, a spokeswoman for Xerox, which administers the program, said. By late Saturday, access had been restored.
After the system failed, SNAP and WIC beneficiaries in the affected states were unable to buy food using electronic benefit transfers.
“Beneficiary access to programs such as SNAP, TANF, and other programs has been restored to the 17 States where Xerox provides EBT service. Re-starting the EBT system required time to ensure service was back at full functionality,” Wasmer said in a statement.
Courtney Rowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, told the Associated Press that the outage was not related to the government shutdown.
Earlier Saturday, Brian Schleter, a spokesman for the Maryland Department of Human Resources, which provides services to low-income residents, confirmed the problems with the electronic benefits system. He said Maryland officials were in “close communication” with Xerox and were working to restore service as soon as possible.
More than 6,000 Maryland residents received food assistance last month, according to state data. It was unclear how many residents in Maryland were unable to obtain food Saturday. Virginia officials could not be reached for comment Saturday.
Before repairs were made, Wasmer suggested that beneficiaries “work with their local retailers, who can activate an emergency voucher system where available.”
“We appreciate our clients’ patience while we work through this outage as quickly as possible,” she said.
Many people had to walk away from full grocery carts Saturday.
Richard Elwell, who lives in Chevy Chase, said someone he knows went to two grocery stores, and was unable to buy food at either. His first thought when heard about the problem: the government shutdown.
“I was wondering what was going [on],” Elwell said.
But Wasmer said the shutdown was not the problem.
USDA officials have said that food benefits were not in immediate jeopardy from the shutdown. Funds would be available through late October, officials said.
It makes some sense. A lot of the benefits are linked to federal programs, so having one vendor that knows all about them combining the work for all the states to make sure they all meet the same requirements for distribution and reporting and providing economy of scale makes sense.
Seems like there should be some way to isolate the individual states though so that a problem doesn't affect every one of them.
Ouze wrote: It's surprising to me that so many states would use the same vendor.
I wouldn't think so. I mean, if they're the lowest bidder, and have as part of their sales routine that they already service X number of other states...
I have to deal with situations like that. Nevermind that the guys running the ops staff don't know jack about the product they're supporting and can't keep uptime remotely in their SLA. Nothing ever changes.
I don't understand how the Wic people were affected. They don't use electronics for their program they use checks that the a store runs through as a normal check and its sent back to regional headquaters before its sent back to the Wic provider and cash exchanged.
The solution? instead of giving people an EBT card you take a list of the people on EBT and get the Number of people per household (along with age) and every week enough food is delivered to the person/family (comprising of healthy food). That why they don't spend the EBT on junk food.
The EBT program could learn from the WIC program and give people healthy foood
Alternately, many States (notably Texas and Nevada) have moved away from a paper system of checks and vouchers. The conversion of the WIC program to EBT cards has automated a great deal of the process and provides better care for the children and mothers currently using WIC. The cards are similar to consumer credit/debit cards but are exclusively used for purchasing WIC-approved items.
Ninjacommando wrote: I don't understand how the Wic people were affected. They don't use electronics for their program they use checks that the a store runs through as a normal check and its sent back to regional headquaters before its sent back to the Wic provider and cash exchanged.
The solution? instead of giving people an EBT card you take a list of the people on EBT and get the Number of people per household (along with age) and every week enough food is delivered to the person/family (comprising of healthy food). That why they don't spend the EBT on junk food.
The EBT program could learn from the WIC program and give people healthy foood
That just sounds like a horrible Logistical problem. What if the food is not delivered on time? What is no one is there to recieve it and it gets taken if left on the doorstep? Who will deliver it? A new delivery service? Because the USPS isnt going to deliver hundred of boxes of food.
Just limit what you an buy with the card 10% junkfood, 30-40% fresh produce etc etc
Ninjacommando wrote: The solution? instead of giving people an EBT card you take a list of the people on EBT and get the Number of people per household (along with age) and every week enough food is delivered to the person/family (comprising of healthy food). That why they don't spend the EBT on junk food.
The EBT program could learn from the WIC program and give people healthy foood
Do you have any clue how much money that would cost? And for what real benefit?
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Do you have any clue how much money that would cost? And for what real benefit?
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death globally and costs billions in healthcare. The leading cause of cardiovascular disease in the West? Obesity.
Not to mention all the other costs obesity has associated with it.
Delivering healthy food rather than pizza and burgers is a good investment in the long run.
Ninjacommando wrote: The solution? instead of giving people an EBT card you take a list of the people on EBT and get the Number of people per household (along with age) and every week enough food is delivered to the person/family (comprising of healthy food). That why they don't spend the EBT on junk food.
The EBT program could learn from the WIC program and give people healthy foood
Do you have any clue how much money that would cost? And for what real benefit?
You could make participation in the delivery program a requirement to receiving benefits from it.
How is that Mitigating cost? You still need to find people to deliver it, In a refrigerated truck and on time. You would need several hundred more offices then you do know to deal with the deliveries.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is that Mitigating cost? You still need to find people to deliver it, In a refrigerated truck and on time. You would need several hundred more offices then you do know to deal with the deliveries.
Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote: Do you have any clue how much money that would cost? And for what real benefit?
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death globally and costs billions in healthcare. The leading cause of cardiovascular disease in the West? Obesity.
Not to mention all the other costs obesity has associated with it.
Delivering healthy food rather than pizza and burgers is a good investment in the long run.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How is that Mitigating cost? You still need to find people to deliver it, In a refrigerated truck and on time. You would need several hundred more offices then you do know to deal with the deliveries.
You say "cost, cost, cost". I say "jobs, jobs, jobs".
Not really - a major focus of healthcare now is targeting people before they become users of the system. Not only is prevention (in this case by getting people to eat healthy) much cheaper than the cost of treating them for all their health problems further down the road, but you also get a healthier population too.
Jobs which pay more than welfare, allowing people to put that money back into circulation, therefore driving the entire economy. You know, kind of like trickle down economics but something that actually works
If you're paying them their EBT, I think it can be afforded about as well as it is now. You're paying for trucks, gas, storage, and reusable cooler bags.
I wonder how many people are sustained by welfare vs. Meals on Wheels.
Looks like some folks thought that their debt limit was set to "unlimited".
Guess what happened?
Lynd explained the cards weren't showing limits and they called corporate Walmart, whose spokesman said to let the people use the cards anyway. From 7 to 9 p.m., people were loading up their carts, but when the cards began showing limits again around 9, one woman was detained because she rang up a bill of $700.00 and only had .49 on her card. She was held by police until corporate Walmart said they wouldn't press charges if she left the food.
These people are too dumb to realize they're stealing by using a card with their name on it
Looks like some folks thought that their debt limit was set to "unlimited".
Guess what happened?
Lynd says at 9 p.m., when the cards came back online and it was announced over the loud speaker, people just left their carts full of food in the aisles and left.
Something about that really bugs me. Sure, you feth the system. I'm indifferent about that, sometimes even for it in fact. But then when you try to feth the system and get there too late, and then just leave your mess like a four year old, somehow that stops being okay. I might liken such behavior to acting like animals.
Anyone exploiting this should be punished by a restriction on their card over time until the full amount + a % is balanced out to the working people of nation.
The cards have names on, so that shouldn't be an issue. They will need to endure a hardship due to their greed and lack of honesty.
For the good of the nation-state and it's productive citizens.
I think it'd be funny if they didn't get new EBT money until their balance was clear. In which case i would hope people didn't buy things that were perishable.
That just sounds like a horrible Logistical problem. What if the food is not delivered on time? What is no one is there to recieve it and it gets taken if left on the doorstep? Who will deliver it? A new delivery service? Because the USPS isnt going to deliver hundred of boxes of food.
Just limit what you an buy with the card 10% junkfood, 30-40% fresh produce etc etc
USPS already delievers hundreds of boxes of food to peoples doors, its called Nutrisystem and if the USPS gets a Dam box to deliver well its their dam job to do so. that covers rural areas, Now for the large cities. Every Grocery store chain now delivers to peoples houses. Bam done you split the city into regions based around said chains and every week a weeks worth of food is delivered to the people from their closest store. If you cannot be there to pick it up head to the grocery store and pick up the box yourself.
While the above is a very very simplified version it does address some key issues.
A) People on EBT shouldn't be buying junk food, but nothing is in place to stop them, this removes the choice that they get in buying certain foodsif you want to eat Gak thats bad for you, you pay with your own cash not the tax payers
B) People are given the proper portions of healthy food each week, Help maintain a healthier US population. Healthier population = High possibility of lowering health insurance costs.
Screw it. How about we turn everyone on EBT onto nutrisystem. Everyone gets premade meals, Everyone gets the proper meal sizes, Everyone (on EBT) loses weight
What about people that do not want to eat all those vegetables and produce? And what is "Healthy" I think the current system is fine. Also what is the definition of "Junk Food" is jelly and peanut butter Junk food? Are Tortilla chips? What about sweets? Or do poor people not allowed sweets.
hotsauceman1 wrote: What about people that do not want to eat all those vegetables and produce? And what is "Healthy" I think the current system is fine. Also what is the definition of "Junk Food" is jelly and peanut butter Junk food? Are Tortilla chips? What about sweets? Or do poor people not allowed sweets.
The current system is not fine, having worked as a cashier at a safeway over half of the people on EBT would ring up the same dam items every week, ~$200 of doritos, Coke/pepsi, digiorno/tombstone pizzas, oreos (so many dam oreos), 4.5 qts tubs of ice cream. After that i'd ring up their 24pack of pabst blue ribbon or Budwiser and then tell them "have a nice day". They would proceed over to the Customers service desk and buy 1-2 cartons of cigarettes and a few lottery tickets with the cash they had on them. (With EBT you can buy any food item that isnt, Hot, Alcohol, or tobacco)
Now is that everyone on EBT? heck no, there were people on it who actually bought healthy food with it for them and their family.
If people on EBT want to eat junk food they can spend their own cash on it and not tax payers cash.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Anyone exploiting this should be punished by a restriction on their card over time until the full amount + a % is balanced out to the working people of nation.
The cards have names on, so that shouldn't be an issue. They will need to endure a hardship due to their greed and lack of honesty.
For the good of the nation-state and it's productive citizens.
hotsauceman1 wrote: What about people that do not want to eat all those vegetables and produce? And what is "Healthy" I think the current system is fine. Also what is the definition of "Junk Food" is jelly and peanut butter Junk food? Are Tortilla chips? What about sweets? Or do poor people not allowed sweets.
The current system is not fine, having worked as a cashier at a safeway over half of the people on EBT would ring up the same dam items every week, ~$200 of doritos, Coke/pepsi, digiorno/tombstone pizzas, oreos (so many dam oreos), 4.5 qts tubs of ice cream. After that i'd ring up their 24pack of pabst blue ribbon or Budwiser and then tell them "have a nice day". They would proceed over to the Customers service desk and buy 1-2 cartons of cigarettes and a few lottery tickets with the cash they had on them. (With EBT you can buy any food item that isnt, Hot, Alcohol, or tobacco)
Now is that everyone on EBT? heck no, there were people on it who actually bought healthy food with it for them and their family.
If people on EBT want to eat junk food they can spend their own cash on it and not tax payers cash.
And your solution is the force what type of food you want them to eat on them?
hotsauceman1 wrote: What about people that do not want to eat all those vegetables and produce? And what is "Healthy" I think the current system is fine. Also what is the definition of "Junk Food" is jelly and peanut butter Junk food? Are Tortilla chips? What about sweets? Or do poor people not allowed sweets.
The current system is not fine, having worked as a cashier at a safeway over half of the people on EBT would ring up the same dam items every week, ~$200 of doritos, Coke/pepsi, digiorno/tombstone pizzas, oreos (so many dam oreos), 4.5 qts tubs of ice cream. After that i'd ring up their 24pack of pabst blue ribbon or Budwiser and then tell them "have a nice day". They would proceed over to the Customers service desk and buy 1-2 cartons of cigarettes and a few lottery tickets with the cash they had on them. (With EBT you can buy any food item that isnt, Hot, Alcohol, or tobacco)
Now is that everyone on EBT? heck no, there were people on it who actually bought healthy food with it for them and their family.
If people on EBT want to eat junk food they can spend their own cash on it and not tax payers cash.
You bring up a good point but I want to point something out.
Junk food is by and large cheaper than "healthy" food. It also keeps for longer. If you still work at Safeway, I want you to take that same price and try to get it done with healthy food and healthy food alone.
hotsauceman1 wrote: What about people that do not want to eat all those vegetables and produce? And what is "Healthy" I think the current system is fine. Also what is the definition of "Junk Food" is jelly and peanut butter Junk food? Are Tortilla chips? What about sweets? Or do poor people not allowed sweets.
The current system is not fine, having worked as a cashier at a safeway over half of the people on EBT would ring up the same dam items every week, ~$200 of doritos, Coke/pepsi, digiorno/tombstone pizzas, oreos (so many dam oreos), 4.5 qts tubs of ice cream. After that i'd ring up their 24pack of pabst blue ribbon or Budwiser and then tell them "have a nice day". They would proceed over to the Customers service desk and buy 1-2 cartons of cigarettes and a few lottery tickets with the cash they had on them. (With EBT you can buy any food item that isnt, Hot, Alcohol, or tobacco)
Now is that everyone on EBT? heck no, there were people on it who actually bought healthy food with it for them and their family.
If people on EBT want to eat junk food they can spend their own cash on it and not tax payers cash.
You bring up a good point but I want to point something out.
Junk food is by and large cheaper than "healthy" food. It also keeps for longer. If you still work at Safeway, I want you to take that same price and try to get it done with healthy food and healthy food alone.
I'd be okay with the system being more expensive if EBT absolutely enforces "health choices". I would even posit that over the long haul, it'd be cheaper due to lower healthcare costs associated with obesity.
But, then again, how would you even research something like this over the long haul. o.O
You bring up a good point but I want to point something out.
Junk food is by and large cheaper than "healthy" food. It also keeps for longer. If you still work at Safeway, I want you to take that same price and try to get it done with healthy food and healthy food alone.
When I worked at safeway I pretty much ate the following every day with no deviation from it.
for breakfeast
2 Glucerna vinilla shakes with frozen strawberries in a blender for roughly 500 calories (AMAZING)
1 Orange mango Naked juice (i forget but i believe it was between 300-400 calories)
Snack
Fruit cup (100 calories)
Lunch
$2-3 safeway salad usually caesar ~300 calories
Snack
Fruit cup (100 calories)
Dinner
$2-3 safeway salad usually caesar ~300 calories
Total cost came to around ~$82 dollars a week with tax (10% off because i was an employee so roughly $91 regularly).
While the above it not that great it still far better than eatting Doritos, Frozen pizza, and coke 24/7.
You bring up a good point but I want to point something out.
Junk food is by and large cheaper than "healthy" food. It also keeps for longer. If you still work at Safeway, I want you to take that same price and try to get it done with healthy food and healthy food alone.
When I worked at safeway I pretty much ate the following every day with no deviation from it.
for breakfeast
2 Glucerna vinilla shakes with frozen strawberries in a blender for roughly 500 calories (AMAZING)
1 Orange mango Naked juice (i forget but i believe it was between 300-400 calories)
Snack
Fruit cup (100 calories)
Lunch
$2-3 safeway salad usually caesar ~300 calories
Snack
Fruit cup (100 calories)
Dinner
$2-3 safeway salad usually caesar ~300 calories
Total cost came to around ~$82 dollars a week with tax (10% off because i was an employee so roughly $91 regularly).
While the above it not that great it still far better than eatting Doritos, Frozen pizza, and coke 24/7.
That's $91 a week for a single person, is it not?
You're right in that your stuff is healthier, but it would be very difficult for a family of four to have that same kind of 'meal plan' for around $200. It's $364 for a family of 4 at $91.
Kanluwen wrote: That's $91 a week for a single person, is it not?
You're right in that your stuff is healthier, but it would be very difficult for a family of four to have that same kind of 'meal plan' for around $200. It's $364 for a family of 4 at $91.
You can do the above with healthy items at a grocery, as there are coupons for said items and if you go online you can go to certain websites and get even more coupons. While there are many unhealthy items on that person basket, if you saved your coupons for Frozen vegtables along with large bags of boneless/skinless chicken breasts you can save alot of money on those items and use your remaining EBT cash for Fresh fruits.
Agesof the kids? if one is under the age of 5 I can enroll in the WIC program to get food for said child. that leaves 1 adult (myself) and 2 kid, I could cover this with some searching online. there are places that accept EBT and are Bulk buy.
Ninjacommando wrote: You can do the above with healthy items at a grocery, as there are coupons for said items and if you go online you can go to certain websites and get even more coupons. (i know its funny because they have 3 1 gallon things of ice cream but eh its extreme couponing)
Just remember that getting all those coupons takes time, and the people most likely to need them are the least likely to have the time. For example, a single parent working multiple jobs just to pay their bills isn't going to have time to spend hours looking for every possible way to save a bit of money.
Ninjacommando wrote: You can do the above with healthy items at a grocery, as there are coupons for said items and if you go online you can go to certain websites and get even more coupons. (i know its funny because they have 3 1 gallon things of ice cream but eh its extreme couponing)
Just remember that getting all those coupons takes time, and the people most likely to need them are the least likely to have the time. For example, a single parent working multiple jobs just to pay their bills isn't going to have time to spend hours looking for every possible way to save a bit of money.
If i could save 95%+ on my grocery bill i'd make time.
but thats why I suggest just having everything premade and delivered to them, saving them time and gives the people healthy food.
It's hard to make time when you barely have enough hours in the day for work and other essential things. Not everyone has enough free time to post on gaming forums.
but thats why I suggest just having everything premade and delivered to them, saving them time and gives the people healthy food.
As pointed out already that idea has serious problems with logistics. You can't just magically teleport groceries to everyone who needs them, and building a delivery system is going to cost a lot of money compared to just using the existing grocery stores.
It's hard to make time when you barely have enough hours in the day for work and other essential things. Not everyone has enough free time to post on gaming forums.
but thats why I suggest just having everything premade and delivered to them, saving them time and gives the people healthy food.
As pointed out already that idea has serious problems with logistics. You can't just magically teleport groceries to everyone who needs them, and building a delivery system is going to cost a lot of money compared to just using the existing grocery stores.
Everything that is required already exists, How do you think grovery stores get supplies in the first place?, every grocery store in all of the cities i lived in already have delivery programs or they use Local services such as peapod, etc. Getting sent bulk shipments of premade meal for the Grocery stores to deliever or for the people to go pick them up themselves is already inplace. If the Grocery store doesn't have room they can leave the refrigerated trailer out back and pluged in (ever been to a honey baked ham co during the holidays? they do this all the time).
Ninjacommando wrote: Everything that is required already exists, How do you think grovery stores get supplies in the first place?
By a truck that drives directly to the store. You don't seriously think that's a viable option for getting small packages to a lot of houses spread out all over a city, do you?
every grocery store in all of the cities i lived in already have delivery programs or they use Local services such as peapod, etc.
And guess what: that costs money.
Getting sent bulk shipments of premade meal for the Grocery stores to deliever or for the people to go pick them up themselves is already inplace.
So how much are you willing to pay to have the grocery store prepare these meals, store/deliver them, manage the inventory system, etc? Like many proposals for "welfare reform" you're going to very easily reach the point where you're losing money just so you can tell people how to run their lives.
If the Grocery store doesn't have room they can leave the refrigerated trailer out back and pluged in.
So now you're willing to pay the grocery store extra money to keep a refrigerated trailer running 24/7? How exactly is this more efficient than just giving people money to spend normally at the grocery store?
Ninjacommando wrote: You can do the above with healthy items at a grocery, as there are coupons for said items and if you go online you can go to certain websites and get even more coupons. (i know its funny because they have 3 1 gallon things of ice cream but eh its extreme couponing)
Just remember that getting all those coupons takes time, and the people most likely to need them are the least likely to have the time. For example, a single parent working multiple jobs just to pay their bills isn't going to have time to spend hours looking for every possible way to save a bit of money.
If i could save 95%+ on my grocery bill i'd make time.
but thats why I suggest just having everything premade and delivered to them, saving them time and gives the people healthy food.
I'm sorry, but you do seem to be divorced from the reality of what it is to be poor. Truly poor and struggling.
I do agree that some people do live on junk food when they are poor when they do not need to, but as often as not that is down to lack of education than lazyness. They just don't know how to cook. Not that they cannot be botherd to find out, but that they have never had to cook and have never learnt the basics so do not understand what can be done.
People at this level who are trying to work just do not have the time. Yes, you can save money, but to do that you need to buy the magazines, news papers, etc. You need time to find the coupons and you need the education to best exploit them. These are things that many people just do not have. When someone is working 60 hour + weeks and looking after kids there is just not time.
Also, $91 on food? For one person? Thats about £60. Me and my wife spend £80 a week, and we do not need to save money and eat well. In the UK Job Seekers allowance is £57 a week. I think in the US food stamps are something around $35 per person per week on average. Living on that is not easy.
On the delivery thing, I don't know about the US, but in the UK getting food diliverd is a luxury. You get charged extra for it, either through a direct charge or through higher prices. This would become a tax payer footed bill. On top of this you have to wait in for the delivery. Fine when you are middle class stay at home mum. Not so much when you are working 6 days a week.
Also taking away the choice and just giving people box of food, making them different, and removing them from normal society. It causes even more social division.
These are the ones who are going to screw it up for those in real need, and as I said in the other thread, give rise to the stories of welfare kings and queens.
You know this food was getting sold at a cut rate, unless they have big cupboards and freezers at home that can hold 8 carts worth of food.
Relapse wrote: These are the ones who are going to screw it up for those in real need, and as I said in the other thread, give rise to the stories of welfare kings and queens.
Not really. Stories of "welfare kings and queens" exist because of conservative ideology, nothing more. The whole concept is a deliberate attempt to present rare abuses by a minority as representative of the majority and provide justification for cutting welfare programs that conservatives are typically opposed to. If not for that deliberate misrepresentation incidents like this would rarely go beyond the "wow, people are crazy" section of the local news.
Relapse wrote: These are the ones who are going to screw it up for those in real need, and as I said in the other thread, give rise to the stories of welfare kings and queens.
Not really. Stories of "welfare kings and queens" exist because of conservative ideology, nothing more. The whole concept is a deliberate attempt to present rare abuses by a minority as representative of the majority and provide justification for cutting welfare programs that conservatives are typically opposed to. If not for that deliberate misrepresentation incidents like this would rarely go beyond the "wow, people are crazy" section of the local news.
This is the same argument that people bring up with voter fraud. Well, it doesn't happen that much, so why worry about it? It simply follows more with voter fraud because the percentage is considerably lower and doesn't come from a system subsidized by tax payers.
But then again, I fall under the no name brands, no junk food camp of how the SNAP and EBT programs should work.
the "No Name Brands and "No junk food" Is just stupid. you are trying to control what you put in people bodies. A case of soda is going to cost the same no matter the brand. Also how do you conclude what "Name Brand" means.
By the same argument, you should be able to buy paper products with EBT.
After all, if you have the right to enjoy a Pepsi using government assistance funds, surely you have the right to wipe your ass with them?
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the opposite end of the crazy spectrum, my mom was appalled back in the 90s when they moved away from food stamps. Apparently using things resembling credit cards "gave too much dignity to people who needed food stamps," thus, "giving them little incentive to try to get off of them".
Yes... I'm what passes for the liberal black sheep in my family. :(
cincydooley wrote: This is the same argument that people bring up with voter fraud. Well, it doesn't happen that much, so why worry about it? It simply follows more with voter fraud because the percentage is considerably lower and doesn't come from a system subsidized by tax payers.
You're right, it's exactly the same. A rare event is blown completely out of proportion for ideological reasons and then used to justify "solutions" to an imaginary problem. I wish I could remember the details, but one state recently discovered that they were spending more money on trying to prevent fraud than they were losing to that fraud. If that's not a case of "don't worry about it" I don't know what is.
But then again, I fall under the no name brands, no junk food camp of how the SNAP and EBT programs should work.
That would be another one of those bad ideas where it would probably cost more to implement than the amount of "waste". Defining "name brands" and "junk food" is a hopeless mess, and I don't see any clear benefit that justifies getting into that mess.
Relapse wrote: These are the ones who are going to screw it up for those in real need, and as I said in the other thread, give rise to the stories of welfare kings and queens.
Not really. Stories of "welfare kings and queens" exist because of conservative ideology, nothing more. The whole concept is a deliberate attempt to present rare abuses by a minority as representative of the majority and provide justification for cutting welfare programs that conservatives are typically opposed to. If not for that deliberate misrepresentation incidents like this would rarely go beyond the "wow, people are crazy" section of the local news.
Not really what? You don't think people against food stamps aren't going to look at this and run with it? I pretty much have a good idea of the type of people that did this. They're the same kind I used to see on Canal street in New Orleans going along with the copper pipe they stripped out of the bottom of someone's house and selling it to the scrap metal places.
As I said, because of that type, the rest of people needing food stamps are going to get the usual unfair crap thrown at them.
Not really, as in "welfare kings and queens" isn't a story because of people like this. It's a story because of people who will hold up very rare examples of abuse as representatives of welfare in general. Without the need for certain conservatives to manufacture a "welfare is bad" argument looting like this wouldn't screw it up for anyone else because they'd be punished appropriately and that would be the end of it.
And to be clear, I'm not justifying their actions at all. That was theft, plain and simple. All I'm saying is the blame for "making people look bad" lies with the people manufacturing outrage, not a few random thieves and scammers.
I don't understand the idea that you can have a foodstamp system and not tell people what types of food they get to spend the money on... You're already dictating the money has to be spent on food, why not go a step further and dictate that it has to be spent on good food?
I mean, if you're going to assume people can spend their money how they please, why bother having a food stamp system at all? Why not just roll that money in to social security and save on the processing costs?
sebster wrote: I don't understand the idea that you can have a foodstamp system and not tell people what types of food they get to spend the money on... You're already dictating the money has to be spent on food, why not go a step further and dictate that it has to be spent on good food?
Ignoring the moral question it's just not something that's practical to deal with. The current system works because the cost to grocery stores is minimal. You don't have to worry about whether or not a specific product is an acceptable kind of food, you just flag every item in your inventory as "food" or "not food" and the customer pays with their food stamp card just like with a credit card (leaving the non-food part of the transaction to be paid separately). If you want to start making rules about which specific items are allowed you have to convince the store to spend the time and money to decide whether, say, that bag of baked "healthy" chips is junk food or not. The cost and difficulty in dealing with that is probably going to be more than any benefit you get from forcing people to spend that money on "appropriate" food.
sebster wrote: Why not just roll that money in to social security and save on the processing costs?
Because food stamps are a big form of welfare, and not just the obvious kind. The original plan was to just give cash stipends, but the agriculture lobby pushed hard for redeemable stamps (because hey, guaranteed business, and them stamps ain't exactly gonna bounce); which is why the food stamp appropriations are part of the farm bill in the first place. They got behind it just like the insurance industry got behind the ACA, and for the exact same self-serving reason.
Not that I'm complaining, mind you. I generally find corporate welfare odious but in this one specific case, everyone is a winner. hungry people get fed, agriculture has good profits, and the taxpayer money gets spent on something that, in addition to being pretty effective at helping the needy; actually stimulates the economy in a direct and meaningful way.
Anyway, I also don't agree with restrictions greater than what we already have on food stamps. People who need SNAP are poor, but they're not stupid children who don't know how to live their own lives - they're typically not on them for very long. If they want to eat Lucky Charms instead of cheerios - I mean, at some point we need to stop shoveling psychic guano on the neediest among us.,
sebster wrote: I don't understand the idea that you can have a foodstamp system and not tell people what types of food they get to spend the money on... You're already dictating the money has to be spent on food, why not go a step further and dictate that it has to be spent on good food?
I mean, if you're going to assume people can spend their money how they please, why bother having a food stamp system at all? Why not just roll that money in to social security and save on the processing costs?
This is is just my opinion coming in here, but if someone is already in the position of needing help to get food, the supplier would at least want them to get food that will keep them healthy and not needing doctor care as much. I think that might be part of the reason at least. I guess we could look up statistics on eating habits of low income groups to see if they vary widely from upper income, possibly through the CDC.
As I said, just my opinion, and I know there are any number of ways around the system, but there ya go.
sebster wrote: I don't understand the idea that you can have a foodstamp system and not tell people what types of food they get to spend the money on... You're already dictating the money has to be spent on food, why not go a step further and dictate that it has to be spent on good food?
Ignoring the moral question it's just not something that's practical to deal with. The current system works because the cost to grocery stores is minimal. You don't have to worry about whether or not a specific product is an acceptable kind of food, you just flag every item in your inventory as "food" or "not food" and the customer pays with their food stamp card just like with a credit card (leaving the non-food part of the transaction to be paid separately). If you want to start making rules about which specific items are allowed you have to convince the store to spend the time and money to decide whether, say, that bag of baked "healthy" chips is junk food or not. The cost and difficulty in dealing with that is probably going to be more than any benefit you get from forcing people to spend that money on "appropriate" food.
WIC is also a massive pain for the store to deal with. Having to treat food stamps (which are much, much more common) the same way would be a nightmare.
WIC is also a massive pain for the store to deal with. Having to treat food stamps (which are much, much more common) the same way would be a nightmare.
WIC is very stringent, but Food Stamps don't need to be as such. Simple rules. No candy, no booze, no little debbie snacks, no soda, etc... Don't need specifically coded items in it.
djones520 wrote: WIC is very stringent, but Food Stamps don't need to be as such. Simple rules. No candy, no booze, no little debbie snacks, no soda, etc... Don't need specifically coded items in it.
But those rules aren't simple. WIC isn't just a pain because it's specific, it's a pain because you have to have the cashier verify everything before accepting the check. Currently food stamps are efficient for the store because there are so few exclusions and it works just like any other transaction. If you want to have the stores enforcing rules about what counts as "junk food" then you're going to slow things down and you may find that stores are less tolerant of food stamps.
djones520 wrote: WIC is very stringent, but Food Stamps don't need to be as such. Simple rules. No candy, no booze, no little debbie snacks, no soda, etc... Don't need specifically coded items in it.
But those rules aren't simple. WIC isn't just a pain because it's specific, it's a pain because you have to have the cashier verify everything before accepting the check. Currently food stamps are efficient for the store because there are so few exclusions and it works just like any other transaction. If you want to have the stores enforcing rules about what counts as "junk food" then you're going to slow things down and you may find that stores are less tolerant of food stamps.
If that is the case, then so be it.
We shouldn't have things like cashiers getting fired for refusing to sell cigarettes for food stamps. The laws on this stuff needs to change.
You realize that the current food stamp system requires the cooperation of the grocery stores, right? If you make life difficult enough for them that they say "not worth the effort, we're not accepting food stamps anymore" the whole system falls apart. What you're probably going to have to do is pay the stores extra to do it, and now you're at the point where your solution causes more harm than the problem.
We shouldn't have things like cashiers getting fired for refusing to sell cigarettes for food stamps. The laws on this stuff needs to change.
You realize that you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps, right? That store's decision had nothing to do with the laws, and if you look closer you'll probably find that they were fired for being rude to the customer, not for refusing an illegal sale.
You realize that the current food stamp system requires the cooperation of the grocery stores, right? If you make life difficult enough for them that they say "not worth the effort, we're not accepting food stamps anymore" the whole system falls apart. What you're probably going to have to do is pay the stores extra to do it, and now you're at the point where your solution causes more harm than the problem.
We shouldn't have things like cashiers getting fired for refusing to sell cigarettes for food stamps. The laws on this stuff needs to change.
You realize that you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps, right? That store's decision had nothing to do with the laws, and if you look closer you'll probably find that they were fired for being rude to the customer, not for refusing an illegal sale.
Well, the case I mentioned was a Michigan EBT situation, which was state welfare, not exactly the same situation. But if the stores don't cooperate, then they don't cooperate. Not all stores accept WIC already. Maybe it'll come down to the Gov giving subsidies or something to stores that do. If it cuts down on rampant fraud, the saved money would conceivably outweigh that.
You realize that the current food stamp system requires the cooperation of the grocery stores, right? If you make life difficult enough for them that they say "not worth the effort, we're not accepting food stamps anymore" the whole system falls apart. What you're probably going to have to do is pay the stores extra to do it, and now you're at the point where your solution causes more harm than the problem.
We shouldn't have things like cashiers getting fired for refusing to sell cigarettes for food stamps. The laws on this stuff needs to change.
You realize that you can't buy cigarettes with food stamps, right? That store's decision had nothing to do with the laws, and if you look closer you'll probably find that they were fired for being rude to the customer, not for refusing an illegal sale.
Well, the case I mentioned was a Michigan EBT situation, which was state welfare, not exactly the same situation. But if the stores don't cooperate, then they don't cooperate. Not all stores accept WIC already. Maybe it'll come down to the Gov giving subsidies or something to stores that do. If it cuts down on rampant fraud, the saved money would conceivably outweigh that.
And before anyone accuses me of doing the "I got mine" crap, my family is on WIC, so we know first hand what it's like.
djones520 wrote: If it cuts down on rampant fraud, the saved money would conceivably outweigh that.
The point here is that fraud isn't rampant. Fraud is a small problem that is blown vastly out of proportion by conservatives as justification for killing welfare programs that they have an ideological problem with. In reality fraud is such a small problem that anti-fraud measures have ended up costing more money than they save.
It seems like implementing an "approved product list" could be fairly easy since everything has UPCs anyway.
Wouldn't we be able to have the burden of "is this food healthy enough for food stamps" placed on the actual food manufacturers? If they can show that their product meets the requirement, then it goes on a central approved list. Since approval = government money for your food there is an incentive to get that approval.
Stores could then have a simple database that sorts all UPCs into a yes/no system and then applies the money to only the healthy options.
Maybe it wouldn't be that simple, but it seems like there should be a way.
Of course any attempt to add restrictions to force people towards healthier foods has to also include an increase in benefits since healthier food is also more expensive.
hotsauceman1 wrote: What about people that do not want to eat all those vegetables and produce? And what is "Healthy" I think the current system is fine. Also what is the definition of "Junk Food" is jelly and peanut butter Junk food? Are Tortilla chips? What about sweets? Or do poor people not allowed sweets.
Poor people are not allowed a taste of what hard-working, real Americans can eat because they are obviously lazy and stupid. If they were hard-working, real Americans then they wouldn't be poor would they.
We should change EBT so they can only buy dog and cat food in a can. That would teach and shame them to do better!
hotsauceman1 wrote: What about people that do not want to eat all those vegetables and produce? And what is "Healthy" I think the current system is fine. Also what is the definition of "Junk Food" is jelly and peanut butter Junk food? Are Tortilla chips? What about sweets? Or do poor people not allowed sweets.
Poor people are not allowed a taste of what hard-working, real Americans can eat because they are obviously lazy and stupid. If they were hard-working, real Americans then they wouldn't be poor would they.
We should change EBT so they can only buy dog and cat food in a can. That would teach and shame them to do better!
And this is why we can't honestly discuss this topic. *rolls eyes*
d-usa wrote: Wouldn't we be able to have the burden of "is this food healthy enough for food stamps" placed on the actual food manufacturers? If they can show that their product meets the requirement, then it goes on a central approved list. Since approval = government money for your food there is an incentive to get that approval.
Ok, and all of that is going to cost money because now you need the government to supervise the whole process and verify the manufacturer claims.
Stores could then have a simple database that sorts all UPCs into a yes/no system and then applies the money to only the healthy options.
And how much are you going to pay the stores to keep the database current as products change?
Maybe it wouldn't be that simple, but it seems like there should be a way.
The question isn't whether it would be possible to make food stamps only cover "good" foods, it's whether there's enough of a problem with people using food stamps to buy "bad" foods to justify doing it. So far it seems like this is a solution in need of a problem.
So apparently Wal-mart says letting their stores in Louisiana be looted was "the right thing to do" and they will be receiving only $50 in compensation (per customer who ripped them off) as that is the "emergency limit" in the event of an outage per the state of Louisiana.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: So apparently Wal-mart says letting their stores in Louisiana be looted was "the right thing to do" and they will be receiving only $50 in compensation (per customer who ripped them off) as that is the "emergency limit" in the event of an outage per the state of Louisiana.
*shrugs*
Walmart is probably insured against losses, and certainly operates on such a massive scale that the looting isn't going to have any meaningful impact on the company. Might as well claim a bit of moral high ground and talk about "doing the right thing" to let people get food.
d-usa wrote: It seems like implementing an "approved product list" could be fairly easy since everything has UPCs anyway.
Wouldn't we be able to have the burden of "is this food healthy enough for food stamps" placed on the actual food manufacturers? If they can show that their product meets the requirement, then it goes on a central approved list. Since approval = government money for your food there is an incentive to get that approval.
Stores could then have a simple database that sorts all UPCs into a yes/no system and then applies the money to only the healthy options.
Maybe it wouldn't be that simple, but it seems like there should be a way.
Of course any attempt to add restrictions to force people towards healthier foods has to also include an increase in benefits since healthier food is also more expensive.
Actually, it is that simple and even further, most stores ALREADY has the infastructure for this. The problem is, as always, the politics of these sort of things.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So if im on welfare, I cant enjoy a nice Pepsi once and awhile?
Nope. Not with your EBT or SNAP or food stamps. You're on the people's dime, you don't get luxuries. Soda is a luxury. It shouldn't be remotely comfortable to be on it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So if im on welfare, I cant enjoy a nice Pepsi once and awhile?
Nope. Not with your EBT or SNAP or food stamps. You're on the people's dime, you don't get luxuries. Soda is a luxury. It shouldn't be remotely comfortable to be on it.
Poor people are not allowed a taste of what hard-working, real Americans can eat because they are obviously lazy and stupid. If they were hard-working, real Americans then they wouldn't be poor would they.
We should change EBT so they can only buy dog and cat food in a can. That would teach and shame them to do better!
Sure they can. But with their own money. Like they already do for cigarettes and alcohol. Not government money.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So if im on welfare, I cant enjoy a nice Pepsi once and awhile?
Nope. Not with your EBT or SNAP or food stamps. You're on the people's dime, you don't get luxuries. Soda is a luxury. It shouldn't be remotely comfortable to be on it.
So if im on the peoples dime i deserve to be miserable? A bed is a luxury. I don't get to sleep on a bed then huh? do I not get to have hot water because that is a luxery. Look at what your saying, you are saying because someone is on foodstamps, they deserve to me miserable.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So if im on welfare, I cant enjoy a nice Pepsi once and awhile?
Nope. Not with your EBT or SNAP or food stamps. You're on the people's dime, you don't get luxuries. Soda is a luxury. It shouldn't be remotely comfortable to be on it.
So if im on the peoples dime i deserve to be miserable? A bed is a luxury. I don't get to sleep on a bed then huh? do I not get to have hot water because that is a luxery. Look at what your saying, you are saying because someone is on foodstamps, they deserve to me miserable.
No, if your on the peoples dime, you deserve to be cared for. And you should get the necessities that you need. But if you want luxuries you pay for them yourself. Not being able to buy soda doesn't mean your life is miserable. If that is what you need to get enjoyment out of life... well then you've got bigger issues then a lack of money.
No, if your on the peoples dime, you deserve to be cared for. And you should get the necessities that you need. But if you want luxuries you pay for them yourself. Not being able to buy soda doesn't mean your life is miserable. If that is what you need to get enjoyment out of life... well then you've got bigger issues then a lack of money.
Exactly this.
Again, being on social services shouldn't be comfortable.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why the feth shouldnt it? These are people who are stuck in a crapppy situation and looked down upon. The idea of "Generatinal Welfare" is a near myth
See... this is why it's hard to have this sort of conversation...
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why the feth shouldnt it? These are people who are stuck in a crapppy situation and looked down upon. The idea of "Generatinal Welfare" is a near myth
Because luxuries are luxuries. Pepsi gives no real nutritional benefit.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why the feth shouldnt it? These are people who are stuck in a crapppy situation and looked down upon. The idea of "Generatinal Welfare" is a near myth
See... this is why it's hard to have this sort of conversation...
What is "comfortable"?
54" LED TV, 2 Laptops, 3 $400 phones, and cars with $500 rims for every household.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why the feth shouldnt it? These are people who are stuck in a crapppy situation and looked down upon. The idea of "Generatinal Welfare" is a near myth
See... this is why it's hard to have this sort of conversation...
What is "comfortable"?
54" LED TV, 2 Laptops, 3 $400 phones, and cars with $500 rims for every household.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So if im on welfare, I cant enjoy a nice Pepsi once and awhile?
Nope. Not with your EBT or SNAP or food stamps. You're on the people's dime, you don't get luxuries. Soda is a luxury. It shouldn't be remotely comfortable to be on it.
So if im on the peoples dime i deserve to be miserable? A bed is a luxury. I don't get to sleep on a bed then huh? do I not get to have hot water because that is a luxery. Look at what your saying, you are saying because someone is on foodstamps, they deserve to me miserable.
I think you've taken not being able to buy a soda to someplace far off the map.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No. they are saying they don't deserve to be comfortabl. im saying they least deserve some luxuries like soda and cookies.
Apparently your definition of comfrotable varies with others.
A full stomach, a roof over you, a soft place to lay your head. That is all that you really need to be comfortable. Face rotting sugar drinks shouldn't enter this equation.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why the feth shouldnt it? These are people who are stuck in a crapppy situation and looked down upon. The idea of "Generatinal Welfare" is a near myth
I can't tell if you're being serious?
Being on social services shouldn't be comfortable because you're dependent on the state (read: taxpayers) for your livelyhood. You're not entitled to, nor do you deserve, luxury food items.
Then you'd learn how to actually prepare decent meals for your family with that gak. Most libraries offer free cooking courses. Many farmers markets do as well.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Anyone exploiting this should be punished by a restriction on their card over time until the full amount + a % is balanced out to the working people of nation.
The cards have names on, so that shouldn't be an issue. They will need to endure a hardship due to their greed and lack of honesty.
For the good of the nation-state and it's productive citizens.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No. they are saying they don't deserve to be comfortabl. im saying they least deserve some luxuries like soda and cookies.
We wholeheartedly disagree.
You don't "deserve to be comfortable" on social services. In fact, it should be uncomfortable. You should WANT to get off it. That specific lack of comfort should serve as a primary motivating factor to get off of it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why the feth shouldnt it? These are people who are stuck in a crapppy situation and looked down upon. The idea of "Generatinal Welfare" is a near myth
I can't tell if you're being serious?
Being on social services shouldn't be comfortable because you're dependent on the state (read: taxpayers) for your livelyhood. You're not entitled to, nor do you deserve, luxury food items.
Then you'd learn how to actually prepare decent meals for your family with that gak. Most libraries offer free cooking courses. Many farmers markets do as well.
Funny enough, the one bit of "welfare" that I do collect, that list (sans chicken and potatos) pretty much sums up what I am allowed to purchase.
hotsauceman1 wrote: No. they are saying they don't deserve to be comfortabl. im saying they least deserve some luxuries like soda and cookies.
Yes, but you escalated not being able to buy a soda to having no bed or hot water. I was waiting for the next bit where people on food stamps were rooting naked in the fields.
I know you mean well, but I stated in an earlier post, if someone is eating on the taxpayer dime, perhaps they can eat a bit more healthy choices than stuff that would send them to the doctor or dentist on our dime.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why the feth shouldnt it? These are people who are stuck in a crapppy situation and looked down upon. The idea of "Generatinal Welfare" is a near myth
I can't tell if you're being serious?
Being on social services shouldn't be comfortable because you're dependent on the state (read: taxpayers) for your livelyhood. You're not entitled to, nor do you deserve, luxury food items.
Then you'd learn how to actually prepare decent meals for your family with that gak. Most libraries offer free cooking courses. Many farmers markets do as well.
I'd be generous and include flour, salt, baking soda, and maybe white sugar. Yeast would qualify too. Including the items to make bread radically increases the number of variations of still reasonably healthy meals you can make.
I'd be generous and include flour, salt, baking soda, and maybe white sugar. Yeast would qualify too. Including the items to make bread radically increases the number of variations of still reasonably healthy meals you can make.
On the other hand, I suppose carbs are luxuries..
Naw, I'd totally include those, and I meant to, but I didn't know how to group them (baking products?). I'd also include pre made pasta.
In fact, I'd encourage it, especially over prepackaged meals, and especially since carbs are filling.
Honestly, if I was still single, my diet would probably consist of things from that list. I'd be eating a ton of pasta and a ton of rice and chicken.
But my wife like a diverse meal menu.... Tuna steak on the menu tonight..... don't know how I'm going to prepare it yet.
hotsauceman1 wrote: What about people that do not want to eat all those vegetables and produce? And what is "Healthy" I think the current system is fine. Also what is the definition of "Junk Food" is jelly and peanut butter Junk food? Are Tortilla chips? What about sweets? Or do poor people not allowed sweets.
Poor people are not allowed a taste of what hard-working, real Americans can eat because they are obviously lazy and stupid. If they were hard-working, real Americans then they wouldn't be poor would they.
We should change EBT so they can only buy dog and cat food in a can. That would teach and shame them to do better!
And this is why we can't honestly discuss this topic. *rolls eyes*
And yet, what do we see from people a few posts away, the same idea I just skewered in my quote. Mad that I beat you to it?
I will have a serious discussion once we move into serious territory and not just "I got Mine" and moral outrage claptrap.
Everyone knows peopel who are completely demoralized, treated like dogs, and without hope will only work harder to make their lives better. Gee, it's like common knowledge Hotsauceman! Most people on government assistance get off of it again. Therefore, we should make it more miserable because the discomfort we have now isn't making it miserable enough!
And yet, what do we see from people a few posts away, the same idea I just skewered in my quote. Mad that I beat you to it?
I will have a serious discussion once we move into serious territory and not just "I got Mine" and moral outrage claptrap.
Everyone knows peopel who are completely demoralized, treated like dogs, and without hope will only work harder to make their lives better. Gee, it's like common knowledge Hotsauceman! Most people on government assistance get off of it again. Therefore, we should make it more miserable because the discomfort we have now isn't making it miserable enough!
I'm curious sometimes if you read what you type before you click to post. Like DJones said, it's impossible to discuss this like adults with you when you're dealing in such outlandish hyperbole.
You want more? Work. For. It. Have some accountability. At my wife's school, when a kid forgets their lunch money, they can get free lunch from the cafeteria. They get some PB&J and a piece of fruit. Guess how many of them forget their lunch or lunch money two days in a row?
hotsauceman1 wrote: No. they are saying they don't deserve to be comfortabl. im saying they least deserve some luxuries like soda and cookies.
We wholeheartedly disagree.
You don't "deserve to be comfortable" on social services. In fact, it should be uncomfortable. You should WANT to get off it. That specific lack of comfort should serve as a primary motivating factor to get off of it.
The Primary reason people dont leave is because it is it uncomfortable. It is because it is hard to have a job where you can feed kids if you are alone in raising them. People rarely stay one welfare bacause it is all candy. It is embarassing to ask "How do I do EBT with this machine"
hotsauceman1 wrote: No. they are saying they don't deserve to be comfortabl. im saying they least deserve some luxuries like soda and cookies.
Yes, but you escalated not being able to buy a soda to having no bed or hot water. I was waiting for the next bit where people on food stamps were rooting naked in the fields.
I know you mean well, but I stated in an earlier post, if someone is eating on the taxpayer dime, perhaps they can eat a bit more healthy choices than stuff that would send them to the doctor or dentist on our dime.
He was saying that they dont deserve to be comfortable, I was trying to say that "Comfotable" is very subjective, Maybe it is OOT comparison. And yes they could afford to eat healthier foods. My cousin with four kids does. She made great meals before she left welfare. Healthy and good(She did have her own garden too) but every once in awhile her kids wanted soda, or she was too sick to cook so she threw in a frozen pizza. What im trying to say is that banning those items just seems spiteful to those who are already in a crap situation..
Also, Newsflash, you are living of taxpayers money no matter who you are. the government subsidizes so many things.
The Primary reason people dont leave is because it is it uncomfortable. It is because it is hard to have a job where you can feed kids if you are alone in raising them. People rarely stay one welfare bacause it is all candy. It is embarassing to ask "How do I do EBT with this machine"
I have to be honest: I have no idea what you mean here. Your statement seems kinda contradictory. Embarassed? Work your way to a place where you don't have to use an EBT card.
She made great meals before she left welfare. Healthy and good(She did have her own garden too) but every once in awhile her kids wanted soda,
Awesome. Buy it with your other money. Not the EBT money. The same as alcohol. Or Tobacco.
Also, Newsflash, you are living of taxpayers money no matter who you are. the government subsidizes so many things.
I'm looking at all of my bills, and I'm trying to figure out what I'm "living off of" that includes taxpayer money. There are some things we utilize. Public roads? Libraries? I don't have any kids, so not public schools... Besides, my wife and I are putting into that taxpayer coffer, so we SHOULD benefit from those services. But I'm hardly "living off of" any of it.
I wish the gov't subsides my student loans. They don't.
It is not always easy to work your way out of having to use an EBT card. first the jobs you do find pay so little foodstamps are better. Second, what if you have 3 kids? Then what if one gets sick and you have to stay home. You act like it is easy to just walk up and get out of poverty.
hotsauceman1 wrote: It is not always easy to work your way out of having to use an EBT card. first the jobs you do find pay so little foodstamps are better. Second, what if you have 3 kids? Then what if one gets sick and you have to stay home. You act like it is easy to just walk up and get out of poverty.
It's pretty easy to not have 3 kids though, isn't it? And free.
The jobs you can find are based on your education. Which, if you're poor, you can also improve for very little. I have a friend that's a single mom with no degree and is under 25 that was able to get a full time job paying more than minimum, and now she's putting herself through night school. She busts her ass.
So I'm very aware that it isn't easy. Very. But foodstamps and EBT shouldn't pay for for luxury items, of which candy and soda are.
What money, if you are living off foodstamps you tend to not have other money. You tend to have money for rent/bills and for clothes or things like that.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I think they should. Let people who are in a crap situation atleast of a candy bar and soda every once in awhile.
Cool. Then they can spend their own money. Like with alcohol. Or Tobacco. Or Fast Food.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: What money, if you are living off foodstamps you tend to not have other money. You tend to have money for rent/bills and for clothes or things like that.
Well that's rarely true.
Umm....yu cant even buy food at fastfood places with EMT
So tell me this. Why does living on taxpayer money not entitle someone to soda. Why can someone, just because they are on food stamps, something that is embarassing to all hell, not have a soda.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Umm....yu cant even buy food at fastfood places with EMT
If I can't buy a cheeseburger and fries with EBT, foodstamps, WIC, w/e then why should I be allowed to buy a candy bar or soda? These are not nutritional things, which is what these systems are designed to do, provide nutritional foodstuffs to people that would not normally be able to afford these.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So tell me this. Why does living on taxpayer money not entitle someone to soda. Why can someone, just because they are on food stamps, something that is embarassing to all hell, not have a soda.
Because it's not healthy. If someone came out with peer reviewed studies that said that consuming 1 soda a day was actually the key to human health in American the fine, give them 1 soda a day. But if you're unable to afford food at a grocery store and would prefer to ruin your health with candy and soda then I don't want to pay for you.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So tell me this. Why does living on taxpayer money not entitle someone to soda. Why can someone, just because they are on food stamps, something that is embarassing to all hell, not have a soda.
Pull the wax out of your eyes. No one is saying they cannot have it. What we are saying is they cannot buy it, with OUR MONEY. Those food stamps are not theirs. That is money that the rest of us gave to them, so they can do things like eat. Stuff like soda provides no nutritional value. Which means it is a pure luxury. Our tax dollars do not go to providing luxuries to people. They go to providing necessities. There is not a single thing necessary about a coke and hershey bar.
If they want it, then put an extra 15 minutes in at work.
If that is all they are drinking yes. But why not one every once in awhile. Im not saying they should be able to but nothing but candy and soda with it. What im saying is that where is the harm in allowing a small amount of it?
hotsauceman1 wrote: If that is all they are drinking yes. But why not one every once in awhile. Im not saying they should be able to but nothing but candy and soda with it. What im saying is that where is the harm in allowing a small amount of it?
Again... because it's not healthy... The 2.50 they spend on a 20oz Coke and a Hershey bar once a month is 2.50 that isn't going to things that are needed to keep them alive and healthy...
Then please explain why we should do it instead of just asking us what the harm is in allowing candy and soda to be used via EBT/foostamps/etc... Let's start there because I don't think I've seen you suggest why we should allow it while the three of us are saying why we shouldn't allow it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: If that is all they are drinking yes. But why not one every once in awhile. Im not saying they should be able to but nothing but candy and soda with it. What im saying is that where is the harm in allowing a small amount of it?
Only because you're missing the point of the entire argument.
Point in fact: The SNAP program is the new name for the 'food stamps' program in the United States. SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.
Notice my emphasis. Nutritional. Soda is not.
The SNAP Website has TONS of recipes on it. TONS. Nutritional ones. There are no recipes for Soda. Or Candy. They're bad for you, and they cost money that could go towards something of value and substance.
$2.50 for a Pepsi and a Snickers? gak, that's a whole gallon of milk. Thats 2 dozen eggs. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Ok, 1: I think we should allow it because one once in awhile is not harmful. Like all "Unhealthy" foods if you have one once in awhile it is not bad, it isnt good but it is not bad. 2: People on welfare, living off the state are in a crap situation. They live in crap situations and constantly get embarrased and shamed for being in that situation. Let them have a soda, they dont have much else to look forward to. 3: Living on welfare does not meean you are a mooch. Sometimes with kids, school or other things like that that can prevent you from working, it is the best option. My cousin hurt his leg on the jb and cannot work. He is living off EBT. All he has to look forward to is a soda and sitting infront of the TV. Why take that from him? Also, most places over here sell soda for 1$, and milk for 8$
hotsauceman1 wrote: What money, if you are living off foodstamps you tend to not have other money. You tend to have money for rent/bills and for clothes or things like that.
But you don't need much money for rent, as you can get government subsidized housing. The requirement for that is to not have income exceeding 30% of the area's median.
For STL, that would be about 15,000. That comes out to about 7.37/hour, full time. That's about $1153 a month, before taxes (that you'll get all of back).
So two part time McJobs and you can still have housing assistance. It looks like they'll subsidize roughly 30% of the housing payment. That means that, for the 2 bedroom 1 bathroom apartment I just found at $595/month, you pay about $416/month for it.
You have electricity. That runs you roughly $86/month in St Louis per Ameren's site.
You don't need a car, because you work two McJobs. You can find those on every street corner, so it's not like you have to drive to work.
Phone? $30-50/month, depending on your plan. Even less if you go with a prepaid.plan.
Since you're under $1211, you manage to still qualify for EBT too.
So, at this point, I have rent, phone, electricity, and a phone covered, and I have $591/month left over to spend on anything else needed. Oh, and I also get however much food subsidized by EBT still!
On a personal note: I really have a problem with wealth inequality, but I really feel like these arguments you keep making about deserving Pepsi and junk food off of EBT are silly and devalue the significant and insightful comments that are actually made about the vast difference in wealth between the poorest guy and the richest one.
Hey hotsauce, this is pulled from a HuffPost Article linked in another thread:
3.Food stamps for alcohol and junk food. Though they were intended to ensure hungry children received healthy meals, taxpayer-funded food stamps were instead spent on fast food at Taco Bell and Burger King; on non-nutritious foods such as candy, ice cream, and soft drinks; and on some 2,000 deceased persons in New York and Massachusetts. Food stamp recipients spent $2 billion on sugary drinks alone. Improper SNAP payments accounted for $2.5 billion in waste, including to one exotic dancer who was making $85,000 per year.
1. Determine once in a while. Once a day? Once a week? Once 1. a month? What is it?
2. You still haven't responded to why they can't buy one with their own money, as opposed to mine.
3. I haven't said it means that. I accept welfare. My father grew up on it. But we've also striven to rise ourselves above it. I will be off all forms of welfare next year. You know what? With what I get, I've never once bitched that I have to buy Shredded Wheat cereal, instead of Lucky Charms. I've never said my life was crap, and I'm so depressed because I couldn't use other peoples money to pay for something I didn't need. I've been thankful for the assistance I've had, because there have been days where that assistance was the only way I could make sure my children were fed. I was happy for what I got, and I didn't sit around and bitch about not getting more.
Maybe Im wrong. I dont know. I just feel alot of this "You cant have this, or this or this" idea from food stamps is just a "I have mine, why should you have yours" mentality I see on dakka alot and hate
hotsauceman1 wrote: My cousin hurt his leg on the jb and cannot work. He is living off EBT. All he has to look forward to is a soda and sitting infront of the TV. Why take that from him?
His hurt leg prevents him from working at all? I'm sorry, I can't say I can feel a ton of sympathy for someone that just sits at home in front of the TV all day, so I don't know how good an example that is.
Also, most places over here sell soda for 1$, and milk for 8$
Where in the US are you paying $8 for a gallon of milk? Hawaii? Alaska maybe? I have trouble believing that, especially considering the national average is hovering around $3.50.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Maybe Im wrong. I dont know. I just feel alot of this "You cant have this, or this or this" idea from food stamps is just a "I have mine, why should you have yours" mentality I see on dakka alot and hate
And you'd notice that half of these comments are coming from dudes also trying to help the guy in the other thread (that you're also participating in) find a job.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Maybe Im wrong. I dont know. I just feel alot of this "You cant have this, or this or this" idea from food stamps is just a "I have mine, why should you have yours" mentality I see on dakka alot and hate
No one's arguing that the service shouldn't exist. I'll happily pay in a part for someone to eat to live. The problem is that American's don't eat to live, it's the other way around.
The purpose of the plan is to make sure you can survive. Nothing more, nothing less. Drinking crap drinks might make you feel good, but it's not helping you survive. Drinking them to an extreme (which is easier than you'd think) is actually doing the opposite, and is probably as bad for you as drinking large amounts of alcohol.
I don't like the Dakka "got mine, feth you" groupthink either, but this is seriously the wrong place to make that stand.
sorry, I meant 2 for 8$, that is how I alway buy it so I remembered that. And his skillset(Truck Driver) He cant. And by hurt I mean hurt hurt. several surgeries and massive amounts of pain killers everyday for his leg.
hotsauceman1 wrote: sorry, I meant 2 for 8$, that is how I alway buy it so I remembered that. And his skillset(Truck Driver) He cant. And by hurt I mean hurt hurt. several surgeries and massive amounts of pain killers everyday for his leg.
Then he's the kind of person that SHOULD get unemployment and SNAP until he can work again. But that doesn't mean he should get to buy non-vital, non-nutritional food with it. No one is saying it shouldn't exist, brosef. The government is about to spend BILLIONS on the Affordable Healthcare Act. BILLIONS, in part to treat problems that teaching foundational nutrition would curb in many instances.
The SNAP website looks great. It's full of healthy recipes, and healthy options, and healthy everything. The primary photo is of a women buying produce. The present First Lady has made the "Get Moving" program a foundational piece of her tenure as the First Lady. So why then, if the program puts on that facade, would you even let people purchase garbage food with your "Nutritional Supplement" program?
hotsauceman1 wrote:Maybe Im wrong. I dont know. I just feel alot of this "You cant have this, or this or this" idea from food stamps is just a "I have mine, why should you have yours" mentality I see on dakka alot and hate
Sacrifices have to be made. I've cut out 90% of my luxuries because I can't afford them. I gave up on Netflix, Xbox Live, most of my hobby purchases (bought some magic cards with money I'd been saving up), and satellite tv (I mostly just miss AMC and the sports stuff). I have my cell phone because I need it for work and I have internet because my job occasionally needs me to have it, and my dad has to have it for his job. If your cousin is out of work then he might have to give up soda until he's healthy enough to work again and can start getting those luxuries back. No one is saying he shouldn't have SNAP or other things to give him the food he needs to live, but we're just arguing that he shouldn't be allowed to spend 'our' money on things that don't keep him alive but in fact can make him unhealthy (especially if he's too injured to move off the couch and can't work them empty calories off.
Edit to the above section: I make far too much to be on EBT/SNAP etc... I'd love a soda (if I still drank them ) but I don't ask for people to buy me a 24 pack of Bud Light if I want to get drunk on the weekend, I man up and drink a few 40oz
hotsauceman1 wrote:sorry, I meant 2 for 8$, that is how I alway buy it so I remembered that. And his skillset(Truck Driver) He cant. And by hurt I mean hurt hurt. several surgeries and massive amounts of pain killers everyday for his leg.
Shouldn't that stat disgust you? 8 bucks for 2 gallons of milk yet you can get cheap pop for a dollar. There's a reason why 1 costs as much as it does and the other is dirt cheap because 1 offers nutritional value and the other is just carbonated water, caramel coloring, and high fructose corn syrup.
Alfndrate wrote: Sacrifices have to be made. I've cut out 90% of my luxuries because I can't afford them. I gave up on Netflix, Xbox Live, most of my hobby purchases (bought some magic cards with money I'd been saving up), and satellite tv (I mostly just miss AMC and the sports stuff). I have my cell phone because I need it for work and I have internet because my job occasionally needs me to have it, and my dad has to have it for his job. If your cousin is out of work then he might have to give up soda until he's healthy enough to work again and can start getting those luxuries back.
.
See, this is the think that irks me the most about parts of this conversation. When I got laid off from my job, we had to do the exact same thing, Alf. And I didn't think anything of it. We had to cut our spending so that it was in balance with the much lower amount of money we were earning. We switched almost entirely to store brand food. We couponed a LOT harder than we do now. We didn't have cable for half a year. We never went out to eat. Etc, Etc.
You don't have a right to tons of things. You simply don't. And Soda is on that list.
See, this is the think that irks me the most about parts of this conversation. When I got laid off from my job, we had to do the exact same thing, Alf. And I didn't think anything of it. We had to cut our spending so that it was in balance with the much lower amount of money we were earning. We switched almost entirely to store brand food. We couponed a LOT harder than we do now. We didn't have cable for half a year. We never went out to eat. Etc, Etc.
You don't have a right to tons of things. You simply don't. And Soda is on that list.
The company my dad worked for folded when I was in high school. I gave my parents money from my part time job, and among various other cutbacks, we (the kids) learned to like iced tea and water instead of soda, because it was cheaper.
I don't think they actually even went on any of the aid programs other than unemployment.
hotsauceman1 wrote: sorry, I meant 2 for 8$, that is how I alway buy it so I remembered that. And his skillset(Truck Driver) He cant. And by hurt I mean hurt hurt. several surgeries and massive amounts of pain killers everyday for his leg.
quick question. where was he working before he was injured? cause if he has a Class A he could of been working In north dakota driving equipment/supplies around the oil field towns... they always need new drivers and you can make nearly 6 figures your first year and can make over 6 figures your 2nd and so forth. also once his leg is healed tell him to head out there. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/28/pf/north_dakota_jobs/ granted this is 2 years ago but its still like that up there)
cincydooley wrote: It's pretty easy to not have 3 kids though, isn't it? And free.
So what do you do if you already have the kids and then you lose your job/your spouse that was the primary income for the family divorces you/etc? Put them up for adoption so you can spend all of your time trying to work your way out of poverty?
djones520 wrote: Pull the wax out of your eyes. No one is saying they cannot have it. What we are saying is they cannot buy it, with OUR MONEY. Those food stamps are not theirs. That is money that the rest of us gave to them, so they can do things like eat. Stuff like soda provides no nutritional value. Which means it is a pure luxury. Our tax dollars do not go to providing luxuries to people. They go to providing necessities. There is not a single thing necessary about a coke and hershey bar.
And the point you keep missing is that you're talking about spending a lot of money to enforce good behavior. How much extra are you willing to pay to prevent people on food stamps from buying the occasional luxury? Are you ok with spending $5 to prevent them from having a $1 candy bar once a month? Because I still haven't seen the evidence that buying "bad" food is so common that adding a bunch of new restrictions to stop it is anything other than a spiteful "stop being happy".
I realize you guys are right. Ok. So I was working at the register today. At my work(I work at a campus Cafeteria) there are regalements. 7$ a day for food from a campus eatery a day. for 5 days. One of my co-workers comes in and uses hers to buy 3 bags of chips and a soda on those regalements.....Me and her work in the same place, the same hours and the same time. She gets 7$ a day for food when I bring my lunch and have 10$ a week at school for drinks and the occasional snakes. I know realize people o this alot. Do nothing but use free 7$ to buy drinks or chips. 7$ a day for 5 days......I know realize you guys are right
Peregrine, your ability to completely ignore salient points in a conversation is admirable. You're really impressive at it.
As to the three kids situation: A: that ex spouse will owe you child support, B: there are plenty of programs that provide child care subsidies up to 100% so you can work.
$2B in EBT spent on sugary drinks. If costs $1.5B to prevent it, do, it. That's $500MM better spent elsewhere.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I realize you guys are right. Ok. So I was working at the register today. At my work(I work at a campus Cafeteria) there are regalements. 7$ a day for food from a campus eatery a day. for 5 days. One of my co-workers comes in and uses hers to buy 3 bags of chips and a soda on those regalements.....Me and her work in the same place, the same hours and the same time. She gets 7$ a day for food when I bring my lunch and have 10$ a week at school for drinks and the occasional snakes. I know realize people o this alot. Do nothing but use free 7$ to buy drinks or chips. 7$ a day for 5 days......I know realize you guys are right
If it can be abused, it will be. Sad fact of life. Make it harder to abuse, less abuse will occur.
Without any flour or sugar, they're going to have a hard time baking the cake you wish to let them eat.
But if we give them access to sugar they can develop their own forms of soda! We can't have that can we? They might create something better than Cheerwine!
But if we give them access to sugar they can develop their own forms of soda! We can't have that can we? They might create something better than Cheerwine!
hey you leave my Coke'd Cherry drink alone, moved down south a year ago and i love the stuff.
hey you leave my Coke'd Cherry drink alone, moved down south a year ago and i love the stuff.
Cheerwine is starting to get into the northern markets via the "Old Carolina BBQ" joint... the Cheerwine alone makes the little journey to fast food bbq worth it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Ok,
1: I think we should allow it because one once in awhile is not harmful. Like all "Unhealthy" foods if you have one once in awhile it is not bad, it isnt good but it is not bad.
2: People on welfare, living off the state are in a crap situation. They live in crap situations and constantly get embarrased and shamed for being in that situation. Let them have a soda, they dont have much else to look forward to.
3: Living on welfare does not meean you are a mooch. Sometimes with kids, school or other things like that that can prevent you from working, it is the best option. My cousin hurt his leg on the jb and cannot work. He is living off EBT. All he has to look forward to is a soda and sitting infront of the TV. Why take that from him?
Also, most places over here sell soda for 1$, and milk for 8$
