This is not a good thing.
There are just so many things indicative of our national decline in the first sentence of this article:
More and more U.S. restaurants say they want to be allowed to accept food stamps as the entitlement program continues to grow.
This is supposed to benefit the homeless, the disabled, and the elderly. Would they get special food stamps to distinguish them from the hale, young, and healthy recipients living in their own homes?
How would spending more (sometimes triple or more) the cost for the same food eaten at home benefit food stamp recipients- many of whom need to learn how to be more thrifty, not less?
Why is it a taxpayer's responsibility to pay for dinners out for others?
The homeless, disabled, and elderly can't eat fruit, cheese, lunchmeat, applesauce, yogurt (it even comes in a tube so they don't need a spoon), peanut butter and jelly, tuna fish (they even make it in those packets with crackers and mayo included), cherry tomatoes, canned pears, nuts, cans of coconut milk, bottles of juice and milk, and tortillas with cream cheese (you don't really even need a spoon to spread the cream cheese)?
Kelly Brownell, director of Yale's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, said encouraging more people to eat fast food is not good for their health.
But Edward Cooney of the Congressional Hunger Center said, "(Opponents) think going hungry is better? I'm solidly behind what Yum! is doing."
What a dishonest and disingenuous strawman. Cooney thinks crippling people's minds to foster a permanent dependent class of grasshoppers for the ants to support is better? I think teaching these people how to cook would be better. Requiring some demonstration of an ability to budget would be better. Learning to save would be better. Learning to calculate the cost of that restaurant meal vs the same meal eaten at home would be better. Learning about nutrition and health would be better.
But you know what? The government is not the best teacher of any of those things, because it's rather demonstrably ignorant of all of them itself. It can't budget and it doesn't save. It rewards profligacy and punishes restraint.. It sold us trans-fats and the lipid hypothesis for decades, giving heart attacks to an untold number of people who thought they were eating 'healthy.'
The government track record is wretched in all these areas. What makes us think they are any good at helping hungry people with useful, beneficial to them, long-term solutions?
I see how this benefits the restaurants, of course. Although their short term interest is long term stupid, because kids who grow up eating out on food stamps are not likely to grow up to be motivated employees of anybody, and those who have jobs will see their taxes continue to rise to pay for the government's costs in its ongoing efforts to create government dependents of us all.
P.S. As Harmony reminds readers in the comments, we are no strangers to poverty ourselves. My guess is I've been poorer and lived with more severely reduced straits than any of my rush to judgment critics. We've lived with no power because we couldn't pay for the deposit (as a child I also had my power shut off because my dad didn't pay the utility bill). I've been without food because we had no money for groceries, and we've been reduced to looking for change in the street if we wanted to come up with enough funds for a load of laundry. I've washed cloth diapers in the bathtub because I didn't have money any other option. I've worn eyeglasses long past my need for a new prescription (years past), and I've not taken advantage of Doctor prescribed and insurance approved physical therapy because we couldn't swing the weekly twelve dollar co-pay. I have some very real experiences with poverty that give me a a clear understanding of what it's like to live like this.
My husband now manages four grocery stores, and he knows better than most what food stamps dollars are buying.
P.S. As Harmony reminds readers in the comments, we are no strangers to poverty ourselves. My guess is I've been poorer and lived with more severely reduced straits than any of my rush to judgment critics. We've lived with no power because we couldn't pay for the deposit (as a child I also had my power shut off because my dad didn't pay the utility bill). I've been without food because we had no money for groceries, and we've been reduced to looking for change in the street if we wanted to come up with enough funds for a load of laundry. I've washed cloth diapers in the bathtub because I didn't have money any other option. I've worn eyeglasses long past my need for a new prescription (years past), and I've not taken advantage of Doctor prescribed and insurance approved physical therapy because we couldn't swing the weekly twelve dollar co-pay. I have some very real experiences with poverty that give me a a clear understanding of what it's like to live like this.
My husband now manages four grocery stores, and he knows better than most what food stamps dollars are buying.
P.P. S. I am even more vehemently opposed to corporate welfare. There's a fabulous explanation and example of all that is wrong with this handmaiden to crony capitalism here.
And P. P. S.- this post is actually (in my mind, anyway) a continuation of this post.
I disagree. I think we have to be reasonable about what people's lives are like right now, and how people can get out of multigenerational welfare dependent single mother-headed families. They have to work, they have to put their kids in care, they have to drive to all those places, they have very little if any family support. They can't prepare healthy food also - and also get enough sleep and also keep their houses clean and decent. Something's gotta give.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if we had any institutions set up to compensate women at home with small children for functional homemaking, but we don't and I can't even imagine how we'd get there. These people have to be integrated into society in the ways that are actually available, and that means work outside the home. Subsidizing restaurant meals for a single mother working outside the home isn't really any different from subsidizing her childcare. What you're subsidizing isn't an occasion or a luxury, it's her outsourcing the shopping, meal prep, and cleanup.
I think there's a case to be made for Spartan-style state cafeterias at this point, honestly, except that given how insanely evil and corrupt big ag and how desperately stupid government nutritionists are, it is much better to give people these kinds of sub-cash semi-currencies so there are at least some market pressures at work. I think the Singapore system is worth looking at - the apartments that ordinary people live in are in towerblocks that are owned by the state, and prepared food at affordable prices is subsidized by the rents on food stands on the ground floor being kept low.
There is a broad consensus that the state provide people with a minimum living standard. I don't like it, you don't like it, but we are such a tiny minority we have to accept that we lose. The question isn't whether this support will be provided, the question is whether it will be run in a catastrophically stupid manner or just in a manner that places a drag on everything. WIC, for example: catastrophically stupid. Food stamps for prepared food? This is not so bad.
Mercy, what kind of mercy is this? We all know food dollars don't go nearly as far at a restaurant as they do at home. So they will be getting less value for their dollar. Or do they get paid more for eating out than for cooking at home- unlike the real world, further reinforcing the artificial bubble government welfare creates?
ReplyDeleteAnd most of the welfare moms I know? They don't actually have jobs. Do taxpayers have to pay for them to eat out, too?
As for getting out of multigenerational welfare families- I don't see how making it even easier to be on welfare is going to fix that. We have multigenerational welfare families in the first place because the government fosters a dependent class by creating a welfare mindset where it takes more work and costs much more to get out of that trap than to stay in. Paying people to eat convenience foods at restaurants will only further the problems.
And actually, food stamps do pay for prepared food already. Those working mothers can (and do, as do most other welfare recipients the HM sees in four stores) buy frozen and canned dinners. Frozen pizzas, t.v. dinners, frozen pot pies, frozen chicken strips, bagged salads (although these are rarely chosen), chips, cookies, ice-cream, cokes, frozen burritoes, tacos, frozen lasagna- all of this is already available on food stamps. I see no advantage to teaching little children they can also go to restaurants 'for free' just so long as they don't get jobs.
And outsourcing meal prep, planning, and clean-up? That most definitely is a luxury for everybody else. Why is it that being poor somehow makes this a right?
ReplyDeleteI guess what offends me most about all of this is that as a stay-at-home mom, who homeschools her children (thereby keeping them out of our 'fantastic' public school system), I can't win for losing. People call me lazy, when in fact I don't stop working during the day until it's time for bed (well after 10pm folks). School with the kids, chores, caring for our garden (which saves us a bundle, let me tell you!), sewing our own clothes, couponing like mad (and handmaking most of our own food)-- it all adds up to a savings that most people cannot imagine.
ReplyDeleteOur family would take a larger tax hit IF I was out in the workforce and essentially lose out. Couple that with our inability to afford daycare (most second earners are really "earning" for their daycare providers), it's easy to see why those single moms (and yes, I feel like that's a mistake too--don't get me going on how much I'd love to see people being responsible for their marriages and children!)end up using daycare assistance (boy, that one boils my blood!), food stamps, etc. But us? Out here being all responsible-like? Being in a situation where we "qualify" for FS and WIC, and EBT cards but choose to make it in the world on our own?
We get to watch those "less fortunate than us" eat out on food stamps, fill carts with what I would truly call junk, and feel entitled about it. I also get to hear about how it's not fair from liberal-minded folks who've never seen the inside of a food shelf--heck! They've never even been near one--they just pick up the nicely pre-made bags at the grocery store (so they don't have to even put that much thought into what they are doing), purchase them, and then set them in the conveniently labeled "Food Drive" bin on their way out.
I challenge people to wake up, volunteer at an emergency food shelf, and see what it's really like. Hardworking people, like us, are starving in the sticks on principle. But it's a darned good principle to have.
What these young welfare mothers need is someone to teach them how to cook soup beans and cornbread, how to stretch a little meat to go a long time, how to plan meals so that they can eat all month on the food they get with those food stamps.
ReplyDeleteEating out is SO much more expensive, either the government will have to increase benefits substantially or many of these folks will only eat for a week or two a month.
Even with food stamps, people around here still empty the food banks regularly. My priest keeps spare food so he never has to send anyone away from his door empty-handed, but lately that food has been disappearing faster than ever.
The worst part is that many people who need food assistance do not qualify for a food card, such as homeless people (you have to have an address) and those who are working hard and in so doing staying just above the limit for help. During one period when my husband was unemployed for an extended period of time (and did not get unemployment benefits, long story), I worked three jobs to keep us from bankruptcy. We were always just above the limit for help.
Where I live, there are still poor country people who would truly rather die of hunger than take anything from the government. I respect those people, but I don't think it is wrong to accept help that is available. You just shouldn't build a life on the work of other people.
Look, I just don't have the moral outrage over this that you all have. The subsidies are happening, they are going to happen, this train isn't turning around. People eating at what will amount to state-funded cafeterias sounds like being forced to eat dorm food forever to me, and I would like to avoid this, but it seems obviously a sensible use of time and money. I save my outrage for the truly outrageous, like WIC.
ReplyDeleteSo many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to start. Not the least of which is that Edward Cooney apparently thinks the only 2 alternatives are to eat in a restaurant or go hungry.
ReplyDeleteMany of the people I know who receive food stamps eat out more than we do. Although apparently in AZ you can already use food stamps at restaurants, which might explain that.
A few towns over a small gas station/pizza place/convenience store in a don't blink town read the fine print very carefully and discovered that *if* the pizza is ordered a certain way, and heated at their store but taken out of the store to eat *then* food stamp recipients could order pizza. It is along the lines of buying the ready to eat chickens from the deli. So that store is thriving. So there are already options for those who have no time, talent, or ability to eat ready to eat & already hot food.
ReplyDeleteOh - new term for food stamps is Snap.
I think that reading the responses on here have been quite interesting. I do see a lot of rather harsh, unchristian like, spirited people. A lot of the assumptions that are made by the writer and those who commented show a lack of knowledge of how different systems work. This is not just for the single moms. This is for people who are in need and many who can not work. The elderly, do you know how many elderly in the U.S. are actually literally starving????
ReplyDeleteThe disabled, physically or mentally ill or impaired. These are all people who need support, care and help. Sadly, Christians are the minority in helping or assisting. Although, we tend to be the most negative and complaining on such issues.
Have you ever walked in an elderly persons' shoes. Where you worked your whole life but your spouse died and your income does not support you and you don't want to be a burden??
Have you ever made a mistake, single mothers who did not chose to abort their babies but have them, knowing the task would be hard?
Have you ever seen someone who is physically disabled who can not work and there are not jobs to acomidate their needs?
Have you ever visited with or gone to a mental hospital? The mental illness that wracks havoc on the brain, wears down their emotions, and physically makes it impossible to work and sometimes care for themselves.
If you haven't...you have no right to talk about what should or should not be done with as was referenced many times "these people" What have you done to help those you are berating? What would JESUS do? Sadly, where the church is lacking the world is stepping in and taking over but someone/something has to be done to help "people"....and do you know how many of "these people" are ashamed and embarrassed to need assistance. Do you know how bad it got for some to ask for help?
Don't complain if you haven't walked in their shoes or have had the things life throws at them hit you.
Actions speak louder than words.
People are not educated?
Educate people.. free classes on how to "X"
Assist people... Your elderly neighbor needs food? Buy them some basic groceries, invite them to dinner..
What can you do to help the situation not just complain. Oh, and many of "these people" are Christians and will go to great lengths to avoid others finding out. OH, and just so you know EBT and Food Stamps are the same thing.
Remember, you are the ONLY JESUS that some will ever see.
Compassionate people should be "THESE PEOPLE, GOD'S PEOPLE" Lead by example.
Don't judge so harshly or think so ill. It's kind of like someone seeing a hypocritical Christian and then assuming all Christians are that way...In every batch of apples there are always a few sour.
Trust me, I've walked with "these people" and I am "these people"
Don't walk ahead of me I may not follow
Don't walk behind me me I might lose my way
Walk Beside me hand in hand.
I do not think that food stamps should pay for restaurant food, and highly doubt that they will. What a silly concept. Prepared cold stuff is already available anyway, like fried chicken that is cold and you heat. There are plenty of quick, easy meals that take 30 minutes or less. We could get food stamps due to unemployment, but don't need them, so I'm not using them. We'd get maybe 330 per month I figured, which would go a long way, but not so far eating in a restaurant. And restaurant food is not nourishing, it's horrible nutritionally.
ReplyDeleterock on, nanar
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, I the only harshness I see is yours. I think you came here with your mind already made up about people who do not think just like you. There's nothing remotely unchristlike about objecting to paying for other people to eat out. Eating out is a luxury, not a necessity.
ReplyDeleteHave you read the Bible where it says that the man who won't provide for his own is worse than an infidel, and that those who will not work should not be given food?
Mercy, there is nothing inevitable about food stamps being used for restaurants. Nor do I see anything reasonable in the position that somehow WIC is horrendous but taxpayers paying for entire families, and generations of families, to eat out at restaurants is actually a good idea.
I find it baffling, to be honest.
Ugh. I'm not against entitlements in principle, though I think they in most cases need serious reform. But seriously? Who besides restaurant owners can possibly think this is a good idea? How is paying for expensive dinners out for people on government support a remotely responsible use of tax money? Sometimes I have difficulty fathoming people's reasoning at all.
ReplyDeleteMy meditation for the week: Psalm 37. The verse that reads, do not fret because of him who prospers in his way, because of the man who brings wicked schemes to pass...scripture tells well of what will happen to him! This is not an either-or proposition: tax dollars do not need to go to paying for food service in order to keep people from being hungry. I'm writing from Japan, where eating in restaurants is a GREAT luxury because of the expense in an already poor and disaster-plagued economy. Any American who thinks of eating out as a routine way to acquire food is....foolish.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteYou are making a lot of assumptions about the commenters. And in what universe are you living that Christians are the "minority" in helping people? Not the one I live in.
I don't know what else to say to you. I don't think you are listening anyway.
Nana Ruth
What's so horrible about WIC? I know many mothers on WIC, and while some of them complain about it not covering this or that, they all think it's pretty helpful. I don't know anybody who gets WIC who thinks it's horrible. I do think that SNAP covering food in restaurants is wrong-headed. Not because I think that I should be able to dictate what people spend their SNAP on, but because food in restaurants is several times more expensive than food in grocery stores. It's just a poor use of money. I personally know some folks on SNAP- my sister among them. I work with a lot more folks on SNAP. Some people seem to do very well with it- my sister always has enough food and is able to feed herself and her son healthy food most nights, even though she's a single mom and in school full time. Other folks do not do so well- my friend's sister runs out of food every month b/c she spends it all at the beginning of the month on expensive convenience stuff. I do not know anyone on SNAP who does not eat fast food at least occasionally. Some of my clients eat it daily, despite not having money for rent or bus fare. So it doesn't seem logical for SNAP to cover this- it will just mean that either the benefits will run out even quicker each month or SNAP will require a lot more funding.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Have you ever seen someone who is physically disabled who can not work and there are not jobs to acomidate their needs?"
The answer to this, would be, 'yes'. For example, the young man in his 20's in court the other day for a drug related offense. When the judge asked him where he worked, he answered, "I don't. I'm on disability for depression."
True story. Do you not acknowledge that there are MANY abuses of the welfare system?
@Mercy - why do you oppose WIC? It's actually one of the few gov. sub. programs that I see as extremely helpful, especially since they recently started covering fresh fruits and whole grains. Children who attend public school can be assured at least two square meals a day, and WIC seeks to fill in the gaps for those children between the ages of birth - 5.
ReplyDeleteNow, I HAVE seen (numerous times) people filling their shopping carts with 10 gallons of milk, or a ton of juice, because it's the end of the month and if you don't use your WIC benefits you lose them ... but I also know many young families that this program helps.
Oh, and one more thing (you don't have to post this, it's just fyi), I reposted this to my fb page:) Great discussion!
ReplyDeleteYou can't just broad sweep all this stuff. There are many affected by food stamps who aren't that single mom you keep mentioning. How about the released convicts and those just reestablishing themselves from the streets who are only able to rent a room and have no kitchen facilities or privileges?
ReplyDeleteThey collect food stamps and without discussing it with them, I'm sure the idea of a 'warm' meal would appeal to them and why is that so awful for that to happen?
You know, it's good when those who can make due, do, but sometimes it's just not that way. Many of you are saying - oh I'm not saying you have to be like me - but that sure sounds like what you are saying. Eat what you eat, cook what you cook -- Life is bigger and messier than that and by the time these people are on food stamps, it's been years of low self esteem and just trying to survive.
I was on public service for 6 weeks and food stamps for one year. I was able to work past it all but only because I had the help of my family and friends. Without that, I don't know what would have happened to me. It was scary.
I also find the WIC hate baffling. Totally baffling that you would hate that program, yet be cool with food stamps counting for restaurants. WIC is a finite program that helps cover the gap for many families, and allows for healthy food choices.
ReplyDeleteFull disclosure: I was on WIC for both of my pregnancies, and it was a real blessing. The first as a 19 year old single mother, and the second as my husband lost his job a month into our pregnancy, and wasn't able to secure employment for many months. We were also on food stamps for that short period of time. I am not against entitlements entirely, I just think the system needs grave reformation. It was a blessing for me, as neither my family nor his family could cover all the gaps for us, and neither could our tiny church though all of those entities helped. But it was a temporary blessing, a stop-gap measure when nothing else was available to us. My husband wasn't even able to get a fast food job due to the sudden influx of jobless, though he did whatever odd jobs he could, including a few days stint at a box factory covering for a sick friend. Just to give you some perspective, he's a web developer and makes a decent salary otherwise.
Yes, I can broad sweep- it's not an appropriate function of government, EVER, to confiscate money from one group of tax payers and give it to another group (of non taxpayers,usually), so that they can eat out at a restaurant.
ReplyDeleteLow self esteem is not an appropriate concern of government, and making as many people as possible dependents of the government is not a fix for that.
Soup kitchens serve hot meals- haven't you ever volunteered at one?
I'm sure a hot meal would appeal to a lot of people a lot of times for various reasons- the fact that something would 'appeal' to somebody is not a good reason to make it policy, confiscating other people's funds to pay for it. If you think it's such a great idea, fill up a crockpot or two with hot food, go downtown and serve. Get others involved, *voluntarily*.
Anonymous- we've been on food stamps. We understand what it's like and how it works. That single mom, as I have said before, is not the only person we know on food stamps or other government assistance.
And my husband manages four grocery stores. One is in a town with a casino, and that's the one where 40% of the purchases made at that store each month are via food stamps. This isn't a safety net anymore, it's a @&#&$* fish net, intended to scoop up as many as possible. It's stultifying, crippling, and creates an underclass of permanent dependents. Those who actually truly care about *people* and not about making themselves feel good see huge problems with the government doing this to our fellow citizens.
I only have a few seconds cause I gotta do housework, that MAN I wish I could hire a single mother to do for me, but unfortunately they're sitting at home watching Oprah and eating taxpaying funded hotpockets while their kids learn about the gay at public schools and don't need to come be my maid. ARGH I HATE THIS MAKE FEUDALISM COME BACK FASTER PLS.
ReplyDeleteWIC is bad because it distorts the market. Food stamps are way less bad because they are more like cash.
This is the heart of our disagreement DPH:
"Yes, I can broad sweep- it's not an appropriate function of government, EVER, to confiscate money from one group of tax payers and give it to another group (of non taxpayers,usually), so that they can eat out at a restaurant. "
I don't care that much if it's an appropriate function of government. I am by temperament a fiscal conservative and a libertarian, but I am fine with my taxes going to a bunch of overlapping sloppy and inefficient programs that together effectively prevent childhood malnutrition, because childhood malnutrition is REALLY BAD, and at this point if the programs get cut people are so messed up and incompetent children will starve. You're absolutely right that the state programs did it in the first place but it's too late now. (And my household pays around 65k/year - I think it's important to put that on the table in these discussions, otherwise you don't know who's really got skin in the game.)
The question isn't whether most people are going to have huge areas of their lives collectivized, the question is how. This is not the worst possible way. It preserves more of the positive aspects of private business and the market than many other possibilities (for example WIC, which is a straight agribusiness subsidy and if anything is baffling, it's fiscal conservatives not understanding how awful it is.)
Would you really prefer state cafeterias? Because that's the other choice.
This is good and relevant:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/09/how_to_be_mean_to_your_kids.html
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteIn my town there is a Meals-on-Wheels program for the elderly (hot food) and a Community Kitchen that serves at least one hot meal per day to anyone who shows up. There is also a community Dressing Room; anyone can get clothing there so long as it fits them. Homeless people come once a week and get a clean change of clothes because they don't have the means or the ability to do laundry. There is a corner for "career clothes" to help people who are going for job interviews. Under construction is a shower and laundry facility for the homeless and a set of mailboxes so that they will have a "mailing address" to help them receive benefits to which they are entitled.
The government does not run any of these services. These are all funded by a consortium of local Christian Churches and manned by volunteers.
Oh yeah, there is also a food pantry and a charity that helps folks with utility bills and such.
How do I know about all these services? Because I have family members who have utilized them, and because I have volunteered for them.
There is also a pregnancy center to help mothers in crisis who want to keep their babies, not just young mothers and unwed mothers but any mother. There is a housing facility for elderly folks that is run by the Ministerial consortium (not HUD).
There are multiple food banks and outreach ministries.
The town where I live has a population of about 25,000, so these are very comprehensive services for such a small place.
None of these are government programs; none of these are "entitlement" programs. All offer a "hand" but more of a "hand up" than a "hand out".
Any of these alternatives make a **** of a lot more sense than using food stamps at a restaurant.
Nana Ruth
Anyone who is complaining that the Headmistress "doesn't understand" is obviously not a long-time reader of this blog. Do a search for poverty or food stamps on this blog. How about you read her family's story first, and then come back and have intelligent discussion. Otherwise, you just look silly accusing someone who has been there of not knowing what it's like to be poor.
ReplyDeleteFor the price of one fast food meal (about $6 for sandwich, fries, and drink), you could buy a large frozen dinner and a bottle of coke. If you chose your frozen meal carefully, you could even afford a candy bar for dessert.
If you don't have a microwave at home and still want something hot for lunch, nearly every grocery store I know offers hot items at their deli: fried chicken, macaroni and cheese, soup, etc.
There just isn't any good financial reason (for anyone other than restaurant owners) to open food stamps for restaurants.
I don't even think food stamps should pay for convenience food, much less restaurants. We rarely ever eat out at restaurants and it is hard work cooking and cleaning up after. Being poor means you have to work harder, that is just a fact. Our country is poor and we need to start acting like it. There are not enough taxes collected to pay all of the bills as it is. Something has to give. If the government doesn't give you food, you will have to work another job or trade skills or barter to get it. That is what people did before government started welfare programs.
ReplyDeleteLet's take it all away. Why should non-working people get a dime of my hard earned money? These entitlement programs are just encouraging people to be lazy and take advantage of others. Get real and stop this.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (sorry, there are lots of you, I mean the one referencing situations in which you might not have a kitchen):
ReplyDeleteThere are still many healthy foods that do not require refrigeration that you can purchase at the grocery store or farmers market (many states are now allowing food stamps to be used at these) that are often more nutritious and almost always much cheaper than restaurant food. Peanut butter (or other nut butters), fresh and dried fruits, nuts, tinned seafood and chicken (personally, I love, love, love sardines; you can get tons of this stuff canned, from clams and smoked oysters to the very healthy salmon and sardines to chicken and tuna), fresh vegetables, bulk granolas, etc. And if you even had just a cooler and a toaster oven or microwave, there's a lot more you could do. There's really no situation you could be in where you would get more healthy food from a restaurant than a grocer, even if you were forced to eat raw food only.
I'm not against food stamps at all (though again, I think reform is frequently called for in entitlements), and my family was on them for a time when I was young. But the point is to subsidize enough food for people to get by, isn't it? We shouldn't be subsidizing luxury. It's a waste of taxpayer money, and it encourages the benefits to be used in a way that they actually get you less food. And if the point is to help people until they can come off these benefits, why should we be encouraging the opposite of frugality, which will probably hurt people trying to be self-sufficient? It doesn't make any sense.
It's like that one person said, once you start to take the dole, everyone decides how you should use it it seems. It's not a gift.
ReplyDeleteWhat I wonder is, is it charity? If people are supposed to be charitable, shouldn't the government, which is the people, be charitable as well?
Also, I'm not sure why anyone has to prove they are 'worthy' to cast an opinion, like 'we were looking for change in the road' etc. I don't care really. We all have our stories. I was beaten as a child and starved by our father because of his drinking problems, and what, that gives me more of an entitlement than someone else to have an opinion? You want to compare change in the road stories? Get over yourself. Honestly. Lots of people have been through stuff. It's hard out there for lots of people.
Some people just plain need help in all sorts of ways you have no idea. Little kids don't know how to express this stuff.
I would never object to some of my dollars being given to people who have a tough time. I don't worry about things like restaurants and hot plates. Life is hard enough. That is life, just hard. Give something and you get something back, that's what my mother shoved down our throats. My mother always gave and we turned out alright in spite of all the ugliness of our youth.
I'm going to ignore the very hostile, childish, and rude 'get over yourself' comment and assume you're just frustrated.
ReplyDeleteAs for this: "If people are supposed to be charitable, shouldn't the government, which is the people, be charitable as well?"
Well, no.
People are supposed to do a lot of things the government isn't supposed to do. The government in this country is supposed to do a very limited number of things. They are outlined in the Constitution.
Charity is personal, it's not something you can morally force other people to do for you.
But hardly anyone agrees with us. It used to make me angsty, I am over it. I'm not going to tell you to get over it, because if you don't want to I can't make you, but I think it's a big fat waste of your time and brilliant mind.
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how writing on my blog about what interests me is a waste of my time.
ReplyDeleteBut then, I'm also neither angsty nor all worked up in the moral outrage you imagine for me. You mistake my emotions, such as they are, *entirely.*
Headmistress said:
ReplyDeleteCharity is personal, it's not something you can morally force other people to do for you.
Pretty much sums it up for me. Can I borrow this for my Facebook status tomorrow?
Anonymous said:
Some people just plain need help in all sorts of ways you have no idea.
Interesting how you assume that none of us have gotten up close and personal in our helping of others. You must not read this blog or you would know that the DHM certainly has.
YOU have NO IDEA what WE know or what we have lived through to learn what we know. I'm sorry your life was/is hard. I'm sorry that you apparently feel that others who should have helped you did not. Why else would you be so bitter?
Nana Ruth
Those of you who don't mind your tax money being used for such things: why don't you just voluntarily participate with your own money, and stop taking money from me & my family at gunpoint?
ReplyDeleteDon't be ridiculous Timotheus. I'm not taking anything from your family at gunpoint. I'm questioning to wisdom of riling up the gunholders on something that outside of internet echo chambers there is nearly total consensus on.
ReplyDeleteAnd I challenge your assumptions that anybody is 'riling up the gunholders.' Good grief. How silly.
ReplyDeleteYeah I guess I just imagined the demonization of white conservatives. The Justice Department telling local pd's to look out for people mad about taxes? I made that up! I feel better now.
ReplyDeleteMercy, I just don't see your point.
ReplyDeleteOther than you and a few anonymous's, I don't see anybody riled up. I see people having a discussion. If it were an echo chamber, I'd have banned you and the anonymous name callers. The idea that gun-owners are getting all riled up here- yes, that is your imagination.
What your imaginings or the JD's have to do with anything said here is something you'd have to explain. As I said- you just sound silly at this point.
I was responding to Timotheus' assertion that *I* am somehow responsible for taking his money because I don't get super aggro about the difference between using his tax dollars for American Subsidized Poverty Food straight from the chute as opposed to taking it home and reheating it. What is truly silly is acting like there is some kind of really important difference here.
ReplyDeleteNo-go, Mercy. I want an explanation for and justification of your bizarre 'riling up the gun-owners' comment and the silliness about the justice department.
ReplyDeleteAs for their being no difference between tax dollars going for food stamps at the grocery store vs food stamps at a restaurant, for the taxpayer, there's not a lot (though there is some difference between giving people ingredients vs giving them a meal at a restaurant)- but there is nothing silly about the very significant differences there are to those on the receiving end, and it does nothing for the poor but further their dependency on the government and reduce their spending power. But this has already been explained at length, you're just digging in and bouncing from topic to topic now.
The difference between food stamps for groceries and food stamps for restaurant fare is irrelevant to me. It is equally wrong to violently force my family to pay for either one. If you vote for / contribute to politicians who commit and sustain this evil, then you bear some moral culpability for such actions.
ReplyDeleteTimotheus wrote: "It is equally wrong to violently force my family to pay for either one."
ReplyDeleteWho is violently forcing you?
I am not sure what the right thing is regarding the government helping people, but I think it's not a bad thing. Like anything else with children involved, I am saddened to see children hurt when adults make bad decisions with their lives even if it is dealt to them at birth.
What to do about the children to help them grow up independent? I do not know.
"YOU have NO IDEA what WE know or what we have lived through to learn what we know. I'm sorry your life was/is hard. I'm sorry that you apparently feel that others who should have helped you did not. Why else would you be so bitter?"
ReplyDeleteAnd YOU have NO IDEA what I or any other WE have lived through in total to learn what I or the other WEs know. You nor the writer of this blog post corner the market on life experiences. Or services to their communities. YOU don't know what I do for my community, how many foster kids I have, etc.
You are making assumptions in your comments. Why can't someone just disagree with the blog post and not want to hear all the I/did/this'es/and I/did/that'es to be able to have an opinion on the matter? It's so immature to hear people bragging on what they do.
If you really want to know, the whole thing was misunderstood because I posted my comments with just a regular kind of feeling.
You freaked out because I wrote "Get over yourself?" I guess you need to get over yourself. It's a discussion. Relax.
Anonymous, I and most others here are speaking in generalities about trends, consequences, and ideas. You, on the other hand, cannot avoid personal insults and attacks.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trading venomous barbs with you. Have a nice day.
Anonymous wrote: "Who is violently forcing you?"
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose I could stop paying my taxes, and then when people show up at my house with guns to punish me, you can come ask their names.
I tend to fall on the liberal side of most arguments involving programs that in my mind serve to protect the children, but the idea that this change to the current food stamp allowance would serve to better the lives of no one. Our children don't need more Happy Meals or Taco Bell dinners. They should be taught the value of a home cooked meal, with an emphasis healthy choices rather than always what's easiest or most convenient.
ReplyDeleteAs a single parent (contrary to popular belief, sometimes there's no amount of "being responsible for their marriages" that keeps some of us from being divorced), I have struggled when we had no money. I have used food assistance and just as quickly worked my ass off until I could get back on my feet. I have done this with no family near to support me.
Amazingly, I did it without taking my kids out to dinner or stuffing their faces with frozen pizza every night. I would personally have been ashamed to use this benefit. I know how hard I work to take my kids out to dinner on my own dime.
Few people can say they are not aware of at least one case of people abusing this assistance. Imagine the amount of public outrage when we spot our first adult couple dining out on the family EBT card without their children.
Thanks for weighing in, Angie. I appreciate your perspective.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, I am not sure about it being a popular belief that if everybody were just responsible enough, there'd be no single parents. I've never heard that expressed by anybody. I'm pretty sure it would be more accurate to say that everybody understands that sometimes we find ourselves deceived about the character of another person and nothing we can do can make that person be a grown up.
Good for you on your hard work and strong work ethic.
This kind of discussion is never going to be a calm one! I'm in favor of food stamps, WIC and other forms of assistance for people who need it. The problem is deciding who needs it and who's abusing the system. Just in the last week I've run into situations while in the supermarket checkout where two different people manipulated the system so that they handed over a food stamp card and got handed cash back. That didn't sit well with me.
ReplyDeleteI know people who have been on public assistance and did everythng they could to get off of it as soon as they could, which is how it should be used. It shouldn't be something that's intended to support people for their entire lives, or as am atm card. One little kid in a second-grade class here told his teacher that he was going to be on welfare when he grows up, and that only suckers have jobs. That sounds like it came straight from the mouth of whatever adult he's listening to at home, and it's very sad.
I don't think that public assistance should be used for luxury items, and eating out is a luxury. I also don't think that we should eliminate public assistance, because it does play an important role for a lot of people who really need it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who abuse the system, but I don't know how you control that.
Headmistress,
ReplyDeleteApologies are in order. I was feeling passive aggressive as hell and that statement was meant for another comment posted earlier.
I ABSOLUTELY agree. I worked as a checker as a second job to help pay the bills for many years and saw so much abuse of the food stamp program. It still chaps my ass. These people would buy all kinds of prepared food, junk food, impulse candy, organic produce and luxury items that I sure couldn't afford, even after working from 8-5 at a day job and then 6-10 as a cashier.
ReplyDeleteYes, some people need food stamps. Fine. I am not going to tell disabled old Grandma she has to starve to death. But we need food stamp reform immediately. There are far too many people who could go without but see no reason to. Why? Why spend all day crock-potting beans and ham bones when the government will just pay for whatever you want to throw in the basket?
Allowing restaurants to take food stamps is a catastrophe waiting to happen, and gives me zero incentive to continue to be a good, tax-paying citizen who's not on welfare.
(The only food-based welfare program I can support is the WIC program, where specific items are approved, i.e. milk, cheese, infant formula, certain cereals, etc.)
Also, though the WIC program is for different needs, I can 100% support the way they go about it. WIC provides people, i.e. mothers of young children, checks for specific items, such as milk, cheese, cereal, beans, vegetables and fruits, wheat bread, etc. If the government is going to pay for the food, it should be basic and nutritious.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that program hasn't expanded to take the place of the food stamp program is twofold: 1) the question of what is and isn't appropriate and nutritious is a big, complicated question, and 2) we are so concerned with our rights here in America that we feel the government telling us what to eat would would infringe on our liberties. These issues are so contentious that nobody wants to get too involved in proper reform.
Angie, no problem. I actually did think you were responding to a previous comment at first, but when I skimmed, I couldn't find it, hence my reply. I see it the earlier comment, blush. I don't know where it was hiding when I looked the first time.
ReplyDeleteI see why that might have rubbed you the wrong way, I really do. I think, though, that what that person was criticizing wasn't people like you, but people like the missing person in your kids' lives, you know?
it could just be me, though. My family spends a lot of time helping out a single mom with two little boys (there's a third child living with a grandmother, and it's three kids with three different dads). Honestly, in a lot of ways the mom is a mess. But she is also *there* - at least, far more than the two fathers of those two boys, who are mostly not there, and one of whom has never, ever been there. And when I read the comment about taking responsibility, it was the missing dads I thought of.
Incidentally, some of the recent posts on the Welfare State and the way it cripples and traps its supposed beneficiaries were prompted by a discussion with her seven year old, my godson, who essentially told me that there was no reason for my husband, his godfather, to have to work to support his family because we could get all the food we wanted for free and we didn't have to pay for the doctor or other things, either. He would take us to the food pantry and show us how to get free food. He had no idea other people pay for that food. He does not know anybody else who goes to work on a regular basis except his doctor and teacher, and I am not sure he realizes they work for a living. His mother once told me I was the first person she'd met who wasn't on food stamps, and she couldn't understand why I wasn't- she offered to take me down to the office with her to get us plugged in to all the government programs she uses. it was kindly meant, but it was an offer made out of complete ignorance that there is no such thing as a free lunch, *somebody* is paying for it- and that somebody is not an anonymous government.
My godson is just one child, but then again, he's not. He represents thousands of others.
My husband manages four grocery stores in four different counties. He sees kids coming in who know how to use the family food stamp card, and he knows what those families buy with their cards month after month. he sees cards that people have been using so long they've worn out the magnetic strip. He sees the cars the families drive, the clothes they wear, the tattoos they pay for (his customers love him, and chat with him each month about their lives and show off their new tats).
He has a bigger picture than most and the vast majority of the cards are used to purchase convenience foods and junk foods- frozen pizzas, never salads, cokes, never juice, Lunchables, never crackers, cheese, and lunch meat.
I think that a lot of people imagine how they would behave if they were on food stamps, and think that's how everybody would act. Or, like Angie, they know how they behaved, and they attribute their work ethic and desire to get out of the program to others. But there is a huge cultural disconnect between those who see it as a humiliating necessity for desperate times and those for whom welfare is a generational way of life. Given that of four grocery stores my husband manages, one gets forty percent of its income from food stamps, and two get over 25 percent of its income from food stamps, I think there are far more abuses, taking advantage, and using it for luxury items and convenience foods than people realize or can admit.
When I say things like this, people think I am criticizing the Welfare recipients, but actually, I think the *government* is at fault. I think it cripples people, and I have seen how it rewards profligacy and foolish short term decisions and punishes fiscal prudence and long term planning.
Eating out is expensive. Generally, speaking. But I wonder if you've taken in to account the "food deserts" that most of the welfare recipients live in - meaning that for most of them, "grocery shopping" takes the form of popping in to a fast food joint in their local neighborhood or hitting the corner mini-mart which carries precious few fruits and vegetables and mostly junky, high-calorie, high-fat convenience items. For those people who cannot afford a car, taking the bus to far-away supermarkets and lugging bags of groceries back home to cook meals from scratch is impossible. If eating out is cost-prohibitive, most of the food-stamp recipients will figure that out a month or two in by noticing that their stamps don't go as far as they normally would if they don't eat out. Let them experiment and figure it out instead of banning them from having the choice. And in the meantime, maybe we can use our energy to address more preventative things like cooking classes for the low-income, volunteering to teach them to budget, or getting supermarkets with fresh foods in more low-income inner-city areas. Seems better than bitching about how "entitled' they are.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute.
ReplyDeleteSay you want to go out to eat. I say fine. Go ahead. I just don't want to pay for it.
How is that banning anybody from having a choice? I want to go out to eat at Texas Roadhouse tonight. If you don't paypal me the cost of my family's meal there, then you are banning me from having a choice? how does that work? I'm not being snarky here, I really don't understand your reasoning or definition of 'banning.'
As for how to use 'our' energy, my husband works for a grocery store whose focus is putting stores in those food deserts, so I do actually understand quite a bit about them (and why they are food deserts in the first place).
You also don't actually know what I or other commentors do with our time. I also happen to spend a lot of time with people who are on food stamps, and no, they won't figure out it's cost prohibitive. They already eat out at least once a week, and then want to borrow money from me for gas because they don't have enough money for gas.
Okay, that last sentence was far, far too broad a generalization. Of course, many food stamp recipients will, in no time, figure out it's cost prohibitive. Some won't even have to eat out.
ReplyDeleteBut my concern is those who won't, and this concern is based on quite of experience and observation of people who are on food stamp. In the grocery stores on the day the food stamp cards are reloaded, the stores are packed, and people are buying convenience foods- frozen things, canned, prepared items. These are also cost prohibitive. Yet, this is what the majority of food stamps money buys in our communities. At the end of the month, the stores are empty because all the money for the month has been spent on those more costly food items.
These are the trends we observe. I'm not singling out one person for judgment or criticism, I am talking about trends representing the monthly behavior of thousands of people. I have no reason to believe that adding restaurants to the mix would somehow change this trend. Nor do i see why it is the responsibility of the government to take money from taxpayers and give it to non-taxpayers so they can eat out at a restaurant.
You think that allowing these people to "spend" their/our "money" (cause let's face, it's barely money anymore) on prepared food reheated by a minimum wage employee is a significant change. You were exercised enough about it to make a post, a post that was not unemotional. I do not think the difference between people doing their own microwaving or having it done for them is very large or worth making a big deal over. I also think there are some benefits to allowing the poor more access to "restaurant meals" if your society has accepted that wealth redistribution is going to happen *and ours has, it doesn't matter how much you or I don't like it* - although it's ridiculous and part of the problem in this discussion that the word "restaurant" can be applied to every eating establishment, from Taco Bell to the French Laundry.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you are like this, my esteemed hostess, but something I see all the time in these kinds of discussions and something I think you do give blogroom too is the opportunity for homeschooling SAHMs to write multiple paragraphs about how much better we are than other people because we can cook. It's embarrassing.
Mercy, I don't know where you're reading this, but it hasn't been in the comments here. What you have written is an unjust and grotesque misrepresentation. I haven't seen a single person write anything about much better we are because we can cook.
ReplyDelete*how* much better we are...
ReplyDeleteHello Headmistress and lively commenters! I originally encountered part of your blog post at the BlogHer site, but am glad I came here to read the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as someone whose family currently receives SNAP (food stamp) benefits, I concur that SNAP covering restaurant meals goes beyond the pale in the vast majority of cases. It is hard for me to see how this is a "best practice" solution for the problem of hunger in the US, while at the same time acknowledging that there may be cases where it could benefit an intended recipient.
Correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be a level of consensus amongst the opinions here that (in general) people receiving SNAP benefits are "unworthy". I can only speak for myself on the subject. I do not seek to defend or justify my situation; I am simply presenting my point of view.
Up until October 2010, I worked at a residential / teaching facility for adults with mental retardation and/or developmental disabilities. In January 2010, my right arm was injured when I intervened in a resident's self-injurious behavior. After some months of therapy, I returned, only to be injured in September of 2010 - left knee this time - keeping one resident's elderly mother safe from another resident who was ... not having a good day. I had an operation earlier this year on that injury, but still cannot stand, sit or walk any great distance without some difficulty.
Do I wish we could do without food stamps? Naturally, yes. Am I glad we receive them for the time being? You bet I am.
Namaste.
Kentucky Gal, no, I think you're mistaken about people thinking all people on food stamps are unworthy (we've been on them ourselves). But there are more abuses than you realize, and the issue isn't individual situations - it's the government programs and how inefficiently they are run. I'd say more and be more chatty- but I am on my way out the door- taking the kids and my godsons and their mom to the apple orchard today.
ReplyDeleteI think some of the commenters are missing the major point of this post. DHM is trying to make the point that going out to eat is considerably more expensive than eating at home; therefore, government subsidies shouldn't pay for that. The gov't shouldn't pay for that because eating out gives the SNAP users less buying power. Case in Point: (full disclosure: I'm not on food stamps).
ReplyDeleteSomething came up today. We were committed to an activity today that ran over supper time. I thought it started next week (it's a weekly thing), and so I wasn't prepared. By the time we go to this activity, drive home, potty (Sunshine is potty training), take care of the dogs, and any other of the myriad of things that come up in life with a two year old, it is often after bedtime before I even get to look at my stove. At this point, even scrambled eggs are a no-go. Usually, I have something waiting for us in the crock-pot, but I was a poor planner today.
So, I made the (impulse) decision to eat out. We stopped at the local pizza joint and paid $30 for one medium pizza, one trip to the salad bar, one child-sized milk, and one soda. I would have gotten water, but it was the same price. :) The pizza will feed us for two more meals, but that's still $10 per meal.
To contrast that, $30 will feed us for a week, and that's if I'm spendy. We eat well. I do cook a lot, and I learned to cook because my mother was a single parent who wouldn't shame herself by going on food stamps, so she worked and I cooked.
I'm not saying any of this because I'm so much better than anyone else. It's just that I know that it can be done, and it can be done with a minimum of skill. There's no magic here. Eating out is expensive. If people spend their SNAP benefits at restaurants, then they won't have that money to spend on low cost food, nutritious or not. That's not a good way for the government to treat the poorest of the poor.
This discussion is not about who should or shouldn't be getting SNAP benefits, whether our tax dollars should pay for SNAP benefits, Granny starving, little kids starving, or any of the rest. The question is whether or not the gov't. should provide eating out money with SNAP benefits. The answer is no. It does a disservice to the people receiving their benefits. It's too easy to make the same poor choice I did today.
And before people start screaming: yes, if the government gives you money, then they have a right to tell you what to do with it. He who has the money has the power. It's why we should keep our government small, and as many people off government assistance as possible.
I had to break my original comment into two chunks. Apparently, blogspot doesn't like it if the comment's word count exceeds that of the original post...:)
ReplyDeleteOkay, now for my rant...
*Timotheus: no one is violently forcing you to pay your taxes. Violence is a very serious thing whether it is on the battlefield or at home. Please don't confuse violence with injustice. No one is going to come to your home with guns if you don't pay your taxes. The IRS will garnish your wages. Pleading violence lessens your credibility. It also dilutes the real meaning of violence. You mean that you think that the government is taking your money without justification.
*Mercy: "riling up the gunowners"? Really?! Since when does the issue of gun ownership figure in to a discussion about food stamps? Why don't you say what you really mean and call us gun-owning teabaggers. While you're at it I'll get out my banjo. Or maybe my washboard and spoons. We can sing "Over the Hill and Far Away" together. Please stick to the discussion at hand. People start going off subject when they feel like they are losing an argument and want to be right. It's the adult version of throwing yourself on the floor and screaming. Being *right* is not as important as discussing possible solutions to a problem.
*Anonymous who trotted out babies and old people: This is my personal political pet peeve. Politicians trot out the most disadvantaged when they want to tug on public heart strings, and make the populace so emotional that we don't look at the meat or the holes in the plan. It happens on both sides of the aisle, and it is one of the most insidious things that a politician can do. It borders on exploitation. We, as citizens, should be concerned with helping the most disadvantaged in our society. I'm reading through Deuteronomy right now, and it's very enlightening and convicting. To sum up: We should help people who have less than we do. We should personally help disatvantaged people. We (this is mostly for me) should stop talking and start acting. We should quit giving our money to some nameless entity and expecting them to do something about the problem. We should be trying to correct the problem in our own neighborhoods, or other places as we are led.
Okay, rant over. Sorry for the book.
Timotheus' point about violence is accurate, but we have so sanitized and disguised the source of government power that it seems over the top to point it out. People don't really understand it. Government power to make the rest of us obey laws ultimately rests on the ability to enforce those laws with violence. People neither understand where the money the government spends come from (their neighbors), nor the inherent violence in sicking the government on your neighbors to force them to support your favorite charities.
ReplyDeleteAmen and Amen to your points about how *we* should be helping people who have less, we should be personally involved in helping the disadvantaged. historically, in fact, this is what Christians did. It is sobering to realize that it was professing Christians who wanted to force others to support their pet projects who ushered in the Great Society and the Welfare state which has helped a few while condemning far more to a system of generational poverty and slavish dependence on the government- all for some mythical something called 'the public good'.
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to be their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
I agree 100% with this article. If people were learning skills - budgeting and cooking from scratch - than we'd need to give out LESS money for welfare.
ReplyDeleteI've known plenty of people on assistance. Some people need help. People go through hard times - been there myself - but it shouldn't be forever.
It's time to cut back on welfare. I worked with a young mom on every assistance possible and listened to her talk about her weekly manicures. She even would go in and pay to have them remove the nails if they got too chipped. She'd 'pay rent' to her parents by buying groceries for the 8 person household (along with a friend of hers). Yeah, when you have the money to do that you get too much assistance. On the plus side she did work hard to climb the ladder and get off of assistance. But many people are happy to stay supported by others' hard work.
If the government allows food stamps for restaurants, it seems to me, what you have is, government helping corporations. Something is dangerously wrong with that picture, IMO.
ReplyDeleteWe get off topic when we talk about the type of people who get food stamps and how they should be cooking. The lines are getting so blurry.
Giving corporations a boost, well, like I said, something dangerously wrong with that picture.