Food stamp recipients scramble for food

In reply to member comments about FS recipients using benefits to purchase junk food: keep in mind that an individual's decisions are dictated by factors such as upbringing, education, literacy level, mental health status, & current living environment.

In other words:
some folks may not know any better...on the other hand, some folks DO know better and just don't care...

Thanks for pointing this out. I believe it to be true from what I see. That is why I think there needs to be restrictions on the types of items that can be purchased with food stamp money.

We also accept WIC vouchers at the store. That program has a list of items that the vouchers are good for, only. There are no deviations.

For those that are not aware of WIC, it stands for Women, Infants and Children, and is a government program for people falling in certain income guidlines. It supplies things like baby formula, cheese, cereals, eggs, juices, and some other items that have a high nutritional value. There is not one junk food item on the list of approved foods.

i am disabled and so i get ss disability. ss took there sweet a** time to aprove my claim ( 6 years ) yes i said 6 long frustating years. after being aproved they payed me back pay only two years worth. i know that sounds like alot of money but belive me it wasent. after they took out 2 years worth of 80 dollars a month for medicare that i dident even use.
ya thats right they charge me 80 dollars a month for medicare even tho im a army vet and get va medical at no charge. they claim that va is not one of there aproved medical providers so i must either pay them the 80 bucks for medicare or pay more for an aproved medical insurance. and medicare dosent fully cover dental needs so i have cavities that i would have to pay for out of my small 733.00 a month ss check plus all of my other bills. they screwed me out of 2 years of 80 bucks per month that sucks. and ya we get a cost of living increase once a year. its around 20 bucks per month that was my last two yearly amounts. tell me how they belive that the cost of living has only gone up 20 bucks a month at the same time the dollar worth less and less. and if you even think about putting that back pay in the bank and save it for as long as you can. guess what? they say at the end of the year if you have any money left over then it will be deducted from your monthly pay. so you better spend it or hide it. thats life on disability. and will also be your life when you retire and have no investment into your retirment and only depend on ss.
now you want to see someone get his moneys worth when buying food. then go shopping with me. thank god i spent my life as a chef.
and food stamps lol what a joke not worth messing with. i can grow and can more food then what i could even try to buy with 40 bucks worth of food stamps and the gas it would cost me to drive 60 miles to the dhs and the 60 miles back home. now government housing is not as costly as you might think and would be suprised to know that a family of 6 with only one income would only have to pay around 20 to 40 dollars a month. ya i said 20 to 40 bucks a month housing through dhs is dirt cheep as long as you dont make much money but as you get more pay the cost goes up big time. it might be hud housing and not dhs housing but still its cheep and most are full of drugies and drunks. and why not? heck ya get a 3 bedroom duplex for 20 bucks a month and party. its this hud cheep housing that keeps people wanting to live off the government for as long as they can. and did you know a drunk or drug addict can get disability.
ys thats bs i know but its true. you dont belive me then go to the ss web site and read all of the stupid crap that people can claim as disabeling.
but when you cant walk and have to live on pain pills then it takes years to get on ss how many people should it take to look at an mri of a disentigrating spine and say yep he's not faking. ok im a little bitter.

I am one of those nice-seeming people who would be infuriated by a cart full of pop and chips. It's not just a matter of nutrition, it's proper budgeting.

$3 could get you.. a bag of Cheetos, or a bag of potatoes.
$5 can get you.. a case of soda, or a whole chicken.

The potatoes and chicken will last for a few meals at my house. And not only does it last longer, it actually makes you feel full and provides some nutrition.

Anyone who is complaining of not having enough food stamp money but yet buys soda really needs to look into water. Anyone who thinks "nutritious" food is out of their budget plan needs to look again at prices of junk food and non-ready-made items. I spend only $50 a week on groceries, and that always includes fruits, vegetables, meat, bread, milk, eggs, cheese, etc.

Also, I can't help but notice that the mother in the picture looks pretty well-fed herself. She should look into putting her "probably hungry" kids' needs before her own.

Thanks, Nemesis...

Enthralled, you hit the nail on the head...USDA needs to change allowable Food Stamp purchases to align more closely with WIC guidelines.

There are TONS of cooperative extension programs/classes available free of charge, in every state, to educate families about proper nutrition, living on a budget, parenting skills training (and lots of other topics).

Some are 100% content to take whatever they can "get for free"...and then go on to teach their children that they should expect nothing more from life than an EBT card and subsidized rent, failing to see that relying on the system perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

Fortunately for me, every now and then and with ALOT of effort and micromanagment on my part, a client becomes enlightened to the "cycle" and chooses to do whatever is required to take destiny into their own hands....and, they go on to reap the rewards of personal responsibility and the satistaction that comes with achieving self-sufficiency...if I didn't see this from time to time, I would completely lose heart, quit my job, and open a plant nursery.....



[edit on 17-5-2008 by ezziboo]

That's not entirely true as it's in fact quite possible to be fat from eating basic foodstuffs that have little nutritional value. Fact is under the capitalist system people are expected to work 8-12 hours a day ( if your living in the civilized west at least) to 'make a living' while for most of human history people managed to sustain themselves on working a few hours a day. People are not poor today because they don't have work ( the majority of Americans on welfare work 8 or more hours a day) but because they are not paid enough to afford all the things they are perpetually told to buy.



So does one in ten American families choose to be 'poor'? Why doesn't one in ten Swedish families 'choose' to be poor? How many of those people enjoy telling others that they have at some point in their life received welfare grants?



Actually just a bit more than 2 million Americans ( and there are something like 290 million) are in jail with something between four and five million somewhere in the injustice system. Since i am pretty sure that not even one in ten Americans have a criminal record i don't know where you got that number from. My question to you is if you think that one in eight deserves to be in their current situations any more than those millions who have served time for possession or use of drugs did? Why does the 'richest' nation on the planet apparently have such 'confused' ( lazy/criminal, take your pick) citizens? Isn't it more logical to look for flaws in the system than to presume it's the people?

Stellar

Edited so English speakers/readers can make a bit more sense of it.


[edit on 17-5-2008 by StellarX]

StellarX,

You said it, dude...too many of us (not just people receiving public assistance) embrace material goods that we have absolutely no need for...we waste so much time and energy chasing consumables, status symbols, crutches for our self-esteem...and these are the things that matter not a whit...

For clients who are of sound body and mind, my ultimate goal is to help them to see that they have been unwilling participants in their own repression...and I make it crystal-clear that until they CHOOSE to "break free," they will remain at the mercy of the "people who would keep us on our knees" (quote from a great XTC song, "Peter Pumpkinhead)....



[edit on 17-5-2008 by ezziboo]

Are you serious? I would think that your children came first. When I had food stamps I only got 1 12 pack of soda once with it... and that was because I splurged on myself which I rarely do. I am in the process of applying for fs because I lost my job and my SO can't pay for everything, so until I get a job again(which hopefully won't be too long...) I'm asking for that kind of help. I want it to by food for my son... bread, cheese, milk, nutrious foods.

reply to post by MacSen191

---

Oh, I'm not kidding. But actually she made her son pay for the soda with the food stamps while she was over buying cigarettes with cash. He looked embarassed but she sure didn't.

To StellarX: I'm sorry but it's not true that people used to work only a few hours a day. Leisure time only became a factor in the lives of middle class people in the 1920s, with the advent of things that cut down on the time people actually had to spend working like washing machines. Before that people spent every minute of daylight working, in the fields, or in a factory, or in their home just to feed their families. Back then necessities weren't made to break so you'd need to buy another one soon, unlike today. And for poor people working at the subsistence level it always has been and still is today the case that they get up at dawn to go to work and don't come home until it's dark.

The fact is that today people work less than they ever have. Though, Americans work more than Europeans due to the emphasis on career as the most fundamental part of one's identity in North American culture. I agree that today people do work for their toys, their possessions, and could get away with working less and having less. But this just wasn't the case before modernity.

To ezziboo and Enthralled Fan: great posts and input. Stars!

I think the issue that gets to me the most is all these single mom's with beaucoup kids. I thought the guv was going to put a stop to paying for all these kids born out-of-wedlock. For the sole purpose that it seems to encourage some people to just continue popping out babies, to increase their benefits.
There was talk awhile back, in some states, that the first one is free; after that you have to support the rest on your own. What happened to that?

Yes, its true.

Some lots of people who qualify for food aide end up buying stuff i could never buy for myself, or trading off for cash in order to buy cigarrettes.

They have to change their ways- and they are the last people we should gauge where the economy is.

Buy wisely and stretch those dollars- enough of the abuse with the cards.

Not that everyone abuses food stamps, i know there are people who really need them and buy wisely and the whole thing. But the scam has got to END and i'm all for the recipients of this service to WISE UP.

For those who resent our tax money being spent irresponsibly by the food stamp and welfare recipients, fear not. These poor deceived people will be the first to go hungry as the war on food goes forward, and are the least equipped to deal with the economic upheaval the we see just beginning. I suggest we all focus on preparing our own families for the stormy weather ahead, as the free lunch is just about over.

To add to that, from what I have seen many many of those recipients are not exactly "starving" and that is being kind. In third world countries the "poor people" don't look like the lady in that article carrying a good 90 lbs of extra body fat.

I have never received any type of gov assistance but I have been poor at times, you get your check and hit WalMart to buy 2 weeks worth of groceries (well in my case, Iams dog food and cat food first, then whatever was left over bought generic stuff for me). Lots of pasta and cheap sauce, etc...and I was losing weight as a result.

And another thing, the woman can't afford food, has no husband, but has a 1 and 3 year old? Hello! The best solution might be for the gov to offer her a couple of thousand dollars in CASH money to get her tubes tied.

Poor people do not matter in the United States. That is why you had to have an income over 3,000 dollars or you did not receive an economic stimulus package from the government. The people with less than three thousand dollars were exactly the very people who needed the package the most, but did not get anything.

Having said that I believe that any man who fathers a welfare child should get a mandatory govt. vasectomy. The cost of which is deducted from any income tax refunds due them during their lifetime.

This would be a really good time for people to get themselves off the foodstamps if they are capable. It is not supposed to be as comfortable a lifestyle as some would have it.

We are all feeling the pinch.

But have no fear, there should be jobs waiting for most of you. In the current and coming wars. In war, the creation of a willing and anxious work force is the first priority in planning. The economy always is negative for the people during war, always positive for the military industrial complex. Believe me it is no easy thing to keep both in balance.

Without bodys there can be no war. If they are building a fence around America, it is not to keep people out, since it does not. It will be to keep them in for the coming conscription into service of the war on Islam which McCain and his pastor so strongly believe. They are locked into an old paradyme and their inflexability makes them incapable of any action outside of an old movie script.

A couple things from my own POV.

1. Government should not be in the business of charity. Thats what charitable organizations are for. For a while I was out of work and homeless, a local charity gave me a place to sleep at night, and allowed me to make and receive calls. It didnt take me long to get myself a job, then with a different local charitable organization I was able to get a subsidized apartment (it was a converted hotel with a common kitchen). It wasnt long after that I was able to get a better, more stable job and move into my own apartment. No govt welfare, no food stamps, just my hard work and the help of a couple local, non-governmental charities.

2. IF the gov't is going to stay in the charity business, there should be a set time limit for welfare (cash) and food stamps and some type of child care should be given. Instead of making people dependant on the gov't it should be a "hand up, not a hand out" kind of thing.

I had an encounter once in a grocery store. It was near the beginning of the month, I was in line to pay for my groceries and the person in front of me was paying with an EBT card. A quick glance showed lots of junk food (cookies, chips, soda) and very little real food. She was also rather obese, 300lbs or there-abouts. She kept adding 'impulse items' to her purchase, candy bars, gum and all the other crap the checkout lines are stuffed with.

I couldn't take it any longer and I said as she paid for her items "Cookies, candy bars, junk food, what excellent choices to make with my tax dollars. You enjoy yourself while I work my tail off."

Entitlements need to stop. It is not John Q. Publics fault you got knocked up and your 'babys daddy' isn't around. We should not have to pay for Y O U R screwups.

This is a hard subject to reply to because of the abuse from it and the ones who really try. I remember back 17 years ago I had a man come up to me and offer me a hundred dollars of paper food stamps for 50 bucks and I couldn't turn it down and gladly gave him fifty bucks for them. I went to the store after that and filled my fridge full of T-bone steaks, eggs, chicken, milk, pork chops, bacon and the whole nine yards basically. I never thought at that time in my life why he did that because I was young, working and partying all the time. Anyways, people have to adjust to the economy and sacrifice things to make other ends meet. I'm worried that some parents care more about what they eat then what their children need to eat. Twenty steaks could of bought alot of children's nutritional food.

The vast majority did for the vast majority of the last few tens of thousand of years.



Define middle class and please tell me why what starting date your using and for which continents; i am obviously talking about the majority and anywhere.



That in fact happened the moment warlords/kings gained control over enough resources to pay enough thugs to make the rest work. That is , if you would believe history as most text books cover it, a relatively recent development.



Only if they are massively in dept to land lords or are required to pay excessive taxes to central governments. When you go back to every native hunter gather society on Earth ( and even the agricultural revolution resulted in much less daily work towards subsistence hence the era of monolithic construction) you will have found people that were generally healthier than AT LEAST half the current worlds population without putting anything near the effort. Sure there were other types of dangers but predators can not be compared with modern famines, wars and diseases due to overcrowding. Life spans in middle and early industrial Britain were shorter than those of the people the Imperial powers eradicated in North and South America, Africa and Australia.



A few hundred million in the west certainly do but for the most part it's not much if any less hours and the work just happens to generally be less strenuous. Modern subsistence living in Europe may be better than it was at various times during the last few thousand years but the majority of the worlds population are not much , if at all, better off than they before the colonial age.



That's not why Americans work more than Europeans. The Japanese, Germans, South Koreans, Taiwanese are all more productive ( efficient if you will ) and have strong worth ethics but they do not work longer hours and seem to manage comparable standards of living, and in many instances more security due to centralized health care and social programs, than American citizens enjoy. When one takes into account how much money from the US tax payer is diverted into military and other types of wasteful spending it's rather logical that Americans must either work far harder or simple make do with less than many of the westernized modern industrial nations.



Since there wasn't much to work for beside short term food security there really wasn't much to do beside living off the land and occasionally adding to the diet by being successful at hunting big game.



A hunter gatherer pretty much worked for himself, but everything were obviously shared in all times, and we in fact get a far smaller return on our energy investment than we ever did before. The fact that our use and application of technology frequently obscures this reality is not widely known but no less true for it; if we didn't make our various bosses richer by working allowing them to gain a net profit of our backs, paying our income and value added taxes, our fuel taxes, our massive 'education' taxes to even take part in the system you might quickly see that there is a massive input of energy to create a modern 'consumer'.

Stellar

Using those stats, 67, 500, 000 Americans are either on welfare or in fail. That's insane! Add to that retired people and children and you've got one small workforce. Not to mention all the unemployed people who aren't on welfare. Might as well just cut all benefits and create a two tiered society. 67, 500, 000 people could be hunter gatherers/vagrants, and the other 200, 000, 000+ people could live "normal lives."