• Text Only
rated:
I just returned from the grocery store and can't believe the junk food people are buying and using food stamps to pay! Chips, cookies, ice cream, soda pop, candy, etc. Not generic or store brand either. Even got a big deli pie. Not only that but steaks and things like big jars of cashews and expensive nuts that I can't even afford and I work. It seems so unbalanced and out of whack that people who don't work eat better than those who do. The woman in front of me had THREE food stamp cards. She used them one by one when she paid. WTH?

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.
People on food stamps should just be issued rations, or more realistically (since there are grocery stores that get the majority of their income from food stamps) vouchers for specific food items.

If I can't buy a large soda in NY, why should anyone on food stamps be able to buy any unhealthy crap?

No.

Good god that annoys me too!

If you want me, and other taxpayers to feed you, I SHOULD SAY WHAT YOU EAT, so they should pick up a pre-packed box of basic groceries - bread, rice, potatoes, beans, milk, corn flakes. And eat that until they get back on their financial feet.

(Stick that in your 'ganda is a liberal' pipe, and smoke it. )

The "vouchers for specific foods" program already exists - It's called WIC. I'm pretty happy with the way WIC works, and I'd like the food stamp program if it were more like wic.

'course, nobody asked me.

i thought food had to be "food". i think in PA it does. pretty sure junk food doesn't work.
i also think though that some people have "money" on a card that is different than the food part. really not sure though.

i don't think people need to tell other people what to eat. everyone has different ideas of what they like.
some people probably wouldn't eat if there wasn't convenient foods. others wouldn't want those foods.

Welfare without checks always leads to this.
I knew someone in the late 80s, early 90s who would get cashiers to agree to sell her beer for less than face value. She had to give more food stamps than the beer was worth. She ended up a hopeless alcoholic who did nothing for society except have kids for a living (multiple baby-daddys, of course, losers all). I looked in on her oldest on Facebook a while back....yep, wannabe gangster trash, imagine that....

soundtechie said:   The "vouchers for specific foods" program already exists - It's called WIC. I'm pretty happy with the way WIC works, and I'd like the food stamp program if it were more like wic.

'course, nobody asked me.


while it's a good thought, i don't think it would work. sure, they can limit sugary cereal, but are you going to say no ribeyes or no any steaks? no 93% beef because it's too expensive or do you want them to buy 93% because it's healthier? too hard to micromanage that.

an aside: i follow The Pittsburgh Tote Bag Project on FB, and they talk about a lot of hunger issues, but i don't know all the details. i don't even know exactly how a food bank works and have been wondering if i could go on a tour.

IQ test and proof of financial responsibility to have kids. I mean, come on, I essentially have to do this to freakin' drive a car!

pecanpie said:   
i don't think people need to tell other people what to eat. everyone has different ideas of what they like.


If I'm paying for your food, tough shit. Eat what I say or pay for your own food.

Do you see that footage of the starving Ethanopian complaining about the food American taxpayers airlifted to him? No, me neither.

pecanpie said:   i don't think people need to tell other people what to eat. everyone has different ideas of what they like.
some people probably wouldn't eat if there wasn't convenient foods. others wouldn't want those foods.

If they were paying for it themselves, I'd agree with you.

pecanpie said:   soundtechie said:   The "vouchers for specific foods" program already exists - It's called WIC. I'm pretty happy with the way WIC works, and I'd like the food stamp program if it were more like wic.

'course, nobody asked me.


while it's a good thought, i don't think it would work. sure, they can limit sugary cereal, but are you going to say no ribeyes or no any steaks? no 93% beef because it's too expensive or do you want them to buy 93% because it's healthier? too hard to micromanage that.


But it's *not* too hard to micromanage, the WIC program is already doing it. There are people going to the store, getting their eggs and block cheese, getting their juicy juice, laying down their wic check and walking out with food, and they're doing it right now, today. The system already works.

pecanpie said:   i thought food had to be "food". i think in PA it does. pretty sure junk food doesn't work.
i also think though that some people have "money" on a card that is different than the food part. really not sure though.

i don't think people need to tell other people what to eat. everyone has different ideas of what they like.
some people probably wouldn't eat if there wasn't convenient foods. others wouldn't want those foods.


When I worked at a grocery store in PA (granted this was in 1999), "food" was pretty much defined as "anything a reasonable person would stick in their mouth for the purposes of feeling full." We'd regularly get customers at the end of the month buying candy bars and the like in order to use up the rest of their money, as at that time at least the state was on a use-it-or-lose-it system.

turtlebug said:   pecanpie said:   i don't think people need to tell other people what to eat. everyone has different ideas of what they like.
some people probably wouldn't eat if there wasn't convenient foods. others wouldn't want those foods.

If they were paying for it themselves, I'd agree with you.


Agreed 10,000%.
When you're living on someone else's dime your right to choose is extremely diminished, or it should be.

soundtechie said:   pecanpie said:   soundtechie said:   The "vouchers for specific foods" program already exists - It's called WIC. I'm pretty happy with the way WIC works, and I'd like the food stamp program if it were more like wic.

'course, nobody asked me.


while it's a good thought, i don't think it would work. sure, they can limit sugary cereal, but are you going to say no ribeyes or no any steaks? no 93% beef because it's too expensive or do you want them to buy 93% because it's healthier? too hard to micromanage that.


But it's *not* too hard to micromanage, the WIC program is already doing it. There are people going to the store, getting their eggs and block cheese, getting their juicy juice, laying down their wic check and walking out with food, and they're doing it right now, today. The system already works.


but that is for kids. they don't get "meat" ... do they?

i have nothing against people choosing their own food. i have known people who go to the food bank and just won't or don't know how to make some of the foods that they are given. they are given a certain amount and that is all ... why worry about how they spend it.

Drug testing for welfare recipients.
I mean, I'm against drug testing overall, thinks it's a huge invasion of privacy, but as long as I have to take one to get a job so I can pay taxes that the welfare comes from, then they should have to take one to get my money.

"I pay you, you're not smokin' crack..."

pecanpie said:   soundtechie said:   The "vouchers for specific foods" program already exists - It's called WIC. I'm pretty happy with the way WIC works, and I'd like the food stamp program if it were more like wic.

'course, nobody asked me.


while it's a good thought, i don't think it would work. sure, they can limit sugary cereal, but are you going to say no ribeyes or no any steaks? no 93% beef because it's too expensive or do you want them to buy 93% because it's healthier? too hard to micromanage that.


In general, I think welfare recipients buying any kind of red meat is unacceptable. The stuff is quite expensive compared to chicken or turkey and offers not additional nutritional value over the alternatives.

MAYBE I'd be OK with them buying beef tips or stew meat, but not steaks and not ribeyes. If you want those, earn some money and pay for them.

Corned beef is probably OK, too, on a $/lb basis.


If a person wants the taxpayer to shoulder the burden of their grocery bill, they have to sacrifice "what they want" and instead accept what the rest of us agree they need.

akiri423 said:   pecanpie said:   i thought food had to be "food". i think in PA it does. pretty sure junk food doesn't work.
i also think though that some people have "money" on a card that is different than the food part. really not sure though.

i don't think people need to tell other people what to eat. everyone has different ideas of what they like.
some people probably wouldn't eat if there wasn't convenient foods. others wouldn't want those foods.


When I worked at a grocery store in PA (granted this was in 1999), "food" was pretty much defined as "anything a reasonable person would stick in their mouth for the purposes of feeling full." We'd regularly get customers at the end of the month buying candy bars and the like in order to use up the rest of their money, as at that time at least the state was on a use-it-or-lose-it system.


yes, you are right. just looked it up. http://www.ehow.com/info_8000954_covered-pennsylvania-food-stamp...

i would like to see them do away with candy bars but these people are already down on their luck. why can't they enjoy some popcorn or pretzels or whatever.
i agree with the system of letting people make their own choices.

pecanpie said:    they are given a certain amount and that is all ... why worry about how they spend it.
If we pay for people to eat crap, their future health becomes an issue. If they have private insurance, that would be their own business, but they don't - which means we're paying for related medical treatment as well.

turtlebug said:   pecanpie said:    they are given a certain amount and that is all ... why worry about how they spend it.
If we pay for people to eat crap, their future health becomes an issue. If they have private insurance, that would be their own business, but they don't - which means we're paying for related medical treatment as well.


well, people will complain if you give them vouchers to eat better cuts of meat ... and others will complain that they eat better food than people who work.

pecanpie said:   

i would like to see them do away with candy bars but these people are already down on their luck. why can't they enjoy some popcorn or pretzels or whatever.


They can! Nobody is saying "no popcorn", they're welcome to buy themselves some.

The system is broken. It's supposed to be temporary for people who are genuinely "down on their luck", but it doesn't work like that today. Come to one of my local grocery stores and I'll show you 300lb "hungry" people buying junk food with OUR money.

pecanpie said:   turtlebug said:   pecanpie said:    they are given a certain amount and that is all ... why worry about how they spend it.
If we pay for people to eat crap, their future health becomes an issue. If they have private insurance, that would be their own business, but they don't - which means we're paying for related medical treatment as well.


well, people will complain if you give them vouchers to eat better cuts of meat ... and others will complain that they eat better food than people who work.

I'm talking about eliminating the ability of purchasing junk food with food stamps.

Having been raised in a welfare environment, I would totally support a WIC-like system. People can buy nothing but crap if they want and the system is full of fraud. Used to be LOTS of people would sell the books for .50 on the dollar cash after they bought everything they needed. Now they have card its less convenient but you can take someone with you and still do the same thing. Plus lifers know how to get everything so once your getting WIC, food stamps, free lunch, rent vouchers, free childcare and anything else you can sign up for its freaking ridiculous. I'm all for a hand up and don't like saying someone cant treat their kid to a birthday cake but the system sucks.

turtlebug said:   pecanpie said:   turtlebug said:   pecanpie said:    they are given a certain amount and that is all ... why worry about how they spend it.
If we pay for people to eat crap, their future health becomes an issue. If they have private insurance, that would be their own business, but they don't - which means we're paying for related medical treatment as well.


well, people will complain if you give them vouchers to eat better cuts of meat ... and others will complain that they eat better food than people who work.

I'm talking about eliminating the ability of purchasing junk food with food stamps.


right, but the OP is also complaining about cashews and other nuts. they ARE good for you.
i agree that candy should be eliminated and some junk food. i honestly don't know enough about the system, but if people are truly down on their luck, you don't need to push them further by telling them only beans and rice. (just an example ... i like beans and rice.)

ganda said:   Do you see that footage of the starving Ethanopian complaining about the food American taxpayers airlifted to him? No, me neither. The warlords took it.

packratmarty said:   Having been raised in a welfare environment, I would totally support a WIC-like system. People can buy nothing but crap if they want and the system is full of fraud. Used to be LOTS of people would sell the books for .50 on the dollar cash after they bought everything they needed. Now they have card its less convenient but you can take someone with you and still do the same thing. Plus lifers know how to get everything so once your getting WIC, food stamps, free lunch, rent vouchers, free childcare and anything else you can sign up for its freaking ridiculous. I'm all for a hand up and don't like saying someone cant treat their kid to a birthday cake but the system sucks.

yeah, i don't know enough about the system. i just think that people should be able to have choices. even WIC is probably way different than it was when i was a single parent in the military. (20+ yrs ago. )

i think my disabled uncle gets foodstamps. he would NEVER cook a meal. his foods are mostly convenience foods. (not necessarily junk foods.)

ganda said:   

The system is broken. It's supposed to be temporary for people who are genuinely "down on their luck", but it doesn't work like that today. Come to one of my local grocery stores and I'll show you 300lb "hungry" people buying junk food with OUR money.


You know, I think there is a pretty big misunderstanding in our society about what our welfare system is like ever since the Clinton era reforms. Here is a couple of the notable ones:

1) Requires most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance,
2) Limits most assistance to five years total, and
3) Let states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance.

If you're taking care of yourself on your own dime, you should be allowed to eat whatever the hell you want, as long as you're also willing to pay for any medical treatment as a result of said eating habits.

If you're eating on someone else's dime - accepting charity - why should you have any choice in the matter? You should be happy you have food!

So, you don't like to cook, GET OVER IT! So, you only like to eat candy and can't stand the sight of veggies? GET OVER IT!

Or don't eat. That's your choice.

Kandykornhead said:   ganda said:   Do you see that footage of the starving Ethanopian complaining about the food American taxpayers airlifted to him? No, me neither. The warlords took it.

Well tell them to put it on YouTube.

My foodstamps anecdote. 94 year ol relative gets foodstamps but essentially doesn't use them since they live on cookies and coffee. She gives them to a (severely conservative teabagging) part of the family who stock up on luxury foods (lobsters, whole tenderloins) with their "free" money. Great system!

turtlebug said:   If you're taking care of yourself on your own dime, you should be allowed to eat whatever the hell you want, as long as you're also willing to pay for any medical treatment as a result of said eating habits.

If you're eating on someone else's dime - accepting charity - why should you have any choice in the matter? You should be happy you have food!

So, you don't like to cook, GET OVER IT! So, you only like to eat candy and can't stand the sight of veggies? GET OVER IT!

Or don't eat. That's your choice.


i don't agree. it's not that some people don't like to cook. they can't cook.
and, as i said, i don't' think candy should be allowed.

also, i am sure that there is a abuse of the system, but that's with anything.
that doesn't mean that everyone on assistance is abusing it either.

Drug Testing for SNAP...but the Liberals will cry....why should children be punished if the mom is taking meth. Since most SNAP recipients are rural single white moms, I am generalizing that they are on meth. what do i know.

http://www.theroot.com/views/food-stamp-fallacy

HumDoHamaraDo said:   Drug Testing for SNAP...but the Liberals will cry....why should children be punished if the mom is taking meth. Since most SNAP recipients are rural single white moms, I am generalizing that they are on meth. what do i know.If mom is taking meth aren't the children at risk of a zombie mom attack?

HumDoHamaraDo said:   Drug Testing for SNAP...but the Liberals will cry....why should children be punished if the mom is taking meth. Since most SNAP recipients are rural single white moms, I am generalizing that they are on meth. what do i know.

Who is going to pay for the testing? Are we going to force the people that are already so poor they are having to seek assistance to burden this cost? Are we going to have the government pay for it? If the government pays for it, what if it costs more money to drug test than what we actually pay out to those that are on drugs (much like has occurred in Florida). I agree with the principle, but if your primary goal is to save money it is not practical.

JorgeBurrito said:   HumDoHamaraDo said:   Drug Testing for SNAP...but the Liberals will cry....why should children be punished if the mom is taking meth. Since most SNAP recipients are rural single white moms, I am generalizing that they are on meth. what do i know.

Who is going to pay for the testing? Are we going to force the people that are already so poor they are having to seek assistance to burden this cost? Are we going to have the government pay for it? If the government pays for it, what if it costs more money to drug test than what we actually pay out to those that are on drugs (much like has occurred in Florida). I agree with the principle, but if your primary goal is to save money it is not practical.

If we can make burden people with getting IDs before voting, why can't we burden them with drug-testing before getting benefits.

JorgeBurrito said:   ganda said:   

The system is broken. It's supposed to be temporary for people who are genuinely "down on their luck", but it doesn't work like that today. Come to one of my local grocery stores and I'll show you 300lb "hungry" people buying junk food with OUR money.


You know, I think there is a pretty big misunderstanding in our society about what our welfare system is like ever since the Clinton era reforms. Here is a couple of the notable ones:

1) Requires most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance,
2) Limits most assistance to five years total, and
3) Let states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance.


Yeah, I don't know. I've never used these programs personally (although I have lived on rice and beans and meat once a week for a while because, you know, I had no money). It's just what I see myself at the grocery store, and I think "Really? That's what I'm buying for you? Glad my checking account is still reeling after the check I was forced to write on April 15th to pay for that for you. I didn't get those for myself because those are freaking expensive, it's much cheaper if you make them from scratch yourself."


pecanpie said:   turtlebug said:   pecanpie said:   turtlebug said:   pecanpie said:    they are given a certain amount and that is all ... why worry about how they spend it.
If we pay for people to eat crap, their future health becomes an issue. If they have private insurance, that would be their own business, but they don't - which means we're paying for related medical treatment as well.


well, people will complain if you give them vouchers to eat better cuts of meat ... and others will complain that they eat better food than people who work.

I'm talking about eliminating the ability of purchasing junk food with food stamps.


right, but the OP is also complaining about cashews and other nuts. they ARE good for you.
i agree that candy should be eliminated and some junk food. i honestly don't know enough about the system, but if people are truly down on their luck, you don't need to push them further by telling them only beans and rice. (just an example ... i like beans and rice.)


Honestly, I don't approve of anyone loading up on junk food or feeding it to their children, but I agree that's it's counterproductive to try to micromanage people's diet. Who is going to decide what's allowable? Everyone has a different idea of what's appropriate and many of those opinions are diametrically opposed. Will the selections be based on nutrition or cost? IMO steak is a much better choice than bacon or lunch meat and nuts are an excellent choice for a healthy snack. The same thing can be said about "expensive" fresh fruits and vegetables.

pecanpie said:   turtlebug said:   If you're taking care of yourself on your own dime, you should be allowed to eat whatever the hell you want, as long as you're also willing to pay for any medical treatment as a result of said eating habits.

If you're eating on someone else's dime - accepting charity - why should you have any choice in the matter? You should be happy you have food!

So, you don't like to cook, GET OVER IT! So, you only like to eat candy and can't stand the sight of veggies? GET OVER IT!

Or don't eat. That's your choice.


i don't agree. it's not that some people don't like to cook. they can't cook.


What does "can't cook" mean? They have no arms?

I can't roof a house, so taxpayers roof my house for me!

soundtechie said:   The system already works.it didn't work for me when i wasted my whole lunch hour at the store behind a couple who was arguing with the cashier over if they should be able to get whole milk, when the voucher said low- or non-fat

Skipping 175 Messages...
soundtechie said:   It occurred to me the other day that people were mad about my opinion, and I didn't know why. So I thought about it, and I realized something: I've never been on both WIC and foodstamps. They are two different programs that do two different things, but sometimes (often) people are on both programs at the same time. These people get some food with WIC vouchers, and the other stuff that the wic won't buy they buy with the foodstamps. So, when I say "make foodstamps work like wic", I'm thinking about changing from foodstamps to WIC, but to the people who actually used both programs It's more like changing from "WIC and foodstamps" to "WIC and more WIC". I can see why people would be upset.

People aren't mad about your opinions for reforms, Everyone has them. It is just that everyone of You feel the need to micromanage every person receiving assistance as if they are idiots. If You want to administer it, Go to work at USDA.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014