Box of Food in Lieu of SNAP

↑ seeker ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:07 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

But even that would be better than what's contemplated.

WIC at least gives vouchers. You can choose to buy corn flakes or oatmeal ... or just not use the voucher.

A box of food gives no choices.

Moreover, delivery would be a real issue.

About 25% of SNAP recipients are elderly or disabled. How are they going to pick up their food? And a very large percentage of the rest are the working poor, with kids. Ditto.

The WIC vouchers are extremely limited. Pretty crummy choices. And if you're relying on SNAP then "or just not use the voucher" is basically "let them eat cake."

I don't see how delivery boxes are any worse than needing to go to the store for the elderly, disabled, or working. Maybe it could be a choice thing.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:18 pm

seeker wrote:

I've been known to shop for a disabled relative who has SNAP. I take his list and his card, and get what he needs. But I can't take him to get a box, or get it for him, during business hours.

As to not using vouchers, I was thinking of juice. If you don't serve your kids juice, you don't use the voucher. If its in a box, its wasted.

↑ seeker ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:22 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Yes, this is one of the reasons the boxes are a bad idea.
There's lots of waste on WIC also, very often things are grouped on one voucher and you need to get all the items on the voucher or else you get nothing.

Like I said, I think Wic-type vouchers for fruits and vegetables would be a nice idea - but the whole WIC system would not work on a population scale.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:24 pm

little neshamala wrote:

Youre right.
Use my other examples of seeing people buy cake mix, sprinkles, fondant, and an entire wagon full of assorted soda bottles.

Ive seen things like this multiple times.

I never have. I've seen one or two items, and people focusing on them.

But if I saw a person with a grocery cart with cake mix, sprinkles, fondant, and soda, I'd assume that they had a kid with a birthday coming up.

Or do you think that poor kids aren't allowed to have a birthday cake. Didn't you mention that you were on SNAP or WIC? Did you tell your kids "happy birthday, pumpkin! Sorry, no gifts, no cake, no party, we're poor."

↑ little neshamala ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:28 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Ive been that poor little kid that didnt have a real birthday party.

I would never dream of it being the goverment 's responsibility to provide me with one.

↑ 33055 ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:31 pm

little neshamala wrote:

And once im all started up....when I finally got myself a job and no longer qualified for wic, I called them up to tell them that I probably don't qualify anymore because my income would be much higher, and they can take me off the program.

And do you know what they told me???
"Oh, you can stay on for another year anyway."
Me:"but I make enough money now. Im over the limit!"
Them: "thats ok. Everyone can stay on for another year until youve transitioned and keep your job etc"

Why in the world cant they keep people who get jobs in a "holding place"? Not getting wic, but if they lose this job can hop right back on...

The money wasting is unbelievable

They do this to promote marriage in some places. This gives the newly married family a transition period. People weren't getting married because they father's income would put them over the limit. When I was reading about this, they mentioned that kids have an 82% less chance of opiod addictionb in two parent homes. I am all for this policy.

Moonlight ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:41 pm

seeker wrote:

That's not true. You can get whatever items on the list you would like. I never got certain products on my list or skipped some milks because they would just spoil if I got them all.
I was on WIC for a while but off now.

bigsis144

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:42 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

This.
It feels so dehumanizing to not allow poor people pleasurable, non-essential things in life. To say, “you’re poor, so we don’t trust you to make decisions for yourself.”

↑ Moonlight

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:43 pm

little neshamala wrote:

Right, thats why im suggesting a holding area. They would still have everything in place as active, but just paused. If the job doesnt go through, they just continue where they were before.

Right now my sister is making around 75k (one child) and receiving wic. She gives out all the food to other people. She told wic she doesnt "qualify" financially it but the coupons are still issued

Just saying, the coupons can only be used if someone goes to pick them up... which is a process. Its not like the coupons are getting mailed to her. You have to bring your kids and get a dr form and all.

jkl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 12:51 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

This is the quandary I have.

Should a poor person have equal access to 'extras' pertaining to food, compared to the middle class of society?

Of course poor kids should have a birthday cake (or some sort of recognition). And poor families should be able to buy the necessary foods. But being on another person's dole, does require some restraint. The lower middle class people are forced to restrain themselves on a weekly basis and very often the child gets a birthday cupcake instead of a cake, because money doesn't allow it. And even if Yom Tov does call for better meals, very often the lower middle class makes do with chicken instead of any sort of beef. If you'll compare the groceries from the lower middle class to the people on the SNAP program, you'll often find that the better (or tastier) selection of food is in the cart of the one with the benefit card.

Is it really wrong to have poor people restrain themselves when it comes to the extras related to food (I.e. cake, Yom Tov specialties, chocolate and junk). Should the ones on receiving aid from others be better off than the next rank of lower middle class? I don't see why limiting what foods can be purchased on SNAP is a negative thing. The poor will have all the healthy necessities they need and their restraint will be limited to the extras. Is it really wrong to have them juggle the need for their extras, instead of placing their need for extras (birthday cakes, etc.) on the largesse of society?

Receiving aid is not supposed to be a very pleasant situation. If anything, perhaps some discomfort will encourage people to try to better their lives instead of staying stuck in the system.

Yes, I know, there are some people so poor that this is literally the only form of income they have or the bulk of it. But that doesn't negate the argument for the rest. A line has to be drawn somewhere, especially when the costs of such programs are becoming a very heavy societal burden.

↑ jkl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 1:00 pm

bigsis144 wrote:

This.
It feels so dehumanizing to not allow poor people pleasurable, non-essential things in life. To say, “you’re poor, so we don’t trust you to make decisions for yourself.”

Why? They are not being denied pleasurable, non-essentials. We are helping them out with necessities! The programs were created to assist people with life necessities, not to help them fill voids in their lives. Pleasurable items and non-essentials are not society's burden to bear.

It's their life situation that has put them in this place, it's what is denying them pleasurable non essentials AND essentials. We, being the generous country that we are, are assisting them with essentials, so they can a live a decent and healthy life. It's a stretch to jump from that to say that by helping then only with essentials we are dehumanizing them by not allowing them the pleasure of non-essentials.

If you give a poor man some bread to eat, are you denying him the pleasure of sable fish and lox fish?

↑ little neshamala ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 1:03 pm

Look, I feel very awful for people who are poor, and for children who cant have birthday parties. Like I said, I was that child and I know what its like.

I grew up very very poor.

Every single item was hand me down, until I was about 17 and bought myself, for the first time in my life, some brand new, never worn before, underwear from walmart.
Suppers were tomchei shabbos food stretched a million ways. Gross.
I was the little girl answering the phone during supper, telling the credit card debt collectors that "mommy isnt availabe".
My mother couldnt afford to buy me pads. I made do with other things. I dont want to discuss it.
I used to color on my legs in certain spots with black sharpie so the holes in my hand me down tights would be less visible.
The lights were never on. I lived in a dark house, because the electric bill was too high.
Real snacks, puddings and chips were things id only dream of.
A new knapsack? Forget it. School shoes? Last years ripped sneakers from the thrift shop would have to do.

I know what it is like to be poor.

It is awful. Truly.

However. It is really not the taxpayers responsibility to give every poor child a birthday cake. Hey, why not cater a superbowl party? The poor child has never been able to afford a superbowl party and he feel so mad because all his classmates......why not give a 15$ Walmart gift card for every childs birthday as well?

Its simply not the governments responsibility to give poor families extras.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 1:10 pm

jkl wrote:

For a family of 6, the maximum monthly SNAP benefit in 2018 is $913, for families with no other income whatsoever. That's about $210 a week, or $35 per person per week, or (assuming that the kids are eligible for free school lunches) a little more than $2 per person per meal.

Do you really think that they're eating steak and fresh asparagus on that budget?

They're budgeting. And saving. And hoping that the end of the month comes before the end of the money, because it usually doesn't.

In fact, however, and as someone alluded to earlier, the reason that obesity and poverty go hand in hand is because junk is cheaper than healthful foods. And if potato chips are all you can afford to keep your toddler's tummy full, because fruit and vegetables cost too much, you're giving her chips.

All welfare, including SNAP benefits, cost about $59 billion in fiscal year 2016. In contrast, the government gave $92 billion in so-called corporate welfare the same year. I know where I'm drawing the line.

questioner

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 1:22 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

A lot depends on the family demographics. A family of 6 can be 2 parents + 4 hungry teenagers or it can be 2 parents + 5,3,1 yr olds and mother is expecting. The first family is stretching their budget, the second one could easily afford a steak dinner once a week on a $900 budget.

↑ jkl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 1:24 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Oh, I wish people would read in full. I specifically stated that while there are some families that this is their only income, it doesn't negate the issue. There will always be outliers to every situation, and being that they are outliers we cannot decide an entire system based on them alone.

In many many many families, this is an add'l income, not their sole income. So what would be wrong in allowing families to purchase only healthy options with the government money? If anything else is needed, they can juggle their needs with the other income - AS THE REST OF THE MIDDLE CLASS, especially the lower middle class, does. What I don't understand is why the poor people need to have their situation be better off than the middle class? If healthy food is more costly, what do you think the lower middle class are buying? What do you think the lower middle class people, the ones barely, or not, making ends meet are filling their children's tummies with?

As for the figures you've mentioned. That's FIFTY NINE BILLION DOLLARS that offers no returns for society. It's a dead end, never growing or flourishing into anything. The $92 Billion dollars in benefits for the corporate companies generate returns to society. Who do you think is hiring people, the SNAP recipients, or the corporate companies? Who do you think is creating an economy for society - the SNAP recipients or the corporate companies.? (And please spare us the response that the CEOs are taking that money and putting it into their own bank accounts.)