Box of Food in Lieu of SNAP

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 1:33 pm

jkl 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.)

Sorry. I can't have a rational discussion with anyone who thinks that money spent on SNAP, feeding people who have nothing else to eat, "offers no returns to society."

And, of course, people with income get less in SNAP.

Poor people do not have it better than the middle class.

Take the challenge. Live for a month on the food stamp allowance, without shopping in your freezer or pantry. See how easy it is. I couldn't do it.

↑ jkl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 1:44 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

It helps society survive, it doesn't bring about returns. So when thinking in terms of spending money, it makes a big difference if the money spent is 'lost' forever, or if the money spent will bring growth and more money. Unless perhaps money is of an endless supply. I'm sorry if the facts of life displease you.

I've been there, done that. Life necessitated it. It wasn't fun, nor easy. But how does that relate to funding people's extras in life?

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 1:52 pm

jkl wrote:

Money is not "lost" if it allows children to eat and survive and, hopefully, thrive.

Maybe the government should have allowed you to starve as a child. Maybe your life contributes nothing to the world.

Me, it think it does. I think that there is nothing more important than feeding and caring for children.

People are being given CHOICES, not luxuries. They can choose to use their benefits as they wish, just like everyone else.

I hear that there are people who receive SNAP who actually send their kids to private schools. Why are they not using that $5000 or $10,000 per child, per year, to buy food, and save the government money? Why should they be allowed to do that?

I hear that there are men whose families receive SNAP, but they spend their time in religious studies instead of working. Although I hear there are plenty of jobs available picking crops. Why should they be allowed to do that?

The answer, of course, is that we look at income to determine eligibility. If someone wants to eat rice and beans 25 days a month so that they can have steak the other days, that's their choice.

watergirl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 2:08 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

You are touching on a much bigger concept re: choice. The government cant tell us how to make choices, its very dangerous. Why stop at how we fill our shopping carts and send kids to private schools while on SNAP? Brooklyn and LA are among the most expensive places to live in the country. Your dollar can stretch a lot farther in North Dakota. Let’s make everybody needs government assistance live in North Dakota. It all boils down to limiting the power of the government over our own choices, however unwise they may be.

↑ jkl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 2:29 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Your confusing an emotional argument with a financial argument. When you brought up and compared the total amount of spending from one group vs another, you made a financial one. So I'm responding in kind to that argument. If you want to debate about the emotional aspect, I'm doing that in different posts.

For the financial arguments about spending 59 billion of social welfare vs 92 billion of corporate welfare:

- spending $59 billion annually on social welfare is money gone. That money will no longer bring in any more money or encourage growth. Once the money is spent, the government has to look for more resources to spend the money again next year.

- spending $92 billion on corporate welfare, will encourage economical growth, will allow for more hiring of people and money being returned to the government. The government can then use some part of the money for other things as well as continue this cycle.

Now lets relate that to society.

- With social welfare, it creates a dependent society. Where people forever remain poor and are always dependent on society. So again that money spent offers no returns (financial returns).

- With corporate welfare, more opportunities are presented, more job spots open, and more people get hired. So people who are poor or earning very little, can have opportunities to get out of it. And if they are successful, they will be contributing back to society, instead of being on social welfare.

Now lets talk about if the spending were reverse - more on social welfare, less on economic growth.

- if less opportunities are available, more people end up on social welfare and the cost skyrockets. Being that money spent on social welfare offers no financial returns, the money has to come from somewhere, so it comes out of other people's pocket. And when more and more money comes out of a person's pocket, it heightens the chance of them becoming poor or struggling and they may end up on the social welfare, causing the costs to go higher and higher till its completely unsustainable.

So forgive me (and others) who prefer the government spends more on encouraging economic growth than on social welfare. This way is sustainable and in the long run creates better situations for more.

↑ jkl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 2:35 pm

watergirl wrote:

By only allowing healthy foods to be purchased, its not limiting your choices. You can buy fruits, vegetables, breads, pastas, chicken, beans, rice, dairy, etc. There is plenty to choose from. Its not like they're telling you, hey you can only buy apples, you cannot buy oranges, pears, or watermelons.

You can choose to spend between the 50 cent apple or the $3 pomegranate. You can choose to spend on two packs of chicken or 5 loaves of bread. No one is telling you exactly how to stretch the money allotted to you. It would only be telling you that don't indulge on extra (chocolates and candies) on society's funds.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 2:55 pm

jkl wrote:

First of all, people on SNAP often cannot afford the cost of fresh produce.

But let's leave that aside. What's an "extra"? How can you define that? Right now, a whole rotisserie chicken is on sale at Walmart for $4.98. What's wrong with that? Why should taxpayers be paying more because you don't want to eat a "treyf" chicken.

Pork loin is $1.94 a pound at Walmart. Ham shank 79 cents and Stop and Shop. That's not good enough for you, you want expensive kosher meat, why should taxpayers pay?

Slippery slope.

There's this myth that food stamps can afford you luxurious foods. It can't. It doesn't. Maybe an occasional splurge, but nothing more.

↑ watergirl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 2:59 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

You’re talking about the honest SNAP user. I think the poster you quoted is thinking about all lf the threads on here about people cheating the system who buy steaks and meat.

↑ jkl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 3:04 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

We've been discussing categories, not prices. The government can just select certain categories as being allowed or disallowed, and then the recipients can make the choices you prefer.

If chicken and turkey are considered to be acceptable categories, you can buy all the rotisserie chicken you want.

The issue you refer to about kosher prices is equally relevant now with the current setup. We aren't allotted more money according to kosher prices. Standards are set per income categories, not according to cultural prices of food.

No one on this thread has suggested setting limitations by price. All that has been suggested is that only necessities (nutritious & healthy food) should be allowed to purchased via benefits. It's a universal application, so there is no slippery slope present. A slippery slope would only be present if different determinations would be set for different groups.

For those claiming that luxurious foods are not being purchased, that it's a myth, I challenge you to come to grocery stores in some communities and stand by the register for an hour or two.

↑ watergirl ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 3:14 pm

jkl wrote:

If someone is buying luxuries with SNAP, then theres somethjng fishy. Its proven not to be enough money to support for a month. Read the explination upthread.

saw50st8 ↓

Tue, Feb 13 2018, 3:23 pm

SixOfWands 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.

My food bill for a family of 6 is between $800-1000/month and we eat a lot of meat/chicken/fish and fresh vegetables. Are you sure that number is right? That's awfully high!