Maybe I'm being judgmental but...

penelopepink09

swimbikepuke:

penelopepink09:

rosenjoe:

dori1678:

No they shouldn't. If I fail my drug test at work then I get fired. Me getting fired = I don't get paid. 

And your kid should totally have to starve because you effed up.  Right on. 

This is why children shouldn't have to be in a home with drug addict parents.  Even if mom qualifies for food stamps, because she's a drug addict, she probably won't spend her EBT money on food for her children. (PP made this point previously I believe.)

 

Here's a list of what you can use your EBT money for. 

Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:

Foods for the household to eat, such as:
	-- breads and cereals -- fruits and vegetables -- meats, fish and poultry; and -- dairy products
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.

Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:

Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as:
	-- pet foods; -- soaps, paper products; and -- household supplies.
Vitamins and medicines.
Food that will be eaten in the store.
Hot foods

https://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP/retailers/generic.pdf

(You'll note beer and cigarettes are not on this list.  Crack isn't either.)

 

You can buy soda, and energy drinks, and chips, and candy (we've established this) and other junk foods.  Someone please tell me how this is nutritionally beneficial to a small child, or ANY child for that matter? 

preppynewlywed

BrideJaye:

Oh my goodness, there is so much here, I don't know where to begin.

OP-I think we've established that the store put signs there because of the higher profit margins they get on candy. They are a business, not a gov't agency. They have an obligation to their profits, not the health of their customers (despite the fact that they are a pharmacy). That is the beautiful world of capitalism we live in. Anyway, I think we all agree on this point. It's annoying, to be sure, but such is life in America.

There were so many other things being said, I wasn't sure who to quote! A couple points I'd like to submit for your consideration:

1.) Americans buy shiitty, junky food. This is not some wild phenomenon of people on gov't assistance. People with EBT have the same shopping patterns as regular, Joe The Plumber Americans.

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08415.pdf

2.) I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that a majority of those opposed to their taxes going to pay for food stamps and the like, are also super mad at Obama right now and his enormous budget. But his budget includes more money ($32 mill) going to nutritional education as part of the food stamp program.

3.) Incentives for healthier eating already exist, and will be expanded

(Source for points 2 & 3: https://www.frac.org/Legislative/budget_FY2011.htm)

4.) Welfare rolls have decreased significantly over the last decade-and-a-half. In 2007 (before the worst of our economic downturn happened, since when the rolls have increased), about 1.7 million families were on welfare. In 1996, there were 4.5 million families on welfare. The ratio of recipients on welfare has also dropped from 2.56 to 2.34, which is a direct counter-point to the argument that people are "encouraged" or rewarded to have more babies while on welfare.

Source: https://blog.cleveland.com/wideopen/2007/10/welfare_rolls_still_plunging_a.html

Bravo.

I am going to add though that I have an extreme dislike for Obama, and I get it.

I pinky swear not all Conservatives are as stupid as some of the people in this thread right now.

pixy_stix

dori1678:

I do not think a weekly pee test would be necessary. Like I said in my original post, "..someone should be required to pass a drug test before becoming eligible for government assistance". Never once did I state that a weekly drug test should be required.

Well, that's a whole lotta pointless.  You only need to be clean for 2 weeks to pass a pee test.

copzgirl

IrishBrideND:

BrittH05:

MrsTotty:

BrittH05:

pixy_stix:

BrittH05:

angelnumber8:

You do realize that some people who get ebt still have jobs and pay taxes just the same as everyone,with the economy and loss of jobs it sometimes is needed to make it by.who are you to judge what they buy.deniying a child a easter treat shame on you

 If this is true, then buy needs with your EBT's and pay cash for th candy and non needs.  Makes since to me.  Yep I get the economy, my family has cut back a lot and given up a lot of things, people on this programs will have to do the same.  That is just life it is the way it works. I fell no shame. 

As evidenced by your earlier posts today, you're just bitter the government didn't step in you help you.  Too bad, so sad.

 

 

yes you are sooo right! Being angry that the gov't won't allow me to claim a loss on a house I sold and paid for the loss out of my own pocket, while I was forced to move so my husband can put his life on the life for people like you everyday, while they are baling out people who bought homes WAY over what the could afford or didn't read the language in the mortgage they signed is EXACTLY the same as being angry about food stamps! You have me all figured out! Although you obviously didn't understand my post at all as I will assume you do not understand how the Capital Gains and Paying for things out of your own pocket work. 

I am not Bitter they didn't help, I am bitter that they hand out to others who knew that they could not afford what they were buying yet did it anyway. 

So basically you're throwing a little temper tantrum in this post because DAMNIT if YOU can't get government assitance for your home, then goldernit it if other people should get assistance for Cadbury Creme eggs. 

Gotit.  LOL

 

LOL to you too! I am saying those of us who take care of ourselves get screwed and have to cut back, but hell lets make sure everyone has an Easter Basket that is important!

You do realize its not that they get EXTRA money for an easter basket, right? They can simply chose to cut back in other areas and then use some of the EBT for it.

People seem to think the gov't is giving out money for candy....

thanks Irish, I had one dream left..one *kicks puppies*

EastSideFluffy

kelbrian:

BrittH05:

I don't need any of them, because we prepared for Rainy Days, but yep tired of given my money away all the damn time to people who do a whole lot of nothing and I have worked in the system, fraud is rampant and pretty easy to do.  My DH and I could have qualified for programs when we were 1st married, but never used them because we figured out how to get by.  I don't mind helping, I have HUGE issues with giving people things they don't need and there isn't anything wrong with that.  Yea, I think the way this system works, it just praises those who do not help themselves, and hinders those who work hard.

And heck yea they should have to pass a drug test.  You betcha.  I am glad you are cool with selling your grandchildren money off before you even know who they are.

I just feel the need to say, "Maverick.'

That is all. 

/dead. 

dori1678

mrsbecky07:

dori1678:

mrsbecky07:

pixy_stix:

dori1678:

I do think someone should be required to pass a drug test before becoming eligible for government assistance. 

OH YAY!  This thread will go on for some time.

Why?  People who have an addiction shouldn't be allowed to receive help?

AWESOME - that is just what I was thinking Pixy. Here we go. 

So because a child's mother is addicted to an illegal substance, that child doesn't get the benefits of the government assistance?

In this situation the child shouldn't be allowed to live with the mother who is addicted to crack!

Why did you assume it was crack? I said an illegal substance.

And who is the child going to live with?  A foster parent?  A relative?  Sure, if they have one that the system can track down. You?  (and no, I'm not advocating that children stay with addicted parents, before that gets taken away from my comments.  I'm just pointing out that your simple solution - "don't let the child live with that parent!" is a lot more complex than it sounds at first brush.)

Anyway, the problem is that people can be addicted to lots of things that aren't illegal - alcohol, prescription drugs - but that stuff would be okay on a drug test.  So a test for illegal drugs wouldn't be an accurate indicator of whether a person is an addict.

Drug tests are expensive, plus the costs of administering them, etc. - do you want to pay more in taxes to cover that? 

 

 

Crack was just an example, don't get all upset about it. And yes, I would pay more in taxes if I knew that my tax dollars were going to the people who needed it and not to the people abusing the system. 

 And of course there is no simple solution on deciding where the child will go in that type of situation. I never claimed to HAVE that solution. But the child certainly does not need to be in the direct care of a drug addict!

epphd

penelopepink09:

You can buy soda, and energy drinks, and chips, and candy (we've established this) and other junk foods.  Someone please tell me how this is nutritionally beneficial to a small child, or ANY child for that matter? 

No one says it is, but EBT is not WIC.  What if the feds told you that you were only allowed to use your EBT to buy broccoli and beans - would you be cool with that? Because, you know, since you are on assistance you can't be trusted to make smart choices and you don't deserve a treat once in a while. 

MrsTotty

BrittH05:

LOL to you too! I am saying those of us who take care of ourselves get screwed and have to cut back, but hell lets make sure everyone has an Easter Basket that is important!

YUP, thats EXACTLY what I'm saying.  Jeesh, you're just too smart for me.  I better bow out of this argument before I get told off.  Absofrickinlutely.

LOLOLOLOL.

penelopepink09

EastSideFluffy:

kelbrian:

BrittH05:

I don't need any of them, because we prepared for Rainy Days, but yep tired of given my money away all the damn time to people who do a whole lot of nothing and I have worked in the system, fraud is rampant and pretty easy to do.  My DH and I could have qualified for programs when we were 1st married, but never used them because we figured out how to get by.  I don't mind helping, I have HUGE issues with giving people things they don't need and there isn't anything wrong with that.  Yea, I think the way this system works, it just praises those who do not help themselves, and hinders those who work hard.

And heck yea they should have to pass a drug test.  You betcha.  I am glad you are cool with selling your grandchildren money off before you even know who they are.

I just feel the need to say, "Maverick.'

That is all. 

/dead. 

::gigglefit::

earthycrunchymama

TO CLARIFY: I honestly didn't expect this to end up in a debate about whether the poor should be entitled to easter baskets, skittles, bogs, and that they all need to wear hamidowns if they are a mom, but dress their kids well, etc...

My original reason for posting was because I was irritated that the STORE was selectively choosing to market that they accept EBT buy unhealthy food choices as skipping the healthy food... and, what does this say about society? 

It quickly spun into a discussion of what the poor should be entitled to. 

I understand the poor still make choices in what they buy, but I think nutrition education is still important and lacking in America. I was irritated that it was a drug store. But at the same time, of course the drug stores are going to profit off America's obesity epidemic.

Yeah, it's just another corporation that probably cares more about making a buck then the health of their customers. So if they make a buck up front pushing unhealthy food (with bigger markups) then turn around and profit when their customers have diabetes, heart disease, are looking for nutritional supplements and weight-loss products, etc.. yeah. it works for them. it just isn't so hot for the customer.

 I just wish we as a society would help encourage healthy eating for everyone - and NOT just for the poor. Of course developing diseases like diabetes and heart disease will also lead to poverty when a healthy middle (or upper class) person is unable to work due to health issues. I've met waaaay too many middle aged adults on disability for serious diabetes complications (causing vision loss, needing transplants, severe neuropathy, having amputations, etc). I don't see it ONLY as a poverty issue. It's a public health issue that affects all of us.

It just irritates me when stores like this, and other stores (or commercials) over-market the junk. It IS tempting. But the whole american food system and lifestyles have changed in the past 30 years. I worry about what it will be like when my child is my age.

It's not that I think kids should go without fun, based on their family income.  It just baffles me where our priorities are and how these things are marketed to us... does it work this way in other countries???

I don't blame the poor for going to McDs or other fast food places for unhealthy $1 items. I don't tend to like fast food, but was shocked a week ago when my bf and I stopped at one on a trip out of town and we both ate for under $7. no wonder  parents  do McDs drive through rather then cooking. it's cheap and easy. 

I think it was Food Inc. with a scene of a family in a grocery store trying to shop on a budget that really points  out the difference between cheap junk and healthy food.

 but very rarely do you see good info in public (not just online) on shopping healthy on a budget.

I just wish stores accepting any Gov't funding would be mandated to have healthy eating tips or nutrition education posted instead of marketing whats quick, cheap and easy. 

EastSideFluffy

pixy_stix:

dori1678:

I do not think a weekly pee test would be necessary. Like I said in my original post, "..someone should be required to pass a drug test before becoming eligible for government assistance". Never once did I state that a weekly drug test should be required.

Well, that's a whole lotta pointless.  You only need to be clean for 2 weeks to pass a pee test.

Right.  And, perhaps they were too poor to afford the stuff before qualifying, but that extra $38/week can buy a pretty nice size bog of weed, freeing up the other money for chix and milk products.  It seems if your vision was really going to be effective, you would want to test during the reciept of funds, not before.

 

Temp950106187509203

preppynewlywed:

Bravo.

I am going to add though that I have an extreme dislike for Obama, and I get it.

I pinky swear not all Conservatives are as stupid as some of the people in this thread right now.

Word, Preppy.  Conservative =/= stupid and heartless, the people in this thread who make it seem that way notwithstanding.

BrittH05

it won't let me quote you for some reason, but response to Army comment:

Didn't say it did.  And Navy. My earlier post was about our Tax system.  I am pissed that I can not sight a loss on a house I sold as well I think I should be allowed to be.  I think it is back wards that had we "made" money on our home we would have had to claim it, however since we had a "loss" we can not because it wasn't an investment property.  However...had we bought a home we were qualified for at around 350k, and then sold our house but had a "larger" loss then the gov't would have stepped in and given us the money to sell.  I don't care I didn't get the gov't program, but I think it is pretty back wards that I can not claim a loss, have to claim a gain, and had I bought a home I couldn't afford the gov't would have help my hand.  I am sorry but sure seems like we punish those who do what they should and help those who do not. Also, had we not be military we wouldn't have sold at all and just stayed there till later.  We had no issues paying for the house as we bought a home we knew we could afford with a mortgage that would have stayed the same the whole time we lived there.  We moved due to job.

dori1678

pixy_stix:

dori1678:

I do not think a weekly pee test would be necessary. Like I said in my original post, "..someone should be required to pass a drug test before becoming eligible for government assistance". Never once did I state that a weekly drug test should be required.

Well, that's a whole lotta pointless.  You only need to be clean for 2 weeks to pass a pee test.

Exactly... do you really think that a heroine or crack addict can stay clean for 2 weeks?!? 

mrsbecky07

dori1678:

mrsbecky07:

dori1678:

mrsbecky07:

pixy_stix:

dori1678:

I do think someone should be required to pass a drug test before becoming eligible for government assistance. 

OH YAY!  This thread will go on for some time.

Why?  People who have an addiction shouldn't be allowed to receive help?

AWESOME - that is just what I was thinking Pixy. Here we go. 

So because a child's mother is addicted to an illegal substance, that child doesn't get the benefits of the government assistance?

In this situation the child shouldn't be allowed to live with the mother who is addicted to crack!

Why did you assume it was crack? I said an illegal substance.

And who is the child going to live with?  A foster parent?  A relative?  Sure, if they have one that the system can track down. You?  (and no, I'm not advocating that children stay with addicted parents, before that gets taken away from my comments.  I'm just pointing out that your simple solution - "don't let the child live with that parent!" is a lot more complex than it sounds at first brush.)

Anyway, the problem is that people can be addicted to lots of things that aren't illegal - alcohol, prescription drugs - but that stuff would be okay on a drug test.  So a test for illegal drugs wouldn't be an accurate indicator of whether a person is an addict.

Drug tests are expensive, plus the costs of administering them, etc. - do you want to pay more in taxes to cover that? 

 

 

Crack was just an example, don't get all upset about it. And yes, I would pay more in taxes if I knew that my tax dollars were going to the people who needed it and not to the people abusing the system. 

 And of course there is no simple solution on deciding where the child will go in that type of situation. I never claimed to HAVE that solution. But the child certainly does not need to be in the direct care of a drug addict!

Don't worry, I'm not upset.

I noticed you didn't respond to the part about testing for illegal drugs not being an indicator of whether someone is an addict?  So everything else aside, the basic idea of requiring drug tests before someone becomes eligible for gov. assistance just doesn't work.  Plus, like Pixy pointed out above, you only have to be clean for about two weeks to pass a pee test. 

and it's very easy to make blanket statements like "kids shouldn't live with drug addicts."  Of course not. But blanket statements don't produce solutions.  It's easy to say "war is bad" or "education is a priority" but when it comes time to hammer out the possible solutions, too many people then say "well I don't know."   And that accomplishes nothing.

penelopepink09

epphd:

penelopepink09:

You can buy soda, and energy drinks, and chips, and candy (we've established this) and other junk foods.  Someone please tell me how this is nutritionally beneficial to a small child, or ANY child for that matter? 

No one says it is, but EBT is not WIC.  What if the feds told you that you were only allowed to use your EBT to buy broccoli and beans - would you be cool with that? Because, you know, since you are on assistance you can't be trusted to make smart choices and you don't deserve a treat once in a while. 

Hahaha, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm pretty sure I was pointing out that parents who are abusing illegal substances might not be trusted to make smart choices.  I feel bad for the children who have to survive on junk food and don't get the nutrients they need. 

 

epphd

earthycrunchymama:

I just wish stores accepting any Gov't funding would be mandated to have healthy eating tips or nutrition education posted instead of marketing whats quick, cheap and easy. 

Do you think that if the stores followed your recommendation that people would't buy Easter candy?  Come on.  And you can't tell a store what to market. I think we all agree that America has a junk food problem.  Education is one important key, but making healthy food affordable is a much bigger key.  Until healthy food is as cheap as junk food - and as easy to prepare - the problem will continue.

epphd

BrittH05:

it won't let me quote you for some reason, but response to Army comment:

Didn't say it did.  And Navy. My earlier post was about our Tax system.  I am pissed that I can not sight a loss on a house I sold as well I think I should be allowed to be.  I think it is back wards that had we "made" money on our home we would have had to claim it, however since we had a "loss" we can not because it wasn't an investment property.  However...had we bought a home we were qualified for at around 350k, and then sold our house but had a "larger" loss then the gov't would have stepped in and given us the money to sell.  I don't care I didn't get the gov't program, but I think it is pretty back wards that I can not claim a loss, have to claim a gain, and had I bought a home I couldn't afford the gov't would have help my hand.  I am sorry but sure seems like we punish those who do what they should and help those who do not. Also, had we not be military we wouldn't have sold at all and just stayed there till later.  We had no issues paying for the house as we bought a home we knew we could afford with a mortgage that would have stayed the same the whole time we lived there.  We moved due to job.

What's with the Random Caps?  Rainy Day and Tax do not need Caps.

earthycrunchymama

penelopepink09:

swimbikepuke:

penelopepink09:

rosenjoe:

dori1678:

No they shouldn't. If I fail my drug test at work then I get fired. Me getting fired = I don't get paid. 

And your kid should totally have to starve because you effed up.  Right on. 

This is why children shouldn't have to be in a home with drug addict parents.  Even if mom qualifies for food stamps, because she's a drug addict, she probably won't spend her EBT money on food for her children. (PP made this point previously I believe.)

 

Here's a list of what you can use your EBT money for. 

Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:

Foods for the household to eat, such as:
	-- breads and cereals -- fruits and vegetables -- meats, fish and poultry; and -- dairy products
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.

Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:

Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as:
	-- pet foods; -- soaps, paper products; and -- household supplies.
Vitamins and medicines.
Food that will be eaten in the store.
Hot foods

https://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP/retailers/generic.pdf

(You'll note beer and cigarettes are not on this list.  Crack isn't either.)

You can buy soda, and energy drinks, and chips, and candy (we've established this) and other junk foods.  Someone please tell me how this is nutritionally beneficial to a small child, or ANY child for that matter? 

wow! I never knew you could buy plants/seeds! thats pretty cool, IMO though I don't see many grocery stores with them... too bad! 

I wish they'd cover things like toilet paper and toothpaste too. seriously. they are medically necessary. (no TP can = UTIs, and the toothpaste should be obvious)... 

 I don't see paper plates and other things as necessary. even rags could be used instead of papertowels. but there aren't many things you can use for toothpaste. other household cleaners can be made from food-ingredients. just gotta be creative!

MrsTotty

BrittH05:

it won't let me quote you for some reason, but response to Army comment:

Didn't say it did.  And Navy. My earlier post was about our Tax system.  I am pissed that I can not sight a loss on a house I sold as well I think I should be allowed to be.  I think it is back wards that had we "made" money on our home we would have had to claim it, however since we had a "loss" we can not because it wasn't an investment property.  However...had we bought a home we were qualified for at around 350k, and then sold our house but had a "larger" loss then the gov't would have stepped in and given us the money to sell.  I don't care I didn't get the gov't program, but I think it is pretty back wards that I can not claim a loss, have to claim a gain, and had I bought a home I couldn't afford the gov't would have help my hand.  I am sorry but sure seems like we punish those who do what they should and help those who do not. Also, had we not be military we wouldn't have sold at all and just stayed there till later.  We had no issues paying for the house as we bought a home we knew we could afford with a mortgage that would have stayed the same the whole time we lived there.  We moved due to job.

Now I just want to slap you.  You're a military family and bought a $350k house and are now complaining because you *have* to move and couldn't get govt. funding to recover the loss????

Please tell me I'm reading this incorrectly.  PLEASE.

I'm a military brat.  I never lived anywhere longer than 3 years.  And when my parents bought a home and it wouldn't sell, it got rented out.  And I promise you my mom never whined to the government about how they didn't help her. 

ETA:  'backwards' is ONE WORD. 

mrsbecky07

dori1678:

pixy_stix:

dori1678:

I do not think a weekly pee test would be necessary. Like I said in my original post, "..someone should be required to pass a drug test before becoming eligible for government assistance". Never once did I state that a weekly drug test should be required.

Well, that's a whole lotta pointless.  You only need to be clean for 2 weeks to pass a pee test.

Exactly... do you really think that a heroine or crack addict can stay clean for 2 weeks?!? 

But your idea isn't just targeted at the addicts.  If someone uses cocaine once and then goes in for a pee test that will show up, so that will disqualify them from receiving benefits even if they are NOT an addict.

And FTR - yes, some addicts can go without using drugs for extended periods of time if there is a significant benefit at the end of it.  My sister has been addicted to a myriad of drugs and every time she goes to rehab, she cleans up, she's fine, for a month, however long the program is, and then she's released and within an hour she'd be using again.  That's not a-typical.

epphd

penelopepink09:

 

Hahaha, that's not what I'm saying at all.  I'm pretty sure I was pointing out that parents who are abusing illegal substances might not be trusted to make smart choices.  I feel bad for the children who have to survive on junk food and don't get the nutrients they need. 

Ok, I think I got ya.

scubaspot

There seem to be a lot of people on both sides who are extremely closed minded and have no true knowledge of the issue,despite your obvious opinions otherwise. Nothing is ever as cut and dry as people think and not everything is black or white. For most those who actually did have an intelligent point to make unfortunately, it was ruined by the obvious bitterness and anger that seethed from every word. Although I cannot get anything intellectually from this post I am getting a lot of entertainment, so go forth hormonal wenches and amuse me!

I would also like to add that although I feel that all children should be able to experience holidays and celebrations to the fullest extent I have never heard of a child being traumatized for life because mom couldn't purchase them a bag of skittles. I know I for one NEVER had candy and although I am a little bi*ch it has nothing to do with the lack of skittles I indulged in while growing up. 

   

mrsbecky07

epphd:

BrittH05:

it won't let me quote you for some reason, but response to Army comment:

Didn't say it did.  And Navy. My earlier post was about our Tax system.  I am pissed that I can not sight a loss on a house I sold as well I think I should be allowed to be.  I think it is back wards that had we "made" money on our home we would have had to claim it, however since we had a "loss" we can not because it wasn't an investment property.  However...had we bought a home we were qualified for at around 350k, and then sold our house but had a "larger" loss then the gov't would have stepped in and given us the money to sell.  I don't care I didn't get the gov't program, but I think it is pretty back wards that I can not claim a loss, have to claim a gain, and had I bought a home I couldn't afford the gov't would have help my hand.  I am sorry but sure seems like we punish those who do what they should and help those who do not. Also, had we not be military we wouldn't have sold at all and just stayed there till later.  We had no issues paying for the house as we bought a home we knew we could afford with a mortgage that would have stayed the same the whole time we lived there.  We moved due to job.

What's with the Random Caps?  Rainy Day and Tax do not need Caps.

*snort* I was wondering the same thing.

C.P.C.

earthycrunchymama:

lrachelle80:

It defininitely is irritating that they don't advertise by the milk and eggs. That would absolutely get my gut.

The candy, however, doesn't bother me, because I can't fault someone for wanting to be able to give their kids an Easter basket with some fun candy and goodies. 

If that was ALL they were ever spending their money on, of course, that's one thing, but since I can't ever possibly know anyone's situation in this specific case all that bothers me is the fact that it doesn't say it on the milk and eggs. Maybe it's because they don't get questions about those grocery items because everyone knows that they are applicable to them, but they get lots of questions about whether it can be used for candy?

I don't blame someone for wanting to get their kids candy for easter, but as a kid I might have just gotten a chocolate bunny and/or jelly beans. I never got an entire basket and I don't think it's necessary. The person in front of me spent $47 on easter candy for TWO kids. That seems excessive. 

I used to see people hosting barbeques or those that only buy junk on food stamps. It never bothered me to see a childs birthday cake on them since its a once-a-year thing and I think every kid should have a cake, yanno? but when you are clearly throwing parties and paying by foodstamps or only buying junk food with nothing of real nutritional value thats what irritates me.

I wish the food stamps program had mandatory nutrition counseling for  anyone receiving benefits and that they'd send out tips for healthy eating (cheap!) when they send reminders for appointments or something.

of course you can't judge a families eating habits by one grocery trip - for all you know a parent could be getting snacks for a bday or school party, but when you see the same customers buying the same junk month after month that makes me go hmmmm... 

it's the lack of EBT ads by the milk & eggs and cereal that really makes me go hmmmm....  otherwise I wouldn't care so much. what if a customer didn't know she could pay alternatively for milk for her kids and they went without because mom had no extra cash when she went to pick up the meds???

 

Milk and eggs are covered by WIC and will have a WIC sticker under them.

earthycrunchymama

BrideJaye:

There were so many other things being said, I wasn't sure who to quote! A couple points I'd like to submit for your consideration:

1.) Americans buy shiitty, junky food. This is not some wild phenomenon of people on gov't assistance. People with EBT have the same shopping patterns as regular, Joe The Plumber Americans.

https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08415.pdf

2.) I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that a majority of those opposed to their taxes going to pay for food stamps and the like, are also super mad at Obama right now and his enormous budget. But his budget includes more money ($32 mill) going to nutritional education as part of the food stamp program.

3.) Incentives for healthier eating already exist, and will be expanded

(Source for points 2 & 3: https://www.frac.org/Legislative/budget_FY2011.htm)

4.) Welfare rolls have decreased significantly over the last decade-and-a-half. In 2007 (before the worst of our economic downturn happened, since when the rolls have increased), about 1.7 million families were on welfare. In 1996, there were 4.5 million families on welfare. The ratio of recipients on welfare has also dropped from 2.56 to 2.34, which is a direct counter-point to the argument that people are "encouraged" or rewarded to have more babies while on welfare.

Source: https://blog.cleveland.com/wideopen/2007/10/welfare_rolls_still_plunging_a.html

great points!

regarding #2: I'm hoping the nutrition education will be available more then just online - since that marginalizes people (low income without computers or able to afford internet, and those who don't primarily speak english, etc). 

Michelle Obama also seems to be playing a great public role with stressing nutrition issues. I do like that about her. 

regarding #3: I mentioned the food stamps in MA being doubled in value at select farmers markets. I really hope they expand programs (and advertise!) like that!!! 

#4 I've seen similar stats.  that was dated Oct '07 I think right before the economy went downhill, right? (I think it was late '07ish?) I wonder if these have gone up any... but again, the economy and job-loss would be to "blame." thinks that were probably unforseeable for some of these people.

LovesPie

I can't begrudge a mother/grandmother using her food stamps to make easter or other holidays special for her children/grandchildren. I would rather my tax dollars go to pay for candy than drugs or alcohol, honestly. Its not the kids' fault that their parents are in this situation. I also don't know the details surrounding the purchase. She could have already used her assistance for necessities and came back for something special for the kids. I really don't know and its not my business.

ETA: A business is allowed to advertise whatever it wants to make a profit. Seasonal candy has to move and as such they are advertising it. 

epphd

LovesPie:

I can't begrudge a mother/grandmother using her food stamps to make easter or other holidays special for her children/grandchildren. I would rather my tax dollars go to pay for candy than drugs or alcohol, honestly. Its not the kids' fault that their parents are in this situation. I also don't know the details surrounding the purchase. She could have already used her assistance for necessities and came back for something special for the kids. I really don't know and its not my business.

To be clear, the only purchase the OP witnessed was $47 in candy - and it was paid in cash.  She is offended by the signs that EBT can be used to purchase candy - no candy was actually purchased with tax dollars and no taxpayers were harmed in the lead up to this post. 

Phew.

earthycrunchymama

swimbikepuke:

Returning from the USDA page of statistics.

So this is who we're talking about:

77% of SNAP (EBT) recipients are either women or children.

40% have jobs, but only 13% are making earnings above the poverty level. Despite this, the number of people on SNAP who are also earning money has increased by nearly 50% since 1989.

Less than 20% are on "welfare".

The average benefit is just over $200 a month (ooooohhhh $50 a week in groceries.  Don't go crazy now.)

The average recipient has a net worth of (wait for it) $25.00.  73% have a net worth of ZERO.

Additoinally the average SNAP household SHRANK from 2.6 people to 2.2 people between 1990 and 2009. 

There were no statistics on the number of people who are smokers, boozers, lazy good-for-nothings, or whose boots lacked straps.

awesome, thanks!!!

I think the few that are misusing the system make a bad stereotype for everyone on it. I think you have to renew your benefits (in MA at least) every 3-6 months and prove your income....

 an average $200/mo doesn't seem like that much really for a household of 2-3 people.

 

BrittH05

MrsTotty:

BrittH05:

it won't let me quote you for some reason, but response to Army comment:

Didn't say it did.  And Navy. My earlier post was about our Tax system.  I am pissed that I can not sight a loss on a house I sold as well I think I should be allowed to be.  I think it is back wards that had we "made" money on our home we would have had to claim it, however since we had a "loss" we can not because it wasn't an investment property.  However...had we bought a home we were qualified for at around 350k, and then sold our house but had a "larger" loss then the gov't would have stepped in and given us the money to sell.  I don't care I didn't get the gov't program, but I think it is pretty back wards that I can not claim a loss, have to claim a gain, and had I bought a home I couldn't afford the gov't would have help my hand.  I am sorry but sure seems like we punish those who do what they should and help those who do not. Also, had we not be military we wouldn't have sold at all and just stayed there till later.  We had no issues paying for the house as we bought a home we knew we could afford with a mortgage that would have stayed the same the whole time we lived there.  We moved due to job.

Now I just want to slap you.  You're a military family and bought a $350k house and are now complaining because you *have* to move and couldn't get govt. funding to recover the loss????

Please tell me I'm reading this incorrectly.  PLEASE.

I'm a military brat.  I never lived anywhere longer than 3 years.  And when my parents bought a home and it wouldn't sell, it got rented out.  And I promise you my mom never whined to the government about how they didn't help her. 

ETA:  'backwards' is ONE WORD. 

It is wrong.  No we did not spend 350k we were approved for 350k but bought a house much less then that. One that we knew we could afford if DH decided to get out, which we had planned to do.  We didn't rent it out because we knew things were only going to get worse, which judging by the housing news from yesterday was a good assumption.  We didn't want to mess with renting it out and figured washing our hands of it was the better way to go.  So we used 24k of our savings to sell the house, knowing we could not claim the closing cost or the relator l fees as a loss, only the loss on what was owed on the mortgage and what we sold the house for which was around 8k.  We were told by our Realtor, military adviser, and the Lawyer that closed the sale that we could claim the 8k loss as a Capital Gains loss when we filed our taxes.  This would have allowed us to "re-cop" some of the money we lost, however we found out today that in order to do that it had to be an investment property which it wasn't.  So yea I am angry that had we spent way more then we could have afforded they would have stepped in and given us a boat load of money to sell, however i can not sight a simple loss on my taxes that would give me maybe $1000 back

High Five to your mom, but I don't think that has much to do with this.

penelopepink09

LovesPie:

I can't begrudge a mother/grandmother using her food stamps to make easter or other holidays special for her children/grandchildren. I would rather my tax dollars go to pay for candy than drugs or alcohol, honestly. Its not the kids' fault that their parents are in this situation. I also don't know the details surrounding the purchase. She could have already used her assistance for necessities and came back for something special for the kids. I really don't know and its not my business.

ETA: A business is allowed to advertise whatever it wants to make a profit. Seasonal candy has to move and as such they are advertising it. 

All of this.

IrishBrideND

BrittH05:

MrsTotty:

BrittH05:

it won't let me quote you for some reason, but response to Army comment:

Didn't say it did.  And Navy. My earlier post was about our Tax system.  I am pissed that I can not sight a loss on a house I sold as well I think I should be allowed to be.  I think it is back wards that had we "made" money on our home we would have had to claim it, however since we had a "loss" we can not because it wasn't an investment property.  However...had we bought a home we were qualified for at around 350k, and then sold our house but had a "larger" loss then the gov't would have stepped in and given us the money to sell.  I don't care I didn't get the gov't program, but I think it is pretty back wards that I can not claim a loss, have to claim a gain, and had I bought a home I couldn't afford the gov't would have help my hand.  I am sorry but sure seems like we punish those who do what they should and help those who do not. Also, had we not be military we wouldn't have sold at all and just stayed there till later.  We had no issues paying for the house as we bought a home we knew we could afford with a mortgage that would have stayed the same the whole time we lived there.  We moved due to job.

Now I just want to slap you.  You're a military family and bought a $350k house and are now complaining because you *have* to move and couldn't get govt. funding to recover the loss????

Please tell me I'm reading this incorrectly.  PLEASE.

I'm a military brat.  I never lived anywhere longer than 3 years.  And when my parents bought a home and it wouldn't sell, it got rented out.  And I promise you my mom never whined to the government about how they didn't help her. 

ETA:  'backwards' is ONE WORD. 

It is wrong.  No we did not spend 350k we were approved for 350k but bought a house much less then that. One that we knew we could afford if DH decided to get out, which we had planned to do.  We didn't rent it out because we knew things were only going to get worse, which judging by the housing news from yesterday was a good assumption.  We didn't want to mess with renting it out and figured washing our hands of it was the better way to go.  So we used 24k of our savings to sell the house, knowing we could not claim the closing cost or the relator l fees as a loss, only the loss on what was owed on the mortgage and what we sold the house for which was around 8k.  We were told by our Realtor, military adviser, and the Lawyer that closed the sale that we could claim the 8k loss as a Capital Gains loss when we filed our taxes.  This would have allowed us to "re-cop" some of the money we lost, however we found out today that in order to do that it had to be an investment property which it wasn't.  So yea I am angry that had we spent way more then we could have afforded they would have stepped in and given us a boat load of money to sell, however i can not sight a simple loss on my taxes that would give me maybe $1000 back

High Five to your mom, but I don't think that has much to do with this.

 

I could be completely wrong here (thinking back to Fed Tax classes), but I *think* you can in fact claim part of that 8k as loss. Not all, but some. I would double check.

dori1678

mrsbecky07:

dori1678:

pixy_stix:

dori1678:

I do not think a weekly pee test would be necessary. Like I said in my original post, "..someone should be required to pass a drug test before becoming eligible for government assistance". Never once did I state that a weekly drug test should be required.

Well, that's a whole lotta pointless.  You only need to be clean for 2 weeks to pass a pee test.

Exactly... do you really think that a heroine or crack addict can stay clean for 2 weeks?!? 

But your idea isn't just targeted at the addicts.  If someone uses cocaine once and then goes in for a pee test that will show up, so that will disqualify them from receiving benefits even if they are NOT an addict.

And FTR - yes, some addicts can go without using drugs for extended periods of time if there is a significant benefit at the end of it.  My sister has been addicted to a myriad of drugs and every time she goes to rehab, she cleans up, she's fine, for a month, however long the program is, and then she's released and within an hour she'd be using again.  That's not a-typical.

I suppose in my original post I should have mentioned the 1 million counterpoints that would be brought up... but I don't have the time for that and I'm not a politician. (Thank god) Yes, of course there will be a thousand different situations. I simply think that if people were required to pass a drug screening prior to becoming eligible for government assistance, then it would weed out a lot of people that do not deserve it. 

And that's all I'm going to say on this matter. This topic can be argued over for years and we wouldn't get anywhere. There are ALWAYS "what ifs". That is why when someone wants to change the system it's a huge deal. 

I'm going to go enjoy something that is more entertaining to read. 

earthycrunchymama

C.P.C.:

earthycrunchymama:

lrachelle80:

It defininitely is irritating that they don't advertise by the milk and eggs. That would absolutely get my gut.

The candy, however, doesn't bother me, because I can't fault someone for wanting to be able to give their kids an Easter basket with some fun candy and goodies. 

If that was ALL they were ever spending their money on, of course, that's one thing, but since I can't ever possibly know anyone's situation in this specific case all that bothers me is the fact that it doesn't say it on the milk and eggs. Maybe it's because they don't get questions about those grocery items because everyone knows that they are applicable to them, but they get lots of questions about whether it can be used for candy?

I don't blame someone for wanting to get their kids candy for easter, but as a kid I might have just gotten a chocolate bunny and/or jelly beans. I never got an entire basket and I don't think it's necessary. The person in front of me spent $47 on easter candy for TWO kids. That seems excessive. 

I used to see people hosting barbeques or those that only buy junk on food stamps. It never bothered me to see a childs birthday cake on them since its a once-a-year thing and I think every kid should have a cake, yanno? but when you are clearly throwing parties and paying by foodstamps or only buying junk food with nothing of real nutritional value thats what irritates me.

I wish the food stamps program had mandatory nutrition counseling for  anyone receiving benefits and that they'd send out tips for healthy eating (cheap!) when they send reminders for appointments or something.

of course you can't judge a families eating habits by one grocery trip - for all you know a parent could be getting snacks for a bday or school party, but when you see the same customers buying the same junk month after month that makes me go hmmmm... 

it's the lack of EBT ads by the milk & eggs and cereal that really makes me go hmmmm....  otherwise I wouldn't care so much. what if a customer didn't know she could pay alternatively for milk for her kids and they went without because mom had no extra cash when she went to pick up the meds???

 

Milk and eggs are covered by WIC and will have a WIC sticker under them.

I was at a drug store that didn't take WIC. just EBT so these weren't labeled as WIC foods.

most the local grocery stores do label WIC products. I actually look for them just because its typically the cheaper products (of course) when shopping. its easy in the juice aisle since WIC only covers 100% juice to be able to spot those juices among a huge variety.  I've only seen one grocery store here that didn't label WIC. (but perhaps they didn't accept WIC?)

LovesPie

epphd:

LovesPie:

I can't begrudge a mother/grandmother using her food stamps to make easter or other holidays special for her children/grandchildren. I would rather my tax dollars go to pay for candy than drugs or alcohol, honestly. Its not the kids' fault that their parents are in this situation. I also don't know the details surrounding the purchase. She could have already used her assistance for necessities and came back for something special for the kids. I really don't know and its not my business.

To be clear, the only purchase the OP witnessed was $47 in candy - and it was paid in cash.  She is offended by the signs that EBT can be used to purchase candy - no candy was actually purchased with tax dollars and no taxpayers were harmed in the lead up to this post. 

Phew.

Wow, ok nevermind then haha. This post  is out of control. Its hard to keep track. If she paid cash then wtf are we debating?! My original point stands that the business can advertise however it wants. If no one is buying the seasonal candy they resort to appealing to a sub-group of folks. Maybe a lot of folks on assistance didn't know they could use their EBT to buy it? I don't think it has to do with any moral judgment with regards to healthy food, I think they are just trying to get rid of the candy. 

BrittH05

IrishBrideND:

BrittH05:

MrsTotty:

BrittH05:

it won't let me quote you for some reason, but response to Army comment:

Didn't say it did.  And Navy. My earlier post was about our Tax system.  I am pissed that I can not sight a loss on a house I sold as well I think I should be allowed to be.  I think it is back wards that had we "made" money on our home we would have had to claim it, however since we had a "loss" we can not because it wasn't an investment property.  However...had we bought a home we were qualified for at around 350k, and then sold our house but had a "larger" loss then the gov't would have stepped in and given us the money to sell.  I don't care I didn't get the gov't program, but I think it is pretty back wards that I can not claim a loss, have to claim a gain, and had I bought a home I couldn't afford the gov't would have help my hand.  I am sorry but sure seems like we punish those who do what they should and help those who do not. Also, had we not be military we wouldn't have sold at all and just stayed there till later.  We had no issues paying for the house as we bought a home we knew we could afford with a mortgage that would have stayed the same the whole time we lived there.  We moved due to job.

Now I just want to slap you.  You're a military family and bought a $350k house and are now complaining because you *have* to move and couldn't get govt. funding to recover the loss????

Please tell me I'm reading this incorrectly.  PLEASE.

I'm a military brat.  I never lived anywhere longer than 3 years.  And when my parents bought a home and it wouldn't sell, it got rented out.  And I promise you my mom never whined to the government about how they didn't help her. 

ETA:  'backwards' is ONE WORD. 

It is wrong.  No we did not spend 350k we were approved for 350k but bought a house much less then that. One that we knew we could afford if DH decided to get out, which we had planned to do.  We didn't rent it out because we knew things were only going to get worse, which judging by the housing news from yesterday was a good assumption.  We didn't want to mess with renting it out and figured washing our hands of it was the better way to go.  So we used 24k of our savings to sell the house, knowing we could not claim the closing cost or the relator l fees as a loss, only the loss on what was owed on the mortgage and what we sold the house for which was around 8k.  We were told by our Realtor, military adviser, and the Lawyer that closed the sale that we could claim the 8k loss as a Capital Gains loss when we filed our taxes.  This would have allowed us to "re-cop" some of the money we lost, however we found out today that in order to do that it had to be an investment property which it wasn't.  So yea I am angry that had we spent way more then we could have afforded they would have stepped in and given us a boat load of money to sell, however i can not sight a simple loss on my taxes that would give me maybe $1000 back

High Five to your mom, but I don't think that has much to do with this.

 

I could be completely wrong here (thinking back to Fed Tax classes), but I *think* you can in fact claim part of that 8k as loss. Not all, but some. I would double check.

Nope =( we left called 2 other CPA's got told the same thing. 

MrsTotty

BrittH05:

High Five to your mom, but I don't think that has much to do with this.

It has nothing to do with this thread, and everything to do with your whiney attitude.  Your husband signed up for the military, and you signed up for him.  You had to know what that involved.  In the 30 years my dad spent in the service and all that moving around they bought homes TWICE.  They were smart enough to know they wouldn't be there long, and knew that renting was a better option.  Even when he was 1 year out of retiring and living in the city they wanted to retire in, they STILL rented. 

Your situation sucks, but you created it.  Wouldn't it be nice if someone had sympathy for you and wanted to help?  Oh, but you don't believe in stuff like that, so I guess it wouldn't matter ...

laurenpetro

BrittH05:

[

It is wrong.  No we did not spend 350k we were approved for 350k but bought a house much less then that. One that we knew we could afford if DH decided to get out, which we had planned to do.  We didn't rent it out because we knew things were only going to get worse, which judging by the housing news from yesterday was a good assumption.  We didn't want to mess with renting it out and figured washing our hands of it was the better way to go.  So we used 24k of our savings to sell the house, knowing we could not claim the closing cost or the relator l fees as a loss, only the loss on what was owed on the mortgage and what we sold the house for which was around 8k.  We were told by our Realtor, military adviser, and the Lawyer that closed the sale that we could claim the 8k loss as a Capital Gains loss when we filed our taxes.  This would have allowed us to "re-cop" some of the money we lost, however we found out today that in order to do that it had to be an investment property which it wasn't.  So yea I am angry that had we spent way more then we could have afforded they would have stepped in and given us a boat load of money to sell, however i can not sight a simple loss on my taxes that would give me maybe $1000 back

High Five to your mom, but I don't think that has much to do with this.

i thought the whole "thing" with being in the military is that they change your base every couple of years.    i'd be less bitter about the $8K than i would be at the person who said this was a good idea.

mxolisi

IrishBrideND:

Laura_Lee:

pixy_stix:

Also, OP, weren't you the one that was disgusted with people passing judgment on you for your situation?  Pot and kettle, together at last.

I don't have much to say on this debate except to say that this comment, Pixy, was COMPLETELY uncalled for.  OP has a physical disability - which is something completely out of her control.  People on food stamps DO have control over their situation.

HUGE difference. 

You are very niave. Plenty are on food stamps for things outside of their control. I hope its something you never face, but it happens a lot. Especially now in this economy.

Please. No one has ever qualified for food stamps or other government assistance on the grounds of physical disability.

Do you think there is some kind of social security for the disabled or something? WHAT A JOKE!!

epphd

BrittH05:

We were told by our Realtor, military adviser, and the Lawyer that closed the sale that we could claim the 8k loss as a Capital Gains loss when we filed our taxes.  This would have allowed us to "re-cop" some of the money we lost, however we found out today that in order to do that it had to be an investment property which it wasn't.  So yea I am angry that had we spent way more then we could have afforded they would have stepped in and given us a boat load of money to sell, however i can not sight a simple loss on my taxes that would give me maybe $1000 back

High Five to your mom, but I don't think that has much to do with this.

Seriously - learn to use caps.  The bolded do not need to be capitalized.