Hellobee Boards

I don't agree with banning unhealthy foods. Particularly because often those are the least expensive options available. That seems little too Big Brother to me. But I am OK with banning the purchase of alcohol, cigarettes, etc. They aren't necessities by any stretch of the imagination, so I don't think the taxpayers should have to fund those purchases.

@MrsSCB: I agree with you! Needing help shouldn't mean you can't ever buy a steak-- Give me a break!

@MrsSCB: food stamps aren't just available for families. I have heard many college students bragging about what they were able to buy using food stamps- deli meat, steaks etc. I don't see the harm in giving people free reign to grocery shop. If they blow their food stamps on high ticket meals that's on them to figure out what to do until the end of the month.

I would rather not fund people's bad habits, but the tax revenue benefits us all.

My immediate reaction is "YIKES!".... I hate the idea of telling people what they can and can't have on any level...

I don't think any food item should be banned, but I'm ok with cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling being banned...although I'm sure there is some argument against it that I'm not thinking of.

@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: I know single people are also on food stamps and I'm sure there are people who abuse them. I just feel like this is one of those situations where people like to say, "I know this one woman who spends all her food stamp money on lobster tail and filet mignon!" demonizing the vast majority of people who use it because they really need it.

I'm against the limits on food stamps, but have no problem with not being able to use assistance money for things like cigarettes or alcohol.

With the limits on food, I feel like when you start telling people what they can and cannot buy, it starts becoming more and more communist. I don't think people should have to give up beef (or hell, tuna fish- which is incredibly affordable) just because they're poor.

Alcohol and tobacco yes, but absolutely not on determining what types of food people can buy with stamps.

@alphagam84: I believe a very very small minority of people abuse the system. In my state and most, you need to be working to receive food stamps, for example.

I get that there's a thin line when it comes to telling someone what they can and cannot buy with food stamps or other govt assistance. But I do think there needs to be SOME guidelines.
Definitely agree that alcohol, cigarettes, etc shouldn't be allowed.

As for food, instead of banning large food "groups", I'd maybe instead create a list of approved items, even down to brands or store brands. Even junk food items, because I agree that at the end of a tough day of job searching, sometimes you just want to drown in a bag of Oreos I don't think it's right to deprive someone of any joy in the world.

So maybe instead of saying "no cookies", there is an approved list and one of the groups is junk food. And on that list is store brand potatoe chips, Oreos, Etc. And before you can get that stuff you have to fulfill some healthy options (certain number of veggies, proteins, etc)
Or instead of "no steak" you're allowed steak once a month. Or specify a less expensive cut that they can get any time. Some of the cheap cuts are still really good!

I know this still isn't a great solution and would be difficult to implement, but I think it allows for some "splurges" while still governing it a bit. I think it's wrong to say it shouldn't be governed at all - it's taxpayer money. If you're going to rely on assistance I don't think it's unreasonable to have to follow some rules.

This is an extreme, but I saw a show not long ago where this woman was 600 lbs and bedridden. She was on disability/SSI, as was her husband since he had to be a full time caregiver to his wife. With their assistance, she bought and ate entire packages of chicken nuggets and French fries right off the baking sheet in one sitting. I mean, I know, how do you stop that. And I get that some people buying chicken nuggets on assistance are getting them for their young kids because they like it and it's affordable. So you can't just say "no chicken nuggets". I don't know - maybe some kind of mandatory but free/cheap health checkup?

I know a lot of this sounds good in theory (or in my head) but may not work in reality.

I agree that alcohol and tobacco should be banned, but they definitely should not restrict what types of food people buy.

@alphagam84: It's extremely difficult to eat a well-balanced diet on $50 a week. Most people who receive benefits are not taking advantage of the system, they are actively trying to get out of it. Also, my cell phone with it's data plan is cheaper that what I would pay for internet and phone service.

@BlueWolverine: I agree with you!

@alphagam84: you're making a lot of assumptions about access--that they have a library close by, one that has internet access, that they have friends who have internet at home...sure, maybe they COULD make it work by doing one of those things, but why put all those barriers in their way and make it more difficult? I also think it's super judgmental to say, Well you're poor and on assistance, so you don't get to have xyz. Maybe they can't use their assistance to pay for that stuff (and I don't think they can actually), but if it's their own money that they earn from whatever, then who am I to tell them what to do with it. Again, unless you are providing budgeting services to help them figure out how to cut whatever it is you expect them to cut, it's not fair to just say, figure it out.

@alphagam84: I think your points on internet access are of base. Internet access is a crutial part of job hunting in this day and age. You need to have at least daily access to make sure you aren't missing opportunities. Based on where I live, I would spend more money in gas going to and from a library to get free internet access each weekday then I do on my monthly internet bill.

My first question would be: what is the cost of enforcing these rules v. the cost savings? I feel like a lot of these things are more about poor shaming and perpetuating the idea of the "irresponsible drain on society" v. actually saving people money (granted I didn't read the articles so maybe they addressed that).

If this would actually save a significant amount of money I'd be fine banning cigarettes and alcohol and lottery tickets. Banning steak and fish is dumb though.

I think SNAP should be managed like WIC. There are specific, healthy foods that are approved to be purchased with WIC funds. If you want to buy something that isn't on the approved list, then you use your own money. I just don't understand why it hasn't gone in that direction yet.

As for restricting the use of Cash Assistance, I am all for it. I see so many people come in to the hospital with COPD, still smoking, still drinking...and asking for help buying the medications because they "can't afford them." Many of these patients (not all, but many) have state Medical Assistance prescription coverage, so their drug copays are $3 or less. If they quit smoking (or even just cut back), they'd have NO PROBLEM being able to afford their medications. Allow them to use Cash Assistance to buy their prescriptions. To buy smoking cessation products. But yeah...no booze, no cigarettes, and no freaking lottery tickets!

Well, this is what you're currently allowed and not allowed to purchase in the state with food stamps:

"The benefits may be used to purchase any food or food products prepared for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and tobacco, hot foods, or foods prepared for immediate consumption. Benefits may also be used to buy seeds and plants for use in gardens to produce food for the personal consumption of the household."

I find it interesting that the same people who cry out for "smaller government" also want to dictate exactly what poor people eat and spend money on. Being poor doesn't make you less human and it doesn't automatically mean you are lazy.

Spending on safety net programs is a fraction of what taxpayer money goes to. I'll provide a pie chart that shows what we spend on. 11% of spending is considered safety net, but the largest proportion of that safety net goes to the middle class with the earned income tax credit and the childcare tax credit etc. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258 Spending on safety net has decreased from 2013 to the present and it's getting to the point where programs for the poor are close to being eliminated.

If you want to talk about cutting the budget, how about cutting corporate subsidies for large conglomerates? How about working on our defense spending. While defense is important, there are many programs in the defense budget that are huge money sinks with nothing to show for it.

Helping the poor is such a drop in the bucket and when we help them find their bootstraps, everyone does better... When the middle class booms, business is stronger.

It's really hard to be poor!

I've known abusers of the system and I've known people who have used it properly. The thing is, it's an assistance program. Temporary. You aren't supposed to rely on this for the rest of your life. You're supposed to sign up, get your shit together (however long that takes, but actually actively trying), and then you get off it.

I know 2 women who have openly talked to me about their struggles being single moms. In both cases they got assistance, went to school, scrimped and saved every single thing they could, including junk food and luxuries (there wasn't internet when they were on assistance), and they both found jobs and got off assistance asap.

Then, I know of a few women, currently, who are on government assistance and ... have been for many years. They buy smokes and booze and get their nails done and get botox (!) and stay at home not working while their kids are at daycare/school. Not actively looking for a job. Sometimes, randomly, getting a part time job and then quitting because... it was hard.

I guess, from my own personal experience, I think there absolutely should be limits on how you use assistance. The money you get from the government should be used to help you progress, not entertain and anything extra that you earn can be spent however you choose to spend it.

I don't like telling people how to spend their money. However, from what I've seen, the people who use assistance the way it was intended, are already cutting out any unnecessary spending and luxuries. I agree that limiting some of the food items is kind of overboard, but I do like the idea of an approved list of brands and such. I also do think internet is important in our society.

The people who are abusing it are the ones bitching.

Obviously, I'm not in their shoes and I might sing a different tune if I ever needed it. I don't know what the right answer is, or where to draw the line on what is ok and what's not, but I do totally get wanting to regulate it to deter people from staying on it for unrealistic, extended periods of time.

ETA: omg so long don't hate me.