Hellobee Boards

What a lot of people fail to understand is that, for most, being on state assistance isn't a point of pride and luxury. In fact, I'm willing to bet that many of those straddling the poverty line experience a level of anxiety and depression the upper class rarely need to concern themselves with.

Sure, let's discourage and/or ban the availability of alcohol and cigarettes. I'm fully behind finding a fair and reasonable method to mandate quality seminars and educational workshops to encourage healthy lifestyles, nutrition and transitional services. But barring SNAP recipients from purchasing a birthday cake for their young child, or bringing a bag of potato chips to a family potluck? Why exactly is this a priority? I can promise you that no one is going wine tasting with their EBT card. The lifestyles of the rich are safe from those benefiting from your tax dollars, so your pearls hardly need to be clutched.

Really, I'm hard pressed to believe that the monetarily poor are the only ones capable of taking advantage of a system. Plenty of very wealthy individuals commit massive tax fraud and embezzlement, no?

@Ra: Right back at you - I hear everything you're saying. In a world where first graders are coming to school with empty bellies, and families are avoiding necessary medical care because of the associated costs, I find it impossible to prioritize whether someone who fell on tough times gets government-paid oreos, y'know?

I totally support assistance programs! I think they're wonderful overall, and am really happy that the programs scaled up so much during the recent downturn. It would've been awful for lots of people if that hadn't occurred.

I do think that government programs are dependent on public opinion, and it's important to maintain a good reputation with the public. If there is systemic abuse of any program funded by taxpayers, that's going to cause issues in the longer term. That said, I don't support some of the restrictions described above. But I do think it's a good idea for assistance programs to have basic protections so that they remain credible to everyone. Some states do a better job of that than others.

@sorrycharlie: that's a great point!

@mrbee: true, but public opinion is different from facts. Public opinion might be snap is a form of charity rife with fraud and abuse. The truth is it has one of the lowest error rates of any government program (which includes mistakes on the government's part) and is one of the most effective economic stimulators. A dollar spent on snap generates $1.70 in economic activity! And most of that money stays local and bolsters small businesses, as well as the agriculture industry. There is a reason "abuse and waste" myths exist. They help otherize the poor to make it easier to cut programs that benefit them. But the data just isn't there.

@Mrs. Pen: thanks for the article.

I don't think the government has any business restricting what foods people can buy with food assistance money. It's easy to judge unless you've been there, and by the way, it's not that hard to get there if lady luck decides she really has it in for you. It's easy to lose some pretty big savings fast once they're all going to medical bills, or if you're caring for young children, lose a good job, and can't land another one that would pay for the day care.

I think junk food might be the best option sometimes, unfortunately... I once worked in a small town where you couldn't get fresh food if you didn't own a car, and was renting a room with no kitchen access, so even if I had veggies I couldn't have cooked. The healthiest I could do was canned peas and beans. There just weren't other options. And what if someone works long hours and wants to buy a coffee or pack a candy bar with their lunch, because veggies just aren't very filling when you're doing a few hours of physical work in the cold?

And steak? Seriously? Because someone is poor, they can't save up the funds and buy a steak at the end of the month, or for a birthday or something? Or maybe, if they're that poor, they don't deserve to have special days?

@.twist.: I very much agree with everything you said.

I unfortunately live in an area with more abusers than legitimate users, so just based on my knowledge, I would be in favor of some of these restrictions.

@BandDmommy: @artsyfartsy: I think stories likes this are what @mr.bee was talking about--anecdotal evidence, of a few people, somehow has more power than actual facts and statistics. I would love to see actual statistics showing the rate of abuse of these benefits--I would guess the actual numbers are pretty low (but of course I could be wrong). Unfortunately, our own first hand experience carries more weight than objective data a lot of the time!

@PrincessBaby: You have to reapply for SNAP every six months, typically. I can't remember exactly, but the average length of time some one is on it is less than two years. Ifmyou are an able bodied adult without dependents, the amount of time you can stay on is even less, unless you live in an area with high unemployment.

@artsyfartsy: @hilsy85: Of course it depends on what you mean when you say "abuse." But SNAP has a payment accuracy rate of over 96%. Less than 1% of SNAP dollars are trafficked (sold for cash). The majority of people on snap are children, elderly, and disabled. Out of the remaining able bodied adults, most work. (Www.snaptohealth.org if you are interested!)

Of course when people talk about "abuse," they aren't thinking about children or elderly. They picture the woman at the grocery with a smart phone and freshly done nails and soda and chips in her cart and think, "well if I can't afford those things, she shouldn't be able to either!"

But it's importanr to realize that that is not abuse. She still would have to meet the income and asset guidelines to qualify. And we never know the full story. Maybe her smart phone is second hand, doesn't have a data plan and her only way to use the Internet to look for better job opportunities. Maybe she works in a nail salon and keeping up her looks is crucial to her job. Maybe it's her kid's birthday and she is buying soda. Or maybe she just doesn't know any better since that's how was raised. Or most likely, she lives a life of high stress which can cause you to crave reward foods like sweets and salt. None of that is abusing the system.

My opinion is this is a non-issue, an exercise in diversion. I agree with PP who have talked about 'otherness' of poor people and what these bills are trying to do underneath all the grandstanding.
You're always going to have a hardcore of people 'abusing ' the system. Making it harder for everyone stinks and it's a waste of public funds administering it. Live and let live, move on and work on the real problems.

@BandDmommy: I guess it depends what you mean by misuse. People who are receiving benefits who should not be (who are in fact not actually eligible)? Or people who use those benefits in ways that you might not agree with, but are techncally allowed? I don't know the statistics/actual numbers, but I would guess that there are not that many of the former. But maybe a lot of the latter, depending on what your perspective is. I just think it can be tricky to make judgments (and I mean anyone!) without knowing the actual data, because our own experiences/anecdotal evidence can be so convincing.

ETA i could be wrong of course! I guess i just come from a place of giving people the benefit of the doubt, rather than assuming that the majority of people are trying, and are successfully, gaming/abusing the system.

@travellingbee: what loopholes are you referring to? Something in The tax system? and what particular loophole in the tax system are you referring to?

What always cracks me up about these situations, is that it's almost always the wealthy top 5% of people bitching about the few abusing the system at the bottom.

I do not doubt that abuse of the system occurs--of SNAP or any government program. And I will fully admit that a couple months ago, a woman was begging for money outside of an Olive Garden while playing on her Iphone 6 and I gave a side eye. But i would rather a few abusers slip through the cracks to ensure the net that is cast is wide enough to catch more children and families in actual need (aka the majority of this program), than tighten down and exclude the assholes, but also exclude a bunch of people who ARE in need.

The rate of trafficking fraud is under 1.5%, apparently. Coalition of Hunger states that "SNAP fraud has actually been cut by three-quarters over the past 15 years, and the program’s error rate is at an all-time low of less than 3 percent". I don't think it's an epidemic by any means.

But yeah, there are always going to be people--and pockets of people in certain areas--who take on SNAP benefits and then spend the little cash they do have, frivolously. And that is aggravating. But SNAP is one of the more highly regulated and controlled government assistance programs.

@BandDmommy: these might not be your definition of a loophole, but there are several instances of our tax system favoring the wealthy. For example, the mortgage interest tax deduction benefits homeowners. There is no rent tax deduction. Another example is capital gains tax, which can be taxed at a rate less than earned income. Poor people also pay a much higher percentage of their income on sales taxes.

@jedeve: interesting point about the sales taxes. Appreciate reading all your comments!

Hopefully people aren't reading this thinking I'm being judgy because I said I know of people who abuse the system... Where I worked was not exactly a representation of the average SNAP user, and it was also in an extremely expensive area, so yes, I think there are ways that people abuse the system (one that comes to mind being not listing people in their household), but I'm not saying it's a black and white, right and wrong issue. Obviously it's more complex than that or this thread wouldn't still be going. I'm not saying I wouldn't do the same thing in that position. I might!! And I think I'm generally a decent person. And fwiw, regarding entitlement, some people may have grown up expecting to be on these programs so yes, in a way, they feel "entitled" to them in that it's what they've come to expect, but that's not necessarily a terrible moral judgment compared to other things that the "everyone else" feels entitled to.. Just coming from a different source (govt versus parents/family, the world in general, whatever) maybe. Anyway I was pretty brief the first time but I felt I had to explain because I realize that my comment could easily be taken to mean that I was grouping all poor people together in a negative way and that's not how I meant it. I only meant to acknowledge that yes some abuse does occur (as with anything) and I don't think more restrictions will change anything about that.

@SweetiePie: I like your reply a lot. I have a new perspective as well from reading the comments. At the end of the day, I've never wanted for food. We're lucky to not need benefits. So I can't relate at all or make a firm opinion on what I think is right/wrong. I don't have that experience so I just can't judge.

Like you said, I think obvious regulations are good. Alcohol/cigarettes, etc. Much more and you're getting into gray territory.

Poverty and the lack of control over our choices make us seem so powerless and can destroy our spirits. Being poor is not a crime. I am all for restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use but the freedom to buy food with public assistance money should not have restrictions. If once in a while someone wants some cake, a steak and lobster dinner at home, it's not a crime. Isn't it better for these food items to be consumed rather than let it spoil because the majority of people can't afford it?

@mrs.shinerbock: That's a great article and really reminds me of the hardships that my relatives faced many years ago.

This thread is interesting to read because I come from a lower-middle class family and my primary job is with Title 1 schools in one of the poorest states in the nation.
It is not unusual among people I know to have had their car or house repossessed (brother and sister lost homes and cars in the recession), because it is hard to save money when you live paycheck to paycheck, so when the crap hits the fan, bills don't get paid. Poor or the recently poor do not have savings, or credit, or the other things people rely on if they get laid off or their hours cut.
I have close relatives currently on assistance. My cousin was a SAHM of two when her husband suddenly wanted a divorce. Even w/ child support/ alimony, his income could not cover 2 households. She couldn't pay the bills and couldn't find a job that paid more than daycare. She went from suburban housewife to welfare in less than a year.
I personally have never been less than lower middle class as an adult, but I understand poverty is only one life event away. And if the time comes, have a little compassion and let me freakin' buy cheetos if I want.

PS-@lovehoneybee: thanks for the 'insider's' view point