Woman An Authority On What Shouldn't Be In Poor People’s Grocery Carts-The Onion

[frugalnacho]

Soooo...bad decisions are only ok when you make them? 

Just asking because your signature seems to flaunt yours.

Do I really need to ad a disclaimer that it was a joke?  Or remove it altogether?  I thought most people on this forum would have figured it out.

[Daley]

That's a little meaner than usual IP.
You feelin ok otherwise?

Sorry, the parody was a little more sledgehammer on the nose than I normally aim for... but when the real talking points get so cartoonishly stereotypical, it's hard not to swing that far into the fences.

Doing well, otherwise. How's things with you? :)

[EMP]

Soooo...bad decisions are only ok when you make them? 

Just asking because your signature seems to flaunt yours.

And now we wait for the spitting hysterical randbot rage claiming that you're the angry one taking things out of context and that he's trying to make a joke and that SHUT UP! He's a delicate and special snowflake that's more entitled to his perspective and life and others not as smart as him don't deserve nice things because he sacrifices where they don't and it's all because he's "smarter" than the rest of us just look at his choices and income and education and background and every man is an island unto themselves and and and...

Tee Hee

I was asking a serious question though.  Where's the line?  What makes a dime bag any more or less of a "bad" decision than some Pop-Tarts?  You have the money to do it?  You don't do it often?  What about deliberately flaunting traffic laws?  Perhaps the person with food stamps drives extra carefully to avoid causing accidents.  Does that make them more entitled to use the road, or judge your usage of it?

[arebelspy]

Soooo...bad decisions are only ok when you make them? 

Just asking because your signature seems to flaunt yours.

Do I really need to ad a disclaimer that it was a joke?  Or remove it altogether?  I thought most people on this forum would have figured it out.

The comment about your sig aside, I think TPC's post was a good response to you, and am curious for your thoughts on it (don't want it buried/missed because it was the bottom of the last page):

It's not simply about someone getting a free ride at "my" expense, it's people getting a free better ride than me at my expense.   I don't hate the food stamp program, or people that need assistance, I think it's a good thing.  However I don't think they should be getting better stuff than me. 

I don't understand why the only two options you present are sitting at home watching tv gnawing on a t-bone or looting the streets.  What about sitting at home watching tv and gnawing on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or hot dogs like I had to do?  Why exactly does that person deserve better quality food than someone who is working and paying taxes and not collecting food stamps?

I do have perspective to the vast amounts of money wasted.  I don't agree with the war, or most of what the government does with my tax dollars, but I don't lose sleep over any of it.  That perspective doesn't change the fairness in this specific situation though.

I'm having a hard time getting the logic here.  I hear people arguing that people on food stamps shouldn't be allowed to buy junk food, but then I'm now hearing another argument that says they shouldn't be able to buy "better quality food" with food stamps.  So who arbitrates what kind of food you can buy? 

Is your solution really to spend even more money creating more bureaucracy to monitor and track each piece of food someone is purchasing with food stamps? Should there be a "food stamp aisle" at every store in America?  Let's see- they can't buy sodas or junk food.  How about cookies?  Can they buy cookies?  Only certain kinds of cookies?  Can they buy bread?  Is whole wheat bread too fancy?   Apparently T-Bone steak is out, what about a chuck roast?  Should we impose a weight limit?  I assume we're ok with them buying vegetables, but is organic veggies to "high quality"?  Should we make sure they're only buying cheap, seasonal fruits and veggies?   

[frugalnacho]

It's not simply about someone getting a free ride at "my" expense, it's people getting a free better ride than me at my expense.   I don't hate the food stamp program, or people that need assistance, I think it's a good thing.  However I don't think they should be getting better stuff than me. 

I don't understand why the only two options you present are sitting at home watching tv gnawing on a t-bone or looting the streets.  What about sitting at home watching tv and gnawing on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or hot dogs like I had to do?  Why exactly does that person deserve better quality food than someone who is working and paying taxes and not collecting food stamps?

I do have perspective to the vast amounts of money wasted.  I don't agree with the war, or most of what the government does with my tax dollars, but I don't lose sleep over any of it.  That perspective doesn't change the fairness in this specific situation though.

I'm having a hard time getting the logic here.  I hear people arguing that people on food stamps shouldn't be allowed to buy junk food, but then I'm now hearing another argument that says they shouldn't be able to buy "better quality food" with food stamps.  So who arbitrates what kind of food you can buy? 

Is your solution really to spend even more money creating more bureaucracy to monitor and track each piece of food someone is purchasing with food stamps? Should there be a "food stamp aisle" at every store in America?  Let's see- they can't buy sodas or junk food.  How about cookies?  Can they buy cookies?  Only certain kinds of cookies?  Can they buy bread?  Is whole wheat bread too fancy?   Apparently T-Bone steak is out, what about a chuck roast?  Should we impose a weight limit?  I assume we're ok with them buying vegetables, but is organic veggies to "high quality"?  Should we make sure they're only buying cheap, seasonal fruits and veggies?   

What's so hard to grasp about the logic?  I think the term "better quality food" is a poor choice of words, what I really meant was "substantially more expensive food".


I don't have a solution to the problem - and more bureaucracy is probably not the best answer.

Should people on food stamps be allowed to use them to go to an expensive steak house?  Why not?

[GuitarStv]

Soooo...bad decisions are only ok when you make them? 

Just asking because your signature seems to flaunt yours.

Do I really need to ad a disclaimer that it was a joke?  Or remove it altogether?  I thought most people on this forum would have figured it out.

(http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/do-you-wear-a-bike-helmet/)

Regarding wearing a helmet you said:

I currently don't.  I have read conflicting studies on the effectiveness helmets

Regarding cycling on the sidewalk you said:

I do however use the sidewalks for a portion of my ride

 . . . it's not immediately obvious that you are joking when 50% of the statement has been confirmed by your posts.

[warfreak2]

I don't have a solution to the problem - and more bureaucracy is probably not the best answer.

I have one.

Give food stamps to frugalnacho, too. (And everyone else.) Jealousy over.

[frugalnacho]

Soooo...bad decisions are only ok when you make them? 

Just asking because your signature seems to flaunt yours.

Do I really need to ad a disclaimer that it was a joke?  Or remove it altogether?  I thought most people on this forum would have figured it out.

(http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/do-you-wear-a-bike-helmet/)

Regarding wearing a helmet you said:

I currently don't.  I have read conflicting studies on the effectiveness helmets

Regarding cycling on the sidewalk you said:

I do however use the sidewalks for a portion of my ride

 . . . it's not immediately obvious that you are joking when 50% of the statement has been confirmed by your posts.

You missed the quote about me purchasing and using a helmet.  It was in the same thread.  Why is it so bad that I did some research and initiated a discussion about it before making a decision?

And I still do ride on portions of the sidewalk.   However not against traffic, and with a helmet.  And only sometimes on drugs.

[arebelspy]

What's so hard to grasp about the logic?

Because I don't see it being logical.

What should they be allowed to spend food stamps on?

(Dsiclaimer: yes, I'm okay with them spending them at an expensive steak restaurant, or at McDonald's, or in a grocery store for steak or junk food.)

[frugalnacho]

I don't have a solution to the problem - and more bureaucracy is probably not the best answer.

I have one.

Give food stamps to frugalnacho, too. (And everyone else.) Jealousy over.

That looks like a long read.  I'll have to come back to it later.

I don't think it's strictly jealousy.  I think it's about a perceived injustice, an unfairness. 

[GuitarStv]

You're looking for a perfect solution for an imperfect problem, and that's why you're frustrated with the results.

Much like democracy, foodstamps are the least worst fix currently available.

[Dezrah]

Quick disclaimer: I have not read all the posts but I’ve found the general gist of the thread interesting enough that I thought I’d at least voice my thoughts.

I’ve always thought that poor decisions tend to be a result of mental fatigue more than anything.  In day-to-day life you might have to think about planning meals, repairing the car, paying the electric bill, taking the kid to the doctor, getting your boss’s reports on time, walking the dog, attending your friend’s baby shower, dealing with your wicked in-laws, following up with that fraudulent charge on your credit card, cleaning the upper-story windows, etc.  Substitute any of a million possible activities.

Whether we realize it or not, we all mentally and physically juggle a lot every day.  This is why it can be so hard to commit the extra energy required to educate yourself, attempt the change, inevitably fail in some way, try again, then repeat until the point where it becomes a habit.  If you have to spend all your mental energy making sure all your utility bills are paid, you’re not going to have much left to apply toward careful shopping habits.  Add in things like health issues, domestic abuse, crime, etc. as things people in poverty have to face more frequently, it’s easy to see how positive change would be slow at best.

How would you fix this?  I honestly don’t know, but I try to appreciate that I have no idea what goes on for anyone, rich or poor.

[frugalnacho]

What's so hard to grasp about the logic?

Because I don't see it being logical.

What should they be allowed to spend food stamps on?

(Dsiclaimer: yes, I'm okay with them spending them at an expensive steak restaurant, or at McDonald's, or in a grocery store for steak or junk food.)

Ok.  My logic is that if you are on food stamps it means you can't/don't earn enough money to support yourself/your family (nutritionally).   

I do support myself nutritionally without government (or other) assistance.   In part because of the choices I make.  I don't eat at red lobster, or expensive steak houses because I can't afford it.   I rarely eat steak or very expensive items (like prepared foods from the deli) for the same reasons.

Therefore I find the very idea of buying expensive steak, caviar, and eating at expensive restaurants incompatible with the notion that you need government assistance to feed yourself.  If you need government assistance to eat, then you can't afford those things.

[frugalnacho]

You're looking for a perfect solution for an imperfect problem, and that's why you're frustrated with the results.

Much like democracy, foodstamps are the least worst fix currently available.

I'm not even looking for an answer.  I just said that it was infuriating to me, from my perspective working in a grocery store to pay my way through school, to see people buy substantially more expensive food than me.   

My perspective being that I was going to school full time, and working 30+ hours at a job I hated in a grocery store to be able to pay for school and other expenses.   And I made choices like not going out to expensive restaurants, buying steak, and buying deli food with 400% mark ups.  Then I see some douchebag throw a pack of cigarettes, a 5th of alcohol, and some expensive food up on the belt.   So I not only have to bag the groceries for him, but I have to pay a portion of my check in taxes that indirectly go to buying his steak so he can use his cash to buy the cigarettes and alcohol so that he can go home, eat steak, drink alcohol, and smoke cigarettes while I have to go home, not drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes because I can't afford them, eat less expensive food, and complete my thermodynamics homework.   Always seemed grossly unfair to me.

[GuitarStv]

Maybe you should stop working so hard then, and live the charmed life of a poor person on foodstamps?  Since it's clearly so awesome . . .

[Daley]

Soooo...bad decisions are only ok when you make them? 

Just asking because your signature seems to flaunt yours.

And now we wait for the spitting hysterical randbot rage claiming that you're the angry one taking things out of context and that he's trying to make a joke and that SHUT UP! He's a delicate and special snowflake that's more entitled to his perspective and life and others not as smart as him don't deserve nice things because he sacrifices where they don't and it's all because he's "smarter" than the rest of us just look at his choices and income and education and background and every man is an island unto themselves and and and...

Tee Hee

I was asking a serious question though.  Where's the line?  What makes a dime bag any more or less of a "bad" decision than some Pop-Tarts?  You have the money to do it?  You don't do it often?  What about deliberately flaunting traffic laws?  Perhaps the person with food stamps drives extra carefully to avoid causing accidents.  Does that make them more entitled to use the road, or judge your usage of it?

You'll note that your question will probably never be answered head-on, because answering it honestly introduces a glaring double-standard when it comes to the (lack of) forgiveness for poor decision making with others. [MOD EDIT: Personal attacks removed. /END MOD EDIT]

I don't think it's strictly jealousy.  I think it's about a perceived injustice, an unfairness. 

Does it bother you when someone has so much money in investments that they don't have to work for a living?  They can afford things you can't, and they pay less in taxes, because unearned income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income.

No it doesn't bother me when someone has enough money that they don't need to work.  Why would that bother me?  It's not about people affording things I can't.  It's when they can't afford those things yet they get those things anyway via subsidies that makes me angry.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. So it's okay to sponge off of other people's hard work and avoid taxes when it's a reward for investing, but its appalling to your sensibilities when it's the result of social programs and taxes set up to address the needs of those otherwise marginalized by people who ignore their own responsibility in the greater necessary social contract? And although you're equally offended by the far larger waste in taxpayer money on corporate welfare that helps to increase dividend payouts to investors, you'd rather instead focus that anger on a welfare recipient buying food that you don't normally choose to eat because it's not food you approve of as being appropriate for people living off of money earned by others and distributed to them, even though their having that deprives you personally of nothing that you wouldn't already have?

This is a problem with you, not them.

[thepokercab]

Ok.  My logic is that if you are on food stamps it means you can't/don't earn enough money to support yourself/your family (nutritionally).   

I do support myself nutritionally without government (or other) assistance.   In part because of the choices I make.  I don't eat at red lobster, or expensive steak houses because I can't afford it.   I rarely eat steak or very expensive items (like prepared foods from the deli) for the same reasons.

Therefore I find the very idea of buying expensive steak, caviar, and eating at expensive restaurants incompatible with the notion that you need government assistance to feed yourself.  If you need government assistance to eat, then you can't afford those things.

I guess I understand this, but I don't understand why its so frustrating or why its something that you're angry about. People at all income levels, receiving any kind of government assistance are making all kinds of stupid choices.  Someone somewhere is buying a huge house they can't really afford, and getting a mortgage deduction.  Some college student somewhere is getting student loans while also buying beer or something else we'd judge to be "foolish".  A defense contractor is getting government money and is billing the government an insane amount of money for travel they probably don't have to do.  I could go further down the defense rabbit hole, but that's another topic.

Getting back to Sol's original point- its about perspective.  We're encouraged by politicians and the media and the like to get all outraged at the poor people making mad decisions, when it's really a drop in the bucket compared to other things that are going on.   

[frugalnacho]

Ok.  My logic is that if you are on food stamps it means you can't/don't earn enough money to support yourself/your family (nutritionally).   

I do support myself nutritionally without government (or other) assistance.   In part because of the choices I make.  I don't eat at red lobster, or expensive steak houses because I can't afford it.   I rarely eat steak or very expensive items (like prepared foods from the deli) for the same reasons.

Therefore I find the very idea of buying expensive steak, caviar, and eating at expensive restaurants incompatible with the notion that you need government assistance to feed yourself.  If you need government assistance to eat, then you can't afford those things.

I guess I understand this, but I don't understand why its so frustrating or why its something that you're angry about. People at all income levels, receiving any kind of government assistance are making all kinds of stupid choices.  Someone somewhere is buying a huge house they can't really afford, and getting a mortgage deduction.  Some college student somewhere is getting student loans while also buying beer or something else we'd judge to be "foolish".  A defense contractor is getting government money and is billing the government an insane amount of money for travel they probably don't have to do.  I could go further down the defense rabbit hole, but that's another topic.

Getting back to Sol's original point- its about perspective.  We're encouraged by politicians and the media and the like to get all outraged at the poor people making mad decisions, when it's really a drop in the bucket compared to other things that are going on.

I'm not sure why you think I would simply give a pass or be ok with to all those scenarios you mentioned.  The topic of the thread is "Woman An Authority On What Shouldn't Be In Poor People’s Grocery Carts-The Onion" and I made a comment directly related to it.   

Also I don't get why you guys think i'm getting all outraged or starting a movement or something.  I simply made a comment directly related to the topic of the thread.  Infuriated is a strong word, perhaps much stronger than I intended or should have used. 

[frugalnacho]

Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. So it's okay to sponge off of other people's hard work and avoid taxes when it's a reward for investing, but its appalling to your sensibilities when it's the result of social programs and taxes set up to address the needs of those otherwise marginalized by people who ignore their own responsibility in the greater necessary social contract? And although you're equally offended by the far larger waste in taxpayer money on corporate welfare that helps to increase dividend payouts to investors, you'd rather instead focus that anger on a welfare recipient buying food that you don't normally choose to eat because it's not food you approve of as being appropriate for people living off of money earned by others and distributed to them, even though their having that deprives you personally of nothing that you wouldn't already have?

What anger am I focussing?  Because I made a passing comment in a thread in the "off topic" section of a forum 15 years after the fact?

Talk about perspective.

[arebelspy]

I'm not sure why you think I would simply give a pass or be ok with to all those scenarios you mentioned.

You said you were okay with someone living off income gained via cheap capital gains taxes.  That doesn't seem so different to me.

Regardless, people will make stupid choices.  It may be okay to be okay with that.

I'm okay with you not though.

;)

[Jamesqf]

Bunch of questions here.  First, why should I not be bothered when people make (what I think are) stupid choices?  Especially when those choices will ultimately affect me in some way?  If I'm not bothered, aren't I being uncaring, self-centered, unsympathetic...  Indeed, all the things liberals like to accuse 'Randbots' of being? 

How is any of this different from other people giving advice, ranging from doctors doing research on the health consequences of obesity & poor diet, down to MMM's frugality facepunches?  It's amusing to think that just a few word changes could turn that Onion piece into a review of MMM.

Why does it seem as though some people have a really hard time grasping the concept of mutual exclusivity?  Here seen as the plaint that since the military spends a lot of money (and arguably wastes much of it), that makes it ok to spend (and again, arguably waste) a lot of money on social programs?

And finally, why do so many people think that when we point to people doing something stupid, we're advocating for more bureaucrats to keep them from doing it? 

[Jamesqf]

You said you were okay with someone living off income gained via cheap capital gains taxes.  That doesn't seem so different to me.

Let's get something straight: the income isn't gained by lower capital gains taxes.  The income gains are from the underlying investment.  Lower CG taxes simply mean that the investors get to keep more of their earnings.

[Daley]

What anger am I focussing?  Because I made a passing comment in a thread in the "off topic" section of a forum 15 years after the fact?

Talk about perspective.

I know it's satire, but for someone that used to work in a grocery store it's all too real.  I didn't have food stamps.  I had to work to pay for my education, and to pay for my food and other expenses, and I had to adjust what I bought to be in line with my income.   Then I see some asshole load their sushi, prepared deli sandwiches and sides, and high quality steaks onto the counter and pay with food stamps.

I'm going to school 16 hours a week, doing 20+ hours of homework, and supporting myself by working in a grocery store 30+ hours a week and eating food that fits in my budget while some asshole is eating steaks and sushi bought with food stamps.   Always infuriated me.  Still does.

Passing comment in the off-topic forum? Maybe, but there's still a lot of present tense anger being expressed fifteen years after the event, and the fact that you bring up an incident from fifteen years ago as being so fresh that it still infuriates you says something, even despite the years. That incident appears to color your posts and influence your opinions to this day.

You're quite correct, some perspective is needed here. Perhaps it still bothers you more than you think it does.

[frugalnacho]

I think infuriate was a poor choice of words on my part.  Mildly upsets me would have been more appropriate.  I think those people are in serious need of face punches.  And I do think they are assholes too.

It wasn't just a single incident.  It was a serious of incidents every week the entire time I worked their.  I'm sure it's still going on but I haven't worked their in over 10 years.

Also it's not like I went out of my way to bring the topic up so I could bitch about it. 

[thepokercab]

Bunch of questions here.  First, why should I not be bothered when people make (what I think are) stupid choices?  Especially when those choices will ultimately affect me in some way?  If I'm not bothered, aren't I being uncaring, self-centered, unsympathetic...  Indeed, all the things liberals like to accuse 'Randbots' of being? 

How are poor people's food stamp choices 'affecting' you?   

How is any of this different from other people giving advice, ranging from doctors doing research on the health consequences of obesity & poor diet, down to MMM's frugality facepunches?  It's amusing to think that just a few word changes could turn that Onion piece into a review of MMM.

I think it's because some people are just turned off by what seems like poor bashing, or in other words, kicking someone while there down.  I think this is a pretty common reaction for many people to have.  No problem with face punches or pointing out possible solutions, but its when people start making broad generalizations about groups of people that you get the push back you get. In this thread and other threads, people have presented you with data and facts indicating that the world is a bit more complicated and nuanced then your own narrow experience, and yet you continue to ignore everyone and argue otherwise.  Ignoring data doesn't make you an MMM crusader.  Far from it. 

Why does it seem as though some people have a really hard time grasping the concept of mutual exclusivity?  Here seen as the plaint that since the military spends a lot of money (and arguably wastes much of it), that makes it ok to spend (and again, arguably waste) a lot of money on social programs?

It's about scope, not mutual exclusivity.  You can't possible think that the waste and fraud of social programs (especially SNAP) comes anywhere close to the waste and fraud that exists in military appropriations. So yes, i'll choose to care about one less than the other.  But, i welcome you to cite a study that says that food stamp "waste" is running rampant.   

And finally, why do so many people think that when we point to people doing something stupid, we're advocating for more bureaucrats to keep them from doing it?

So, what is that you're advocating for?     

[dragoncar]

I'm not sure why you think I would simply give a pass or be ok with to all those scenarios you mentioned.

You said you were okay with someone living off income gained via cheap capital gains taxes.  That doesn't seem so different to me.

Regardless, people will make stupid choices.  It may be okay to be okay with that.

I'm okay with you not though.

;)

Well most of the tax breaks are meant as incentives.  For example, the government (right or wrong) wants to encourage long term vs. short term investment and therefore makes a tax break.  Same with mortgage interest. 

On the other hand, food stamps are not intended to incentivize low income.  I would personally prefer that food stamps be limited to a government funded ration that applies to every resident.  Like everyone gets a bag of lentils, two heads of lettuce, a gallon of milk, whatever is "healthy."  You can take or leave it.  Not sure it's perfect but it's better than funding the worst crap out there.

By the way, whoever was arguing against more bureaucracy fails to realize that that bureaucracy is already in place.

[Jamesqf]

...the fact that you bring up an incident from fifteen years ago as being so fresh that it still infuriates you says something, even despite the years. That incident appears to color your posts and influence your opinions to this day.

Some of us have good memories.  I still remember once waiting in line to cash my meager paycheck at a rural convenience store, seeing the folks ahead pay with food stamps, and then drive away in a new Porsche 924, and that's been somewhat more than 15 years ago.

Further, I think everything I've ever experienced colors my posts, to some extent, including those far-off days in elementary school where I learned to read & write.  It's called learning :-)

How are poor people's food stamp choices 'affecting' you?

By raising my taxes, obviously.  Not only do I pay some share of the current cost, I'll be on the hook for future problems traceable to poor diet.   

I think it's because some people are just turned off by what seems like poor bashing, or in other words, kicking someone while there down.

But that's a problem of your perceptions.  Stop thinking that it's 'the poor' being bashed, rather than the individual choices that some poor people (and others not so poor) make, or the system that makes those choices possible.  It's perfectly possible that other poor people, perhaps even the majority, are making sensible, healthy food choices: are they being bashed?

It's about scope, not mutual exclusivity.  You can't possible think that the waste and fraud of social programs (especially SNAP) comes anywhere close to the waste and fraud that exists in military appropriations.

Why can't I think this?  Military spending is (per Wikipedia) currently 18-19% of total Federal spending (and the states combined spend almost as much again as the Federal total), so there would certainly seem to be a lot more room for waste & fraud.

So, what is that you're advocating for?

People not choosing to do stupid things, which necessarily entails a certain amount of pointing out what the stupid things are - IMHO, of course :-)

[Daley]

How are poor people's food stamp choices 'affecting' you?

By raising my taxes, obviously.

-snip-

It's about scope, not mutual exclusivity.  You can't possible think that the waste and fraud of social programs (especially SNAP) comes anywhere close to the waste and fraud that exists in military appropriations.

Why can't I think this?  Military spending is (per Wikipedia) currently 18-19% of total Federal spending (and the states combined spend almost as much again as the Federal total), so there would certainly seem to be a lot more room for waste & fraud.

I'm just going to leave these links here to place your (and others) wasted tax money concerns in perspective for everyone, James:

A person making $50,000 a year pays 10 cents a day in taxes for food stamps

A married person with one child making $50,000 a year will pay exactly $3,820 in federal taxes. Of those, $2100 is allocated to Social Security, and $725 is distributed Medicare. This leaves a whopping $995 to be used to pay for programs administrated by the Federal government.

-snip-

The category needed for examination is "Job and Family Security", which comprises 19.1% of all of the $995 paid in. In the future I will examine other categories in more detail. The breakdown of the $190.05 is listed below:

• Food and nutrition assistance -- $36.82 / 3.7%

-snip-

Therefore, a married person with one child who makes $50,000 a year will pay $36.82 in taxes to ensure the food stamp program is fully funded. But wait, there is more. That $36.82 is not only for food stamps. Indeed, that money is allocated to two other programs that include the school lunch program, and the special supplemental food program for women, infants and children. Keep in mind, this comprises the totality of the costs associated with the program including administrative.

These numbers were from the 2011 fiscal year. 2013's Federal Budget was 3.89% for Food and Nutrition Assistance. This year, $5 billion was cut from SNAP, which is a 6% budgetary reduction over 2013.

Just remember, folks... when you grind your axe about your wasted taxpayer dollars in relationship to food stamps and the poor, you're talking about maybe 3.8-3.9˘ of every dollar remitted, a fair percentage of which is going towards programs that only feed children.

[dragoncar]

How are poor people's food stamp choices 'affecting' you?

By raising my taxes, obviously.

-snip-

It's about scope, not mutual exclusivity.  You can't possible think that the waste and fraud of social programs (especially SNAP) comes anywhere close to the waste and fraud that exists in military appropriations.

Why can't I think this?  Military spending is (per Wikipedia) currently 18-19% of total Federal spending (and the states combined spend almost as much again as the Federal total), so there would certainly seem to be a lot more room for waste & fraud.

I'm just going to leave these links here to place your (and others) wasted tax money concerns in perspective for everyone, James:

A person making $50,000 a year pays 10 cents a day in taxes for food stamps

A married person with one child making $50,000 a year will pay exactly $3,820 in federal taxes. Of those, $2100 is allocated to Social Security, and $725 is distributed Medicare. This leaves a whopping $995 to be used to pay for programs administrated by the Federal government.

-snip-

The category needed for examination is "Job and Family Security", which comprises 19.1% of all of the $995 paid in. In the future I will examine other categories in more detail. The breakdown of the $190.05 is listed below:

• Food and nutrition assistance -- $36.82 / 3.7%

-snip-

Therefore, a married person with one child who makes $50,000 a year will pay $36.82 in taxes to ensure the food stamp program is fully funded. But wait, there is more. That $36.82 is not only for food stamps. Indeed, that money is allocated to two other programs that include the school lunch program, and the special supplemental food program for women, infants and children. Keep in mind, this comprises the totality of the costs associated with the program including administrative.

These numbers were from the 2011 fiscal year. 2013's Federal Budget was 3.89% for Food and Nutrition Assistance. This year, $5 billion was cut from SNAP, which is a 6% budgetary reduction over 2013.

Just remember, folks... when you grind your axe about your wasted taxpayer dollars in relationship to food stamps and the poor, you're talking about maybe 3.8-3.9˘ of every dollar remitted, a fair percentage of which is going towards programs that only feed children.

That honestly sounds really high high to me.  I assumed it was like a fraction of a cent per day. 

[arebelspy]

That honestly sounds really high high to me.  I assumed it was like a fraction of a cent per day.

I have no basis around whether it's high or low, but just want to point out that the "wasted" amount probably is fractions of a cent if the total is 10 cents/person/day.

[thepokercab]

Why can't I think this?  Military spending is (per Wikipedia) currently 18-19% of total Federal spending (and the states combined spend almost as much again as the Federal total), so there would certainly seem to be a lot more room for waste & fraud.

We've spent over a trillion dollars and counting on the F-35 'stealth' aircraft, which aside from not working too well, apparently isn't very stealthy either.

And that's on one freakin weapon.

Meanwhile, the accuracy rate of SNAP benefit distribution is over 96% 

SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare Advantage Part C (88.6%)

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.3 cent per dollar during the years 2009 to 2011.

(bolded emphasis mine)

[Daley]

Bonus post for those who like math and because I was really curious!

Just remember, folks... when you grind your axe about your wasted taxpayer dollars in relationship to food stamps and the poor, you're talking about maybe 3.8-3.9˘ of every dollar remitted, a fair percentage of which is going towards programs that only feed children.

Since people who take money wasted by individuals on welfare so personally, let's break things down further and truly examine the cold hard money on a one-to-one individual basis between each patriotic and overburdened taxpayer watching their hard earned dollars wasted by each welfare leach on the roles, shall we? There's approximately 46.7 million people receiving food stamps currently.

Napkin math shows that 19% of all individual federal taxes collected are paid for by the 20% of the population that makes between $42-68.7k a year. There are roughly 146 million individual tax payers with an intake of $1.371 trillion of the total $2.5 trillion collected by the IRS. 20% of 146 million people is 29.2 million people. The math doesn't quite match reality, but let's roll with it as it establishes a larger stake for the humble taxpayer. 19% of $1.371 trillion is approximately $261 billion. $261 billion divided by 29.2 million people works out to an average pay-in of $8900 in total tax revenue per person in this tax segment. Of course, someone making $50k is only realistically going to pay in somewhere around $4000, but we're working broad for the sake of a whole generalized section of the population... you know, the same sort of gross over-generalization that gets painted on the poor.

As we are working in broad generalities, that means that the average tax payer in this tax bracket is providing approximately 0.000000004% of all collected taxes, or in more understandable terms, of that $8900, you paid in about $293 into the foodstamp program. (That works out to 3.3%, by the way, a horribly sloppy ~0.5% undershot of the actual tax burden. Oopsie, the math used for hard number confirmation has drift. Let's fix that for the sake of accuracy!) $293 $343 divided by 46.7 million people works out to an annual financial contribution out of your own pocket to each foodstamp recipient of approximately $0.000007337 per year, or $0.000000611 per monthly benefit distribution check.

$82.5 billion divided by 46.7 million people works out to roughly $1,767 a year in food stamp benefits per person, or about $147 a month per head.

So, what's the real percentage of average monthly contributions by any one individual in the tax paying middle class to any one individual receiving food stamps? Well, $0.000000611 of $147 is about 0.000000004%, or 4 nanopercent give or take a little. Of course, if you actually pay more or less than $8900 a year in taxes, feel free to adjust that number appropriately to get your exact percentage paid in.

Next time you see a welfare queen buying some hifalutin sushi with their foodstamps, make sure you exert your personal stake in their dietary choices and let them know how much you care about how they're wasting your personally contributed four nanopercent of their welfare benefits by not being as smart as you and buying rice and beans like any other dignified poor person should be.

Of course, since I am playing really fast and loose with broad general numbers, feel free to add in as much as a 10,000% error margin on these results. Who knows, I might be wildly off and your actual share could be as much as 41.56 micropercent of their welfare benefits! No wonder you guys take these people's food purchasing habits so gosh darn personally.

[Bakari]

How are poor people's food stamp choices 'affecting' you?

By raising my taxes, obviously. 

[/quote]

People on foodstamps get a set dollar amount, not a set calorie amount.
If they spend them on more expensive food, and then run out, they don't get more because they ran out.
Therefor, what they buy with it doesn't affect how much money goes into the program one way or another.

Let's get something straight: the income isn't gained by lower capital gains taxes.  The income gains are from the underlying investment.  Lower CG taxes simply mean that the investors get to keep more of their earnings.

Mathematically, adding a positive and subtracting a negative are the exact same thing.

If you give one person $100 in food stamps, and allow another to pay $1000 less in taxes than they would if not for unearned income tax breaks, the government is essentially giving the already wealthier person 10 times as much.

[Jamesqf]

We've spent over a trillion dollars and counting on the F-35 'stealth' aircraft...

From a quick Googling, those $1 trillion plus numbers seem to be total projected costs over a 50 year lifespan.  Hardly fair to compare them with annual costs of another program.  The SNAP program currently costs $80 billion per year.  Over the same 50 year span, that's $4 trillion.

And that's on one freakin program :-)

[Russ]

If you guys care so much about your tax contribution being spent on something you disagree with, how about this: I'll disproportionately fund food stamps, and you can disproportionately fund something I disagee with, like big dumb roads or something. See, it works out!

[MDM]

Mathematically, adding a positive and subtracting a negative are the exact same thing.

Absolutely correct.

If you give one person $100 in food stamps, and allow another to pay $1000 less in taxes than they would if not for unearned income tax breaks, the government is essentially giving the already wealthier person 10 times as much.

Here we have left the realm of the mathematical, and entered the realm of the philosophical.  I.e., there is a difference between the government "giving to" someone who doesn't already have it, vs. "taking from" someone who already does.

To whom do earnings, ethically received, belong?  If one believes "to the government" or "to society", then a case can be made that "lack of taxation" = "a gift".  If one believes "to the individual who earned them", then "lack of taxation" is most definitely not a gift.

[thepokercab]

We've spent over a trillion dollars and counting on the F-35 'stealth' aircraft...

From a quick Googling, those $1 trillion plus numbers seem to be total projected costs over a 50 year lifespan.  Hardly fair to compare them with annual costs of another program.  The SNAP program currently costs $80 billion per year.  Over the same 50 year span, that's $4 trillion.

And that's on one freakin program :-)

Well, i was making the argument that the entire 1 trillion + spent on a plane we don't need (my opinion of course- i'm sure we need lots of creative ways to drop bombs on people) is a waste, compared to the 3% of the $80 billion dollar SNAP program that is estimated to be distributed in error- or 2.4 billion per year.  So yes, after 416 years of rampant SNAP fraud we'll have caught up to our 1 trillion dollar war plane.     

Of course, being the hippie liberal I am, I like to think that most of the remaining 77.6 billion that isn't considered fraud is going towards feeding people,  especially old people, children, and people with disabilities- These households receive 83% of all snap benefits. Of course I'm making the leap that feeding these people isn't "waste" which is apparently more controversial than I thought.   

So, we'll take our thought bubble further and say 3% of the error,  plus all the other 17% of households that don't have children, the elderly or people with disabilities. We'll say they all are sucking at Uncle Sam's teet unnecessarily.  20% of $80 billion is $16 billion.  That gets us closer- only 62.5 years away from the total cost of our 1 trillion dollar peace plane.   

[warfreak2]

To whom do earnings, ethically received, belong?  If one believes "to the government" or "to society", then a case can be made that "lack of taxation" = "a gift".  If one believes "to the individual who earned them", then "lack of taxation" is most definitely not a gift.

I think the problem with this terminology is that people have their own, different ideas of what the "fair" amount the government should give or receive to each person should be; then they define any movement away from what they think is fair as a "gift" or as "theft", depending on whether it's giving or taking "too much" - but movements towards it are not "gifts" or "thefts" because those people "should never have" received/given that money in the first place.

I think there's a libertarian* counterpoint to be made, though. Money is a contract between you and society, enforced by the government. It's true that you can "give" and "receive" rights and responsibilities on a freely exchangeable contract, but it's also true that the rights given to you by the contract are provided by the entity on the other end of the contract, not the person who exchanged the contract with you. Society sits at the other end of the contract, and by using money at all you implicitly agree to the rules of the contract, including the tax code, and therefore the tax code is fair by definition - and any changes to it are also fair, by definition, as one of the rules of the contract is that democratically elected representatives can change the rules in a few strictly controlled ways.

In this sense, a tax cut is not a "gift", but a benefit: the government changes the rules to benefit those receiving the tax cut. That puts tax cuts in the same realm as food stamps.

*As a non-libertarian, I am only playing devil's advocate. I don't consider contracts as defining fairness, but this appears to be a libertarian principle. I also realise that not all libertarians follow the same principles.

[Jamesqf]

We've spent over a trillion dollars and counting on the F-35 'stealth' aircraft...

From a quick Googling, those $1 trillion plus numbers seem to be total projected costs over a 50 year lifespan.  Hardly fair to compare them with annual costs of another program.  The SNAP program currently costs $80 billion per year.  Over the same 50 year span, that's $4 trillion.

And that's on one freakin program :-)

Well, i was making the argument that the entire 1 trillion + spent on a plane we don't need (my opinion of course- i'm sure we need lots of creative ways to drop bombs on people) is a waste...

I suppose we could argue about the need for weapons systems & welfare plans, and whether any particular instance of either is well designed & implemented. Those are entirely different discussions, though, and I'd really prefer not to participate.  I'm just saying that I think the dollar comparison used was quite unfair.

...compared to the 3% of the $80 billion dollar SNAP program that is estimated to be distributed in error- or 2.4 billion per year.

But we're not discussing errors or fraud - or at least I haven't been - but the way many people seem to use the benefits to which they are properly entitled under program rules.  So it seems fair to use the entire cost of the programs over the same period as a basis for comparison.

Of course, being the hippie liberal I am, I like to think that most of the remaining 77.6 billion that isn't considered fraud is going towards feeding people,  especially old people, children, and people with disabilities- These households receive 83% of all snap benefits.

But again, I think that's not really the subject of discussion.  Rather, it's whether the people receiving benefits could make better food choices, resulting in better nutrition & fewer health problems, and also (since AFAIK the program doesn't usually cover 100% of food spending) more dollars saved by the recipients that could be used for other purposes.  Just as I, like many other Mustachians, seem to eat inexpensively but well.

[MDM]

[P]eople have their own, different ideas of what ... the government should [do].

Apologies for borrowing your quote if you don't agree with the edited version above.  People really do have fundamental differences of opinion about the proper role of government.  Given those differences in assumptions, it's not much of a surprise when people reach different conclusions on various specific topics.

I think there's a libertarian* counterpoint to be made, though. Money is a contract between you and society, enforced by the government. It's true that you can "give" and "receive" rights and responsibilities on a freely exchangeable contract, but it's also true that the rights given to you by the contract are provided by the entity on the other end of the contract, not the person who exchanged the contract with you. Society sits at the other end of the contract, and by using money at all you implicitly agree to the rules of the contract, including the tax code, and therefore the tax code is fair by definition - and any changes to it are also fair, by definition, as one of the rules of the contract is that democratically elected representatives can change the rules in a few strictly controlled ways.

I didn't understand the distinction made here: "...the entity on the other end of the contract, not the person who exchanged the contract with you" - don't know if it is important to the rest of the point or not.
But the part about "by using money at all you implicitly agree ... the tax code is fair by definition"?  No.  Good that you are willing to consider a devil's advocate viewpoint, so maybe you already agree that this argument is a non-starter.

In this sense, a tax cut is not a "gift", but a benefit: the government changes the rules to benefit those receiving the tax cut. That puts tax cuts in the same realm as food stamps.

Agreed - in the sense that any time there is a change in the status quo, that change can be perceived as a benefit or a detriment.  Something already good or bad can become better or worse and still be good or bad.  And yes, government taxation and spending both fall under the realm of government - which brings us back to the first quote in this post. ;)

[Jamesqf]

...by using money at all you implicitly agree to the rules of the contract, including the tax code, and therefore the tax code is fair by definition - and any changes to it are also fair, by definition, as one of the rules of the contract is that democratically elected representatives can change the rules in a few strictly controlled ways.

I think your problem here is in calling something a contract, when people had no choice about being born into a society that functions this way, and little choice about staying, as there are no libertarian utopias available, and other real-world countries are much the same.  By the same logic, even the most totalitarian dictatorship must be defined as fair, since people buy & sell according to its rules.

[Paul der Krake]

...by using money at all you implicitly agree to the rules of the contract, including the tax code, and therefore the tax code is fair by definition - and any changes to it are also fair, by definition, as one of the rules of the contract is that democratically elected representatives can change the rules in a few strictly controlled ways.

I think your problem here is in calling something a contract, when people had no choice about being born into a society that functions this way, and little choice about staying, as there are no libertarian utopias available, and other real-world countries are much the same.  By the same logic, even the most totalitarian dictatorship must be defined as fair, since people buy & sell according to its rules.

You're trying to make this a black or white issue (I had no choice therefore the contract is invalid) when it really isn't. You were born in a first world country where all of these choices were made for you by default because your parents and a majority of people around them figured it was a good compromise to be given all the advantages offered by the government at the time in exchange for a fraction of their income.

If you think the Dollar is a sham, you are free to convince others to stop using it.
If you think your taxes are too high, you are free to engineer your life to minimize said taxes. Hell, if you do it well, you even get extra money from the government.
If you think everyone around you is an idiot, you are free to renounce your citizenship and head off elsewhere, state or country. The geostrategic influence of the very country you are trying to escape makes this very easy.

Not because something is highly inconvenient in the social contract doesn't mean you have to do it, it just means most people are just fine with the terms of the contract and choose not to pursue the alternative.

[iris lily]

What's so hard to grasp about the logic?

Because I don't see it being logical.

What should they be allowed to spend food stamps on?

(Dsiclaimer: yes, I'm okay with them spending them at an expensive steak restaurant, or at McDonald's, or in a grocery store for steak or junk food.)

Let's carry that logic forward, then.

Mama's EBT monthly benefits drop into her account. Mama takes herself and her boyfriend out to the steakhouse. That one dinner blows 25% of her EBT benefits, intended for her 3 kids and herself. That's why I am paying taxes, to keep the food on the table for these children, don't really give a rat's ass about mama. The next week mama takes boyfriend out to a nice shrimp dinner. Blows another 25 percent of the EBT benefits.

and etc.

Of course she can buy all of the steak and shrimp that she likes at the grocery store, it just lasts a little longer than if it is served up to her at a restaurant.

That is why, while I like the simplicity of the Guaranteed Annual Income, it will not ever work. Many many of the poor simply cannot budget, cannot delay gratification, cannot make the benefits last. You will say that's because we don't give them enough. I will counter and say "let's give them $35,000 annually and see how that works."  I know it's gonna work exactly like the poor sobs who win the Lotto--all of the cash money is gone after 5 years only with the recipients of Guaranteed Annual Income, all of the month's money will be gone in ten days. And many Mustachians here can run a household on $35,000 annually with regular food, safety, and warmth a guarantee.

So the resulting problem is that children are not fed, children are not housed, children are not kept clean and warm because the foolish adults who are responsible for their welfare cannot manage resources.

Giving them more resources isn't the answer although I am quite certain that a contingent where think that WILL solve the problem.

My question in these debates is always this: how much exactly must we give each family for that to be "enough?" What is the figure? Knowing that, and knowing what my tax burden would then be, I might just agree to it if we could then forgo these tiresome debates about selfish libertarians and compassionate liberals and the evil military and etc.

The poor with always be with us. 

[arebelspy]

What's so hard to grasp about the logic?

Because I don't see it being logical.

What should they be allowed to spend food stamps on?

(Dsiclaimer: yes, I'm okay with them spending them at an expensive steak restaurant, or at McDonald's, or in a grocery store for steak or junk food.)

Let's carry that logic forward, then.

Mama's EBT monthly benefits drop into her account. Mama takes herself and her boyfriend out to the steakhouse. That one dinner blows 25% of her EBT benefits, intended for her 3 kids and herself. That's why I am paying taxes, to keep the food on the table for these children, don't really give a rat's ass about mama. The next week mama takes boyfriend out to a nice shrimp dinner. Blows another 25 percent of the EBT benefits.

and etc.

Of course she can buy all of the steak and shrimp that she likes at the grocery store, it just lasts a little longer than if it is served up to her at a restaurant.

..and?  Okay, so then they go hungry at the end of that month.  That is unfortunate, but due to their choices.  At least the kids will be getting two meals a day during school for free.

You haven't answered the underlying question:

It's not simply about someone getting a free ride at "my" expense, it's people getting a free better ride than me at my expense.   I don't hate the food stamp program, or people that need assistance, I think it's a good thing.  However I don't think they should be getting better stuff than me. 

I don't understand why the only two options you present are sitting at home watching tv gnawing on a t-bone or looting the streets.  What about sitting at home watching tv and gnawing on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or hot dogs like I had to do?  Why exactly does that person deserve better quality food than someone who is working and paying taxes and not collecting food stamps?

I do have perspective to the vast amounts of money wasted.  I don't agree with the war, or most of what the government does with my tax dollars, but I don't lose sleep over any of it.  That perspective doesn't change the fairness in this specific situation though.

I'm having a hard time getting the logic here.  I hear people arguing that people on food stamps shouldn't be allowed to buy junk food, but then I'm now hearing another argument that says they shouldn't be able to buy "better quality food" with food stamps.  So who arbitrates what kind of food you can buy? 

Is your solution really to spend even more money creating more bureaucracy to monitor and track each piece of food someone is purchasing with food stamps? Should there be a "food stamp aisle" at every store in America?  Let's see- they can't buy sodas or junk food.  How about cookies?  Can they buy cookies?  Only certain kinds of cookies?  Can they buy bread?  Is whole wheat bread too fancy?   Apparently T-Bone steak is out, what about a chuck roast?  Should we impose a weight limit?  I assume we're ok with them buying vegetables, but is organic veggies to "high quality"?  Should we make sure they're only buying cheap, seasonal fruits and veggies?   

[iris lily]

What's so hard to grasp about the logic?

Because I don't see it being logical.

What should they be allowed to spend food stamps on?

(Dsiclaimer: yes, I'm okay with them spending them at an expensive steak restaurant, or at McDonald's, or in a grocery store for steak or junk food.)

Let's carry that logic forward, then.

Mama's EBT monthly benefits drop into her account. Mama takes herself and her boyfriend out to the steakhouse. That one dinner blows 25% of her EBT benefits, intended for her 3 kids and herself. That's why I am paying taxes, to keep the food on the table for these children, don't really give a rat's ass about mama. The next week mama takes boyfriend out to a nice shrimp dinner. Blows another 25 percent of the EBT benefits.

and etc.

Of course she can buy all of the steak and shrimp that she likes at the grocery store, it just lasts a little longer than if it is served up to her at a restaurant.

..and?  Okay, so then they go hungry at the end of that month.  That is unfortunate, but due to their choices.  At least the kids will be getting two meals a day during school for free.

You haven't answered the underlying question:

It's not simply about someone getting a free ride at "my" expense, it's people getting a free better ride than me at my expense.   I don't hate the food stamp program, or people that need assistance, I think it's a good thing.  However I don't think they should be getting better stuff than me. 

I don't understand why the only two options you present are sitting at home watching tv gnawing on a t-bone or looting the streets.  What about sitting at home watching tv and gnawing on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or hot dogs like I had to do?  Why exactly does that person deserve better quality food than someone who is working and paying taxes and not collecting food stamps?

I do have perspective to the vast amounts of money wasted.  I don't agree with the war, or most of what the government does with my tax dollars, but I don't lose sleep over any of it.  That perspective doesn't change the fairness in this specific situation though.

I'm having a hard time getting the logic here.  I hear people arguing that people on food stamps shouldn't be allowed to buy junk food, but then I'm now hearing another argument that says they shouldn't be able to buy "better quality food" with food stamps.  So who arbitrates what kind of food you can buy? 

Is your solution really to spend even more money creating more bureaucracy to monitor and track each piece of food someone is purchasing with food stamps? Should there be a "food stamp aisle" at every store in America?  Let's see- they can't buy sodas or junk food.  How about cookies?  Can they buy cookies?  Only certain kinds of cookies?  Can they buy bread?  Is whole wheat bread too fancy?   Apparently T-Bone steak is out, what about a chuck roast?  Should we impose a weight limit?  I assume we're ok with them buying vegetables, but is organic veggies to "high quality"?  Should we make sure they're only buying cheap, seasonal fruits and veggies?   

There is almost too much quoting above for me to follow what question I'm supposed to answer.  But I am not ok on spending more money to create more bureaucracy to keep EBT recipients on the straight and narrow. However, I do think it is much easier to control what they can ring up at the grocery store due to UPC codes and automated check out in this computerized age.

I'll go you even one better: Let's set up feeding stations in all areas of the city so that all EBT recipients can be assured of a square meal 1X or 2X daily, not just the kids at school. Then give them (lower) EBT benefits to spend on whatever they want including wine, beer, cigs. Fine with me. But the feeding stations will give repetitive but highly nutritious meals of beans, rice, peanut butter, apples and that type of food. Low cost, high nutrition. That is all.

[arebelspy]

There is almost too much quoting above for me to follow what question I'm supposed to answer.

Okay, I'll make it simple for you.  This is the question:

So who arbitrates what kind of food you can buy? 

You suggest UPC codes:

But I am not ok on spending more money to create more bureaucracy to keep EBT recipients on the straight and narrow. However, I do think it is much easier to control what they can ring up at the grocery store due to UPC codes and automated check out in this computerized age.

But who decides which UPC codes ring up as okay versus not for EBT if not for someone in a bureaucracy?


And how do they decide what is/isn't appropriate?  In other words, this:

Is your solution really to spend even more money creating more bureaucracy to monitor and track each piece of food someone is purchasing with food stamps? Should there be a "food stamp aisle" at every store in America?  Let's see- they can't buy sodas or junk food.  How about cookies?  Can they buy cookies?  Only certain kinds of cookies?  Can they buy bread?  Is whole wheat bread too fancy?   Apparently T-Bone steak is out, what about a chuck roast?  Should we impose a weight limit?  I assume we're ok with them buying vegetables, but is organic veggies to "high quality"?  Should we make sure they're only buying cheap, seasonal fruits and veggies?

[iris lily]

Okay, I'll make it simple for you.  This is the question:

So who arbitrates what kind of food you can buy? 

 Can they buy bread?  Is whole wheat bread too fancy?   Apparently T-Bone steak is out, what about a chuck roast?  Should we impose a weight limit?  I assume we're ok with them buying vegetables, but is organic veggies to "high quality"?  Should we make sure they're only buying cheap, seasonal fruits and veggies?

[/quote]

Why honey, I'll chair that committee. I would have no problem making those decisions. To answer you questions:

Bread: whole wheat is not too fancy as long as it is below a certain $x per ounce
Organic: too fancy, nope
Beef: whatever cut is in the lowest 1/2 cost per pound of beef that the store is selling is ok, not to exceed $x per pound
Weight limit? of the meat you mean? no
Seasonal plus bananas is what they may buy

The real problem in my mind is sticking the grocery man with carrying it out. The devil is in the details and I see a nasty impact on him. And for that reason I am not really on board. But someone had to program grocery store databases to identify "food" vs "non-food" items, so sure the programming can be done.

Keep in mind that I've often said that when I am queen I will determine who gets to reproduce, so deciding what people on the dole can eat is pretty simple compared to that.

[thepokercab]

That is why, while I like the simplicity of the Guaranteed Annual Income, it will not ever work. Many many of the poor simply cannot budget, cannot delay gratification, cannot make the benefits last. You will say that's because we don't give them enough. I will counter and say "let's give them $35,000 annually and see how that works."  I know it's gonna work exactly like the poor sobs who win the Lotto--all of the cash money is gone after 5 years only with the recipients of Guaranteed Annual Income, all of the month's money will be gone in ten days. And many Mustachians here can run a household on $35,000 annually with regular food, safety, and warmth a guarantee.

So the resulting problem is that children are not fed, children are not housed, children are not kept clean and warm because the foolish adults who are responsible for their welfare cannot manage resources.

I think the qualities you describe are hardly unique to poor people, but lots of people who are considered middle or upper class. Not a ton of difference between a poor person and someone making 100K a year who spends it all and is essentially living paycheck to paycheck.  Everyone makes bad choices.  I probably made like 2 of them just today. it's just that some people have more margin of error then others.

Ah, but I can already hear the "well, I'm affected by the poor person on food stamps because my tax dollars are paying for it".  And people seem to really take this seriously, as if the poor people are coming to their door directly and just collecting cash.  But, if these folks on food stamps are such a clear and present danger well, then it would seem to me that people with low savings rates, living paycheck to paycheck are just as much of a danger.  I mean, they're clearly making bad choices as well, and there only 1 bad choice, 1 lay-off, 1 hospital visit away from ending up on the government dole and affecting our bottom line. 

So, how about we pass some laws to help change some of their behavior?  How about anyone with a net worth of less than 50K can't own an iPhone?  Or how about people with low savings rates can only drive to work and back- and nowhere else, since they clearly can't afford all of that other driving?  And really, if we're going to regulate what kind of food you can get on food stamps, shouldn't we just do the same thing with people who maybe aren't on food stamps yet,  but are 1 bad choice from ending up on the dole.  Since food stamps and the people who use them are such a drag on us, don't we have a responsibility to keep people off of them by any means necessary? 

Of course, these aren't plausible solutions, nor do they really address anything.  But I think that's where we come full circle, with the Onion's satire here.  The headline "Woman an Authority on What Shouldn't be in Poor People's Grocery Carts" is satire, in my mind, because its funny to think that someone is an AUTHORITY on this. 

Issues of public policy, assistance, the social safety net, etc, are complicated and nuanced, and not easy (at least to me) to box into pre-determined stereotypes and beliefs, but really, as opposed to thinking about all of that,  isn't it just easier to be an authority on what's shouldn't be in poor people's grocery carts? 

[Gin1984]

Okay, I'll make it simple for you.  This is the question:

So who arbitrates what kind of food you can buy? 

 Can they buy bread?  Is whole wheat bread too fancy?   Apparently T-Bone steak is out, what about a chuck roast?  Should we impose a weight limit?  I assume we're ok with them buying vegetables, but is organic veggies to "high quality"?  Should we make sure they're only buying cheap, seasonal fruits and veggies?

Why honey, I'll chair that committee. I would have no problem making those decisions. To answer you questions:

Bread: whole wheat is not too fancy as long as it is below a certain $x per ounce
Organic: too fancy, nope
Beef: whatever cut is in the lowest 1/2 cost per pound of beef that the store is selling is ok, not to exceed $x per pound
Weight limit? of the meat you mean? no
Seasonal plus bananas is what they may buy

The real problem in my mind is sticking the grocery man with carrying it out. The devil is in the details and I see a nasty impact on him. And for that reason I am not really on board. But someone had to program grocery store databases to identify "food" vs "non-food" items, so sure the programming can be done.

Keep in mind that I've often said that when I am queen I will determine who gets to reproduce, so deciding what people on the dole can eat is pretty simple compared to that.

Lol, I ended buy organic a few times because of a sale, they were cheaper than regular.  People's ideas on here are a little horrifying to be honest.  So an apple is too good for someone on food stamps?  A pear?  You people need to.... You know what, I am done.  The judgement here is sickening and is worse than any waste by those with food stamps. 

[Mod Edit: Fixed Link Tags.]

[Daley]

You know the thing that gets me most with all this? After running the numbers earlier... the reality of the SNAP program is thus:

The average contribution of 10˘ a day out of the typical working mustachian taxpayer's paycheck currently helps to feed over 46 million people, day in, day out... even despite the corruption and poor food choices.

Think about this. You give the government a dime every day, and that dime helps to keep over 46 million people from going to bed hungry in the United States. That's $3 a month out of your budget.

Please, explain to me like I'm five years old, how this is not the living embodiment of badass.