I don't see food stamps as a handout. Food banks...yes. If you're perfectly capable of buying your own food, feel free to apply for food stamps. But don't go to your nearest church and ask for a handout there.
Same with taking, say, a tax deduction on installing energy efficient windows/appliances/whatever. If you're perfectly capable of paying for your $300/mo electric bill...feel free to spend some money upfront to get that bill lowered, and take a tax credit while you're at it. But don't put out donation cans in local businesses to raise money to get some new windows installed in your house.
How many of us have kids, didn't "need" the $1k tax credit, and refused to cash the check the IRS sent us? Anyone? But...but...that's money you "took" from the government, simply because you have kids. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD KIDS, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THEM! That argument doesn't really work, does it? Then why are we looking down on people who get food stamps because they qualify (no fraud involved), but do not "need" them? To me, the only difference is I HAVE to fill out the IRS paperwork each year, but the SNAP paperwork is optional. Other than that, I'm simply filling out some forms, giving truthful answers to the questions asked, and I (may) get some money out of it.
"But...but...intent! Intent! Food stamps were intended for people who are truly poor and don't want to be poor, not for people who have money in the bank and/or choose to be poor." Ok, who says? When I interpret the intent of a law, I don't look at what random people on the internet think the intent should be; instead, I prefer to go straight to the source. What was the intent of the people who made the law? What do they say?
Well, Tennessee's blurb on food stamps is "The Food Stamp program provides nutritional assistance benefits to children and families, the elderly, the disabled, unemployed and working families." Are you elderly, disabled, unemployed, a child, or part of a family (whether working or not)? If so...sounds like this program's for you! Ok, let's dig a bit deeper and read the actual manual, where it has these blurbs:
The Food Stamp Program is designated to promote the general welfare and to safeguard the health and well being of the Nation's population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households.
Section 2 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 states, in part: Congress hereby finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition, a Food Stamp Program is herein authorized which will permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power to all eligible households who apply for participation.
Ok, so when it was started in 1977, they said that they were worried about the nutrition levels among low-income households. The intent was to "alleviate such hunger and malnutrition" by "increasing food purchasing power to all eligible households who apply for participation."
Edit: The original wording I used was incorrect, it read as though in 1977 they didn't care about assets. In fact there was an asset test, but as with other laws that has been changed over the years. Below posts pointing out my error are 100% justified.
I'll agree, that's the one point where it gets a bit sticky. One side can point to "alleviate such hunger and malnutrition", where the other side can point to "
all eligible households". Nowhere does it say they want to only target those who are hungry and malnourished; rather, that many low-income households have an issue with hunger and malnutrition, and they think the best way to fix it is to increase the food purchasing power to
all eligible households. They don't think the best way to fix it is to simply give food to those most in need, they think the best way to fix it is to give grocery money to all those who are low-income.
So, it could go either way I guess, just based on that. But dig a bit further...hrm, looks like food stamps is largely a subsidy for farmers. A lot of the rules make sense, such as allowing lots of things that aren't really food to be classified as food (that soda and pack of cookies have lots of high fructose corn syrup which is made from...corn!). Oh, they throw out other reasons, like how it'd insult poor...er...low-income people if they were told what food they could and could not buy (so people on WIC just don't matter?); or how it'd be a logistics nightmare for supermarkets to implement (um...hello...it's me, WIC again).
A few point out that there's only a certain amount of money earmarked for food stamps. Perhaps, but that would only influence my decision if there were long waiting lists, people being denied simply because there's no more money left, or benefits being reduced so much that a truly needy family can't possibly buy enough food to live off of (if the max goes from $600 down to $500 for a family of four, and our family of four only spends $400/mo total, I wouldn't feel bad if I took the benefit; if it went down to $200 though, I may feel differently). I don't see any of those happening. All I see is that it may take a few weeks for benefits to start, and if you're in dire need they can put a rush on that.
In conclusion *applause drowns out the rest of the speech*