Congressmen taking the 1 week Food Stamp Challenge [Mobile/Archive]

RBM

05-16-2007, 07:24 PM

Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

By Lyndsey Layton (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/lyndsey+layton/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 16, 2007; Page A13

Rep. Tim Ryan (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000577/) (D-Ohio) stood before the refrigerated section of the Safeway (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Safeway+Inc.?tid=informline) on Capitol Hill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/Capitol+Hill?tid=informline) yesterday and looked longingly at the eggs. At $1.29 for a half-dozen, he couldn't afford them.

Ryan and three other members of Congress have pledged to live for one week on $21 worth of food, the amount the average food stamp recipient receives in federal assistance. That's $3 a day or $1 a meal. They started yesterday.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/related-topics.html/James+McGovern?tid=informline) and Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/e000172/) (R-Mo.), co-chairmen of the House Hunger Caucus, called on lawmakers to take the "Food Stamp Challenge" to raise awareness of hunger and what they say are inadequate benefits for food stamp recipients. Only two others, Ryan and Janice Schakowsky (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/s001145/) (D-Ill.), took them up on it.

"We're trying to get this debate going," McGovern said. "There are more working people today getting food stamps than six years ago. . . . There's not a member of Congress that doesn't have hunger in their district."

"No organic foods, no fresh vegetables, we were looking for the cheapest of everything," McGovern said. "We got spaghetti and hamburger meat that was high in fat -- the fattiest meat on the shelf. I have high cholesterol and always try to get the leanest, but it's expensive. It's almost impossible to make healthy choices on a food stamp diet."

* * * * *
Skipping over the obvious temptation to write this off as a PR stunt, there are some things which a person just doesn't understand until he experiences them first-hand.

While I am not an apologist for fat people, I am glad that McGovern has already noticed that foods perceived as being healthier occupy a market niche, which command higher prices. He exempted his kids from the challenge, but it would have been interesting to see what sort of food he would've given them on a sharply limited budget.

The blogs of both Congressmen partaking in this challenge:
Rep Tim Ryan (http://timryan.house.gov/)
Rep Jim McGovern (http://foodstampchallenge.typepad.com/)

dragonreborn23

05-16-2007, 07:31 PM

I think every politician should have to do something like this before they can take office. It never hurts to gain a little perspective.

evilmax17

05-16-2007, 09:40 PM

RBM

05-16-2007, 09:46 PM

I am a little surprised that macaroni and cheese has not assumed a prominent role in either of their blogs. Or ramen, bean burritos, or potstickers (although you'd have to know how to prepare those from scratch, to make them economical.)

UncleBob

05-16-2007, 10:46 PM

Better headline:

"People who get by on forced handouts from working individuals don't get to be picky about what they eat"

Too long?

Msut77

05-16-2007, 11:21 PM

Vegetables are pretty cheap. You can get a whole head of lettuce for a buck, and then a bottle of dressing for a buck. You could probably squeeze two meals out of that, for $1 a meal.

You're not going to be eating fillet mignon, but you can survive.

You are talking about iceberg lettuce which has the nutritional value (and fills you up as much) as a few glasses of water.

dopa345

05-17-2007, 12:06 AM

ramen noodles... 13 cents a meal.

mykevermin

05-17-2007, 12:33 AM

Better headline:

"People who get by on forced handouts from working individuals don't get to be picky about what they eat"

Too long?

Imagine what they couldn't eat if your bullshit "fairtax" passed!

I know what these guys are talking about, especially with regards to fatty foods. The grocery that I shop at (Kroger, mostly) has a line of underpriced products - "FMV - For Maximum Value." It's the highest fat/biggest filler/worst animal parts lunchmeats, chemically-charged slices of cheese...it's the poorest quality of everything.

Of course, in your eyes, absolutely everybody who is on public assistance is a lazy "welfare queen," to dig up Reagan's old stereotype. You know nothing about welfare "lifers," you know nothing about the average length of time people are on public assistance, you seem to feel as if making a person in a bad situation's life even worse via the kinds of things they can afford is perfectly fine, and you seem to think that failing to adequately provide for people looking for help, so they can move into your hardworking class is perfectly fine, even when it is, ironically, a failure in the end. Show me one piece of data, show me one bit of research that you know of with regard to welfare. I'll mail you a cookie via UPS.

Now, let's talk about what $21 can buy you in veggies.

Celery is about $1
Iceberg lettuce is about $1/head
Green bell peppers are around $0.70
Navel oranges are around $0.50/pc
Apples can be around $4/lb.

Of course, we can't just eat veggies. They're good for us, sure, but people need protein.

Eggs are $1/dozen (I'm glad I don't shop at a Safeway where they're $1.30 for 6!)
Peanut Butter is about $3/jar
Tunafish can be around $0.70/can (unless you only buy albacore, but we can't be picky on $21/week)

I think $21 can be used for healthy meals, but they're gonna be pretty scant. I'd love to see ol' UncleBob try it. Apparently, he doesn't like welfare at all; he'd rather have his $17 a month extra (which is precisely what you pay into welfare every month, as an average of per-household contributions), and deal with the resultant crime increase due to even greater diminished opportunities for the poorest in our society.

Of course, since our government can't spend within its means despite the vast amount of money they get from us, they're more likely to end welfare, keep your $17/month and reappropriate it to something they don't have money allocated for (like that one fucking war we're in that was supposed to cost $1-2 Billion, but is now over $450 Billion). So, you still lose your money, but you get all the crime that will happen when poor people can't feed themselves. I'm sure ol' Bob lives in a gated community, though, far away from the poor folks, so he won't have to worry about it at all.

You can't help but love those prats that bluster about government waste, when they never seem to bring up a half-TRILLION dollar war that was sold to the public as $1-2 Billion. Fuckers. :lol:

mykevermin

05-17-2007, 12:34 AM

ramen noodles... 13 cents a meal.

You must be a heart doctor, and looking for clientèle. :lol:

The Crotch

05-17-2007, 02:05 AM

Thanks a lot, Myke. That was our only UncleBob!

dopa345

05-17-2007, 06:55 AM

You must be a heart doctor, and looking for clientèle. :lol:

Close... a neurologist looking for stroke patients :) .

camoor

05-17-2007, 09:40 AM

Don't forget beans - about 60 cents a can.

Cook them up, mix in some olive oil, salt and pepper to taste, and it's about the cheapest meal you can get that will fill you up without all that nasty fat.

Plus - eating meat is a luxury. Beef is only a staple of the American diet because it is heavily subsidized by the govt.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 10:00 AM

[...trim...]public assistance[...trim...]

You said the key phrase. In spite of all your other various arguements and points, "Food Stamps" are meant to *assist* those who need some help. They were not meant to be a total replacement for a individual or family's complete food budget.

Additionally, I have absolutly no problem with helping those who are 'down on their luck'. However, who I choose to give my (hard earned) money to and how much of my (hard earned) money I choose to give should be 100% my choice.

Dear Uncle Sam:

It's not charity when you're giving away someone else's money. Thanks.

mykevermin

05-17-2007, 10:13 AM

*sigh*

So you've clumsily waltzed around the fact that we've overspent half a trillion dollars on a war to continue to feign outrage about welfare.

As for "giving someone else's money" away, if you can find me a single dollar the government spends that can NOT be tabbed as "giving someone else's money away," then I'll send you TWO cookies via USPS (not counting the one I won't send you because you couldn't cite a single bit of data on the current state of US welfare and family aid). ALL government spending is "giving someone else's money away." You just want to act outraged about the spending you don't care for as that, when the folly of your argument is that you can't identify anything that doesn't fit your criteria.

And, as for the "I have no problem helping the down on their luck," that's bullshit and you know it. You start with the assumption that nobody deserves public assistance, and that everyone is looking to bulk the system for $21/week in food stamps. You're, I'm sure, the kind of person who would chide a single mother for being on food stamps and not getting work - and the moment she gets work, you'll chide her for not being a good mother.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 10:23 AM

Actually, I'd probably more more likely to chide her for being a single mother. ;)

And yes, I am upset with the way our government spends our money in pretty much every aspect. However, this thread is dealing with welfare - thus I posted in reply to that. I could go on and on about our War 'Budget' (doesn't 'budget' usually imply some kind of spending plan? Perhaps that's not the right word to use), but we're talking about welfare in this thread, right?

And no, it's not "bullshit". Thank you. I could list my charitable contributions over the last year, but, quite frankly it's none of your damn business. One doesn't give to charity for bragging rights.

mykevermin

05-17-2007, 10:27 AM

No, it's "bullshit" because you are dealing with phony contingencies - you don't mind helping the poor, but on your terms? What differences are there between your TANF dollar and your Christian Children's Fund (or some domestic equivalent) dollar? What are the differences between the recipients on each end?

It's an absurd thing to be simultaneously philanthropic with your money, feeling good about assisting those in need, and also outraged that such undeserving folks are on the government dole. You tell me that you can spend your donation-dollar better than the government, but where is your proof? How do you know that welfare is failed in the US? How do you know it doesn't work? How do you know what you donate does?

ananag112

05-17-2007, 10:29 AM

I can live off $1 a day. Just buy a ton of ramen noodle packages.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 10:42 AM

The difference between me donating a dollar and the government "donating" my dollar is, for better or worse, I get to make the choice where my money goes. If I donate to some scam-artist rip off organization, then that is *my* mistake that *I* made with *my* hard earned money.

However, if the goverment "donates" to some scam-artist rip off organization, then *their* mistake wastes *my* hard earned money.

Additionally, the type of charity that my money goes to should be my choice. Example:

A couple hasn't been able to have childern. So they try fertility meds and treatments. As sometimes happens on these meds, they end up with a "litter" of childern (let's say, five). Well, as happened in this case, the family simply couldn't afford five childern, nor would they choose to terminate any of the "babies". It's a sad story, but, IMHO, this couple made some pretty stupid mistakes that got them in the place that they are and I don't feel that they're a good choice for my money to go to.

However, the government does - and thus they now get assistance.

MrBadExample

05-17-2007, 11:07 AM

A couple hasn't been able to have childern. So they try fertility meds and treatments. As sometimes happens on these meds, they end up with a "litter" of childern (let's say, five). Well, as happened in this case, the family simply couldn't afford five childern, nor would they choose to terminate any of the "babies". It's a sad story, but, IMHO, this couple made some pretty stupid mistakes that got them in the place that they are and I don't feel that they're a good choice for my money to go to.
So you're okay with depriving the children because the parents made "mistakes"? How exactly does that help anybody? Would you donate to orphanges to handle the "excess" children?

I'd feel more sympathy for you paying for welfare you don't agree with if I could stop my tax dollars from going to ill-conceived wars and abstinence-only programs that don't work.

lordwow

05-17-2007, 11:09 AM

mykevermin

05-17-2007, 11:16 AM

However, if the goverment "donates" to some scam-artist rip off organization, then *their* mistake wastes *my* hard earned money.

Again, you're crying over what amounts to a minimal contribution per month - on the subject of wasted government money, this is a drop in the bucket compared to, say...everything else the government wastes money on.

Now, I somewhat see your point, but you've just changed your argument from "I can spend my money better than the government" to "we both can make mistakes in our spending." Which is it?

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 11:16 AM

If the government is there to bail out everyone anytime they make mistakes, then how the heck is anyone going to learn from their mistakes?

Additionally, why the heck should "my childern" be deprived because of the mistakes of the parents of other childern?

And, again, as I said before, I agree with the concerns about government spending overseas, etc., etc... But this topic is about welfare.

mykevermin

05-17-2007, 11:17 AM

If the government is there to bail out everyone anytime

You've yet again displayed that you lack the most basic understanding of public aid programs.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 11:18 AM

Now, I somewhat see your point, but you've just changed your argument from "I can spend my money better than the government" to "we both can make mistakes in our spending." Which is it?

Ummm... both? Those two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

mykevermin

05-17-2007, 11:20 AM

Your previous posts argued exclusively the former, and when I asked you to verify that, you argued exclusively the latter.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 11:22 AM

Perhaps I'm just more complex than you think? :)

mykevermin

05-17-2007, 11:36 AM

the jury's out on that one.

camoor

05-17-2007, 11:37 AM

I worked in a grocery store for over 2 years, and RARELY did I see people buying the bare necessities on Food Stamps (or EBT as it's called here in MA).

Lobster and other fine seafood items were much more common.

Or even better, if they had EBT-Cash, which allows them to buy taxed goods (regular does not), it generally went to Cigarettes.

I've heard alot of anecdotal stories that went like this.

My mom said that back in the day, while she was getting by on hamburgers and potatoes, they would see people coming in and buying hand-picked crab and champagne with foodstamps.

My doctor was telling me the other day how his office actually loses money on medicaid patients, because of the copious paperwork and the reduced govt coverage payment. The part of it that really got to him was that he had to delay a med exam because a medicaid patient insisted on taking a phone call - and it was one of the fanciest, expensive cell phones on the market today. Need it be said that this guy never paid his part of the bill.

lordwow

05-17-2007, 11:44 AM

I've heard alot of anecdotal stories that went like this.

My mom said that back in the day, while she was getting by on hamburgers and potatoes, they would see people coming in and buying hand-picked crab and champagne with foodstamps.

My doctor was telling me the other day how his office actually loses money on medicaid patients, because of the copious paperwork and the reduced govt coverage payment. The part of it that really got to him was that he had to delay a med exam because a medicaid patient insisted on taking a phone call - and it was one of the fanciest, expensive cell phones on the market today. Need it be said that this guy never paid his part of the bill.

I'm saying that over 50% of the people that used Food Stamps/EBT were not using them for "necessities" but rather unnecessary expenses. Is my "research" scientific? No. But when you work 30-40 hours a week for 2 years, you start noticing some common trends, and this was one of them.

Msut77

05-17-2007, 12:04 PM

I'm saying that over 50% of the people that used Food Stamps/EBT were not using them for "necessities" but rather unnecessary expenses. Is my "research" scientific? No. But when you work 30-40 hours a week for 2 years, you start noticing some common trends, and this was one of them.

I work at a supermarket as well (working through college) and the only time I have seen them spent on shellfish was imitation crabmeat salad.

Not that I haven't seen abuses it just is kind of rare and IMHO gets blown out of proportion.

Msut77

05-17-2007, 01:41 PM

Dear Uncle Sam:

It's not charity when you're giving away someone else's money. Thanks.

According to the dictionary it is still charity.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 01:56 PM

So is it charity if I break into your house, steal all your stuff and give it away to those I think are "in need"?

Is it charity if I kill a small child, cook the body and feed it to hobos?

(to the extreme!)

Msut77

05-17-2007, 02:09 PM

So is it charity if I break into your house, steal all your stuff and give it away to those in need?

Yes.

evanft

05-17-2007, 03:14 PM

Man, UncleBob is really fucking retarded. Ignored.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 03:59 PM

Man, UncleBob is really fucking retarded. Ignored.

Okay, I'm 'retarded' because I don't feel that forced income redistrbution by the government is a good idea. Wow.

Being ignored by you would be an honor, sir.

Msut77

05-17-2007, 04:26 PM

Okay, I'm 'retarded' because I don't feel that forced income redistrbution by the government is a good idea. Wow.

Being ignored by you would be an honor, sir.

There are many other reasons why someone could call you retarded. Don't sell yourself short.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 04:29 PM

Aw... you hurt my widdle feelings...

Friend of Sonic

05-17-2007, 04:29 PM

I had a lot of trouble getting along with my family, so I moved out when I was 18. I paid my first month of rent, which made me broke. My first month of living I had two jobs-- Monday-Friday, I'd wake up at 5:30 to get ready for work. I'd leave at three to my second job which ended at 8:00. I'd sleep and repeat for about a month and a half.
While I was saving money, I'd buy ramen noodles and eggs-- cook up the ramen noodles and drop an egg in it. Tasted just like egg drop soup and it's actually something I wouldn't mind eating now. I also bought the store brand of Malt-O-Meal. Cereal in a bag. The food was cheap and sometimes I ate cereal without milk.
Month and a half later I had a lot of money saved up and I returned to the lifestyle I was used to previously. It's a scary thing moving out and this Welfare Queen may of had to resort to the "handouts" to survive if something had gone wrong, such as my 1972 Malibu breaking down on me or if I had medical problems (I had no insurance at the moment). Some people on Welfare deserve to be blamed, but the large majority have circumstances which brought them to that point. Don't hate them until you've lived their life. I came close to it. I commend the politicians for doing this.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 04:38 PM

See - what people don't know is, in fact, I did live their life (sorta, I was around 10-12 at the time). Which is why I do make my own contributions to programs that I feel use the money wisely as I have the spare cash.

The fact is, my mother worked her ass off to get us off government assistance and never once blamed the government for not giving us enough hand outs.

I don't hate people who need a little help now and then - but I do hate when the government says that it should be on the sholders of hard working individuals to support them more and more. Let's make some of these politicians take some pay cuts (and, in the case of some of them, let's make them actually pay some taxes too) - and let's cut spending in a ton of other areas.

Meanwhile, it worries me that so many people don't seem to have a problem with our government's forced income redistribution programs.

Msut77

05-17-2007, 04:45 PM

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 04:52 PM

That would imply that I don't make any effort to help those in need. A blind and ignorant statement.

Msut77

05-17-2007, 04:58 PM

A blind and ignorant statement.

First off your whole entire position on the matter (and the of all the thought and reason you have put into it) is MINE~!

Your mother and by extension you took government handouts.

Yet you wish for others not to have that same safety net, you deserve to be ridiculed.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 05:07 PM

I do not wish for there to be no government handouts.

I wish for those who receive handouts from the government to not be whiny with what they get. (Beggars can't be choosers, you know?)

I wish for government idiots to not take part in stupid publicity stunts where they show an individual cannot life off of $21 of food stamps/week when no one expects individuals to live only off of $21 worth of food stamps/week

I wish for other individuals to stop thinking that the "haves" should be *forced* to give up what they've got to the "have nots" (no matter their circumstance).

I wish I had more (perferably, but not realistically complete) control over where the money that I work hard 5-6 days a week for goes.

I wish we could have a smaller government that would focus on protecting our borders and solving legal disputes - as outlined by the Constitution.

(edit: what the heck is a porder? ;))

Friend of Sonic

05-17-2007, 05:12 PM

I wish we had a government that didn't spend billions on less worthy causes.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 05:15 PM

I wish we had a government that didn't spend billions on less worthy causes.

Repost:

I wish we could have a smaller government that would focus on protecting our borders and solving legal disputes - as outlined by the Constitution.

:)

Friend of Sonic

05-17-2007, 05:19 PM

Repost:

:)
I should have clarified. I meant the Iraq war.

Msut77

05-17-2007, 05:22 PM

I do not wish for there to be no government handouts.

I wish for those who receive handouts from the government to not be whiny with what they get. (Beggars can't be choosers, you know?)

Talk about a strawman.

The point is they are not getting enough food and what they are getting is not nutritious at all.

It is not whining to point those things out.

If you are going to post nonsense don't be upset when people make fun of you and put you on ignore.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 05:23 PM

Unfortunatly, for us, the war in Iraq is just one small example of the government's poor control over their spending.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 05:25 PM

Talk about a strawman.

The point is they are not getting enough food and what they are getting is not nutritious at all.

It is not whining to point those things out.

If you are going to post nonsense don't be upset when people make fun of you and put you on ignore.

No, their point is that they aren't getting enough nutritious food because they're not getting enough handouts. If it was simply about the amount/quality of the food, they wouldn't be so focused on only spending "$21 worth of food stamps per week".

Msut77

05-17-2007, 05:27 PM

No, their point is that they aren't getting enough nutritious food because they're not getting enough handouts. If it was simply about the amount/quality of the food, they wouldn't be so focused on only spending "$21 worth of food stamps per week".

I have read what you wrote three times and you seem to think there is a difference where there is no distinction to be made.

I am trying to be polite but WTF?

They are not getting decent food because they are allocated about a dollar a meal.

It has been pointed out, you can get:

Iceberg lettuce which has about as much food value as water

Ramen which contain tons of salt and fat (they are dehydrated by being fried in palm oil which is about the worse thing in the world for you)

"Cheese" not made out of milk

"Juice" made of sugar water and food dye

The only sensible thing posted in this thread was the idea of eating beans (rice and beans form a complete protein) but then the idea of adding olive oil (price it lately?) made me laugh.

The sensible (healthy and relatively cheap) foods are priced just outside of their range, a modest increase could let them purchase at least tuna or soy products.

P.s. Multi-Vitamin tablets cost about 10 bucks.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 05:35 PM

I have read what you wrote three times and you seem to think there is a difference where there is no distinction to be made.

I am trying to be polite but WTF?

They are not getting decent food because they are allocated about a dollar a meal.

Okay, the "average" person gets $21 worth of "Food Stamps" for their food budget through government assistance per week, correct?

Msut77

05-17-2007, 05:42 PM

Okay, the "average" person gets $21 worth of "Food Stamps" for their food budget through government assistance per week, correct?

Did you read the article, or anything in this thread?

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 05:45 PM

I'm trying to help you understand my previous statement.

So you understand that the "average" person gets $21 worth of "Food Stamps" for their food budget through government assistance per week, correct?

Msut77

05-17-2007, 05:45 PM

I'm trying to help you understand my previous statement.

I am not the one who needs help understanding anything.

Friend of Sonic

05-17-2007, 05:56 PM

I think people on the food stamp program deserve better food. You can't possibly believe that people can eat healthy on it. Their income is what got them on the food stamp program to begin with. They don't have THAT much extra money for food.
The first three weeks I was getting sick because I wasn't getting protein. I started the egg in ramen soup based on the advice of a co-worker. I was previously only eating the shit (tasty though) food ramen noodles and cereal.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 05:59 PM

I am not the one who needs help understanding anything.

I disagree.

Now, since you refuse to answer the question, I'm going to assume that you do understand that the "average" person gets $21 worth of "Food Stamps" for their food budget through government assistance per week, correct?

Now, this "program" that is referred to in the OP is about Congressmen eating on a budget allocated to them of $21/week for food. Which is equal to what the average person gets for their food budget through government assistance.

However, since the $21 worth of Food Stamps is meant to *assist* individuals and families with their food budget, not replace their entire food budget, $21 is unfairly represenative of what an individual who uses Food Stamps has to spend on food.

Now, you say "The point is they are not getting enough food and what they are getting is not nutritious at all."

However, if that was the point of this program, then the Congressmen could allocate themselves more than $21 for their food budget, since, again, no one expects individuals on Food Stamps to only eat $21 worth of food a week.

This program is centered around the $21 worth of food (or worth of "food stamps") that individuals who receive this type of government assistance. The type and amount of food that they are able to purchase is completely centered around this false amount of $21.

Let's look at this statement you added in:
The sensible (healthy and relatively cheap) foods are priced just outside of their range, a modest increase could let them purchase at least tuna or soy products.
So, a "modest increase" in the $21 worth of assistance they receive for their food budget would allow them a more healthy choice in foods.

Let's take the $21 they receive in assistance and combine it with the amount that the individual should contribute toward their own budget, would that be enough for them to make more sensible choices?

Msut77

05-17-2007, 06:02 PM

I disagree.

I don't care.

The way prices on everything (including food) have been going up then yes 21$ is all most might very well have to spend on food.

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 06:13 PM

I don't care.

The way prices on everything (including food) have been going up then yes 21$ is all most might very well have to spend on food.

But you see, the point of Food Stamps is to *assist* an individual or family with their food budget. Not replace it.

Here's the deal, you have to keep in mind that the magic number of $21 is an average. This means that some people are getting more and some people are getting less.

Ideally, those who absolutly, just cannot contribute toward their own food budget are probably in the group that gets more. And those who can contribute are getting less.

Either way you look at it, no one is expecting individuals to live off of $21 worth of food a week. Thus this entire "Food Stamp Challenge" is a farce.

Msut77

05-17-2007, 06:18 PM

But you see, the point of Food Stamps is to *assist* an individual or family with their food budget. Not replace it.

So now you are arguing irrelevant semantics.

Great.

Friend of Sonic

05-17-2007, 06:20 PM

Uncle Bob, do you have any idea that people with limited budgets don't have extra money? And what do you propose anyway? That they spend any extra money on halfway decent food instead of saving it? People should live paycheck to paycheck, if they're not already?

UncleBob

05-17-2007, 06:33 PM

So now you are arguing semantics.

Great.

According to the dictionary it is still charity.

---

FoS: Again, if an individual just absolutly does *not* have any money of their own to set aside for their food budget, then, as I said before, they are likely to be receiving an amount higher than the average $21 for their assistance.

And yes - before you start saving money for a rainy day, I do think it is wise to spend that money toward healthy, nutritious food. It doesn't make sense to save for the future if you aren't taking care of yourself in the now.

If someone is living paycheck to paycheck, they need to get a different/better/second/third job, sell some items they've got around the house (selling the TV might help save on your electric bill!). Hell, back when my mother was working two jobs, we would go out and pick blackberries that she'd make into Homemade Jam and we'd sell it (pretty good stuff). Also, get rid of any pets you might have - that's just yet another mouth you don't need to be feeding.

Additional government assistance isn't going to help these people in the long run - they're going to have to make some major changes in their own life if they want to change their life. Government assistance is there to *help* individuals get by. If the individuals don't make the sacrifices they need to make, they're just going to be living pay check to pay check.

I would like to take this time to reccomend everyone to check out Dave Ramsey.

Msut77

05-17-2007, 06:39 PM

unclebob is saying his family just needed the help to get by, everyone else is a fucking parasite who deserves to die.

BTW the other money they may get is for other things.

madpsp

05-17-2007, 06:40 PM

seems like alot of people are missing the point.
i am totally against free handouts to people who refuse to work.
but i am for helping those poor folks who have a job and are having a hard time making ends meet and feeding thier families at the same time.
the fact is it is impossible to feed yourself for a week with $21 .some of you should try that sometime and let me know how you make out.. for the folks suggesting things like celery and lettuce for salads you must realize that items like these have very very very low nutritional value and celery itself has negetive calories ( you waste more energy chewing it than you get from eating it)once you add dressing to it ( of almost any kind) your essentially just having fat.
i myself have a unique perspective on this i grew up up in a very poor household for a portion of my life when i was young. my mother was recently divorced and soon after our house burned down leaving is with only the clothes on our backs ,my mother worked 2 jobs to try to get us back on our feet
and learned the hard way it was near to impossible. having no other choice
she turned to public assitance the first time she tried to get some help she was promptly told that since she owned a vehicle(needed to get to her jobs) she could not get public assitance of any kind ( yes its like this in some states). after days of phone calls and visits to local agencies she finally got some help from a local church to get the assitance we needed.
the system needs to be changed to make it easier for the people who deserve and need the help get it.
personally im all for the "if your on public assitance you should be made to take drug tests" thing. alot of the people on it are just looking for a free ride . but its not everyone .
but in the end my brothers ,mother and i have worked hard to try to make sure our family does not end up back there again . but we are glad for the help we got when we needed it even though it was hard as hell to get.
but feeding a family of 4 on 80 bucks a week is a job itself.

Friend of Sonic

05-17-2007, 06:40 PM

---
And yes - before you start saving money for a rainy day, I do think it is wise to spend that money toward healthy, nutritious food. It doesn't make sense to save for the future if you aren't taking care of yourself in the now.
.
I don't think that's entirely true. What's more important, good food or making sure you're not fucked if your car breaks down and you can't make it into your job?

madpsp

05-17-2007, 06:54 PM

---

FoS: Again, if an individual just absolutly does *not* have any money of their own to set aside for their food budget, then, as I said before, they are likely to be receiving an amount higher than the average $21 for their assistance.
actually no

And yes - before you start saving money for a rainy day, I do think it is wise to spend that money toward healthy, nutritious food. It doesn't make sense to save for the future if you aren't taking care of yourself in the now.
again i have to say no things like gas for your car heat in the winter shoes for your kids feet etc all cost money and are needed things . while in the summer you might be able to save a few bucks from the heating bill it doesnt mean you can go out and spend it because wintoer is comming back around again and odds are it will be even more exepnsive than last year was....not to mention car breaking down kids getting hurt/sic etc...

If someone is living paycheck to paycheck, they need to get a different/better/second/third job, sell some items they've got around the house (selling the TV might help save on your electric bill!).
you do realize in alot of cases its hard enough getting 1 job without taking time from the 1 job you do have to try to get another one... without losing the job you already have that is..although i do agree that the luxuries you can do without till you get back on your feet.Hell, back when my mother was working two jobs, we would go out and pick blackberries that she'd make into Homemade Jam and we'd sell it (pretty good stuff).
and you do realize that without the proper documentation. vendors license health inspection etc this is actually ILLEGAL and could hurt you more than it helps.
Also, get rid of any pets you might have - that's just yet another mouth you don't need to be feeding.
agreed

Additional government assistance isn't going to help these people in the long run - they're going to have to make some major changes in their own life if they want to change their life. Government assistance is there to *help* individuals get by. If the individuals don't make the sacrifices they need to make, they're just going to be living pay check to pay check.and just how are these people gonna make these changes to help themselves if they are dead from starvation?additional assitance does help and i can prove it. in my case the additional assitance paid for my mother to be able to go back to college and a few years later she was a school nurse who also runs a daycare and is no longer on public assitance of anykind........

RBM

05-17-2007, 11:13 PM

we are glad for the help we got when we needed it even though it was hard as hell to get. but feeding a family of 4 on 80 bucks a week is a job itself.
Indeed, the washington post article cited that there are more people, nowadays, who receive food stamps *and* hold jobs. The working poor are increasing in numbers, and it is a difficult position to appreciate (without having gone through it, or having family members go through it.)

As several people have mentioned it the comments, a problem faced many across the country, especially the inner-city poor, are the lack of low-cost food stores in an easily accessible area. These people can’t afford to drive to a Wal-Mart in the suburbs for the bargains; they aren’t members of the warehouse club stores. If you are constrained to where you can walk or take public transportation, then you can only shop at the places in your neighborhood, and you are forced to pay whatever they charge. That is EXACTLY what I was doing. I had the option to head out to Costco or Shoppers and decided instead to replicate as close as possible the REAL experience of someone who can't afford a car and is constrained by public transportation. As you'll see when I publish the video blog I'm working on, we took the Metro out to the store.

That's another dimension to the problem, which I am glad Ryan has now experienced, first-hand. Having your options in grocery stores sharply limited in ADDITION to the constraints of a limited budget...that's quite a double whammy.