Food Stamps

[cicy33]

cicy33, can you explain why the federal government has to be the one to provide this program? Why can't each state do it? I think that one of the main points maat is trying to get across.

well, I doubt I can answer this properly. I have not been one of the posters that thinks the state should do it. but I will try. well, one good reason: my state is BROKE. so perhaps that is why? to prevent people from being cut off if the state is incapable of helping them? I really don't know. I knew that it was a federal program but never gave it much thought as to why. I am not against it becoming a state funded program however. As I have stated I have been off aid for many years. I was one of those that used it when I needed it. I didn't stay on it longer than I needed it but I will say loudly that I didn't just buy the nasty foods only. I didn't buy lobster (I'm allergic to shellfish! lol) but I did buy soda and other "terrible" foods. I have never been one to buy really expensive groceries. I think the retail cost of food is a horrible thing. I am always trying to save money. Granted I never received huge amounts of food stamps anyways but still always tried to keep our lives as normal as possible. My primary point on this post was to say that for all the people that feel the need to judge the mom on food stamps that is buying things they don't approve of, that maybe they need to actually walk a mile and realize that people are still human beings and have rights. I wonder if anyone has given any thought to the children they are so willing to push "strictly the basics" down their throats. People's lives change every day. sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad. during the bad it can be very detrimental to the family moral to suddenly say, "well, no more hamburgers or mac and cheese. nope, beans and potatoes is it for us. oh, you hate beans? (I do, seriously, this is the nastiest food I can think of) well, too bad, guess you will starve." I think as long as the family who is on foodstamps can buy enough groceries with their allotted amount to feed their family without having to buy more in other ways is doing just fine. Children need to feel as though their lives are still normal.

My other point to all this is that people don't have a real problem with the fact that people are buying "bad" food, and by this area I mean potato chips, etc. the problem is they don't like it when people on food stamps do it. Why doesn't anybody care if others are? for all you know they are poor too but just don't qualify for aid.

I am totally against the flagrant abuse (the one who buys for the vending machine) that is terrible. I don't have answer to how to report the people we don't really know. But I will say that based on a few comments here some people actually do know some of the people that abuse the system.

[cicy33]

I agree with you. However, unless you know some of these individuals personally, it's hard to report them. How to Report Food Stamp Fraud | eHow.com The question at hand is this: What can you do when you see a complete stranger blatantly abuse the program? No easy answer to that one. One way might be to use our votes appropriately.

You are so right. there is no easy answer. I guess one way is to go to the cashier and say "hey that woman just said that she is buying for her vending machines with food stamps, what can we do? They will have her EBT # so that will tell them who she is. And I feel that for some people on here that is something they would have no problem with yet, I bet they also wouldn't do it. Also, voting is definitely a way, or as mentioned suggest ways to modify the program to the right people.

I just don't see the need to poke my nose in others business at the store. not when it is not blatantly abusive. when a person is buying what appears relatively normal: i.e. hamburger, chips, macaroni, boxed dinners, chef boy ar dee, etc. is none of my business. and unless I am seriously sticking my nose into their payment transaction, I have no way to even know. I prefer to focus my energies other places. Like being very bluntly and verbally clear to my neighbor that her daughter has cooked meth in her house and we will not tolerate any drug traffic. My other half has gone as far as this: one morning he was up at about 3 a.m. (he rises at very early hours!) while up he was noticing that there were "unusual" traffic happenings next door. So, he walked himself over and explained to the man getting out of his vehicle that he had called the police due to suspicious activity and wanted him to be aware of this. The man left immediately. I am far more concerned about these areas than some mom giving her kid potato chips.

[cicy33]

This is no surprise! The neediest people make bad choices, this is why they are in this situation. Perhaps, along with financial help we should provide training to lead them off this program. This may be too lofty!

ok, first of all, not just needy people make bad choices. doesn't mean they don't but lots of people make bad choices. that is what can take a normal person with a normal life and suddenly they have a foreclosure, and bankruptcy and now need aid. NOW they are needy but, they made bad choices far before they became that way.

Secondly, I totally agree. there needs to be programs to help these people get off aid. but sadly it is the other way around. when people actually try to get off aid they find out really fast that if they make even a few dollars to much, their kids now have no medical coverage and lose everything. and whether you believe it or not a lot of people stay where they are due to that. If the system was more like stepping people off and assisting them in this respect I think more would. There is more options than some people on aid realize. Public aid will pay for your childcare while you go to school. pell grants cover tuition, cuz if you are on aid, you gotta qualify! Aid will even pay for childcare while you work, as long as you don't make too much to lose the help. daycare for one child full time is about $75 a week. If all you make is min wage that is a huge chunk of cash. so sometimes people learn how to "work" the system. I don't blame them completely.

[cicy33]

In my area, it depends on the store. Wal-mart use to charge tax on my coupons, so I would have to pay cash out of pocket.. yet sometimes I could not afford even the few extra $$'s so I would pay full price.

Yet for a few months now, Wal-mart and other local stores here, such as Homeland NO LONGER CHARGE TAX ON COUPONS!! (When using EBT!) It's such a relief for me, I can go to the store & save money without having to worry if I have that extra .50 to cover the coupon tax. Granted, Homeland is a very expensive store! Markups have always been high there, because they double coupons up to $1 every day, no limit on amount you have to spend, such as.. I've heard of store doubling 10 coupons if you spend $25! I can go in there, spend $0.40 EBT & have 3 or 4 bags worth of stuff thanks to doubled coupons!

However, Dollar General & Family Dollar still tax EBT.

That is so great that walmart and others don't anymore. I always found that really stupid. People are trying to stretch their money further and are being penalized for it. Here we can double unlimited at kroger but only up to .50. nobody else doubles. walmart is unlimited coupons. sort of. if you use to many in a transaction they call the manager! how dumb is that? Never mind they have no issue if I am paying cash for everything I bought but if I dare to have a coupon for most of the stuff I bought, well, I must be cheating somewhere.

[Seeker]

[QUOTE=maat55;277413]

I found 6 homeless shelters(not including area shelters) in Tulsa, most are faith based. My old church had a food program. It is the responsibility of the people and states to see to the needs of their indigent, homeless and hungry.

This state has more than a $6.3 billion deficit.

Nice that Oklahoma is doing okay, except for 2009 when revenue was slightly lower than expenses, Oklahoma may be the place to move to

source: Office of State Finance - News Releases

[QUOTE=maat55;277413]

In principle, when an individual believes he/she has to be self-reliant to survive, he/she will act accordingly. The federal government rewards irresponsibilty and punishes achievement. The truly needy(a vastly lower number than is deemed in need by federal government definitions) will find help locally.

The reality, is that the people whom truly need help, are not the ones that seek out help.

Your principle, is theory.

Unless people have someone else, aware and caring of another person's need, then no one "helps." And individual help, without "organization" to support that person through their need and make that person self-sustaining, is mostly temporary.

Sometimes it's a lack of knowledge. Sometimes people are really sick -- beyond the ability to see that they need help. Sometimes they fight the help. Sometimes it's pride.

Either way, not every State has the ability to support the needy; and this state has been cutting funding in these areas yearly. Even education is hit by cutbacks.

[Seeker]

Revised: a more recent link for state deficits:
only 4 are not hurting too much...

States Continue to Feel Recession’s Impact — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

[cicy33]

cicy33, can you explain why the federal government has to be the one to provide this program? Why can't each state do it? I think that one of the main points maat is trying to get across.

I also believe that if they were to make food stamps by state then the medical card would follow. and the docs would never be paid! not that they are paid rapidly now.

[cptacek]

This state has more than a $6.3 billion deficit.

The federal debt was $13.5 Trillion at the end of the fiscal year, 9/30/2010, and going up by more than a trillion a year. I don't think pointing out your state's deficit helps your argument in light of this.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

seriously??? you don't believe in luck of any kind.

I think people like to pass off their irresponsibility as bad luck. When my income drops during a recession, I could claim it as bad luck, but in reality, we all know that they will occur eventually. It is not bad luck that the squirrel did not put away enough food for the winter.

then you have to lead the most boring life ever. how about a child who gets cancer, or economy tanks and many companies lay off thousands of people.

As above, anyone who does not plan for winter has only themselves to blame. Do you remember the story where the fire department allowed a mans house to burn down? The rural residents were offered a fire protection plan, and he decided not to participate.

They pulled up to protect the neighbors house who had participated and the man begged them to put out his fire, he offered to pay them to do it, but they let it burn.

That one decision will decide whether that county will have a fire department or not. My guess is that anyone who did not participate in the insurance will now, it could have went the other way had they put out the fire.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

well, I doubt I can answer this properly. I have not been one of the posters that thinks the state should do it. but I will try. well, one good reason: my state is BROKE.

You have to keep in mind that the federal government does not have anything(other than a printing press to destroy our value) it does not take from someone else. States and individuals would have far more money if it were not confiscated by the federal government.

[disneysteve]

cicy33, can you explain why the federal government has to be the one to provide this program? Why can't each state do it?

I'll say up front that I do not follow politics or political structure at all so I may be ill-informed here but I'm under the impression that a great deal of state programs receive federal funding. Take away the federal funds and the programs would likely cease to exist.

Another issue is that right now, many if not most states are severely struggling. Here in NJ, they are cutting teachers, police and firefighters. Schools are cutting programs. State workers are getting unpaid furloughs. Cuts in federal funding to the states have decimated state budgets. I don't see how the states could possibly support the programs that are currently federally funded.

there needs to be programs to help these people get off aid. but sadly it is the other way around. when people actually try to get off aid they find out really fast that if they make even a few dollars to much, their kids now have no medical coverage and lose everything. and whether you believe it or not a lot of people stay where they are due to that.

This is very true and it spurs abuse of the system. Many of my patients freely admit that they stay on state aid because of this. Go back to work and lose your health insurance. That just isn't a reasonable option. And many also admit that they work at jobs that are off the books where they don't report their income so that they continue to qualify for state aid. As a result, a lot of these folks are actually doing quite well. That's why you may see someone in the grocery line buying staples with food stamps and luxuries with cash.

[cptacek]

I'll say up front that I do not follow politics or political structure at all so I may be ill-informed here but I'm under the impression that a great deal of state programs receive federal funding. Take away the federal funds and the programs would likely cease to exist.

Another issue is that right now, many if not most states are severely struggling. Here in NJ, they are cutting teachers, police and firefighters. Schools are cutting programs. State workers are getting unpaid furloughs. Cuts in federal funding to the states have decimated state budgets. I don't see how the states could possibly support the programs that are currently federally funded.

Yes. New Jersey is a mess. They have outspent their revenues and tried to tax their way out of it, running high earning individuals and businesses out of the state. There is a reckoning coming. This does not mean that Oklahomans, who, as Seeker has pointed out have a balanced budget and can take care of their food stamp recipients, if they should choose to do so (and who I think would), should have to pay for irresponsibility in New Jersey.

Also, if teachers in New Jersey had agreed to a one year pay freeze (not a pay cut, a pay freeze) and contribute 1.5% of the cost of their health insurance (it is currently free for them), there wouldn't have been any teacher layoffs. The teachers themselves voted to reject that compromise, which led to the layoffs.

[Sissta2009]

She looked like she was feeding an army with snack foods.

Such a shame

[cicy33]

Such a shame

I did have a thought regarding the snack food purchases. the ones with small bags of chips, whatever. What if they were for school lunches? Though I would think that most would be covered if qualified for aid. But perhaps, their kids don't like the school lunches, according to my daughter when she was in high school they seriously sucked! but then again, we live in a small community. I have heard where bigger schools actually offer lunch salad buffets. we don't even have many of those in restaurants here!!

[cicy33]

It isn't like people who oppose food stamps going towards chocolate and frozen pizza and lobster and candy for resell in a shop are saying those who are food stamps have to get down on their hands and knees and bark like a dog, just to strip away the person's humanity. Isn't what you are reading between the lines a little melodramatic?

Actually I don't think I am.. Do you really think there are hundreds of people doing this reselling stuff?? of course not. there is probably a few that are but that is true of anything, there is always someone who is a troublemaker. I do think requiring people who have fell on bad times to eat ONLY the basic sustenance items is ridiculous. Besides what may be basic to you is not basic to me. I hate beans, I like potatoes.. sort of. don't like bread. I do love veggies, especially asparagus! but perhaps that is not considered a basic cuz it is pricey! so I guess when people say ONLY THE BASICS I tend to say something back.