SNAP Discussion (spun from Trump)

[Iniquitous]

So, the newest insult from the Trump administration is to make SNAP (food stamp) recipients get "harvest boxes" from the government instead of EBT cards that would allow them to choose what foods they want in their houses.

Now, I am not going to deny that some people do not use food stamps the way they are meant to be used.  I knew a woman who was scamming the system in both Tn and Ga - getting food stamps from both states and selling a good chunk of the combined stamps so she had money to buy cigarettes and booze.  I knew another couple who had two children, received a large amount of food stamps, and spent most of them on things like lobster and steak while the kids ate spaghetti-o's and ravioli.

With that said, this idea is a bad idea. 

One, it takes away a person's choice on what they want to eat. 
Two, it does not take into account if someone in the family has a food allergy or dietary restrictions (I have had to use a food pantry, where I had no say so in what food was picked out, and as a diabetic, I ended up giving away a lot of what was given to me because I simply could not eat it).
Three, I suspect they do not take into account how many people are in the household. 
Four, they really should stop comparing it to Blue Apron - because I know that the government is not going to have each person receiving food stamps go online to pick out the recipes they want/restrictions they have and making sure each recipient gets what they ordered. 
Five, what about homeless people who do get EBT cards currently? How will they get their harvest boxes and where would they cook the food?
Six, what happens if someone's box doesn't show up/is stolen/ruined?

I think the idiots that have proposed this need to live on it for a year before forcing others to go through it.  I also think that the repubs need to stop claiming they are christian.  They are so far from what their book tells them to be that, if it wouldn't be an insult to Satanists, I'd say call them Satanists.

[Oniya]

I think the idiots that have proposed this need to live on it for a year before forcing others to go through it.  I also think that the repubs need to stop claiming they are christian.  They are so far from what their book tells them to be that, if it wouldn't be an insult to Satanists, I'd say call them Satanists.

They worship Mammon - we could call them Mammonists.  Or maybe Mammoths.  That has a certain 'fit' to it...

[TheGlyphstone]

I think the idiots that have proposed this need to live on it for a year before forcing others to go through it.  I also think that the repubs need to stop claiming they are christian.  They are so far from what their book tells them to be that, if it wouldn't be an insult to Satanists, I'd say call them Satanists.

Didn't some celebrity...I want to say Gwenyth Paltrow for some reason...try to live on a welfare-budget food allotment for a month, and lasted about a week before giving up?

[Lustful Bride]

So, the newest insult from the Trump administration is to make SNAP (food stamp) recipients get "harvest boxes" from the government instead of EBT cards that would allow them to choose what foods they want in their houses.

Now, I am not going to deny that some people do not use food stamps the way they are meant to be used.  I knew a woman who was scamming the system in both Tn and Ga - getting food stamps from both states and selling a good chunk of the combined stamps so she had money to buy cigarettes and booze.  I knew another couple who had two children, received a large amount of food stamps, and spent most of them on things like lobster and steak while the kids ate spaghetti-o's and ravioli.

With that said, this idea is a bad idea. 

One, it takes away a person's choice on what they want to eat. 
Two, it does not take into account if someone in the family has a food allergy or dietary restrictions (I have had to use a food pantry, where I had no say so in what food was picked out, and as a diabetic, I ended up giving away a lot of what was given to me because I simply could not eat it).
Three, I suspect they do not take into account how many people are in the household. 
Four, they really should stop comparing it to Blue Apron - because I know that the government is not going to have each person receiving food stamps go online to pick out the recipes they want/restrictions they have and making sure each recipient gets what they ordered. 
Five, what about homeless people who do get EBT cards currently? How will they get their harvest boxes and where would they cook the food?
Six, what happens if someone's box doesn't show up/is stolen/ruined?

I think the idiots that have proposed this need to live on it for a year before forcing others to go through it.  I also think that the repubs need to stop claiming they are christian.  They are so far from what their book tells them to be that, if it wouldn't be an insult to Satanists, I'd say call them Satanists.

*applause* YEs to all of this.

[Oniya]

Didn't some celebrity...I want to say Gwenyth Paltrow for some reason...try to live on a welfare-budget food allotment for a month, and lasted about a week before giving up?

She did - but the challenge was partially flawed, and she quit because she was pretty much reamed on social media.  (Garnishes?  Seven limes?)

[ReijiTabibito]

So, the newest insult from the Trump administration is to make SNAP (food stamp) recipients get "harvest boxes" from the government instead of EBT cards that would allow them to choose what foods they want in their houses.

In its (slight) defense, the concept is not a bad one.  It's cutting out the middleman of having to go to a store (or food pantry) and pick out food and making sure that at least some of the food being eaten by those on SNAP meets federal health guidelines.

That being said, as has been stated more than once on here, the concept is positively riddled with holes when it comes to implementation.  Quite a few have been mentioned here already, but I'm going to add one more reason onto the pile as to why this would almost certainly not work: time.  Blue Apron tells you up-front that its recipes take time, 40 minutes or less, depending on the specifics.  Now, for those without any sort of gainful or approaching full-time employment, that can work out just fine.  If you're working two or three jobs to cobble together what you can, and are still on SNAP due to those jobs being near to minimum wage, where in the world do you find the time to sit down and take an hour to cook, especially if you're like most SNAP recipients and have kids?

I think the idiots that have proposed this need to live on it for a year before forcing others to go through it.  I also think that the repubs need to stop claiming they are christian.  They are so far from what their book tells them to be that, if it wouldn't be an insult to Satanists, I'd say call them Satanists.

I think if this were added to the Congressional Overlord List, government policy would make a lot more sense in a hurry.

[HockeyGod]

So, the newest insult from the Trump administration is to make SNAP (food stamp) recipients get "harvest boxes" from the government instead of EBT cards that would allow them to choose what foods they want in their houses.

Now, I am not going to deny that some people do not use food stamps the way they are meant to be used.  I knew a woman who was scamming the system in both Tn and Ga - getting food stamps from both states and selling a good chunk of the combined stamps so she had money to buy cigarettes and booze.  I knew another couple who had two children, received a large amount of food stamps, and spent most of them on things like lobster and steak while the kids ate spaghetti-o's and ravioli.

With that said, this idea is a bad idea. 

One, it takes away a person's choice on what they want to eat. 
Two, it does not take into account if someone in the family has a food allergy or dietary restrictions (I have had to use a food pantry, where I had no say so in what food was picked out, and as a diabetic, I ended up giving away a lot of what was given to me because I simply could not eat it).
Three, I suspect they do not take into account how many people are in the household. 
Four, they really should stop comparing it to Blue Apron - because I know that the government is not going to have each person receiving food stamps go online to pick out the recipes they want/restrictions they have and making sure each recipient gets what they ordered. 
Five, what about homeless people who do get EBT cards currently? How will they get their harvest boxes and where would they cook the food?
Six, what happens if someone's box doesn't show up/is stolen/ruined?

I think the idiots that have proposed this need to live on it for a year before forcing others to go through it.  I also think that the repubs need to stop claiming they are christian.  They are so far from what their book tells them to be that, if it wouldn't be an insult to Satanists, I'd say call them Satanists.

I would add that SNAP injects dollars into the local economy and small businesses which might be in peril if the boxes are mass produced by a big-box retailer. Current policy allows SNAP benefits to be used locally at farmers markets and other similar small-business establishments.

[Serephino]

Trump and the Republicans coming after things I rely on is what I was afraid of.  I am on SNAP.  As Ini said, there are people who abuse the system.  The cashiers at our local Walmart see a lot of people buying carts full of nothing but junk food.  It makes them angry.  It makes me angry too, and I don't disagree that steps to prevent said abuse are a good idea.  If they decided to make it so you couldn't use them on junk food, I'd be a little upset I couldn't buy soda and my usual one bag of chips, but I wouldn't argue too hard against it.  The problem I see with that is that one man's junk food can be another's staple.  Even though they aren't good for me, I like Hot Pockets.  They are my no fuss lunch when I can get them.  There would have to be like a group of people who don't have their heads up their asses to sit and fairly decide what qualifies as junk food.

[DominantPoet]

Trump and the Republicans coming after things I rely on is what I was afraid of.  I am on SNAP.  As Ini said, there are people who abuse the system.  The cashiers at our local Walmart see a lot of people buying carts full of nothing but junk food.  It makes them angry.  It makes me angry too, and I don't disagree that steps to prevent said abuse are a good idea.  If they decided to make it so you couldn't use them on junk food, I'd be a little upset I couldn't buy soda and my usual one bag of chips, but I wouldn't argue too hard against it.  The problem I see with that is that one man's junk food can be another's staple.  Even though they aren't good for me, I like Hot Pockets.  They are my no fuss lunch when I can get them.  There would have to be like a group of people who don't have their heads up their asses to sit and fairly decide what qualifies as junk food.

Or, alternatively, we can stop caring so much about what other people are buying food wise. It has literally zero impact on your life and is, quite frankly, none of your business. Also, your post is rather hypocritical, as you're admitting you get angry at others having junk food, but yet state you buy it yourself. If poor people want to decide to stuff themselves with unhealthy crap - what does it really matter? Instead of worrying yourself about what they're buying, worry yourself over the fact they're ON SNAP in the first place.

Why is the first reaction to be pissed off? Why is it not to want to help them, if one can, and realize they are almost certainly going through hard times? If they're allowed to buy it, they're allowed to buy it. Period.

[Serephino]

Or, alternatively, we can stop caring so much about what other people are buying food wise. It has literally zero impact on your life and is, quite frankly, none of your business. Also, your post is rather hypocritical, as you're admitting you get angry at others having junk food, but yet state you buy it yourself. If poor people want to decide to stuff themselves with unhealthy crap - what does it really matter? Instead of worrying yourself about what they're buying, worry yourself over the fact they're ON SNAP in the first place.

Why is the first reaction to be pissed off? Why is it not to want to help them, if one can, and realize they are almost certainly going through hard times? If they're allowed to buy it, they're allowed to buy it. Period.

The reason to be pissed off at the person only buying junk food is that they are gaming the system and do not need the food stamps.  If someone comes in a buys a few hundred dollars of literally nothing but chips, dip, soda, ice cream, and chocolate bars, then comes in a few days later and buys $300 worth of regular groceries that that pay for with their own money, why wouldn't that make you a little peeved?  The anger comes strictly for those gaming the system who do not really need it.  Those people exist.  I need them.  I do buy some snacks, but that is certainly not all I buy.  This month I bought milk, cereal, some frozen foods, juice.  Meals, not 100% junk food.  I do think that for the most part people should mind their own business.  It's the fraud that needs to be addressed, and the fact that those who don't really need them treat the cards as an access to candy land.

[Aiden]

What the Snap is spent on doesn't matter (to me). Fast food places accept Snap now.

Should I be equally upset that people on snap are shopping at a local liquor store over a big box store, "throwing" their money away on higher prices?

Do people game the system? Yea, does it bother me? Not as much as it bothers me when Trump evades taxes. Or people brag about not paying the IRS. THAT pisses me off. What someone on Snap buys, doesn't.

[HannibalBarca]

The people I see most of all are students in my class.  Over 80% of the students in my district come from families on assistance, in poverty.  The food I see them bring in isn't healthy stuff...and they don't eat healthy stuff, then gorge on junk food at school.  Their parents send them to school with bags of chips for their snack, or cheap candy.  These kids aren't overweight, either.  For the most part, they simply look slim, if not malnourished.  They aren't buying snacks and healthy food...there's barely enough healthy food for them to buy.  There's a Dollar General store here with mostly close-to-expired produce, and no other market, aside from mini-marts.  If you don't have a car, or enough money or time to drive to a supermarket in a nearby town, you make do with what is available in the community.  There's also a lack of skill in actually preparing meals, too, but that goes more towards the ignorance that generational poverty often brings.

[DominantPoet]

The reason to be pissed off at the person only buying junk food is that they are gaming the system and do not need the food stamps.  If someone comes in a buys a few hundred dollars of literally nothing but chips, dip, soda, ice cream, and chocolate bars, then comes in a few days later and buys $300 worth of regular groceries that that pay for with their own money, why wouldn't that make you a little peeved?  The anger comes strictly for those gaming the system who do not really need it.  Those people exist.  I need them.  I do buy some snacks, but that is certainly not all I buy.  This month I bought milk, cereal, some frozen foods, juice.  Meals, not 100% junk food.  I do think that for the most part people should mind their own business.  It's the fraud that needs to be addressed, and the fact that those who don't really need them treat the cards as an access to candy land.

Says who? That's an assumption - and a dangerous one at that.

You're using a hypothetical now. First, you were saying you're pissed off purely because people are buying junk food - it's now changed to you're pissed off because people are buying junk food, THEN coming back later and buying other groceries, supposedly with their own money. Which is it? And in either case, no, it wouldn't piss me off. Because I have no idea of what their life is like outside of those very brief times I, somehow, happen to see them at the grocery store (begs the question of why I, or you, or anyone, is there so often to begin with). For all anyone knows, they could have come into some windfall randomly.

You don't know. You think you know, perhaps, but truthfully, you have no real idea. You're assuming, taking said assumption as fact, then getting pissed over it because you've convinced yourself that's what's happening. Happens in relationships a lot with people who have a hard time trusting, they fabricate things in their head and convince themselves things that aren't happening, are.

Just because someone on SNAP is buying nothing but so-called junk food, doesn't mean they don't need SNAP. It just means they don't take care of their bodies very well, nothing more. Anything past that is purely conjecture on your part. You should try and remember that, and stow the anger. It's not warranted unless you know for a FACT. And even then - just report it, let those who run investigated, and determine themselves.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Hrm. I actually disagree with you here, Poet. I think that, watching these sorts of things and knowing that abuses DO occur (particularly if you have knowledge of that being the case from the people doing it), especially if you have to rely on the system all the time and are living in an area of the world where the support systems of the like are being threatened by an administration that tends to pull the rug out from under people without warning and has proven themselves to be highly unstable?

I lived on the streets for a few years myself and I remember being angry about the people who would load up their brand-new Nissan, drive from food bank to food bank every two weeks and clean out massive amounts of products that are needed. Now, maybe they have a lot of people living where they do, or they're working for another organization that needs provisions of some kind, whatever. But going to the food bank, picking through what was left to try to put a real meal together and listening to other people talking about how that was proof the system was full of exploiters and what they really needed to do was "make these people sink or swim on their own..."

That was a frightening moment, to be that vulnerable and have someone breeze past you causing everyone around you to question whether anyone really needs a food bank. That sort of doubt naturally leads to mistrust and anger, particularly when there are those that need this in order to survive.

Granted, there are grocery deserts, and the price that we charge for healthy foods in North America comparative to junk foods is shameful and everything about the way we nourish ourselves is backwards and yes, it's very possible that the people to whom Serephino might be referring could have three school lunches and a work meal to plan every day for a month, or they could have a child's birthday party to prepare for or... something, anything that could very well end up being a perfect justification for what's going on. Could have.

But it's a natural part of evolution to be vindictive against individuals within a community that take more than they need when there are other individuals who have so little. Just by looking at percentages, it's far more noticeable when you're dealing in small amounts than larger ones. With that said, Serephino intimated having knowledge of such a thing happening, and I ind it hard to disagree with this logick. I've known people that lost my respect for playing the system like that. I don't know what the numbers are, but I now that it happens and it is, at least for me, the impression it leaves with advocates against social support programs that causes me the most concern.

With it being so natural, I don't think it's fair (or even serves any purpose) to become irate with people who make that observation and become hurt or afraid by it. And htat's all that anger really is, in the end.


However, with all that said, it does come across a little... somewhere between WASPish and Jewish mother: "I'm not paying for you to eat that garbage!" And to that end, I do see where the 'not your business' thought process comes from. After all, even if those things really ARE all they're eating, or they ARE coming back later with other money to buy healthier foods and such, what's the difference? What are the foods they're ALLOWED to have? Who sets this standard? Why is it they're doing something wrong? Will someone please define for me exactly what crime they are committing?

But I know what the Bill O'Reillys and the Tomi Lahrens and the Sean Hannitys of the the world would say, and unfortunately, these are the sorts of people who have the administration's ear the best. In a time when so much of the atmosphere that our neighbours to the south have to deal with is impulsive, clearly corrupt and so quickly and easily able to pull all stability out from under those portions of the populace that are struggling, I can't find it in myself to chastize a human being for fearing what that image might do to people who are so clearly always looking for ways to pay less taxes that it's the only truly successful things the administration has accomplished in its first year: Tax breaks to the rich. I can easily imagine someone deciding they could pay less if they didn't have to support those in their own industries that need food stamps, as well. The sort of a scenario that Serephino describes would absolutely be used as fodder for the argument.

Remember the O'Reilly Factor in which Bill incredulously informs the nation that poor people aren't really that poor, many of them own refrigerators?

So while I understand, at least to some degree, why someone might say what you say on the subject, Poet, I don't think it is worth bothering to try to correct those like Serephino from thinking the way they do. And I certainly wouldn't tell them it's none of their business. Because at that level, survival is your only business, and that is very much a survival concern.

[DominantPoet]

Assuming everyone is bad because a few are is never a good state of mind to have. That's how we have distrust in police, that's one of many reasons for racism, and bigotry, and so on and so forth. It's precisely why, in fact, people assume everyone else on SNAP is bad. Perpetrating the very thought process others are using against you against others in the same or similar situations as you seems kind of self-defeating, no? Hatred should not be the first response, regardless of past experiences and what not.

We know damned well not to do that in many other facets of life, after all.

And in that regard, your post, in general, makes no sense to me. Don't try to correct people or help them have a different outlook if possible, just let them hate and do exactly to other people as those who would destroy the systems they depend on are attempting to do to them? Can't say I would ever agree with that outlook.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Well, then I suppose that it's a good thing that's not at all what I've said.

Firstly, I never said to assume everyone was bad. That would be ridiculous for all the reasons that you've already pointed out. What I'd said instead was that when you see the same patterns emerge in someone you don't know as in situations where you know that there HAS been wrongdoing, that suspicion and panic over the situation might lead to vindictiveness and anger and that these are natural places to end up due to the human gift for pattern recognition. A desperate desire to avoid being lumped in with these people, not to mention avoid drawing attention to the few "bad apples" that ARE the ones to abuse the system is going to lead to anger over the sorts of situations that appear to be following those same patterns.

Personally, by the words you've used and the way it was directed towards Serephino, it did not come across to me as helping. It came across as attacking and lecturing and there's nothing in that sort of treatment that would encourage me to act on the best interests of anyone aside from myself, in that position. My post was saying that it served no purpose to come down on Sere for making a point that seeing abuses of the system are what causes that reaction. For whatever reason, that turned into an evaluation of other people's core character, which wasn't the point that was trying to be made and the lecture to mind one's own business, while perhaps insightful under different circumstances, was in my perspective, misplaced.

To be clear. I don't think you were guiding anyone towards a "correct" pattern of thinking. It seems as though the intent was to shame someone for what they were saying as though the thought in and of itself were some grievous crime.
I don't know if it was intended to help, but I'm also not clear on who would have been any less defensive based on the approach you used.
I don't think Serephino said anything about hating the people.
I don't think the knowledge of the human mind excuses the contradiction in behaviour, but perhaps understanding will allow us to brandish our arguments with greater efficiency.

I would like to point out that I did support your point of view in the fact that people who buy whatever they desire on whatever support systems are available are breaking no rules and have earned no particular judgement, but I also know that trying to attack someone and verbally beat them into submission won't change how they think on a subject, but is more likely to make them resentful and stubborn and defensive.

The fact remains that those who have to rely on support services like food stamps and the like have to be concerned how they appear to the public because of the extremely tenuous nature of their continued survival. Were I in a position still where I needed resources to survive and I saw someone taking more than they appear to need simply because they can... I'd be angry too, and I don't think there's any part of that reaction that is unnatural or - as you assert - unwarranted.

[DominantPoet]

I don't agree in the least that those are natural responses and places to end up. Pretending like you're just recognizing human pattern is nothing but an excuse for yourself to justify taking your assumptions as truth, which as I've already said, is dangerous.

As for everything else, you're free to assume whatever you want about my words. Doesn't make you correct though, mind you, which has been my point from the beginning. Assumptions are nothing more than that. To treat them as fact in your own head, then act based on that, rarely ends well.

I'd just like people to stop and question why they feel anger, especially if they don't know the facts and are basing it purely off what they see in any given moment, at what other people are doing. SNAP purchases or otherwise. And then if they come to the realization they are basing it purely off assumptions, that perhaps they will change that particular reactionary instinct that so many people do, indeed, have.

Hence all the questions I've posited to Sere so far. Because from what he's said, I get the impression that he's angry at people for something he's assuming, then treating that assumption as a fact, about people he perhaps actually knows nothing about. And since I don't know if that's the case for sure one way or another - I've been asking him if it is. And I might point out, he's already said things that are blatant assumptions. Such as claiming that people buying only junk food are gaming the system, and don't need SNAP. So.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

Well, it's clear we're not going to get anywhere by trying to re-clarify our positions. I think this line of questioning is a lost cause.

As you were.

[Oniya]

Something that may shed some light - at least the light of compassion:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/to-the-mom-using-food-stamps-i-see-you_us_577c3027e4b0ad1e7bff63e3

[DominantPoet]

Something that may shed some light - at least the light of compassion:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/to-the-mom-using-food-stamps-i-see-you_us_577c3027e4b0ad1e7bff63e3

Lovely article  :D

[Fury Aphrodisia]

It is a very well-done feel-good article, but misses the point. We're not talking about someone who just buys a few cupcakes and is otherwise normal. The point isn't even just what a person buys. That's deliberately missing the point, in fact, given how many times that outlook has been corrected now.

The initial point made was about people scamming the system with a hypothetical proposed to demonstrate the point. The hypothetical was then needlessly torn to belligerent shreds while the crux of the issue has been somehow lost in the shuffle and I am bewildered how that was accomplished.

[Iniquitous]

It should be noted that SNAP means Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

It is meant to be a supplement to get a person up to the 30% monthly income used to purchase food.  What that means is .... the government expects each SNAP recipient to still use a portion of their own income to buy food and use the food stamps to supplement that amount.

So, getting pissed because you somehow see someone in the store using food stamps on Monday and then see them again on Thursday using their own money to buy more food is really ridiculous because they are using food stamps the way they were intended to be used.

Now, using the food stamps to buy all their junk food and their own money to buy all the healthy stuff? I'd want to know what is being considered "healthy" food. Because the cheapest food to buy these days is the processed box dinners and frozen dinners that are very bad for us. True clean eating is expensive as hell.

As for judging because of what a person wears, drives, what kind of phone they have, etc.

I drive a car that is 1 year old, I have a phone that is not even a year old yet, I have nice clothes and when I go out into public, I look very well put together.  You wouldn't have known that I was homeless a few years ago and that every thing I owned was kept in my car.  You wouldn't know that all those things you judged me by were things purchased when everything was going right in my life and I had the money to buy those things.  Just because I lost my job and my home does not mean I need to sell my phone, my car, and my nice clothes so that I fit the "welfare queen" look that you guys expect a food stamp recipient to look like.

My suggestion is really simple.  Do not judge a person till you live their life.

[Fury Aphrodisia]

It should be noted that SNAP means Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

It is meant to be a supplement to get a person up to the 30% monthly income used to purchase food.  What that means is .... the government expects each SNAP recipient to still use a portion of their own income to buy food and use the food stamps to supplement that amount.

So, getting pissed because you somehow see someone in the store using food stamps on Monday and then see them again on Thursday using their own money to buy more food is really ridiculous because they are using food stamps the way they were intended to be used.

Now, using the food stamps to buy all their junk food and their own money to buy all the healthy stuff? I'd want to know what is being considered "healthy" food. Because the cheapest food to buy these days is the processed box dinners and frozen dinners that are very bad for us. True clean eating is expensive as hell.

As for judging because of what a person wears, drives, what kind of phone they have, etc.

I drive a car that is 1 year old, I have a phone that is not even a year old yet, I have nice clothes and when I go out into public, I look very well put together.  You wouldn't have known that I was homeless a few years ago and that every thing I owned was kept in my car.  You wouldn't know that all those things you judged me by were things purchased when everything was going right in my life and I had the money to buy those things.  Just because I lost my job and my home does not mean I need to sell my phone, my car, and my nice clothes so that I fit the "welfare queen" look that you guys expect a food stamp recipient to look like.

My suggestion is really simple.  Do not judge a person till you live their life.

Once again, not judging the person, not claiming that owning those things makes them ineligible for assistance. Not claiming that they have a particular sort of thing they must buy (said this like, five times now, getting sick of having to defend myself with it in every post :/).

What I said was that seeing someone who appears well-off when compared to my own circumstances taking far more than anyone in my circumstances would be allowed to have puts me in mind of those I've literally had TELL me they're cheating the system.

Since hypotheticals seem to be confusing... literally everyone, here's something a little more specific.

I had a friend who was on assistance, living with another family. She constantly complained about the laziness of her roommate, the mother of the family. She complained about her dishonesty. She complained about the various systems she was cheating. At one point, the subject came up while I was in the room with said mother. This woman got a gleeful look on her face and explained all the ways in which the system could be cheated so that she, a mother of one whose husband worked full time and still managed to make more than three times what my whole family makes in a year, managed to accomplish benefits from four or five different programs that weren't meant to overlap. Essentially, she was using up what several different families could have used to support themselves, for one family who did not need it.

To be clear, her husband brings in multiple hundreds of thousands in a quarter.

She was always well-dressed. She was always driving a brand new car (as in, every new year's model). She was always showing off her latest iPhone. New jewelry stayed in boxes on her shelves and kitchen table. They went out to eat every night. Every two or three months they went on tropical vacations.

And three times a month, they took advantage of overlapping programs to get food and essentials. These things often sat unused in a closet or pantry when they weren't going bad. They managed it by bringing a different "friend" with them every time who would turn in their own information to justify the order. Then they'd just hand the food off to this woman. They would do it several times a month, when the rule is once a month.

Of course, when it was necessary for my sons and I to rely on the programs, we had to provide all sorts of information proving we needed it and because -I- was not dressed that way, driving a new car, because my kids were wearing mis-matched clothes and the pants were a little short on my five-year-old (no one buys clothes for a child right before their birthday, that's stupid), somehow I was the one who was questioned. Did I really need it? What was I spending the money I was getting on, if not to take care of my kids? Why wasn't I going without my second-hand, three-year-old smartphone in order for my kids to have the school snacks they needed? I was informed what I could and could not justify in terms of food on assistance programs. And I worked within that system to get my shit done.

So, yeah, when I see someone in a shiny new car, dressed to the nines and I see they show up multiple times in a month, when I see that person go back in because they "forgot something" and come out with two more bags of food, it puts me in mind of those people. It puts me in mind of the ways that people like me then have to jump through hoops to justify why we need the things we need. It makes me angry to think that even if there is a decent justification for why they are doing what they're doing, it's not going to appear that way to the people who have greater ability to influence what I'm able to get for my kids. It means that my survival is in greater danger.

To be clear, I don't give a shit what they do with their lives. Until it affects my kids. To pretend that I'm simply looking down my nose at people who I think shouldn't be on assistance is not only disingenuous, but completely misses the point. Were it not for the constant state of uncertainty around social welfare programs here in North America, it would have precisely no impact on me whatsoever. But because there is a great deal of uncertainty, seeing the same patterns in people I don't know as I've watched in people who are admittedly and actively gaming the system is going to cause resentment.

And the point of Serephino's post, at least in my understanding, wasn't that they were buying their own food as well. It was that, if they can afford to pay for their own food, why be on an assistance program just to buy a load of junk food (Junk food, by the way, that was defined as being SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS worth of pop, chips and ice cream, which I would hope most people could recognize as being suspiciously close to overkill, except perhaps a handful of unlikely situations)?

Stop pretending that what we're saying is "those people shouldn't be on assistance." Neither I nor Serephino have said that. Not even close. What we've said is that seeing people who are gaming the system is infuriating. You can be as cranky with me as you like, but I'm with Sere: Someone buying several hundred dollars worth of pop, chips and ice cream doesn't have a high chance of convincing me that the purchase is justified when using stamps or whatever assistance is available. And being a person who has had to rely on this, a person who knows how tough it is for someone living in a shelter to get that same amount to use on legitimate food (being stuff with nutrients that are necessary for survival), that incenses me.

So long as I have a stake in these programs for the continued survival of my children, no, I won't go easy on that crap. There's a far cry from buying a few junk food odds and ends along with your groceries to buying more junk food than I, who works three jobs and still needs help, can afford to buy regular food for my children in a month and rarely qualifies for that kind of help to begin with. So long as I have a stake in it for my children's survival, it is absolutely my business to pay attention to people who could potentially cause a problem. If I have to report them, so be it. I won't apologize for that.

Now, do these people deserve to be accosted? No. Do they deserve to be publicly humiliated? Not before a scam of the sort can be proven. Are there ways to fix the "Expensive health/cheap junk" problems? Sure could use some looking into. But I won't feel sorry for being angry when I see misuse of a program that I need, which eventually can and often is used to cut funding to those sorts of programs based on the idea that people in general will always tend towards this sort of abuse. Unfortunately, if you are on a government program like that, you do have a degree of responsibility in how you portray yourself. I'm not saying you need to look like a scrub in order to get your benefits. That's just as manipulative and pointless.

However, if you're on assistance, you need to be aware of the fact that the public has a right to be suspicious if you look like you're using the money they pay into it, the money that could stretch to help more people more fully, for anything other than the intended purpose. In the situation we're talking about, that money is intended to get food for people who would otherwise go hungry. It's to prevent or offset malnutrition. If people see that the money they pay in with taxes is going to get you three months' worth of junk food every month, they have a right to be miffed. That's public funding. No matter how you slice it, that comes with a certain degree of public responsibility.

Getting mad at people for feeling threatened about this and using that anger to then lecture us about our anger is ridiculous and useless.

[greenandgold]

I'm on SNAP, and yes, I heard about these boxes. I really hope that we don't get stuck having to use these things, as it's going to be so unhealthy. My family has a history of diabetes in it, and I tend to think that the crap in the box they're trying to make us use, will be filled with food that would be bad for us, and cause us to get or worsen our diabetes. I don't have it, but if this food gets forced on me, then it won't be long before I do have it.

As for the deal with other people spending their benefits on crap, thing, it's hard to say. On the one hand, I agree with the whole, 'mind your business', thing. But on the other hand, I get less than $200 a month for a single person household. And I spend it every two weeks on real groceries and not junk, and yes it does irritate the hell out of me when I see lots of other people spending their benefits on junk, and driving a fancy car.

I'm struggling to pay my bills and buy my groceries, and here comes some chick in a damn red Mercedes, and she uses foodstamps to buy junk, and the actual money (not sure what that's called but has to do with benefits, though in the form of cash and not SNAP) on alcohol and cigarettes other crap. You can bet your ass, that I'm sure as hell going to complain about people like that who abuse the system.

Because of people like them gaming the system, that makes it harder for us who DO follow the rules, to get the help we need.

[Serephino]

I'm getting my information from Walmart cashiers.  I personally know someone who was fired over their anger.  These people had him help them to their car with 2 carts full of quite literally nothing but ice cream, soda, chips, and dip.  Those are snacks, no meals in there.  At least, I don't know anyone who has chips and dip with a chocolate bar for a meal.  What threw him over the edge was that their vehicle was a brand new Hummer.  You know how expensive those cars are?  They can afford a 2015 Hummer, but they can't afford food?  He slashed their tires.

People who actually do need the assistance, and buy cupcakes for a birthday, that doesn't bother me in the least.  One day when we were in Subway there was a Walmart cashier in there on his lunch break and we had passed a woman on the corner with a sign begging for money.  The Subway employee said his boss had gone out there the day before when she was there and offered her a job.  Granted, making sandwiches is not a glamorous job, but if you're really that bad off...  She said no.  She certainly was able to go stand on the corner by Subway every day, so getting there would not be an issue, but she couldn't work there for an honest paycheck?  My roommate flipped burgers at McDonalds for how many years because we needed the money and that was all he could get.  Now he fries chicken and makes gourmet pretzels.

I never once said that everyone was gaming the system, but people do.  And you know what, yeah, that leaves less for me and anyone else who does need the assistance.  The cashiers I've spoken to see it because they work there every day and see what people buy.  They ring up a hundred or so dollars of snack foods for people, and see them swipe an EBT card.  Then a few days later they are ringing the same people up for actual groceries and see them use credit and debit cards.  Stock people help them to their Hummers and sports cars that are shiny and expensive with their junk. 

How the hell one single person gets like $150 in SNAP every month blows my mind because I did not game the system and I get $89.  When I moved to the place I was in last year I reported the changes like I was supposed to.  My rent had gone up, and yet somehow I got a letter saying my SNAP benefits had gone from $82 down to $20... I shit you not.  I called up my caseworker and asked what the hell.  She re did everything in her system.  I went back up to $70, still less with higher rent. 

In high school I dated someone whose mother was gaming the system.  They lived in public housing.  Her income was child support, SNAP, cash benefits, and SSI for her middle child who was autistic.  She claimed she could not sit or stand for long periods of time, therefore could not work.  Funny, because every time I was there she did nothing but sit at her computer.  She could've gotten some kind of desk job.  My roommate is now friends with the middle autistic child because they worked together at McDonalds for a while.  He said his mother taught him how to game the system too, but he wanted to work.  His older brother, the guy I dated for a short time, he did follow mommy's advice and worked the system too. 

So no, I am not making wild assumptions based on nothing.