A day of someone on Welfare... according to the GOP

[Crossroads Inc.]

Because sometimes it is important to remember just how Fcked up their thinking is on this...
via the HuffingtonPost

How do people who benefit from the government's safety net programs spend their money? If you based your understanding on some of the recent Republican proposals to reform those programs, you might think being on public assistance is a righteous party.

However onerous the reality of being on welfare may be, Republicans in the U.S. Congress and in state legislatures around the country seem bent on portraying welfare recipients as having a lavish and leisurely lifestyle on the government's dime.

Here is what a welfare recipient's day looks like through the lens of recent Republican proposals to reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the program most commonly described as "welfare." These lawmakers sometimes base their proposals on anecdotes, sometimes on documented instances of benefits being spent in questionable ways -- but always on the idea that poor people shouldn't be having any fun at the taxpayer's expense.

Surf and turf for breakfast.

In February, Missouri state Rep. Rick Brattin (R) proposed banning food stamps recipients from using their Electronic Benefit Transfer cards to buy steak and seafood.

surf turf

"I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT cards," Brattin explained to The Washington Post. "When I can't afford it on my pay, I don't want people on the taxpayer's dime to afford those kinds of foods either."

SNAP distributes benefits on EBT cards to 46 million Americans. These benefits can be used for any food product as long as it isn't a hot prepared meal, so steak and seafood are eligible items. Still, Brattin's bill isn't going anywhere.

Then some actual surfing.

In 2013, Fox News ran several segments on Jason Greenslate, an unemployed San Diego surfer who bragged about receiving food stamps. He became known as the "food stamp surfer" after footage showed him buying sushi and lobster with a SNAP debit card.


Greenslate became a poster child for Republicans in the House of Representatives, who highlighted his story in their efforts to reimpose limits on how long able-bodied adults without dependents can receive SNAP benefits.

"You can no longer sit on your couch or ride a surfboard like Jason in California and expect the federal taxpayer to feed you," Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) said on the House floor in 2013.

The time limit on SNAP benefits, a feature of the 1996 welfare reform law, had been waived in almost every state because of high unemployment rates caused by the Great Recession. House Republicans at the time were seeking to reinstate the limits. They didn't immediately get their way, but since then, many states have independently reimposed a three-month time limit on benefits for able-bodied adults with no dependents, resulting in thousands of people being dropped from the program's rolls.

Able-bodied working-age adults without dependents made up just 10.5 percent of all SNAP recipients in 2013, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the program.

Maybe buy a car?

During a speech about out-of-control federal spending on the Senate floor in 2013, Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) lamented some eyebrow-raising alleged food stamp purchases.

"Every day we hear of reports of food stamps being used to pay for beer, cigarettes, cell phone bills and even cars," Coats said. "That hardly needs to be mentioned because it is something we have come to understand -- there is a lot of misuse of tax dollars."

While food stamps can only be used for food, a SNAP recipient could sell their EBT card and use the cash for illicit purposes. Still, the average SNAP benefit is only about $125 per month per person, so it would have to be a pretty cheap car.

Mid-morning seance with a psychic advisor.

In 2014, Alabama passed a set of bills placing new restrictions on TANF benefits, including one that prohibited recipients from spending benefits at any businesses that provide psychic services. Since then, other state legislation has targeted the use of benefits for fortune-telling and related services.

Nationally, TANF serves about 1.5 million families. It's unclear how many are using their benefits to pay their spiritual mediums, but if you believe these psychics in Kansas, it's probably not very many.


For lunch: nachos, cookies and a Coke.

Wisconsin lawmakers recently tried to limit junk food purchases allowed through the food stamp program.

"I’ve been at the convenience store many times -- the amount of nachos and soda that’s being purchased by kids with their parents’ EBT card, I think it’s time to say no to that," Wisconsin state Rep. Dean Kaufert (R) said in 2013.

Both Republicans and some Democrats -- along with, most notably, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent -- have proposed restricting SNAP purchases of junk food. Under U.S. Department of Agriculture rules, Congress is responsible for adjusting the definition of allowable foods in the SNAP program. Federal lawmakers haven't yet jumped on the bandwagon, though.

A trip to the casino for some afternoon gambling.

In 2012, Congress banned TANF recipients from using their EBT cards to withdraw cash from ATMs inside casinos, strip clubs and liquor stores. Republicans pushed the legislation in response to local news stories about questionable ATM withdrawals using welfare cards.

Time to do some drugs!

Earlier this year, Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) moved forward with a limited drug testing program for TANF recipients.

“We must ensure that our tax dollars do not enable the continuation of a drug addiction," LePage said in a press release in August, in which he first announced the initiative. “TANF is a short-term benefit that assists families and children with the basic necessities. If someone tests positive for drugs, they are clearly putting their addiction ahead of their family’s needs."

Maine is one of at least a dozen states considering a drug testing program this year. In addition, twelve others have already enacted drug testing initiatives since 2011, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The trend reflects broader conservative concerns that recipients of public assistance are more likely to be drug users. However, since then, very few TANF recipients have tested positive for drugs, suggesting that these stereotypes are false.

Drugs, drugs, drugs.

Last fall, the House of Representatives approved the "Needs Not Weed Act" to prevent welfare recipients from using their cards at ATMs in legal marijuana shops in Washington and Colorado.

While these withdrawals were indeed taking place at marijuana dispensaries, according to a February report by KDVR, the idea that such abuses of the system are widespread and substantial stems from the same conservative concerns about welfare recipients.

Shopping spree at the mall.

First, a trip to buy some lingerie, then a couple rounds of Dance Dance Revolution at the food court arcade. Later, a pedicure followed up by a new neck tattoo.

Under emergency welfare restrictions passed in Louisiana last year, benefits can't be used at lingerie shops, video arcades, nail salons or tattoo parlors, among other locations. The regulations were announced after a local news station reported on a south Louisiana lingerie store that had posted a sign saying it accepted EBT payments.

Crab legs for dinner.

Recipients of public assistance never get tired of crab legs, or at least that's the sense you get from lawmakers' constant complaints that SNAP benefits are being spent on the delicacy.

In 2013, for example, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) took to the House floor to tell a story about a constituent in a grocery store who had seen another grocery store patron purchase king crab legs with food stamps.

"He looks at the king crab legs and looks at his ground meat and realizes because he does pay income tax, he doesn't get more back than he pays in," Gohmert said of the constituent. "He is actually helping pay for the king crab legs when he can't pay for them for himself."

An evening cruise.

In Kansas, welfare recipients will soon no longer be allowed to use their benefits on cruises or on cruise liner ATMs.

The restrictions were part of a much broader bill that banned TANF cash assistance from being used in "any retail liquor store, casino, gaming establishment, jewelry store, tattoo parlor, massage parlor, body piercing parlor, spa, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia store, vapor cigarette store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, dog or horse racing facility, parimutuel facility, or sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment, or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted."

Though Kansas lawmakers had evidence of TANF benefits used at ATMs in liquor stores and tobacco shops, the cruise ship ban may not have been based on real-life evidence.

Because as we ALL Know, EVERYONE on Welfare is just a lazy cheat living the "Highlife" off of good hard working Americans!
Right?

[TheHammer]

I'm sure there are some abusers of the system, much the same way you've got wealthy abusing the systems they are subject to. I've got no problem with reforming welfare. Personally I'd like to see the system scrapped and replaced with a basic needs (cheap but nutritional massed produced meals, government provided dormitory style house etc) system. I'll spare you the point by point details, but I think the system could be better.

[Borgholio]

Basic needs would sound too much like communism for the GOP. I agree though it would be a good idea if implemented properly. Free (basic) housing for people who lost their homes, free basic meals either served in a cafeteria or possibly delivered door to door...things like that. Providing the goods and not the money would help alleviate many of these already baseless allegations of fraud.

[TheHammer]

Basic needs would sound too much like communism for the GOP. I agree though it would be a good idea if implemented properly. Free (basic) housing for people who lost their homes, free basic meals either served in a cafeteria or possibly delivered door to door...things like that. Providing the goods and not the money would help alleviate many of these already baseless allegations of fraud.

Yeah it would be a bit like communism, but then again so is social security. The idea would be that you wouldn't starve to death and you won't die from the elements, but the vast majority would want more than the basics it provides. Essentially, what I would do would be to eliminate any sort of income eligibility requirements. It would be a benefit provided to everyone (not completely without condition mind you, but you would not lose the benefit simply by making money). The key to that aspect is that you remove the reverse class envy that fuels the GOP arguments. If everyone is eligible, then there is nothing to be jealous of. And those who have done better for themselves can rest easy knowing that the "lazy people who don't want to work" aren't getting anything more than the people who are working.

[salm]

If it is anything like in Germany the loss caused by welfare cheaters is negligable.
In Germany the losses caused by wellfare cheaters is about 100 to 200 million per year. Compare that to the loss that is caused by tax fraud, which is around 65 billion (about 500 times more) per year the welfare cheaters are irrelevant and every additional Euro thrown at fighting welfare cheaters is much better spent on tax fraud.

[Broomstick]

I'm sure there are some abusers of the system, much the same way you've got wealthy abusing the systems they are subject to. I've got no problem with reforming welfare. Personally I'd like to see the system scrapped and replaced with a basic needs (cheap but nutritional massed produced meals, government provided dormitory style house etc) system. I'll spare you the point by point details, but I think the system could be better.

Originally, food aid in the US was distributed raw goods. My mother told me about her family receiving sacks of flour and such during the Depression when the first such programs were instituted. The fact we've moved away from such programs should tell you something.

There's also the problem that uniform, cheap, mass-produced meals are going to be a problem for a significant slice of the population. You can do that in something like the military where you can easily weed out people with oddball nutritional needs like diabetics and food allergies, not so much the general population. The nutritional needs of a 6 year old are quite different than those of a sedentary middle-aged woman which are again different than those of a 30 year old roofer. You'll have people who need 1200 calories a day and people who need 4,000*, people who can tolerate milk and those who are physically unable to digest it, you'll have people who can tolerate sodium and those that can't, people who need high protein or higher fat diets (toddlers, manual laborers) and those who need to limit protein and other nutrients due to medical needs (like people with kidney disease). How are you going to manage all that?

Right now, the system utilizes the same distribution system as private food companies (meaning you don't have to construct an entire redundant system) and allows the recipient to tailor diet to needs - ideally. Of course, in actual practice this doesn't work quite so well.

Also, your "dormitory style housing" only works well for single people - it would split up families which is generally not considered a good thing. There is also the problem of behavioral standards - shelters and low income housing already suffer from high crime rates. As a general rule, the closer together you pack the poor the more problems you're going to have.

It all sounds terribly efficient, and on one level it is, but it's not workable for the general population, only certain subgroups such as the military where you have the option to be selective in membership.




* Case in point - on the face of it, being a woman in my 50's, I "should" only need 1500-2000 calories a day to maintain my bodyweight. Over the past year I have lost weight, about 8 kilos, on a 2800 calorie a day diet. Yes, I am that active. Which is just one example of where following a formula can wind up getting things wrong.

[Borgholio]

Originally, food aid in the US was distributed raw goods. My mother told me about her family receiving sacks of flour and such during the Depression when the first such programs were instituted. The fact we've moved away from such programs should tell you something.

I may just be dense...but why DID we move away from that? I mean with modern ordering systems we could make it work really well. A family in need goes to a website or orders via a catalog. They can pick specialty meals if they want, such as for diabetes, allergies, and so forth. Anything not approved for whatever reason (such as junk food or booze) is simply not available to order and the funds cannot be withdrawn from the recipient's welfare account.

Also, your "dormitory style housing" only works well for single people - it would split up families which is generally not considered a good thing. There is also the problem of behavioral standards - shelters and low income housing already suffer from high crime rates. As a general rule, the closer together you pack the poor the more problems you're going to have.

Why would we need to split them up? Larger apartments for couples and families could be made available. I have to admit I'm at a loss regarding the crime problems. The only real ways I see to provide housing assistance to people is to help pay their mortgage or rent via subsidies, or have cheap housing that they could move into. Giving them rebate checks only re-introduces cash into the equation which we don't want.

[Civil War Man]

It really is a no-win situation for people on food stamps in particular. If you buy cheap food with food stamps, then you are irresponsible and giving your kids nothing but junk food. If you buy expensive food with food stamps, then you are defrauding America™ and living high on the hog.

One thing it'd be nice to see get on the record at some point is to have the anti-welfare crusaders answer one simple question: What food do you think is okay for someone to buy with food stamps? They say a lot about what they consider to be not okay to buy, so it'd be nice to see someone pressure them into answering what kinds of products they consider to be a legitimate use of the program.

[TheHammer]

I'm sure there are some abusers of the system, much the same way you've got wealthy abusing the systems they are subject to. I've got no problem with reforming welfare. Personally I'd like to see the system scrapped and replaced with a basic needs (cheap but nutritional massed produced meals, government provided dormitory style house etc) system. I'll spare you the point by point details, but I think the system could be better.

Originally, food aid in the US was distributed raw goods. My mother told me about her family receiving sacks of flour and such during the Depression when the first such programs were instituted. The fact we've moved away from such programs should tell you something.

There's also the problem that uniform, cheap, mass-produced meals are going to be a problem for a significant slice of the population. You can do that in something like the military where you can easily weed out people with oddball nutritional needs like diabetics and food allergies, not so much the general population. The nutritional needs of a 6 year old are quite different than those of a sedentary middle-aged woman which are again different than those of a 30 year old roofer. You'll have people who need 1200 calories a day and people who need 4,000*, people who can tolerate milk and those who are physically unable to digest it, you'll have people who can tolerate sodium and those that can't, people who need high protein or higher fat diets (toddlers, manual laborers) and those who need to limit protein and other nutrients due to medical needs (like people with kidney disease). How are you going to manage all that?

Right now, the system utilizes the same distribution system as private food companies (meaning you don't have to construct an entire redundant system) and allows the recipient to tailor diet to needs - ideally. Of course, in actual practice this doesn't work quite so well.

Also, your "dormitory style housing" only works well for single people - it would split up families which is generally not considered a good thing. There is also the problem of behavioral standards - shelters and low income housing already suffer from high crime rates. As a general rule, the closer together you pack the poor the more problems you're going to have.

It all sounds terribly efficient, and on one level it is, but it's not workable for the general population, only certain subgroups such as the military where you have the option to be selective in membership.




* Case in point - on the face of it, being a woman in my 50's, I "should" only need 1500-2000 calories a day to maintain my bodyweight. Over the past year I have lost weight, about 8 kilos, on a 2800 calorie a day diet. Yes, I am that active. Which is just one example of where following a formula can wind up getting things wrong.

None of those problems are unsolvable.

As you noted the current system doesn't work so well. It's great for slumlord employers like Walmart - they play low wages, teach their employees how to get government benefits, then those employees spend those benefit dollars (courtesy of the taxpayers) in Walmart stores. Which is why welfare reform should be tied to minimum wage increases to levels that allow someone making 40 hours a week to be able to afford better food and housing than that provided by the government.

[TheHammer]

It really is a no-win situation for people on food stamps in particular. If you buy cheap food with food stamps, then you are irresponsible and giving your kids nothing but junk food. If you buy expensive food with food stamps, then you are defrauding America™ and living high on the hog.

One thing it'd be nice to see get on the record at some point is to have the anti-welfare crusaders answer one simple question: What food do you think is okay for someone to buy with food stamps? They say a lot about what they consider to be not okay to buy, so it'd be nice to see someone pressure them into answering what kinds of products they consider to be a legitimate use of the program.

Not that I'm an "anti welfare crusader", but you don't see anyone complaining about food stamps being used to purchase fruit, vegetables, chicken, milk etc. Its certain items that are considered "luxury" foods such as lobster, or if little actual nutritional value that tend to get the middle class riled up. And while those are certainly more the exception than the rule, the perception is enough to create reverse class envy.

[salm]

As long as the middle and upper class commit tax fraud on a systematic basis they have no place to get riled up. They need to shut the fuck up.

[TheHammer]

As long as the middle and upper class commit tax fraud on a systematic basis they have no place to get riled up. They need to shut the fuck up.

Where the hell is that coming from?

[salm]

As long as the middle and upper class commit tax fraud on a systematic basis they have no place to get riled up. They need to shut the fuck up.

Where the hell is that coming from?

Like I said a couple of posts up the amount of money lost to tax evasion is absurdly higher than the money lost to welfare fraud. Since it´s the middle and upper class are the ones who complain about a couple of poor people stealing few bucks from the government they need to shut the fuck up as long it is them who are stealing really big bucks from the government.

[Guardsman Bass]

This reminds me of what Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone wrote about accountability for the rich and the poor. The poor get invasive searches, aggressive scrutiny, and demeaning stereotypes in exchange for a couple of scraps thrown at them every month (i.e. less than $2/day in food support). The rich get overt bailouts, tax favoritism, and the implicit understanding that they won't go to jail over financial crimes if doing so might threaten broader economic damage from hurting the companies they work for.

In any case, this is irritating political theater for Republicans - popular with their condescending constituents, and also useful because it allows them to cut back on welfare spending and thus go for greater tax cuts.

Not that I'm an "anti welfare crusader", but you don't see anyone complaining about food stamps being used to purchase fruit, vegetables, chicken, milk etc. Its certain items that are considered "luxury" foods such as lobster, or if little actual nutritional value that tend to get the middle class riled up. And while those are certainly more the exception than the rule, the perception is enough to create reverse class envy.

Keep in mind that this is all hearsay - none of the Republicans quoted could point to any real broader evidence of spending of SNAP benefits on luxury products. It was all "a constituent told me that a neighbor told them they saw someone buying crab legs with food stamps". Hell, I hear people talk about folks buying stuff with "food stamps" that they can't actually buy, like restaurant food or hot food.

[salm]

I think the whole concept of food stamps is silly. Just pay for the rent and give out a certain amount of money. People can normally handle having little money and will usually not buy lobsters and vacations in the Bahamas with it if they have next to nothing. And if I´m dumb enough to eat caviar one day and nothing for the rest of the month, well, so be it. We wouldn´t want a nanny state after all, would we?

[TheHammer]

As long as the middle and upper class commit tax fraud on a systematic basis they have no place to get riled up. They need to shut the fuck up.

Where the hell is that coming from?

Like I said a couple of posts up the amount of money lost to tax evasion is absurdly higher than the money lost to welfare fraud. Since it´s the middle and upper class are the ones who complain about a couple of poor people stealing few bucks from the government they need to shut the fuck up as long it is them who are stealing really big bucks from the government.

You need to cite some actual sources to make that sort of claim.

This reminds me of what Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone wrote about accountability for the rich and the poor. The poor get invasive searches, aggressive scrutiny, and demeaning stereotypes in exchange for a couple of scraps thrown at them every month (i.e. less than $2/day in food support). The rich get overt bailouts, tax favoritism, and the implicit understanding that they won't go to jail over financial crimes if doing so might threaten broader economic damage from hurting the companies they work for.

In any case, this is irritating political theater for Republicans - popular with their condescending constituents, and also useful because it allows them to cut back on welfare spending and thus go for greater tax cuts.

I agree those are bigger problems that need addressed.

Not that I'm an "anti welfare crusader", but you don't see anyone complaining about food stamps being used to purchase fruit, vegetables, chicken, milk etc. Its certain items that are considered "luxury" foods such as lobster, or if little actual nutritional value that tend to get the middle class riled up. And while those are certainly more the exception than the rule, the perception is enough to create reverse class envy.

Keep in mind that this is all hearsay - none of the Republicans quoted could point to any real broader evidence of spending of SNAP benefits on luxury products. It was all "a constituent told me that a neighbor told them they saw someone buying crab legs with food stamps". Hell, I hear people talk about folks buying stuff with "food stamps" that they can't actually buy, like restaurant food or hot food.

Those examples do happen, albeit not to the extent Republicans make it out to be. The bigger problem is the perception it creates because such things can happen.

[salm]

You need to cite some actual sources to make that sort of claim.

The US government states that:

The trafficking rate in SNAP has dropped dramatically. Due to increased oversight and improvements to program management by USDA, the trafficking rate has fallen significantly over the last two decades, from about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to about 1 cent in 2006-08 (most recent data available).

Source: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud

It also states that in 2014 74 Billion were spent on food stamps. So food stamp fraud would have cost around 740 million.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/f ... ummary.pdf


Meanwhole the USA loses over 300 billion due to tax evasion. That is 400 times more than lost due to food stamp fraud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasio ... ted_States
http://www.demos.org/data-byte/federal- ... ax-evasion

[Patroklos]

There are two sides to tax accountability, how it is collected and how it is spent. Neither one should be ignored and those enforcing each side are generally not the same people. Passing a law that bans lobster buys is essentially free (its enforced in the existing vendor bar code systems), so if you accept that is a legitimate restriction there is zero reason not to do it and all you do by opposing it is feed your oppositions PR efforts. Seriously, does anyone here think restricting lobster purchases is a bad idea? No? Then STFU and take your ability to be rational in your opponents traditional reserve to the bank come the next election.

[salm]

Of course it is a bad idea. The main reason for it being bad, imo, is that you should patronize people as little as possible even if they are reliant on other peoples money. What bad does it do? People on food stamps who buy expensive shit run out of money faster. Who cares? It´s their own fault. Food stamps themselves are patronizing enough even without limitations on lobster. Just give people cash. And if some poor dude who loves lobster manages to save up enough food stamps to get one then he should damn well be allowed to get this lobster. Why the fuck not?
Is there some mechanism I´m not aware of which grants people who buy expensive shit more food stamps? I doubt it. A guy who buys lobster has drains your precious pockets just as much as a guy who buys oatmeal and peanut butter.

The second reason is that it adds beurocracy where none is needed. Somebody has to figure out what stuff to restrict. If it´s only lobster, obviously it is easy but since there are a gazillion products on the market this might not be an easy task.
Furthermore politicians have to spend time on drafting and enacting a law. This politician time should first be spend on more pressing matters like tax evasion. As soon as they have repaired that they can adress less important problems such as welfare fraud.

[His Divine Shadow]

As long as the middle and upper class commit tax fraud on a systematic basis they have no place to get riled up. They need to shut the fuck up.

Where the hell is that coming from?

Reality?

[TheHammer]

It also states that in 2014 74 Billion were spent on food stamps. So food stamp fraud would have cost around 740 million.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/f ... ummary.pdf


Meanwhole the USA loses over 300 billion due to tax evasion. That is 400 times more than lost due to food stamp fraud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasio ... ted_States
http://www.demos.org/data-byte/federal- ... ax-evasion

I was looking for something specific to the middle class since you singled them out. Since your typical middle class tax payer has taxes taken out by their employer I suspect that it's not the middle class doing the majority of tax evasion. Neither of the sources you cited illuminates anything on that.

Of course it is a bad idea. The main reason for it being bad, imo, is that you should patronize people as little as possible even if they are reliant on other peoples money. What bad does it do? People on food stamps who buy expensive shit run out of money faster. Who cares? It´s their own fault. Food stamps themselves are patronizing enough even without limitations on lobster. Just give people cash. And if some poor dude who loves lobster manages to save up enough food stamps to get one then he should damn well be allowed to get this lobster. Why the fuck not?
Is there some mechanism I´m not aware of which grants people who buy expensive shit more food stamps? I doubt it. A guy who buys lobster has drains your precious pockets just as much as a guy who buys oatmeal and peanut butter.

If EVERYONE got food stamps then what you said makes sense. But they don't. Because the whole fucking concept of food stamps, and welfare in general is that you help people who need it. If someone can afford to save up food stamps to get lobster, then they don't need the fucking food stamps to begin with. It may not cost the tax payer more, but it means that tax payer dollars aren't being properly used and is definitely a legitimate reason for people to be upset regardless of how often it happens.

Oh and cry me a fucking river about how patronizing food stamps are.

The second reason is that it adds beurocracy where none is needed. Somebody has to figure out what stuff to restrict. If it´s only lobster, obviously it is easy but since there are a gazillion products on the market this might not be an easy task.
Furthermore politicians have to spend time on drafting and enacting a law. This politician time should first be spend on more pressing matters like tax evasion. As soon as they have repaired that they can adress less important problems such as welfare fraud.

A far simpler mechanism would be to allow certain foods than to disallow others. In fact there are already numerous state run programs who do exactly that. Applying the same concept to food stamps is certainly one that can be achieved with little bureaucracy. Further, by limiting what food stamps can by you limit their value for being sold/traded for other "benefits" (drugs, alcohol, sex).

And no one is excusing tax evasion, but using that as justification for doing nothing about welfare reform is classic tu quoque.

[Patroklos]

Of course it is a bad idea. The main reason for it being bad, imo, is that you should patronize people as little as possible even if they are reliant on other peoples money. What bad does it do? People on food stamps who buy expensive shit run out of money faster. Who cares? It´s their own fault. Food stamps themselves are patronizing enough even without limitations on lobster. Just give people cash. And if some poor dude who loves lobster manages to save up enough food stamps to get one then he should damn well be allowed to get this lobster. Why the fuck not? Is there some mechanism I´m not aware of which grants people who buy expensive shit more food stamps? I doubt it. A guy who buys lobster has drains your precious pockets just as much as a guy who buys oatmeal and peanut butter.

I going to point out that as per an above reference only 10% of food stamp recipients are single, and I suspect a very large majority of the remaining 90% of the recipients are receiving food stamps for their children as well as themselves. We rely on their parents to appropriately spend their children's share of their food stamp allotment. Does saving them all up to blow on a lobster dinner and then starving for the rest of the month sound cool to you then? Also, you understand the whole point of the food stamp program is to not have people starve, right? Let me quote the FNS's mission statement for you:

FNS works to end hunger and obesity through the administration of 15 federal nutrition assistance programs including WIC, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and school meals. In partnership with State and Tribal governments, our programs serve one in four Americans during the course of a year. Working with our public, private and non-profit partners, our mission is to increase food security and reduce hunger by providing children and low-income people access to food, a healthful diet and nutrition education in a way that supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence. No American should have to go hungry.

Is there anything in there about subsidizing lobster binges and follow on starvation? Did I miss a sentence in there somewhere? We give them food stamps for one reason, and as the mission statement sums up nicely its "No American should have to go hungry." If you are using them in any way other than to accomplish that or any of the rest of it you are breaking faith with the generous tax payers of this country that are helping you out. I don't give a fuck if its patronizing. If you don't like it, send your stamps back. And requiring you buy vegetables and eggs and other basic staples is not patronizing in the slightest.

The second reason is that it adds beurocracy where none is needed. Somebody has to figure out what stuff to restrict. If it´s only lobster, obviously it is easy but since there are a gazillion products on the market this might not be an easy task.

The great thing about it is the vendors already do this for us. Their POS and inventory systems are far more effective in dividing and organizing product categories than any boondoggle the government is going to come up with. You know how your credit card can tell what you are buying to give points for special categories of product, or how the cash register knows exactly what coupons to spit out on the back of your receipt? Use that. Tell the vendors not accept EBT for categories they already voluntarily control and monitor. They already do this for quite a few items anyway. Simple.

Furthermore politicians have to spend time on drafting and enacting a law. This politician time should first be spend on more pressing matters like tax evasion. As soon as they have repaired that they can adress less important problems such as welfare fraud.

Quick, there is tax fraud going on! Shut down everything else, the government can only do one thing at a time!

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I love how there's never any context given with these "lobster binges," just "I saw someone buy steak and lobster with an EBT card, wahhh." For all anyone knows, that could be for a once-a-year birthday dinner, or an anniversary, or some other special occasion.

[Simon_Jester]

Meanwhole the USA loses over 300 billion due to tax evasion. That is 400 times more than lost due to food stamp fraud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_evasio ... ted_States
http://www.demos.org/data-byte/federal- ... ax-evasion

For that matter, it is four times more than the entire cost of the food stamp program.

TheHammer, please remember this day, because it is clear that you did not already have a rough order-of-magnitude sense for how much food stamps cost the US (what, did you think it cost a trillion dollars a year or something?) Or for how much tax evasion costs the US (what, did you think Americans pay their taxes with 99% reliability?)

So you've just learned something, which is good.

I going to point out that as per an above reference only 10% of food stamp recipients are single, and I suspect a very large majority of the remaining 90% of the recipients are receiving food stamps for their children as well as themselves. We rely on their parents to appropriately spend their children's share of their food stamp allotment. Does saving them all up to blow on a lobster dinner and then starving for the rest of the month sound cool to you then?...

IF this requires detailed auditing of purchases...

Frankly, what it comes down to is that the cost of an enforcement program that actually monitors everyone's purchases in detail is likely to far exceed ANY benefit from stopping a handful

Think about it. SNAP affects tens of millions of people. You need someone to read each individual's grocery receipts, so to speak, in order to identify 'exorbitant' purchases, then audit the ones who do something questionable like, oh, buy a box of chocolates on Valentine's Day. Not only does this create an opening for spiteful fucks to ruin people's lives by denying them food stamps over trivia, but it costs actual money to hire people to do this.

How many people would it take to review the grocery receipts of ten million people? I think it would be optimistic to expect it to take less than a few thousand people. All of whom are government employees being paid tens of thousands a year. We could easily blow a hundred million a year on an auditing program that can't possibly catch anywhere near that many lobster purchases.

It'd be more cost-effective to take that money and give out more food stamps instead of wasting our time with this stupidity.

Is there anything in there about subsidizing lobster binges and follow on starvation? Did I miss a sentence in there somewhere? We give them food stamps for one reason, and as the mission statement sums up nicely its "No American should have to go hungry." If you are using them in any way other than to accomplish that or any of the rest of it you are breaking faith with the generous tax payers of this country that are helping you out. I don't give a fuck if its patronizing. If you don't like it, send your stamps back. And requiring you buy vegetables and eggs and other basic staples is not patronizing in the slightest.

Is this worth our time to police?

Or is this just something you want to pursue for ideological reasons regardless of the actual cost?

The second reason is that it adds beurocracy where none is needed. Somebody has to figure out what stuff to restrict. If it´s only lobster, obviously it is easy but since there are a gazillion products on the market this might not be an easy task.

The great thing about it is the vendors already do this for us. Their POS and inventory systems are far more effective in dividing and organizing product categories than any boondoggle the government is going to come up with. You know how your credit card can tell what you are buying to give points for special categories of product, or how the cash register knows exactly what coupons to spit out on the back of your receipt? Use that. Tell the vendors not accept EBT for categories they already voluntarily control and monitor. They already do this for quite a few items anyway. Simple.

If that will actually work without auditors, has it occurred to you to ask...

Why is it that this hasn't already been done? Perhaps there is a reason of which we are not aware?

Because seriously, it MIGHT be because, say... lobster actually gets pretty cheap at times. So that it's bloody stupid to enact a law banning welfare recipients from eating it if it happens to be cheaper than chicken breast where they live.

And even if the lobster ban makes sense, it represents a minor modification to an existing system, NOT grounds to raise a media circus or a huge self-righteous stink. This is an issue where the federal government has already done a great deal of work.

Furthermore politicians have to spend time on drafting and enacting a law. This politician time should first be spend on more pressing matters like tax evasion. As soon as they have repaired that they can adress less important problems such as welfare fraud.

Quick, there is tax fraud going on! Shut down everything else, the government can only do one thing at a time!

Imagine that spending a million dollars on chasing tax fraud catches ten million dollars worth of lost revenue for the government.

Imagine that spending a million dollars on chasing welfare fraud catches a hundred thousand dollars worth of improperly spent welfare money.

Which of those DOES make sense to do? Which DOES NOT make sense to do?

[Broomstick]

I may just be dense...but why DID we move away from that?

Well, back when mom's family was “on relief” (as it was called in those days) they'd be issued sacks of flour, potatoes, etc... which required the labor of her older brothers to bring home due to the bulk and weight. Sort of a problem for the elderly, single parents with only young children, and the like. It was also very much raw materials, which worked for a time when moms usually were stay-at-home and baked their own bread and so forth, but 100 pounds of flour these days is more likely to go bad or become verminous than be utilized.

I'm guessing there was the issue of dignity – rather than having to take hand outs there was the notion that it was more dignified to be able to shop at the same stores as one's neighbors, making one's own decisions, probably coming in during the 1960's when the country was much more progressive/liberal/whatever. The War on Poverty, maybe?

Anyhow – not entirely sure.

I mean with modern ordering systems we could make it work really well. A family in need goes to a website or orders via a catalog. They can pick specialty meals if they want, such as for diabetes, allergies, and so forth. Anything not approved for whatever reason (such as junk food or booze) is simply not available to order and the funds cannot be withdrawn from the recipient's welfare account.

OK, explain HOW that is somehow more efficient than the current system?

First of all, the current system does not require a computer or smartphone, nor even a catalog. You just go to the store and make your selections. You can not purchase forbidden items right now – the funds will NOT be deducted from the card if you attempt to do so. There is no way around that.

Also, who comes up with these “specialty meals”? There's more than one diabetic diet. There are not a dozen set “allergic foods” that need to be avoided, allergies are individual – which is why allergic me can have all the fish and milk I want but no tomatoes, but my allergic niece is the other way around. You can NOT standardize meals for the allergic. You'll need low salt meals, meals for people with kidney disease, and on and on... imagine the labor required to develop the recipes, make them, keep the assembly lines separate, figure out how many to make with minimal waste.

Really, what's wrong with “here's your budget, go make your choices”? Again, no redundant delivery mechanisms, families can customize as needed, and you already can't purchase forbidden items.

Also, your "dormitory style housing" only works well for single people - it would split up families which is generally not considered a good thing. There is also the problem of behavioral standards - shelters and low income housing already suffer from high crime rates. As a general rule, the closer together you pack the poor the more problems you're going to have.

Why would we need to split them up?

Because.. that's what “dormitory style housing" is? It's a room with a bunch of beds and people sleeping in them, and they're invariably segregated by gender, at least each room is.

The only real ways I see to provide housing assistance to people is to help pay their mortgage or rent via subsidies, or have cheap housing that they could move into.

We've tried both. We've spent the last couple decades tearing down the cheap housing high rises that turned into cesspits, and the waiting list for rent subsidies in my are is TEN YEARS LONG! The rent subsidy is probably more effective except no one funds the damn notion sufficiently.

Giving them rebate checks only re-introduces cash into the equation which we don't want.

Right, we wouldn't want people who's major problem is a lack of money to have actual money, right?

Not that I'm an "anti welfare crusader", but you don't see anyone complaining about food stamps being used to purchase fruit, vegetables, chicken, milk etc.

Maybe you haven't, but I have – both from the customer and the cashier side of the counter. There people who think the poor should live on nothing but beans, rice, and bruised apples. They get upset if the poor buy the “wrong” fruit which is apparently anything other than apples, bananas, and oranges – god forbid they purchase something like mangoes or limes! Seriously, limes – see the recent brouhaha over Gwyneth Paltrow's “food challenge” selections. While there was a lot to criticize there people were going ballistic over limes being a luxury item – disregarding that in Southern California limes are cheap and grow in peoples' backyards. Likewise, purchasing vegetables like asparagus or really anything other than the most rockbottom things like peas and carrots. Chicken? They should eat nothing but beans! Milk? They should drink water!

Really, there is some brutal shit out there.

Seriously, does anyone here think restricting lobster purchases is a bad idea? No?

I think it's a fucking stupid idea – seafood is nutritious and it's possible to get about-to-expire lobster at massive markdown. My store marks down must-be-sold-today items as deeply as 50-90% off regular price. Would lobster at a 70% markdown be acceptable to you?

It's like when the Chicago Food Depository got refirgerated trucks so they could pick up unneeded food from catering serivices and deliver it to soup kitchens and homeless shelters. People have fucking meltdowns because once in awhile poor and homeless people got lobster bisque or filet mignon – nevermind they were literally someone else's discards and would have been literally thrown in the trash otherwise! For fucking certain lobster is better for you than some other shit you could be eating.

Also, if a family scrimps and saves so that one meal a month is something special, or they're purchasing for a birthday dinner or other special occasion, why the fuck does that provoke such outrage? If someone can budget their food allotment such that they can, indeed, afford to eat every day and on one of those days they can afford lobster then good for them – they deserve a reward for planning and self-discipline. Aren't those traits we want to encourage?

Of course it is a bad idea. The main reason for it being bad, imo, is that you should patronize people as little as possible even if they are reliant on other peoples money. What bad does it do? People on food stamps who buy expensive shit run out of money faster. Who cares? It´s their own fault. Food stamps themselves are patronizing enough even without limitations on lobster. Just give people cash. And if some poor dude who loves lobster manages to save up enough food stamps to get one then he should damn well be allowed to get this lobster. Why the fuck not?
Is there some mechanism I´m not aware of which grants people who buy expensive shit more food stamps? I doubt it. A guy who buys lobster has drains your precious pockets just as much as a guy who buys oatmeal and peanut butter.

If EVERYONE got food stamps then what you said makes sense. But they don't. Because the whole fucking concept of food stamps, and welfare in general is that you help people who need it. If someone can afford to save up food stamps to get lobster, then they don't need the fucking food stamps to begin with.

Go to fucking hell.

I could draw up a budget that, without cheating, allows someone to take their monthly allotment, eat a very dull and cheap diet for 29 days, and on day 30 have enough to purchase some discounted lobster for dinner. Why the fuck do you not understand that? Why the hell should you CARE that someone on food stamps, once in awhile, gets to eat something like lobster so long as no cheating is occuring?

You're like the people who say “that person doesn't need help – they have a leather jacket!” or “they don't need help, they have a TV!” Or air conditioner. Or some other out of context imagined luxury. It's a kneejerk assesment.

It may not cost the tax payer more, but it means that tax payer dollars aren't being properly used and is definitely a legitimate reason for people to be upset regardless of how often it happens.

Define “properly used” in this context. What else do you think is outrageous? Mangoes? Beef? Quinoa instead of white rice?

Oh and cry me a fucking river about how patronizing food stamps are.

The SNAP benefit isn't, but the application process is both patronizing and at times humiliating, and sure as fuck other people are goddamned patronizing of those on the program.

A far simpler mechanism would be to allow certain foods than to disallow others. In fact there are already numerous state run programs who do exactly that

And they're all fucking more labor intensive!

Applying the same concept to food stamps is certainly one that can be achieved with little bureaucracy.

Really? You think there won't be a bureaucracy involved in decided what to allow and not allow? How old are you, 12? Because you are fucking naïve.

Further, by limiting what food stamps can by you limit their value for being sold/traded for other "benefits" (drugs, alcohol, sex).

They are already limited in what they can buy, and very hard to convert to other things. Not impossible, and whether or not more things should be restricted is debatable, but you speak like you think it's a regular ATM card. It's not. It may look like one, but it isn't.

I going to point out that as per an above reference only 10% of food stamp recipients are single, and I suspect a very large majority of the remaining 90% of the recipients are receiving food stamps for their children as well as themselves. We rely on their parents to appropriately spend their children's share of their food stamp allotment. Does saving them all up to blow on a lobster dinner and then starving for the rest of the month sound cool to you then?

Why do you assume it's impossible to eat a healthy and sufficient diet while also budgeting to splurge on occasion? We're not talking about starving or living on bread and water, it's low-cost food to save up for a “feast” of sorts.

Is there anything in there about subsidizing lobster binges and follow on starvation?

Again, you are ASSUMING people are “starving” themselves for that special item. Do you have any actual proof of that? Evidence, I want to see actual evidence.

If you don't like it, send your stamps back.

In other words, if you don't do what I tell you to do you can starve. That's not a fucking choice, dickhead.

And requiring you buy vegetables and eggs and other basic staples is not patronizing in the slightest.

You do realize there is not, in fact, any requirement whatsoever to purchase “vegetables and eggs and other basic staples”? And yet the vast majority manage to do this without your personal intervention.

Tell the vendors not accept EBT for categories they already voluntarily control and monitor. They already do this for quite a few items anyway. Simple.

That's not how it works, dumbshit. Vendors have NO discretion over what EBT does and doesn't apply to. That is dictated by the government. Deviation from that imposes penalties regardless of whether they are adding to or subtracting from that list.

And really, it's your bias showing. Fact is, there ARE places lobster is dirt cheap, ditto for crabs. Just like limes are a fuckton cheaper in Southern California than in Indiana where I live. Different regions have different gluts and specialties and it's just goddamned mean to forbid someone a wholesome food soley because YOU are offended by it.