Sure. But the larger point is welfare, and empowering people to make the best decisions for their circumstance, which is best achieved by just giving them cash. My original point.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is it time to loosen hot food restrictions for EBT/Food Stamps users?
- Thread starter Cyanity
- Start date
Sure. But the larger point is welfare, and empowering people to make the best decisions for their circumstance, which is best achieved by just giving them cash. My original point.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/new...nding-more-on-government-benefits-090518.html
More than just a few.
I said I wouldn't comment on political threads in the OT forum for a while, but as I have personal experience with this I'll post on this topic.
Because I am physically disabled and unable to work I've had an EBT card for quite a while. There are certain aspects of the program I believe to be dehumanizing to discourage from using the card. For example- supermarkets will ask you how you are paying even though they have a card reader- there is really no need for that, it is embarrassing- the better way is just to allow you to swipe your card without asking at all.
Also, in some supermarkets that sell hot food (ie: Walmart) you can now buy foods like rotisserie chicken refrigerated because they know people using EBT will want to buy a pre-cooked chicken.
I suspect the origins of the hot-foods rule comes from some people not wanting to be seen with "poor" people sitting next to them in restaurants. That's the only reason I can see for this restriction. It's silly, and stupid.
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-ne...t-poor-reflected-gops-latest-food-stamp-bills
Fox News tried to run a smear campaign against food stamps for years, but if you haven't noticed they've stopped doing it fairly recently because they realized a big percentage of their audience relies on public assistance of some sort.
The surfer on food stamp report they ran extensively was ridiculous.
Right. You were expected to get the "square meal" if you were on free or reduced. Anything else had to be paid out of pocket.
Sure except we aren't discussing Welfare. They are two separate programs with different rules and eligibility requirements.
PS. I agree with you on welfare.
Last edited:
I never had any different lunches than my friends when I had free lunches. Same line, same food.
SNAP and other such food safety net programs are under the umbrella of welfare. So all of my arguments apply to SNAP as well. I believe that the safety net food programs should both subsidize local farmer's markets, grocers, school lunches etc, AND give people direct cash for unstigmatized and unrestricted access to whatever foods they seem best for themselves and their family. And I think this for precisely the same reason as I think welfare in general should be (mostly) unrestricted cash.
Hard disagree, i'm going to run on a platform of a rotisserie chicken in every pot
I agree. Many other countries give cash for food and it works. American exceptionalism rearing it's ugly head on this issue again.
Sure if you ignore our nations history of foodstamps for cash and how we got to EBT. Not everything is done by government to screw over the little guy.
I mean couldn't the same be said of every nation that has had food stamps or EBT? EBT also doesn't stop people from selling it for cash as many people have pointed out.
If you believe the published data it actually does. We went from 4 cents on the dollar to well under 1 cent on the dollar. That might seem like a minuscule amount but it is rather significant given the size of the program $68 billion last year.
That's insignificant compared to the overall budget, yes.
So if people still sell their EBT cards for cash,
why are we not giving them cash?
If we can trust 18 year old freshman in college to use thousands in Pell Grants wisely, why can't we trust poor people to use the average $125 wisely?
Last edited:
Who cares about the overall budget? Within the context of SNAP we have hard data about fraud prior to and post EBT. Also selling EBT cards is illegal. Now if you want to argue giving people cash then you can't assure that said money is actually going to food which is the SOLE purpose of SNAP. There are other welfare programs that do provide cash to recipients and address other living needs.
Yes. I can argue for cash for food. As I said in my edit, you can't ensure that people use Pell Grants for education expenses but still give them cash. They should get EBT cards only for things that are associated with school and living then?
Lots of countries give cash and seem to be doing fine.
Unless things have changed drastically Pell Grants in my day were automatically applied to student tuition and room & board expenses. If anything was left over that money was made available to the student for books and educational expenses. Needless to say, I was never given the opportunity to touch the money.
It does pay tuition first and room and board if one lives on campus. If you don't live on campus it pays for tuition first. Yet, the money left over is used for all kinds of things outside of education expenses.
Especially at community colleges where tuition and books are about $1000 per semester and you get $3000 from the Pell Grant alone depending on income. There's no check on what you buy. It's literally a lump sum deposited in your bank account.
10+ years in a grocery store, let me tell you some of the restrictions were weird. Like I get not wanting to use it on smokes, booze, and lottery (yea I had a five minute argument with a guy one time trying to buy $100 worth of mega millions on a food stamps card), but yea hot food should be included.
From experience I can tell you it always sucks being the cashier in the situation when certain things cannot be included and the customer gets upset.
From experience I can tell you it always sucks being the cashier in the situation when certain things cannot be included and the customer gets upset.
I think the pressure is that eating out is more expensive and you get more food purchasing at the grocery store and that people believe if you have time to eat out, you have time to cook at home.
I grew up on food stamps and I still sort of agree in the stretch of things. But then again, not everyone has a microwave, stove, dishes, ect.
Maybe someone works two jobs and McDonalds is just that convenient to help feed the family. But when I was a kid, I'd rather have $10 of food from the grocery store than a $10 fast food meal.
I grew up on food stamps and I still sort of agree in the stretch of things. But then again, not everyone has a microwave, stove, dishes, ect.
Maybe someone works two jobs and McDonalds is just that convenient to help feed the family. But when I was a kid, I'd rather have $10 of food from the grocery store than a $10 fast food meal.
Interesting. I had no clue they were offering that kind of money in Pell Grants. Like I said, the full year award wasn't even enough to cover the tuition for one semester and I went to a public school in the early 00s.
Yep. I get $6000 a year in Pell Grants. Well, it's a tiny bit less but I forget the actual number. 5900 and change.
It covers tuition for one semester for me.
But yeah, there is no check on what the rest of the money is used for.
We're America! We're totally a modern country! Look at how impressive our military is! Yeah we don't let certain people buy hot food but - check out that military!
The purpose of the restriction against hot food is not to humiliate or dehumanize poor people, but to (attempt to) ensure that food stamps are used in a thrifty, responsible manner, as hot/prepared foods are typically marked up for the implicit service rendered to the buyer. The rule seems stupid the more you focus on gray areas, but the idea is that the recipient won't go out and blow their monthly allotment in a single night at some fancy steakhouse or whatever. Is this micromanaging? Yes. But the program funding is not earmarked for such indulgences and good stewardship of the tax dollar demands some oversight.
As a former recipient, I found it frustrating and sometimes confusing to navigate permissible uses of EBT at places like Subway or Pizza Hut, where use can be limited to select items or locations. However, I primarily used EBT for groceries and found the program incredibly helpful for the six months I was on it. Restrictions should probably be streamlined a bit, but ultimately I was just grateful for the existence of the program and refused to take advantage of it when I no longer needed it.
As a former recipient, I found it frustrating and sometimes confusing to navigate permissible uses of EBT at places like Subway or Pizza Hut, where use can be limited to select items or locations. However, I primarily used EBT for groceries and found the program incredibly helpful for the six months I was on it. Restrictions should probably be streamlined a bit, but ultimately I was just grateful for the existence of the program and refused to take advantage of it when I no longer needed it.
People know what they need and what to buy, especially poor people. They know what food costs more than a rich person ever will. Just give them cash.
I'm locked in a scenario where I'm unable to accept inheritances because I'm disabled and need to keep my assets under that amount. It's bullshit.
You think what they do with EBT/Food Stamps is weird? Look into the restrictions placed on WIC.
It is always so interesting to see people try to get rid of food stamps. Like it is barely anything when it comes to the budget, and if anything it helps the businesses. Guess they hate poor people that much.
I was about to ask, do people think the same about WIC as they do about SNAP?
That is not the reason at all. That's the pitch, but it isn't the reason.
Accepting the pitch as the actual reason is like accepting that security is the reason for Trump's concentration camps, just because that's the pitch, when it's understood that the true reason is racism.
Really? Because food stamps were brought back during Kennedy's administration in 1964 to help out poor, malnourished whites in WV. Prior to that it was to help people during the Great Depression. The hot foods ban came as a result of the KFC litigation.
I am not saying that racism is not the cause as to why Republicans want to cut benefits today but the program benefits more whites than minorities. Like must social programs in our country.
Not sure what your post has to do with mine. Did you accidentally quote the wrong person?
I think they're trying to argue against racism being a factor. The problem with that is it's irrelevant; the majority of participants on any social welfare service in America are white. It's about the poor, not minorities.
I didn't say racism was the reason for not being able to buy hot food with food stamps, I said racism was the real reason for Trump's camps. I was just making the analogy between the two things because they're both cases where there's a stated reason and an actual reason.
The food stamp restriction is there because Republicans hate poor people, and want to put as many restrictions as they can on any benefits/assistance poor people receive. They try to dress it up publicly, but they aren't fooling anyone.
I thought proportionally there are more minorities than whites on Snap benefits? Percentage wise, it does help many minorities.
Last edited:
I think it would be immensely helpful to make it so hot bar items at a store were covered. After working, taking care of your kids, and doing your gorcery shopping, it'd be real nice to just be able to take a premade meal home.
Also some of you coming in here with sarcasm need to be more clear with it because it's hard to tell these days.
Also some of you coming in here with sarcasm need to be more clear with it because it's hard to tell these days.
I was on foodstamps when I took care of my disabled dad and grandma,
you could not.
You also couldn't buy soda(any kind)
(Alabama )
Last edited:
You can in my state. My friend has EBT and buys soda, candy, and chips sometimes.
Curious what state that was. Here are the federal guidelines: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items
I suppose the individual states are allowed to restrict it further?
It was designed to buy nutritious ingredients to be cooked at home and not pay the "overhead" of a restaurant. That it creates weird "cold subs are OK, but not hot meatball subs" is a by-product of that. I agree it needs to be overhauled, but I also don't think restaurant meals are what it was intended for or how it should be used/calculated. Maybe allow warm/hot ingredients at a grocery store like a rotisserie chicken, but not a meal at a restaurant?