Food Stamp Stigma
(cc photo by Mills Baker)
To an extent, the viability of social democratic public services depends on a cultural context that maintains a modicum of bourgeois distaste for dependence upon them. In other words, you want people to have the attitude that these services are available for people who are really in need, but that it’s preferable to earn what you need through work when possible. So I have some sympathy for Mickey Kaus’ idea that use of “food stamps” should be socially stigmatized, but I think he takes it too far:
But a stigma placed on cash-like welfare (which food stamps are) remains a positive sign of a healthy work ethic. If you came across two societies–Society A, in which food stamps were stigmatized, with families reluctant to go on the dole even if they were eligible, and Society B, in which they weren’t, you would want to bet on (and live in) Society A. It’s one thing to relax the stigma on welfare in times of epic economic decline. It’s another if the stigma doesn’t return with the possibility of employment. The CBPP chart would also have demonstrated that food stamp rolls have risen rapidly before–in the slump from 1988 to 1994–only to fall just as rapidly when the economy picked up in the mid-90s. Of course, at that time we had a President (Clinton) who was campaigning against “welfare as we know it.” It seems unlikely that President Obama will repeat the performance.
One thing here is that I just doubt that Clinton’s campaign promise to “end welfare as we know it” was really all that decisive in the decline in food stamp enrollment. Objective economic conditions improved rapidly during this period, with the late-1990s being the only period of substantial low-end wage growth of the past several decades. Whether food stamp use declines or not as we enter an economic recovery depends first and foremost on how robust that recovery actually is.
But as for Society A and Society B, whether or not I would bet on Society A is going to have a lot to do with whether Society A is suffering from much larger quantities of undernourished children. If it’s able to scrimp on food stamps without achieving that result then, yes, its bourgeois stolidity looks promising. But if Society B is doing a much better job of ensuring that its kids are healthy, then Society B is going to have a better-educated workforce, lower crime, less disability, and a generally better-off population and economy for years to come.
Which I think leads to the conclusion that the problem with SNAP isn’t that it ought to be more stigmatized, but that it’s too much like cash welfare. It’s called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and a supplemental program to assist people with obtaining adequate nutrition is a good idea. But if you read ye olde eligibility guidelines you’ll see that “nonalcoholic beverages, snack foods, soft drinks, candy, and ice.” are all eligible. I like Fritos, I like Diet Coke, I like Twizzlers, but none of this is supplementing anyone’s nutrition. Conversely, you can’t use SNAP money to buy any “foods that are hot at the point of sale” even though this restriction has nothing to do with promoting nutrition. I don’t think we need to go all the way in the direction of turning this into a monastic “fruit, vegetables, and whole grains only” program but we could surely go a good deal further in the direction of targeting the money at actual nutrition assistance.
73 Responses to “Food Stamp Stigma”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 30th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
…for all values of “you” which equal “people who do not imagine they would ever be poor or working class,” this is a true statement.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
your big mistake here is treating mickey kaus seriously.
frankly, i wouldn’t make a bet on either society because we don’t know enough about either society: whether or not food stamps are stigmatized is a piss-poor basis on which to draw broader conclusions about the economy.
(kaus, of course, is the classic carpenter to whom all problems look like nails.)
November 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
joe from Lowell nails it. Mickey Kaus should perhaps try thinking this out from behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance — if he’s got sufficient imaginative capacity to do so, which he may not.
November 30th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
…for all values of “you” which equal “people who do not imagine they would ever be poor or working class,” this is a true statement.
Mickey Kaus is just happy to live in a society where blowing goats isn’t stigmatized, as proven by his continued employment at Slate. That Mickey “goat-blower” Kaus gains carnal pleasure from blowing goats is only a surprise to those who, reasonably enough, assumed he derives sexual satisfaction from pissing on those worse off than himself.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Another insightful post.
@nolo: Kaus thinks he is looking at this from a Rawlsian perspective.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Fuck these simpleton, mean douchebags. One of their few joys in life is thinking that they’re superior to some of the poorer people they despise because they’re convinced that if they were ever in the same position, they’d make better choices, and therefore their joy in their own bitter spite is not only fun, but morally justified — hell, necessary, even godlike.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Would it be too unfair to say that this is stupid? I mean, in what universe would you want to create a social program in which people who needed it (i.e., are “eligible for”) would be expected to be too proud to apply for it? What you want is the opposite–a society where people would prefer to go get a job rather than standing in line for the dole–but that’s essentially what we have, so there’s nothing to complain about there.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
How exactly does stigmaticing food stamps help to push people towards getting work instead of welfare? One might think the pure fiscal part of haveing more money might be enough especially considering US welfare levels. Stigmaticing poor people is precisly what keeps them down in every thinkable way, social stigma makes people literarly fat sick stupid and unhappy. That will help a lot in the job market.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I used to work at a grocery store – I definitely saw some straight up 3 cases of Mountain Dew EBT transactions. WIC is much more restrictive about what is eligible, but it forces mostly good choices (blah blah dairy industry lobbying caveat blah blah). It is also a huge hassle to ring up.
I think it’s also hard to make a clear “junk food” exclusion – even for something as seemingly simple as pop.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I would bet on society B so long as you have to be rather impoverished to be eligible for food stamps. Anyone who has had a whopping income of $760.00 a month and been ineligible for food stamps would understand this.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: One thing here is that I just doubt that Clinton’s campaign promise to “end welfare as we know it” was really all that decisive in the decline in food stamp enrollment. Objective economic conditions improved rapidly during this period, with the late-1990s being the only period of substantial low-end wage growth of the past several decades. Whether food stamp use declines or not as we enter an economic recovery depends first and foremost on how robust that recovery actually is. [...]
November 30th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
An excerpt from the new book “Survival+: Structuring Prosperity for Yourself and the Nation” by Charles Hugh Smith
“Thus when I speak of The Plutocracy I refer not to a formal conspiracy with meetings and officers but to a self-organized Elite based on protecting their ownership of 2/3
of the productive wealth of the nation., As each acts to protect his/her wealth at the highest reaches of influence (tax shelters, tax breaks, legislative exclusions, legal
rulings,etc) then they are also acting to defend their class.
The notion that a rentier-financial power Elite wields largely hidden sway over much of the US wealth, political process and media is not new…
…What I term the Plutocracy has been fully researched and documented. To question its existence and power is not a matter of opinion but of misinformation.
Why would intelligent , middle class people consciously or unconsciously defend and support a conceptual system which so heavily favors an Elite over the common good?
Certainly self-interest plays a major role. If you are reporting events and trends that undermine your employers’ wealth and power, you may well conclude that favoring
the status quo in all matters will protect your career, income and status far more effectively than announcing the Emperor has no clothes.
As a free-lance writer in the mainstream media, I witnessed how such mechanisms work in the real world. Media organizations depend on large advertisers for their income, and even though “editorial” (news and commentary) is separated from “advertising/marketing”
everyone is aware that negative reporting could influence income and thus eventually detract from each individual’s ability to pay their child’s tuition, make the car
payment,etc. ”
————
The difference , of course, is that when Republicans stab us in the back by whoring for the Plutocracy, they do so out of strong inclination. The Republican is the butt-kissing corporate apple polisher — someone who would die if he had to do honest work and show competence.
In contrast, when Democrats stab us in the back by whoring for the Plutocracy, they feel compelled to cover the act with a veil of hypocrisy and to pretend that they do so with reluctance.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
I would prefer to live in a society that doesn’t stigmatize either food stamps or kicking Mickey Kaus in the balls. Okay, I’m ashamed to admit that I’d vastly prefer the latter to the former.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
One of the signs of a positive work ethic is the willingness of affluent people to pay their share of taxes, and perhaps more than their share. Of course, my experience is that this doesn’t happen, and there’s absolutely no stigma associated with f*cking the government out of tax revenues in every way possible.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Does “stigmatizing welfare” mean “holding poor people morally culpable for being poor”?
What a crude bit of utilitarian thinking.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Matt,
Ah, but you forget that the “deficit hawks” in the flyover states have ginormous “food” factories that produce that non-nutritional crap we Americans so love to snarfle.
And besides, if we made a “monastic fruit, vegetable and whole grains only” program, people might develop a taste for actual nutrients and actual, you know, farmers might get more of the food dollar than the corporate factories.
Well! We certainly can’t have that! Somebody’s campaign contributions might shrink.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
@Don #12,
Republicans don’t just pucker, they give rim-jobs.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
somehow this pile of crap from kaus reminds me of the standard saletan pile of crap on abortion.
i.e., “i admit that the untouchables sometimes do things that are unspeakable, and i don’t have any useful plans for reducing how often they commit their unspeakable acts. but the really important thing is that i get to frown haughtily, shame them, and swan along in my state of high moral dudgeon.”
fnck them both.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
There’s a great scene in “Precious” where the title character calculates the amount she will get paid per hour as a home care worker, once her transportation time is factored in (and I think the fact that she’d be sleeping over there). It works out to something like $3 or $4 an hour, working 6 days a week.
This demand for “bourgeois distaste” is just so much more repulsive when it’s teamed with ignorance of how hard it is to make ends meet on a minimum wage job. Sorry, but I’m not going to label people untouchables because they’re swiping a food stamp card instead of a credit card
(oh, and Mickey, the 2-5% markup built into the price of food at supermarkets where you shop? That you don’t see or even think about? That’s the percentage poor people pay so that YOU can have the convenience of charging your groceries. On many, many levels, they are subsidizing your lifestyle).
I’ll bet Mickey Kaus doesn’t even know the current minimum wage in his state.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Speaking of stigma, the difference between food stamps for the poor and TARP for the rich is…….
November 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Two things,
1) Stigmatizing the welfare recipients will drive away the people you really want to help. The crooks and cheats don’t care.
2) Keep in mind that in an unequal society as ours, welfare is the price we pay for not having hordes of beggars and petty criminals on our streets. Anyone that has lived in Mexico, Brazil or India, can tell you that is well worth it.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
“To an extent, the viability of social democratic public services depends on a cultural context that maintains a modicum of bourgeois distaste for dependence upon them.”
I really can’t swear enough to indicate my irritation at this statement. Social democracy is the complete opposite of the idea that only poor people should get help – social democracy in fact advances the concept of social solidarity, that all parts of society are entitled to economic security and social protection from all risks of modern life. Indeed, as every political scientist, political sociologist, and political/policy historian has shown in the last fifty years, the metric by which one tests for the relative social-democracyness of a country is the extent to which its programs are universal and by right, not means-tested.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Kaus seems to ignore that fact that many food stamps recipients are working. In fact you do the same.
He simply assumes that if people have a healthy work ethic then they will have wages high enough to afford a thrifty healthy diet for their families.
This is just not true.
In general Kaus seems to assume that wages are like hours of work. I’m sure, if asked, he would say that we need incentives to invest in human capital just as we need incentives to work — that is he would claim that high wages are due to high ability which is due to effort devoted to learning valuable skills.
People who study wages (search google scholar for L. Katz) argue that a whole lot of the huge variation is due to luck. This is not just having the more valued skin color and genitalia. It isn’t even just having an advantaged socioeconomic background. This can be proven by observing what happens to the wages of workers who work in a factory which closes.
Now Kaus has a semi valid much over stated point about TANF vs the EITC. The EITC encourages work (as does the ARRA making work pay tax cut). TANF discourages it. As you note, Kaus is one of many people who give welfare reform credit for the consequences of the late 90s boom. The increase in the employment to population ratio was proof that welfare reform worked. Well welfare is still reformed but the employment to population ratio is no longer high. Analysing data the crude way Kaus does should lead him to conclude that he was wrong — that he mistook the effect of a boom for the effect of the reform. Of course he will never admit he was wrong. He is Mickey Kaus.
But his latest effort is really extreme. Food stamps are available both the the working poor and the non working poor. They are like a mix of TANF and the EITC. Kaus just decided to ignore this fact. He is not reality based.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
When I worked in a grocery store in the late 80s, food stamps couldn’t be used to purchase candy. Hence the common practice of someone making a purchase with food stamps, then taking the change (change less than $1 was given in cash), and then purchasing a candy bar with it. Of course, you couldn’t do that with today’s EBT cards.
The only time I’ve felt curmudgeonly about food stamps was the time I witnessed someone purchasing lobster with them.
November 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Lobster was cheaper than bologna this summer.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
I think the USDA makes a pretty good case here about why they don’t do what Matt is suggesting:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramOperations/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf
November 30th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
To an extent, the viability of social democratic public services depends on a cultural context that maintains a modicum of bourgeois distaste for dependence upon them.
Really it doesn’t. Not at all. Means-testing is perfectly sufficient. Most Americans would have to make a lot less money to qualify for most if not all forms of welfare. Why they would give up their lifestyles just to be able to freeload at a much lower living standard, only Mickey Kaus knows.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
That’s a great link, Jim @ 26. They make their point clearly and concisely. Matt should read that link, if he looks through these comments.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Why not just have soup kitchens where people can go if they need food and have no money?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
As far as food stamps and welfare in general are concerned , i think thatthere always has been a stigma attached and that there still is.
MR Kaus writes that this stigma is disappearing.But he bases this whole premis on his interpatation of a New York Times article.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Re: It is also a huge hassle to ring up.
Why is this? I’ve stood in line behind people using WIC and it was a major pain in the butt. Why can’t they just make a WIC debit card that only works for certain items, the way they do with the food stamp card (which can only be used for food, not booze, cigarettes or a million an on other non-edibles). Surely this would not tax the talents and abilities of retail and govermment IT?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Mickey Kaus is an unimaginably vast gaping anus.
I’ve definitely heard it said that the weirdness in America about public social services emerges precisely from the perception that they’re for Poor People — whereas in European social democracies, supposedly, people of all social strata use the public services, thus broadening the constituency that relies upon them and demands more of them.
Matt and other readers here know more about Europe than I do — any truth to that?
And, if true, wouldn’t it be a sharp stick to the eye of the Kaus theory?
November 30th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
You like Fritos? Ugh.
November 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
people of all social strata use the public services, thus broadening the constituency that relies upon them and demands more of them.
Hence the success and widespread support of Social Security.
November 30th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Quick poll question – How high would you set the guaranteed minimum income?
10k, 20k, 30k, 40k?
November 30th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Well I don’t think people on nutrition assistance should survive on Navaho fry bread, which is the best thing you can make with flour, sugar and lard. S
November 30th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
JMO – I’d say 8k for all working households, plus a job guarantee.
FlipYrWhig – No, you’re right. Public services are more cross-class in Europe than in the U.S’ more means-tested system.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Under the Bush administration a lot of states loosened asset tests, so a lot of middle class families can become eligible for food stamps during periods of unemployment. This is good. Welfare programs will have a much broader base of support if they give assistance to a wide range of people in need, rather than just people in chronic poverty.
I don’t believe in adding additional restrictions on what you can buy with food stamps. But it would be a good idea to allow food stamps to count for double on fruits and vegetables, so people aren’t incentivized to buy just junk food to get the most calories for the buck. Or maybe the other way, so that chips and soda would cost double on food stamps.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Re: Why not just have soup kitchens where people can go if they need food and have no money?
Because those are WAY more stigmatizing then food stamps.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Because those are WAY more stigmatizing then food stamps.
The reason the food stamp program was created in the first place is that people were too ashamed to go for that sort of charity, even if they really needed it, so they would just go malnourished. No one wants to take their kids and be surrounded by a bunch of homeless people and churchy do-gooders.
Food stamps allow you to shop at practically any grocery store. Now with EBT even the people in line don’t have to see you’re using food stamps. Hopefully that means fewer kids will go hungry.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Hopefully that means fewer kids will go hungry.
And those who insist on having children they can’t support should be sterilized.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Also, the penalty for being convicted of any form of child abuse should be sterilization, in addition to the required harsh prison sentance.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Funny you should post this bit of nonsense from Kaus Matt, I just finished reading this excellent essay by Tony Judt that deals quite nicely with this topic:
This “disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition…is…the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.” Those are not my words. They were written by Adam Smith, who regarded the likelihood that we would come to admire wealth and despise poverty, admire success and scorn failure, as the greatest risk facing us in the commercial society whose advent he predicted. It is now upon us.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
grrr – I mean sentence.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I’ve definitely heard it said that the weirdness in America about public social services emerges precisely from the perception that they’re for Poor People — whereas in European social democracies, supposedly, people of all social strata use the public services, thus broadening the constituency that relies upon them and demands more of them.
It is easy to imagine actually, just think of Medicare. Medicare is universal, for those over a certain age, and is not stigmatized, neither is social security.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
in addition to the required harsh prison sentance.
People who can’t spell “sentence” should be sterlized. Though in jmo’s case, we’ll make an exception, as he’s not likely to be fucking anything other than his hand.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Mickey Kaus is a loathsome turd whose opinion isn’t worth considering for a millisecond.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Re: And those who insist on having children they can’t support should be sterilized.
Just out of curiosity, you realise that high birth rates among the poor are the reason America has a replacement level fertility right now? The cool dudes like Mr. Yglesias concider themselves too fashionable for fertility.
Those kids in line at the soup kitchen are going to be paying your Social Security taxes someday. I would show some courtesy if I were you.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Re: No one wants to take their kids and be surrounded by a bunch of homeless people and churchy do-gooders
I’ve volunteered quite a lot as one of those ‘churchy do gooders’, and what you say is sad but true. I’d suspect the vast majority of the poor have too much pride to ever go to one.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
It is easy to imagine actually, just think of Medicare. Medicare is universal, for those over a certain age, and is not stigmatized, neither is social security.
Medicare and Social Security, most people feel, are prepaid. You pay your 40 quarters of FICA and you become eligible for SS. I think you’d get a lot more support for social insurance if you required a certain number of taxable quarters before one became eligible.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Re: Though in jmo’s case, we’ll make an exception, as he’s not likely to be fucking anything other than his hand.
And goats. Don’t forget the goats.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Hector,
What % of poor women are poor because they chose to have extra-marital sex and as a result became pregnant?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Hector,
You have admitted your still a virgin, right?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
There has been some discussion on this thread about whether there is a stigma about social services in Europe.i am genuinly curious as to whether any European country has an equivilant to food stamps.
I know that in many European countries the unemployment payments can be generous.Allthough i did once meet a British guy who had been on “the dole” .And the amount of money that he got was around $100 a week according to him.But that may have been because of him being 20 years old[ i think its less
for younger people].He also got on a list for public housing.But he didnt mention any kind of food payments.
Does anyone here know if there is an equivilant for food stamps in any European country?And how much a person recieves and how the system works? I offer a thank you in advance to anyone that could enlighten me.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Ahem. Back on track, here:
JMO – “social insurance” is defined as contributory social programs. Are you suggesting that food stamps should be made universal and contributory?
November 30th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Are you suggesting that food stamps should be made universal and contributory?
Possibly but I think we should have a very generous SSI (disability) system, as well as a very generous unemployment insurance system. If you choose not to work or have mismanaged your affairs such that you are unemployable but not disabled, I’m not sure how generous benefits should be.
November 30th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Matt says:
“But as for Society A and Society B, whether or not I would bet on Society A is going to have a lot to do with whether Society A is suffering from much larger quantities of undernourished children.”
Does Society A with much larger quantities of undernourished children happen to be the same one in which are set two current hit movies, “Precious” and “The Blind Side,” about two impoverished 16 year olds who together weigh 700 pounds?
Just asking …
November 30th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Those kids in line at the soup kitchen are going to be paying your Social Security taxes someday. I would show some courtesy if I were you.
Or they will follow the path of their forebears and simply have children who are supported by the government dole.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Oh, and Steve Sailer, would the protagonists of Precious and the The Blind Side happen to be persons of color? Excuse me while I puke my fowty of Colt 45 and chicken wings in your lap.
Matt, shut it down, dude, this is beyond embarrassing–and, as for your monastic leanings, I got this to say: Fuck you, you Upper West Side Harvard-eddicated puke. This post is really the living end. I think Werner Herzog should be filming this.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:33 am
How about this possibility: In a society where people who take arguments put forth by Mickey Kaus seriously were stigmatized, would Mickey Kaus continue to embarass Slate every-other submission or would they give him the boot?
The guy is kinda entertaining on bloggingheads.tv because he’s good at trolling Robert Wright with non-sequitors, but that’s about it.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:13 am
Say this for Steve Sailer: he doesn’t mind showing his obsessions. I bet he finds a way to talk about Matt having nothing to say about Dreams of My Father, too.
Incidentally, obesity and nourishment are not the same thing. Obesity is very common among the poor.
Also incidentally, those movies have nothing at all to do with this conversation.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:17 am
Pete from Baltimore
Details of how social assistance works in European countries can be found on the OECD website for “Benefits and wages”
http://www.oecd.org/document/3/0,3343,en_2649_34637_39617987_1_1_1_1,00.html
No European country has the precise equivalent of food stamps as far as I am aware – they mainly provide cash assistance, and a number provide a lot of help with rental cists.o
For families with children the USA has the fourth lowest social assistance benefits in the OECD – Italy and Turkey have no benefits and Greece has next to nothing. See http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/31/43728718.pdf
December 1st, 2009 at 3:21 am
For someone who has an awful lot (of bullshit) to say about black people, Popeye’s only interactions with them appear to be via the medium of cinema. Why does that not surprise me one fucking bit?
December 1st, 2009 at 5:06 am
It’s just not plausible to write laws to restrict what sort of food people buy. However, they hand out recipes and guides on how to buy good food and stretch their dollars.
Notice also you cannot buy cold medicine or toilet paper, either, nor things to cook food with.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:09 am
What an elitist asshole detached from ordinary reality. I cut you some slack back when you were a cock-sure college kid starting a blog, you were smart, well-written, and though too self-sure of yourself by half that was in my mind just characteristic of your youth. Well you are not a kid and stuff like this gets you out of my bookmarks. Plus I could give a shit about basketball and indie bands.
Man you are so detached from reality. Suppose you are an unemployed single mom living in a hotel with three kids with inadequate air-conditioning. You stop at the grocery store. You can’t afford much but you can get your kids a bag of lemon drops or some cookies and an .89 2 liter bottle of store brand pop. Plus since the mini-fridge in the hotel won’t hold your gallon of milk or produce more ice than enough for a glass of ice water you buy some ice for your picnic cooler. Nope, if Matt had his way you couldn’t have ANY of that. All of that has nothing to do with nutrition, get thee to the organic produce aisle!
On the other hand the prohibition on hot foods is designed to keep families from blowing their whole allotment on take out Chinese.
Shit you can take the boy out of upper Manhatten but you can’t take upper Manhatten out of the boy. See you when you post something interesting enough to be linked from somewhere else.
Christ.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:17 am
jmo Says: And those who insist on having children they can’t support should be sterilized.
When my wife and I had our three kids we were making enough to support ourselves.
Then Appointed-By-God Perfect Republican President Bush and the Conservatives carefully engineered the destruction of the global economy.
Today our entire monthly income for a middle-class family of 5 averages $500. We just got our EBT card yesterday.
So, jmo, fuck you and the conservative assholes you rode in on.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:30 am
Yep, my family of five are now on the dole. Just yesterday we received our EBT card. My wife and I are in our 40s and have never, ever needed public assistance before.
But that was before the Conservatives destroyed America’s economy for the fun of it.
We now receive (according to the paperwork) over $700 a month in foodstamps! We haven’t been able to afford to go food shopping since September. Yesterday my wife got the card and went shopping. She came home with $500 worth of food.
We didn’t do crazy, we bought stuff we normally do, and that included one box of crab cakes and some salmon patties. But we also got four boxes of generic ‘O’s and generic corn flakes. We didn’t buy the more expensive brand names, because we usually don’t buy those anyway. But speaking of brand-names I was even kidding my wife for buying ‘Crisco’ brand cooking oil, but she said it was on sale and cheaper than the rest of the brands.
Our cupboards were so bare that $500 of food simply brought us back to our usual amount.
And let me tell you what a relief it is to know my kids had a good healthy dinner last night. We got broccoli and green beans and salad, great food! It was a bigger feeling of relief than I had anticipated.
jmo, thank you for buying my kids some dinner.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:11 am
Rutherford,
You’ve paid your share of taxes – you have every right to be helped out. But, I don’t think people should be eligable until they’ve paid a few quarters worth of taxes (10 quartes at least).
December 1st, 2009 at 10:15 am
Regarding comment 62 from Pete from Sydney
MR Pete thank you for your reply and the links . The first ones files didnt open on my computer for some reason.But the second one did and was interesting.I knew that European benifits were more generous than our own.But apparently South Korean and Japenese benifits are more generous as well.
Best regards to you sir
December 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
JMO – that makes little sense. From a human rights perspective, people have a right to not starve to death that is beyond considerations of actuarial standards. This is especially true in regards to children; they didn’t choose whether their parents paid taxes, after all.
Rutherford’s case points exactly to the larger logic of solidaristic social protection: while the poor need more help on a regular basis, social programs like food stamps exist to protect everyone from the sudden loss of economic security, because anyone, even middle class folks, can get tripped up in an economic downturn.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
people have a right to not starve to death that is beyond considerations of actuarial standards.
If people have the opertunity to work but choose not to they should starve. If they can’t work, or no work is available, they should receive assistance.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Maybe society should stigmatize Mickey Kaus. Food stamps and public assistance are there to protect us. The well to do especially. If we had no social safety net, the combined effects of a heavily armed population and hunger would maybe have some severe consequences.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Re: But, I don’t think people should be eligable until they’ve paid a few quarters worth of taxes (10 quartes at least).
Apparently you are OK with starving babies since they have not paid any taxes.