Food stamps and the I-know-what's-best-for-you crowd

[kengr]

The other day I caught someone on the news about some politician wanting to remove soda pop from the list of things you can buy with food stamps.

As someone who has had to depend on food stamps many times over the years, this annoyed me greatly. Today my feelings finally settled in on two items that may get across *why* I think this is a really stupid idea.

First of all besides the "sugary drinks are bad" bit (which I'll cover under point 2) I note that he's not calling for coffee, tea or any of a host of other drinks that you *can* buy with food stamps, but which have no "nutritional significance (other than calories) to be removed. Double standard much?

Second, food stamps are *very* limiting. Moreso know than when I first encountered them in the mid 70s. $200 a month max benefit for a single person (and I understand it may be lowered soon). Food stamps have *not* kept up with inflation, BTW. The single person benefit in 1975 was over $100 a month. And I dare anybody to tell me that food prices haven't *more* than doubled since then.

So, you have less than $7 a day to allocate to meals. If you are a good cook, you can use spices and the like to help keep the food from being too boring. Even so, a lot of the food is going to be moderately bland. Especially if you aren't good with spices.

So, both for variety and for sanity, you will be buying some stuff that isn't cheap. "Treats" are more important when you are stuff with a limited menu.

Me? I check the marked down stuff for the bakery, for the produce section and for the meat dept. Last month I was lucky and happened to be in the store as they were putting out the marked down meat that day. Just after Labor Day. I scored a bunch of steaks for about $2/lb. They went into the freezer and got pulled out a few at a time.

Of course, I'm sure there'd be folks who'd be livid if they saw me buying those steaks and knew I was using foodstamps.

Look folks, if you qualify for food stamps at all, things are at least somewhat grim. Denying folks the ability get the occasional treat if they can budget it is just being mean.

Oh. Wait. I forgot, no one on welfare or foodstamps or any other government aid program *deserves* anything good. If they weren't bad peoiple or failures, they woulldn't need the help.

Trust me, when you strip off the rhetoric, that's what just about all the rants about those programs biol down to.

Well, here's a hearty Fuck You to the folks who are so lacking in empathy or so blinded by ideoology that they want to make bad situations worse.

Comments

You've got a good set of observations there.

[capybyra.livejournal.com]

I heard it also described as somehow being a superset of Schadenfreude when folks get childish about social safety programs. There's a rage in their hearts fueled by several unlovely malfunctions. It's not enough for them to know someone is NEEDING any sort of help, they want to be ACTIVE in making other people's lives suck.

After all- what else can explain some of their political absurdities?

[maxstories.livejournal.com]

There's a simple explanation. They don't want to buy someone else's meal.

It sounds rather unkind, but it's not like anyone is buying their meals for them.

The vast majority of humans would prefer to produce more than they consume.

[capybyra.livejournal.com]

And if we did not have an economic structure based on so many kinds of evil that we;re hearing sober discussions advocating a "Reboot" of it?

If we had a balanced, non-corrupt world economy, the number of people needing survival assistance would be vastly fewer. As they could then support themselves and families by what we used to call honest wages for honest work. And such a world economy tends to have more niches for more people that wish only to have employment within their abilities. Which becomes possible as the cost of living decreases due to elimination of economic crimes against humanity.

Were we able to create a world that enables all to survive whilst abusing none, we'd shortly see a rabid shrill, opposition to that world. Mostly from those haters who would loathe losing their Schadenfreude orgasms.

[maxstories.livejournal.com]

There's a different problem here than "being mean." It's the associated health consequences of poor diet related to poor choices.

In England they have started food classes to try and teach people how to prepare and live on basic foods - because they are very concerned that the meal of choice for a low income family is McDonalds. In the US the talk is about limited what can be bought in order to drive people to healthier choices.

The problem is that most healthier choices are subject to fast spoilage and are expensive. Chips and soda may not be healthy, but you can get a good sized bag or 12 pack and it'll last for months while you eat it. Get salad makings and milk, and they spoil fast over a week. Plus the cost is much higher for fresh items, including the cost of getting to the store and back for folks dependent on public transportation or far from a store.

My cynical take is the push by NYC is about increased revenue. The highest markup is on dairy products, fresh produce, and the like. I think a better state-wide approach would be to provide discounts to folks on food stamps for regionally produced goods (in New York State that would be everything from dairy products to chicken products to apple juice to grain products) which then both provides healthier options *and* more benefit for the local economy.

My optimistic POV is that this is overdue. People at risk of poor health are hardly the population you want to subsidize with junk food. There are healthy rewards out there after all. And teaching people to eat healthier benefits them in the long run even if it requires a forcible change in habits in the short term.

Then again, my mother can make a meal for seven people out of one can of tuna fish and a jar of mayonnaise. So I may be biased since folks who grew up in the projects in the Northeast never had all these perks people fight for today. I try to live off rotisserie chicken ($4.99) and orange juice ($2.50 a carton). The chicken I can stretch for a couple of days. But the orange juice is rather dear and expensive.

[(Anonymous)]

I eat a *lot* of rice and beans. That lets me save money that can be used for "better" stuff stuff to pad things out.

Good Points, in the proper perspective though?.

[capybyra.livejournal.com]

People lacking a proper kitchen of their own are inherently unable to eat as healthy as people with a kitchen. And teaching them what we used to call "Home Ec" skills fails if we cannot give kitchens to those who have none. See the works of Bucky Fuller for some ideas on that concept.

Re: Good Points, in the proper perspective though?.

[kengr]

Actually, if you don't have cooking facilities, you aren't eligible for food-stamps.