Missouri Lawmakers Don't Want Food Stamp Recipients To Buy Steak

originally posted by: macman
Indifference or no stance is still a stance.

But it doesn't mean I'm "for" something. Which was what you originally said.

a reply to: daskakik

Since we are going there, let's post the entire demographics with regards to race:

According to demographic data, 43% of SNAP participants are white, 33% are African-American, 19% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, and 2% are Native American.

I hate cherry picking stats, specially when one is using them to make some point or other. The full data is needed in order to get the full picture.

According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know) 2010 demographics were as follows: 63.7% of the population is caucasion (non-hispanic white), 12.6% are black, 16.4% are hispanic/latino and 4.7% are non-hispanic asian.

Now we have a closer to complete picture.

a reply to: bbracken677

I dislike unnecessarily long posts. The stat that refuted the claim made in the post being replied to was given and the link posted for those who wanted a fuller picture.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok something people need to realize, the cost you're paying for food stamps is more akin to paying for insurance than it is you paying for someone else to eat. In fact I wish most insurance plans I've been on where as cheap as the one provided by food stamps.

Everyone who works pays taxes, a miniscule amount which goes to food stamps, if anyone falls down on their luck, food stamps is one of many safety nets to catch you to help you survive and get back on your feet. Like insurance, it's something you pay into while hoping you never have to use. Unlike most insurance, the cost to you to have it is abysmally small.

Most people on food stamps have, unless children, contributed to the pool that makes this safety net possible.

Whether you use it or not, and like insurance let's hope you never need to, it's there for you if and when you need it.

None of you are paying diddly squat for others to eat, instead we're all paying into a communal insurance pool to help keep us afloat should we start to be pulled under.

what gives them a right to eat unhealthy? is it prudent for the government to support an unhealthy lifestyle for people it is supposed to be protecting? people are acting like it's unreasonable to take away their potato chips and soda as if it's the only thing in life. I've been there myself with two small children (one still in diapers) and although I could blow the entire amount of stamps on a one day binge of steak and lobster with nothing left at the end of the month, I couldn't purchase essentials like diapers, soaps and toothpaste.

a reply to: bottleslingguy

Do you want to pay more tax payer money for them to go through all the costly bureaucratic tedium to change food stamps so that, while still costing the same it now adds an arbitrary restriction on certain foods? Because it's going to cost a lot of money to do this, and ultimately it's not making things really any better, you want me to pay more taxes because you are spiteful towards people on food stamps that buy things you happen to disagree with.

As it is food stamps cost what it does, you add this restriction, it will still cost us what it does, still pay out the same amount of cash, but now we'll need to fork over even more cash just so you can spitefully say to some lady, "fudge off bitch, I don't care if it's your child's 1st birthday, no candy for her."

So know what I can play the same game as you. I pay taxes, it's my money, why should I pay money to add spiteful restrictions to things? I'm ethically opposed to this use of my tax money, how dare you use my money for the pure purpose of being spiteful?

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have a relative that was collecting food stamps to get by, while working a low-paying job, and still unable to afford enough to eat. While waiting to be checked AGAIN for eligibility (white single male), he had to listen to a non-white female talking on her expensive cell phone about drug deals, and also to her bragging about how she was going to get increased benefits and how easy it was for her to do so.

So poor ( single white guy) down on his luck needing that hand-up, a person of good moral character vs the non white welfare queen with expensive cell phones and cushy drug deals wanting that hand-out, and he just happened to overheard her fiendish plots..because U sayz so..

No, he heard the because he was there. Nor did i state he was of "good moral character". In fact he isn't, but he doesn't lie about that sort of thing. If you don't believe that sort of thing happens, that's your choice; feel free to live in a delusion.

So what's the point of contrasting his whiteness to her non whiteness.

The point is that such benefits go readily and easily to minorities, and are difficult to impossible to get for whites. I know other people who were told they could not get benefits, even though seriously in need, and some of them were told flat out that if their name was Hispanic, they'd have a better shot. That was from disgusted and disgruntled workers in that field. When race is a factor in determining whether or not a person receives benefits, that ought to be an issue for everyone.

So you are telling me that food stamps is based on race/ethnicity not need, sorry I need more than just hearsay on that.

Call it what you want. When multiple people state they have heard the same thing, from different states, that don't even talk to one another, I tend to listen. You can choose to believe or not.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The stats, which you are free to doubt, say 43% of SNAP participants are white.

I am sure those are accurate. That doesn't disprove what I stated, however. Think about this. According to those stats, 57% are NOT white, but 77.7% (US Census) are not white, that means a disproportionate amount of non-whites are on welfare. Now, of course you have to factor in poverty rates (here or here). Comparing the stats is difficult, however, because the stats for Hispanics are varied by origin, on the census site, and they don't show (at least on that page) a breakdown or a national average.

None of that discounts what people have been told, however, or heard for themselves. There are problems in the system. Fraud is difficult to calculate, and we only see stats n what is officially discovered and corrected. Cases that no one will investigate, such as the one I mentioned, don't get into the stats.

Some links on fraud -

one

two

three

Keep in mind, too, that the SNAP stats assume they can track fraud because of the use of the EBT cards. s isn't realistic. All they can do is track purchases that aren't allowed. They cannot know who takes cash from others, in trade for items legally purchased on the EBT cards, and people do that all the time. So, their stats on fraud cannot be assumed to show all cases of actual fraud. Believing they do would be like claiming the number of burglaries in the country was the same as the number of burglars caught. There aren't any stats on those pages showing how many cases were reported and not investigated.

originally posted by: Aazadan
I find this hard to believe. I happen to live in a pretty high poverty area. The population demographics are over 99% white. I've never seen anyone have trouble getting assistance due to their skin color.

As far as I can tell, race is a complete non factor in who gets them. It's based entirely on income and assets.

What is more likely to have made a difference in your story is if one person had kids. You see, our system isn't designed to support adults who fall on hard times, rather it's primary function is to keep kids from being disadvantaged. Food payouts for a single person with no kids are along the lines of $60/month, but if that person has a kid? $300/month. Welfare style payments like TANF are similar. If you have no income and no kids, the government says you go out on the street. But if you have a kid you get $x for shelter. If you have 2 kids you get even more.

It is a completely backwards way to run a system, but that's how it works.

In the case of the person told she'd have a better chance if she had a Hispanic surname, she did have kids - three of them, and this was in an area with a pretty high Hispanic immigrant population as well. An area that is 99% white wouldn't be as likely to have that issue. In some areas, though, where the population demographics are different, the situation is different. Single people don't need as much help as people with kids, and if funds are limited, taking care of the kids should come first. Not the best system, but if used properly, it can help.

I can tell you this as well. As a single mother, MANY years back, I barely made enough to get by, and actually had to get help from relatives to buy enough food, and some clothing and other items, and I as told I made "too much money" for any help. Yet I talked to people who did get help, that made as much as I did, and were surprised that I couldn't get any aid. The system doesn't always work as it should.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

s a single mother, MANY years back,

Right.

MANY years back.
But, you're opposed to Progressive thinking.

Right?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nice try but your claim was that it was difficult to impossible for whites to get aide not that it was disproportionate.

What is it with these jumpy goal posts?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

s a single mother, MANY years back,

Right.

MANY years back.
But, you're opposed to Progressive thinking.

Right?

What exactly, is your question? I would consider 25+ years as "many"; wouldn't you? Relevance?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Nice try but your claim was that it was difficult to impossible for whites to get aide not that it was disproportionate.

What is it with these jumpy goal posts?

No, my claim was that some people with who I have spoken were told they could not get benefits, and that they would have a better chance if they weren't white. I never stated that no whites could get benefits. Go back and reread my posts.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I shouldn't really have to post your exact words but:

The point is that such benefits go readily and easily to minorities, and are difficult to impossible to get for whites.

Emphasis is mine of course.

I don't know what "difficult to impossible" means in your world but in mine it means "difficult to impossible". The majority of people getting aide are white so how does that show that it is "difficult to impossible"?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What exactly, is your question? I would consider 25+ years as "many"; wouldn't you? Relevance?

Yes, that is "many". The relevance: things have changed.

AKA "Progress."

a reply to: daskakik

Gotcha...but it has been my experience that most people do not follow links provided. I tested this once by making a statement and then posting a link to something entirely irrelevant. People replied to my post, but it was obvious that most had not followed the link. I think it was something along the lines of 4 replies before someone replied concerning the link provided. People tend to be lazy, particularly if the data is taken out of context and it's something they choose to believe. The internet is a fabulous place to gather information and an effed up place to disseminate misinformation as well. Then there are those who just misinterpret what they are told and have no desire to actually do the tiniest bit of research.

Hence, I try to provide the data in the post and post the link for those who want to verify. Of course...one could take it farther than I do, but one has to draw the line somewhere, no?

There was no particular intent or implication when I provided additional information except to try to paint a fuller picture of the data you provided.

a reply to: bbracken677

I understand but I posted the information relevant to the post I was replying to. Everything else provided at the site linked was irrelevant.

A long time ago I provided stats about something and the response I got was "You expect me to believe those?" I guess that made me realize that some people are not here to discuss things. They just want to say what is on their mind. Nothing wrong with that but it made me put less effort into posting.

I also try to avoid long posts, have you ever talked to someone and you can see that they stop listeneing after a couple sentences because thay are thinking about what they are going to respond. Same thing happens here.

The issue most people have with welfare/food stamps is that it has become a way of life for too many people. Have a few kids, get in the system, never get a job, keep having kids, stay on welfare for 40 years. Welfare should be uncomfortable and restrictive.

No one should get free money, they should have to pick up trash, landscape public property, provide some type of public service...anything, nothing should be free.

In order to stay on public benefits you should be required to have a full time job.

The current system encourages women to have children out of wedlock and never get it together.

a reply to: hammanderr
AMEN

IF you want those welfare dollars you should have to do something for them, unless you are sufficiently handicapped, then that is a totally different story.

IF you are going to do drugs, then you should not be entitled to welfare unless you successfully complete a drug program and then kick the drug use from then on.

I do not believe my tax dollars should be used to supplement/enable drug use.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I shouldn't really have to post your exact words but:

The point is that such benefits go readily and easily to minorities, and are difficult to impossible to get for whites.

Emphasis is mine of course.

I don't know what "difficult to impossible" means in your world but in mine it means "difficult to impossible". The majority of people getting aide are white so how does that show that it is "difficult to impossible"?

43% isn't the majority. As for the other, please amend to "in many cases and locations", since I apparently left that off. Running on too little sleep lately with a cold, and didn't realize I left that off my comment.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What exactly, is your question? I would consider 25+ years as "many"; wouldn't you? Relevance?

Yes, that is "many". The relevance: things have changed.

AKA "Progress."

What does that have to do with whether or not I am opposed to "progressive thinking"?

Things change, and things stay the same. Some of the very similar incidents with people I know were far more recent, as in under ten years ago.