There was an interesting post over at The Broke and Beautiful Life. In it, the author examines the idea of telling people receiving “entitlements” (ugh) how to spend it. For example, should people who have to live in subsidized housing be getting pets? Should we make welfare recipients eat better?
To her credit, she’s not comfortable telling people how to live. She’s just also not necessarily comfortable with supporting people’s bad habits, I suppose.
And I don’t think that any of us love the idea of people in poverty eating poorly. As TBBL points out, eating poorly can lead to future health problems, presumably dealt with on the government’s dime as well. Fair enough. Poor eating will generally lead to poor health. On the other hand, most people develop some health problems as they age, which would eventually be covered under Medicare. Plenty of diseases attack based on family history or crappy luck.
But I will concede that eating healthily is a good preventative measure. So ideally we would ask people receiving government funds to attend some healthy cooking classes. That would be a good idea. Here’s a few things that I think financially comfortable people might forget, though:
- What do the people do with their kids when they go take the class?
- Can they afford the gas money/bus fare to get to the class?
- Do they have access to a store that actually sells healthy food?
- Do they get enough in food stamps to be able to afford even cheap fruits and vegetables? Even canned fruit and vegetables can be around $2 each.
Other than that I think the idea is flawless.
The thing is that I feel her discomfort. I hate the idea of people feeding their kids and themselves crap. I don’t care that it’s “our” money their spending. Because it isn’t. The check is in their name. Unless you want to start bitching about how your roads or your garbage dumps are maintained, I suggest you accept that the money is theirs. What I hate is that they’re spending their limited funds on it. .
But I’m not comfortable telling people what they can and can’t spend food stamps on. I think the current restrictions (no cigarettes, alcohol, etc) are enough. At least for my own comfort level.
If you’re someone who does feel comfortable with more oversight, then I want you to go lecture some old people about their money. I mean, Social Security is checks sent by the government to people who aren’t working, or at least aren’t working full-time anymore. Isn’t that welfare? Should they really be using our money on pet food or dinners out?
Oh, right. It’s different because people “earn” Social Security. Even though the money they get is technically from workers today, not money set aside from the FICA taxes they themselves paid. But they worked, unlike all those shiftless layabouts on welfare, like Walmart employees and fast food workers. And it’s not as though people ever accrue Social Security benefits without working. There are absolutely no spousal benefits available or Supplemental Security Income.
So go find some little old grandmothers and review their lifestyles. Or a solider. Military families redeemed $104 million in food stamps in military commissaries in 2013. (Notice that’s not including regular grocery stores. Just the ones on base.) And they live in the ultimate form of subsidized housing. Tell them they don’t deserve a family dog.
And if you’re not comfortable doing that, then butt the hell out of the rest of it.
What are your thoughts on dictating how these funds are spent? Do you think food stamps should have more restrictions?
Kat says
Calling social safety net programs "entitlements" is one of the stupidest and most insulting things people can say. Quite frankly, the post disgusted me- and not just because of the author's choice of wording. A lot of big points were missed, minimized, or straight up wrong.
The majority of people who receive assistance from the government have one thing in common- they will go off of assistance. By far the biggest demographic of people who receive assistance are those who use it as a temporary measure to pull themselves through a bad situation. Considering we're the only first world country where having a medical crisis can bankrupt you, that statistic isn't one we should be ignoring. The other big populations who receive assistance? The young, the elderly, and people who are employed. However, it's not convenient to someone whining about how "my tax dollars are being spent" to find that out, or even acknowledge it. The other one that gets me on a soap box is the idea that any assistance should be tied to every adult in the household passing a drug test. Several areas have tried it, and they run right smack dab into a few cold hard truths. The biggest one is that the poor don't face a higher percentage of people who suffer addiction- though poor people with substance abuse issues are more likely to go to prison for nonviolent offenses, and less likely to receive help. The other thing they run into? The expense of running all of those drug tests is WAY higher than the amount of money that is withheld due to failed drug tests- there simply aren't enough addicts to make it a "money saving solution."
My two cents? We're having the wrong conversation about assistance in this country. Yes, people who receive food stamps or other federal assistance programs have a high rate of consumption when it comes to highly processed and unhealthy foods. Can you blame them? These families have exhausted adults- a lot of them work full time at physically demanding jobs, some of them work two jobs to try and keep their households afloat. Meal preparation can be too much to handle on top of that workload. If that wasn't bad enough, we're seeing more and more cuts to food subsidy programs and other forms of assistance, and these foods provide calorie dense cheap options- something adults are going to turn to in an effort to keep children from feeling the hunger pains. One in six children will face hunger- not skipping a meal, not having a few lean days a month, but systematic and pervasive hunger. When you look at that statistic, your first reaction shouldn't be to insist you know best how to spend "your tax dollars"- it should be to try and help. Instead, we have people complaining about their tax dollars, Congress cutting funding for food programs while throwing a fortune to big agriculture companies, and food banks/pantries struggling to help more people with less. Until food programs actually provide enough money for people to get enough to eat, even with rising food costs? We need to focus on that problem.
The other big problem I have with that piece of writing is her justification for trying to micromanage people who receive assistance is the justification of combatting health care costs. Yet, she ignores a rather interesting fact. We know of a passive form of therapy that is very inexpensive compared to its benefits. Some of those benefits include: reduced stress, lower blood pressure, a lower instance of asthma and severe allergies in children. Certain forms of this therapy can even lead to higher levels of activity, and even the smallest/least expensive forms of it lead to better overall mood- something that does have a great effect on health care outcomes. That therapy? Pet ownership. Even something as small and easy to care for as a betta fish can help with someone's mood, and dog owners have higher activity levels than non-pet owners. Cats? Provide companionship to people with limited mobility, and can even help dementia patients stay calmer (most dementia wards in assisted living facilities have a cat or two around). Taking all of that in, objecting to people wanting to have a pet who offers comfort during hard and frustrating times seems a bit silly.
Kai says
THIS^
seattlegirluw says
Amen! I did want to make some of the points — and, yes, the word entitlement does make cringe (though I *think* she was using the word semi sarcastically — alas, I didn't think people would wade through1200+ words. Thank you, as always, for making the points I couldn't and for the info I didn't know about. You're always an awesome commenter!
AuntLeesie says
What Kat said. 🙂 Because our little strip of coastline has a moderate climate, we've had a big increase in homeless here. Did you know many have dogs… and they'll feed the dogs before they feed themselves? Also, for the not-homeless-but-poor (folks on SNAP, Wic and/or needing to rely on Food Banks for food), it's hard to imagine they'd be able to swing what government and the media call a "healthy" diet. Lean cuts of meat, seafood, whole grains and organically grown fresh produce are very high dollar items in just about any grocery store in the country. I checked prices in Virginia and Arkansas last December. I know what they run in CA because I shop here every week. Items as simple as brown rice are much higher priced than bulk white rice. Even dry beans are no longer as cheap per pound as they once used to be. If the rest of us have had sticker shock at the store in the past few months, imagine someone truly poor. I'm not about to criticize their choices. Any food is better than NO food.
Abigail says
I can only imagine. Especially for people working so many hours that they don't have the energy to go store-to-store for the best deals on everything.
Donna Freedman says
This plus 10 googols.
On another occasion Abby started a pissing match (but didn't want to!) when replying to another blogger about the notion of "a level playing field." If I may post, here's the URL to the piece I wrote responding to her response: http://donnafreedman.com/2012/10/25/if-youre-so-s…
(For newer readers who missed it the first time around, her original post is linked to in my piece.)
Abigail says
For the record, I didn't mean to start a pissing match this time. (I didn't think I had, actually.) I think a lot of us at least briefly have these thoughts when we consider what a lot of poorer people buy. And it can even be tempting to want to make changes so that people are feeding themselves better. I understand the knee-jerk, and I experience it myself from time-to-time — which is the height of being a hypocrite, considering my diet.
AuntLeesie says
Abby, don't feel bad. I've been very humbled in recent years. First by some very wise women on MSN's former Smart Spending board who reminded me of the lessons my grandmother had taught me… but I'd conveniently forgotten because it felt like too much work. Second by coming in close contact with real-life folks dealing with real-life, difficult issues and no real-life support system in place. And lastly by cross country travel in the past few years. Seeing poverty. Hunger. Being reminded about the things I've taken for granted most of my adult life. Things like having the time, resources and skills to feed my family well if I have the willingness to put in the effort. Realizing (and trust me, I'm a bit slow) that not everyone has the interest or ability to do what I do. Which doesn't make them wrong and me right. At 52, I'm still learning.
thebrokeandbeautifullife says
I use the word "entitlement" because it is the word most commonly used in media and therefore most recognized.
The point of the post is to start a thoughtful discussion, and I appreciate the points raised here. I think many of them are fair just as I feel many of the concerns I and others have are fair.
Overall, my goal is to share my initial reaction and then explore how things may be a little more complex than an initial judgement and what possible solutions there are. At the end of the day, I stand by my conclusion that monitoring is probably not the way to go and better education (from sex education to life skills) early on, is probably the single most effective thing that can be done.
seattlegirluw says
As I said, some of your points resonated with me. But ultimately, I think people have pretty big double standards when thinking about this.
I do have to disagree about the word entitlements. I think it is a far less often used word than welfare or government assistance/benefits. In fact, entitlement tends to be used as a pejorative term, given the flavor of the word.
Susan says
Re the point about being to afford good food, check out "Wildly Affordable Organic by Linda Watson. She took on the challenge of trying to eat good food on the amount allowed in her State for food stamps. Her book gives the entire program. Grocery lists, recipes, cooking plans for minimizing the work, etc. She even gives a budget, and then an organic option which is a little more than the food stamp budget. The cheaper option is stuff you can find in a standard grocery store. A very good contribution-maybe the book needs to be handed out with the first food stamp card so people can make an informed decision if they wish. Some of the problem is lack of information.
seattlegirluw says
Interesting. It would definitely be a good resource. But again please don't forget that not everyone has access to a standard store. Still sounds like something that should be used more.
AuntLeesie says
Susan, while I applaud anyone trying to help folks needing government programs for food, I can tell you that I cook from scratch, waste nothing, and six months ago was able to feed six adults (my family and our elderly neighbors) on about $70 per week including our weekly splurge of good coffee from a local roaster. A month ago, my weekly grocery bill climbed to about $90 per week for the same items I'd always buy… and yes, that includes sale prices since that's the bulk of what I purchase, planning meals around sales. This week's grocery store shopping came to a whopping $104. My hunch is that increased prices are being felt by everyone. A news article this week said to expect even higher prices this summer due to droughts in several states. Those on SNAP or WIC don't automatically receive more on their cards because prices went up. It's getting LESS possible for the poor to eat "healthy". Heck, it's getting less possible for the average family to eat "healthy".
Susan says
The book admittedly is for a vegetarian diet. And she did switch to tea, which I find unreasonable! I'd rather give up meat. She bakes bread and does serve a fair amount of pasta. But overall, looked much healthier than most Americans are eating. Lot of work-everything from scratch. It would be a stretch for me since I don't eat gluten.
Abigail says
Ouch! Thanks for the insight. Our food bills are so erratic, I couldn't begin to give you a weekly average.
Donna Freedman says
I agree that "lack of information" is a big problem. Unfortunately people who are poor may live in "food deserts" or in neighborhoods with down-at-the-heels supermarkets. Thus it's challenging to eat at all, let alone eat organically.
I recommend the Hillbilly Housewife blog (she has an "emergency menu" meal plan that feeds four to six adults and kids cheaply: http://www.hillbillyhousewife.com/70dollarmenu.ht…
I also recommend the Cheap Healthy Good blog and the Budget Bytes website. However, we also have to keep in mind that not all impoverished people have access to the Internet.
AuntLeesie says
Thanks for the link! Obviously, this is a subject I'm passionate about. I feed people… it's what I do, and I don't want to be priced out of doing it. This week's staggering grocery total means it's time to put on my thinking cap and get even more creative. My grocery cart did have beef in it this time (neighbor next door doesn't eat poultry & my DH was hungry for beef). All the meat I purchased was on sale and included ground beef, tri-tip beef roast, tri-tip pork roasts and a lot of chicken. I also bought lettuce, tomatoes and fruit, milk, eggs, cheese, margarine and bread, pinto, black and red kidney beans, BBQ sauce and Ranch Salad dressing with a $2 off coupon, a box of store brand cereal, orange juice, a 12 pack of store brand soda ($2.50) and chips for the holiday weekend. I buy rice and pasta in bulk, so had 10 lbs. of each at home already. I get potatoes for free. Also some other veggies. Anyway, I saved that site to my favorites.
thebrokeandbeautifullife says
The resources, information, and alternatives are out there, it's about making sure they're actually getting to people.
Kat says
Right, I'm going to address both of your comments here. If I seem irritable, it's because I really hate having to repeat some points.
One in six children. That number? Means you don't try to talk about how unhealthy the diet of people who use these programs is. It means you don't complain that it might lead to higher health care costs. It means you realize that what we are doing right now simply isn't enough. This country, in prior years, went through periods where we fought against things like smallpox, measles, polio, and even bedbugs. We spent the money, and devoted the man hours because we found the idea of a child suffering those issues unacceptable. Yet it is now acceptable to pronounce judgement against people who are afflicted with the issue of hunger. That is intolerable. That is shameful. It boils down simply- no matter what you want to say about alternatives and resources- there are more than 10% of children in this country facing hunger. What was this country's answer to that? We cut the money we give to people to try and combat that fact. We cut it again, even as food costs are rising. We pass farm bills that throw money at big agricultural companies while cutting even more aid to families in need. The resources and alternatives that are needed? Are simply more money. Until that happens, there is no actual reason to talk about how they should eat healthier because of possible health costs later. Speculating on such things is just a bad investment- you don't worry about the cost of doing business later before you address your start up costs.
Now on to your education line. Just for clarification, I'm actually not against more education- I'm for it. However, let's just clear a few little things up about your statement, shall we? Someone graduating higher education this year will face the highest level of debt and cost that a college graduate has had to face. They will also make, comparatively, less than they would have in the 70s. They will face increasing interest on debt that they can't even escape via bankruptcy. They will also have to have chosen just right, because more and more degrees are being added to the list of education that won't make as much per year as they paid per year to get it. Comparing cost of living to minimum wage? Well, that's just going to depress you. Oh, and the idea of more education sooner? About sexual health and life skills? That doesn't help when everyone in your local economy is facing unemployment due to the closing of businesses, the outsourcing of jobs, and increasingly insane at will employment laws that protect investors over the people of the area. Oh, and union busting is alive and well, just to make sure those people lack what little protection organizing labor gave them. Skilled labor (the type that doesn't require a college education, but does require training) could be a solution- unfortunately you run into the whole "lack of availability" in terms of training.
The people you are talking about aren't stupid. They didn't set out to need assistance. They didn't choose to be born into communities that are basically inescapable. They aren't any less than you. This is not about ignorance, or even about a lack of skills. This is about the fact that we have failed them. As a community, we are a pretty poor neighborhood watch. Our government has let the robbers make off with the options people used to have. Look no further than the military- it used to be a way to provide for a family. Now it's an institution that doesn't provide training that is worth the commitment, and that will abandon you to the wolves the minute anything happens- even if it happens on their watch.
So, what will make a difference? Investing money in turning those abysmal and depressing facts around. Spending the money to create opportunity. Getting tough on politicians and holding them accountable for letting corporate greed dictate public policy.
Oh, and a little heads up about the idea of eating better on less money. Something that people fail to get is what this summer is going to be like. California's water boards have stated they have no water to release to counties facing the inability to provide the needed water to their residents. What that means is there's no water in the state to provide relief to farmers facing drought. Boiled down- if we want to maintain agricultural output, water will need to be brought into the state from surrounding areas, on trucks. It's expensive and inefficient. When it is necessary, one of the places California looks to is Oregon. Speaking of boiling, Portland (which is in Oregon) has been told to boil water before using it. That would be because water from reservoirs that serve the Portland population have discovered contaminated water. The contamination is E. coli bacteria. This would be one of the big players in food borne illness. So, you can imagine that such news means problems for those farmers in California. Oregon is going to have to figure out how to help Portland before they consider releasing water for sale. Which could mean food prices go much higher than what was projected before this issue cropped up. Want to go try teaching that to a kindergarten class under the heading of 'life skills'?
thebrokeandbeautifullife says
Kat I think you misunderstand. When I talk about education, I'm not suggesting it's the invidiuals fault that there's a lack of information. I'm suggesting that the system is broken as is the food system. And that yes, there should be a life skills class in kindergarten as well as the other 12 years of schooling. And I agree with you on so many things regarding the government and corporate greed and all those things.
The only thing I really disagree with you about is resigning yourself to eating unhealthily because the government and whoever else isn't doing their part to make it any easier. Obviously the problems are much bigger than you and me and yes, we need massive change, but I don't think accepting that I'm a victim of poor policies is a good strategy either.
AuntLeesie says
I didn't read "defeatist" in any of Kat's (very well thought out and well written) comments. She never suggested resigning oneself to eating unhealthily for any reason. The real issue is that it's becoming less affordable for EVERY consumer, including those on SNAP or WIC, to purchase nutritious food… and the problem won't improve anytime soon. It's gearing up to be a difficult summer wrt food prices in general in the U.S. I guess my real question is why we feel the need to scrutinize what's in anyone else's shopping cart? This is a time when it would be far more prudent/productive to work together in our communities rather than pass judgement on those who–for whatever reasons–have different situations than our own. For example, there's a growing number of "food insecure" (aka hungry) seniors in my area. Many of them are no longer able to cook "healthy" meals from scratch, and in fact are buying much less food in general. What they buy is heat-and-eat. Or cereal, bread and a tiny bit of produce. Something as simple as an informal neighborhood food co-op can help; those with gardens or any other means share with each other. We're doing that in my neighborhood. It was never discussed or organized… and to be honest? I don't know who is or isn't on SNAP in my area. I know the number is growing from local grocery store employees.
Kat says
It is not defeatist or resigning oneself to something when you point out that this is a pervasive and persistent problem. It is not defeatist to say "hey, we need to focus on getting the basics right." It is taking the first step towards a solution- admitting what a big part of the problem is so it can be fixed. It is acknowledging that this isn't something people want to do, but are forced into by situations that are too big for someone to fix on their own. Saying that they need education about things doesn't work because they don't have the resources to implement what you want them to teach. When you talk about what you think they need to do? What they need in their tool kit? The first step of replacing a broken toilet is to buy another toilet. Without that working toilet, removing the broken one doesn't fix the problem. It just leaves a hole that leads to your sewage pipe in the floor. Putting plywood over it doesn't fix it- you still don't have a working toilet. Right now the level of aid, and the level of support, we given to our citizens who need help is a shrinking piece of plywood. Teaching them how to put in a new toilet doesn't provide them any real help- they still have no toilet to put in. Making them take a class on how to put in a new toilet takes time that they don't have, and still doesn't provide a replacement toilet.
Why is it so important to focus on the lack of real and comprehensive aid? Because we have children going hungry. Why am I so absolute in saying that we have to address it first, and above any other programs? For the same reason a judge ordered the drug testing of aid recipients halted. It comes down to money. Implementing education, or any other "improvement" program costs money. As we've seen from drug testing, it costs a lot of money. So, if you are willing to spend that money on these people, spend the time and effort to establish the architecture for these programs? Why not put it where it will make a difference for these people in a real and substantial way? Why not say "insisting on education needs to wait until these people stand on a solid platform"?
In the end, it isn't saying someone is a victim- it's saying that we are failing at the promise we established aid programs to fufill. It isn't calling someone a victim to recognize that there are problems they face. Stating those problems, and assessing what is most important, is basic triage. You aren't a victim because you need an emergency room- you are someone who, for whatever reason, needs emergency care. You need that level of medical intervention. At this point, insisting you need a flu shot isn't the important thing. You could probably benefit from a flu shot, but it's more important to stabilize your body so it can keep going. All I've said? Is help the person breathe, stop the bleeding, and then we can revisit the flu shot.
Susan says
I don't think any of us are arguing that the system isn't a real mess. You have to do what you can from the grass roots level and the self-help level while we work on voting the selfish evil bastards out. We also need to keep pointing out that they have an active campaign to turn us against each other so we don't notice so much the mess they are making.
Susan says
My poor/single parent days were prior to food stamps. All surplus good that they bought from farmers to keep prices stable. Also WIC was evaporated milk and corn syrup to make formula. The best info on what to do with it was the other hippie mamas in the line. Pre-internet days. Got good granola recipe, some bread recipes and casserole suggestions. Unfortunately child was allergic to the formula ingredients which I used to trade for stuff I needed. The food stamp thing is more flexible anyway. I would have been able to buy formula that agreed with her. Then again, a good lactation consultant would have been helpful…I don't think that was approved under the medical program. I think the worst part about any of it is that there is a lot of shame heaped on people that need to use the help.
AuntLeesie says
The shame heaped onto people is the stigma attached to being poor or hungry, perpetuated by these kids of discussions and debates. Generations ago there used to be more family nearby. Also, neighbors and friends were a part of a network that provided for each other. I remember baby clothes and equipment being passed around or lent out. When my oldest son was a baby (we were in a 1 bedroom apartment), one friend loaned me a bassinet for him, another let us use a baby swing, and I got a box of gender neutral baby clothes. As he grew, family members sent clothes their boys had outgrown. Even earlier, as a kid, a potluck family gathering always included containers of leftovers being sent home with those who had little kids, or with single young adults so they'd have a few meals for the week. Life today doesn't look the same. In spite of digital or wi fi connectedness on a level no one could have imagined, our 3D, real day-to-day lives are more isolated. If Donna lived in Phoenix, Abby would have home cooked meals every day without having to spend time in the kitchen feeling nautious. 🙂
Abigail says
Ha, well right now I can't really handle anyone's cooking. Though I was able to handle pizza. Not healthy chicken, but hey pizza is fine. Stupid stomach.
Once my stomach trusts other people's (or my own) cooking again, I'm planning on asking Nadine if we can eat with her a little more. She cooks well and healthily, so even a couple of meals a week would be good for my overall health.
Donna Freedman says
Can I get an "amen" for AuntLeesie? She's a big couponer, she knows what food costs and she knows how food issues can divide people ("What's that EBT user doing buying frozen lasagna? I make *my* lasagna from scratch and it's cheaper and healthier!").
She also knows about community. In a more connected world, we'd be stopping by grandma's to drop off some of that lasagna. We'd be loaning baby and kid clothes. As a broke single mom myself, I was very grateful to get hand-me-downs from my sister's kid — but I also told my mom to take my daughter's crib out of her basement and give it to another unmarried young mom she knew. Gave my umbrella stroller to another single mom, and when we moved to Alaska I gave a lot of my daughter's toys to my brother for his two girls. (Sorry 'bout that, Abby.)
Food is a huge issue and I agree that we're being turned against one another so we don't notice what's going on upstairs. Anybody see the Jon Stewart routine about seafood and SNAP benefits?
Abigail says
Amen! When I was on food stamps, I didn't cook much, so I'd have things like a loaf of bread in my cart and yes some junk food. When I pulled out my EBT card, there was always a pang wondering if the other people in line were looking harder at what I was buying.
jestjack says
Hmmm…what a "hot button topic". As a landlord I have witnessed this "dynamic" first hand. For whatever reason, it has been my experience that folks that can least afford a pet and are on "public assistance" are the most likely to have pets…usually several. Some take good care of their animals…others…not so much. In addition, I have observed these same folks regularly consume large quantities of 2 litre soda, order in pizza and cigarettes. Does this make them bad people?…Absolutely not…But it makes me just crazy….
AuntLeesie says
It's a "hot button topic" because it's a huge, complex problem with no simple solutions. Human nature is such that we'd like to have an explanation for its cause, which is why it's so often summed up (in our minds) by either irresponsibility or ignorance… or a combination of the two. My oldest son did a documentary on the homeless in our area for his college graduation project. It was eye-opening to discover how many homeless folks didn't fit the accepted picture of "homeless", but instead became that way by loss of a good paying job, a contentious divorce, or even (in one case) a costly medical problem. One of his co-workers at the time was homeless. Seriously. Another co-worker has just recently been able to get off of food stamps–she's married with two kids–because she finally found another job working in a doctor's office. Her husband had a brain tumor and was unable to work for several months. We'd share overflow produce, dry beans, rice, and sometimes meat, and she'd give us fresh eggs from the chickens they raise. She's a very hard working, smart gal who nevertheless needed government aid for medical costs and food. As for 2 liter soda, it's available anywhere, every week for about a buck, versus three bucks for juice or nearly four bucks for a gallon of milk. Delivery pizza can be had for as little as $5.99 per medium pie, which is less than you'd pay for a home cooked roast and vegetable dinner. I won't argue the cigarettes. As for pets, if you live in a less than wonderful neighborhood, a dog becomes your security system. Again, it's a very complicated problem that can't be simplified. "Education" is a great idea in theory. IF all assumptions are correct, AND there's the necessary time/energy/childcare to attend classes, but as Kat mentioned, that "education" is also going to cost taxpayers. Stepping away from the podium now, while blushing.
Abigail says
Again, don't forget that some people already had the pets. It is a shame, though, when they then don't have the money to take care of the pets properly.
As AuntLeesie points out below, soda can be quite cheap. We regularly get a two liter for $1-1.25. Go with generic, and you can get it as low as 67 cents on sale. Meanwhile, a $5.99 Domino's medium pizza will yield about 3 meals, making them just under $2 each. You might be able to cook cheaper, but you might not.
Finally, yes, a lot of poor people smoke. Some of it is bad habit. But it also curtails your appetite. There's a reason a lot of people gain weight when they stop smoking. I don't know that economically it make sense, but there it is.
jestjack says
Hmmm…You are so right this IS a complex problem. My problem is that the WIC program provides for milk and juice ….not soda…yet the amount of 2L sodas consumed is well…crazy. In addition, I would hardly think that a medium pizza at 5.99 which I can eat by myself is an effecient use of resources. BUT a whole chicken purchased on sale for $5, baked, eaten and used for leftovers, lunches and soup would make perfect sense to me. As for the dogs/pets…not a fan…the damage that I have incurred from pets in units is mind boggling…urine stains…claw marks …damage to walls and window screens. To say they are a crime deterent…I'm not feeling it. However, how great is it that the young lady who's DH has a brain tumor is able to get needed assistance in a timely manner? IMHO we don't here enough about the positive impacts that "assistance" has on folks lives…..
AuntLeesie says
Jack, I agree about the soda and pizza (and even pets) to a point. Let's say, though, that either your kids are older than the WIC requirements, or that you're working full time for minimum wage and your WIC benefits are maybe $15-$30 per month. It puts a different spin on things. Not everyone knows how to roast a chicken. In fact, there are two women in my personal circle (a friend and a sister-in-law) who asked me awhile ago how to roast one, and both were 50 at the time. No joke. So I taught my sons how to roast one, and learned you have to tell them to put it in the roasting pan breast side up. 🙂 My sister's kids joke that when they were growing up, if it didn't come out of a box or a can, they didn't eat it. At 59, my sister is learning to cook. It's her retirement project,
At the grocery store the other day, I ran into another neighbor in her 90s. She's buried her husband, her children, and now a grandson, All of her groceries were in the seat of the shopping cart. On Social Security, she doesn't qualify for food stamps. We have a growing number of poor in this country. It's alarming. So yes, it really IS good to hear about and (in our case) know of where government assistance is working. As an aside, I believe "education" begins at home. I've been teaching my sons to both shop and cook on a tight budget, and when I travel to Arkansas every year to see my mom, they actually cook for our next door neighbors. Buying the food with their money. And I never asked them to or suggested it. In fact, I was moved to tears when they told me what they bought, made and delivered over the phone.
AuntLeesie says
Food for thought, pun intended. One local store this week has 8 count packages of frozen beef and bean burritos on sale for $2.99. At the same store, the sale price of ground beef is $3.49 per pound, a package of dry pinto beans is $1.49, and the cheapest flour tortillas are $2.99 per package of 10. There's a sale on cheese of 2 pkgs for $5.00. So, with one package of cheese, it would cost $10.47 to make the same basic burritos from scratch. If you want salsa with that, tomatoes are on sale for either $1.69 per pound (vine ripe) or 99 cents for Romas, onions are 99 cents per pound, peppers 99 cents per pound, and cilantro $1.00 per bunch… or you could buy a jar of salsa for $1.79. Name brand 2 liter soda is 99 cents, versus $3.49 for a roughly equal size of "on sale" fruit juice. BUT if we saw two different shoppers in that store, one with a cart full of fresh foods for homemade burritos and salsa with juice and the other with frozen burritos, a jar of salsa and soda, we'd judge that second shopper harshly for buying "crap" food. Without thinking, by the way, that the difference in price is significant.. I'm not implying that there aren't folks on SNAP or WIC who abuse the system. I'm also not advocating a "junk food" diet. I'm trying to point out (through simple math–leaving cooking skills or available time aside) that we can be erroneous in our knee-jerk assumptions about what others buy at the grocery store.
AuntLeesie says
Abby, please allow me to apologize for monopolizing the comments here. When the "Great Recession" hit, I came across your mom on MSN's money boards. At the time, we were $12k in consumer debt, which might not sound like a lot compared to others, but if you're running in the red every month, it may as well be $12m. Thanks to her and others on the forum, the debt was paid off within 2 years. Okay… and so… my DH hasn't had a pay raise in 7 years. I'm a published cookbook writer/food writer/recipe developer, but thank God we paid off our debt, because 3 years ago, my freelance work dried up.
I used to think I was the lowest, common denominator; if I could do it, *anyone* else could. Even should. So my first painful lesson was when I suggested a recently widowed woman on the MSN boards (who was expert at Indian cooking) write a cookbook. I offered to help. Not as a combined project or combined income, but my timing was off, and my understanding of where she was at was WAY off. It wasn't merely naive… it was callous.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I've had a number of lessons in humility in the past few years. There are "seasons" of life, as well as different circumstances and interests, and energy. Not everyone can or even *should* do what I do. Or think the way I think.
This topic is (as Jack said) a "hot button issue" for many, including me. My DH mentioned this morning we're all looking or a magic bullet to kill the problem, but there is no magic bullet. That's very, very true. we don't even fully understand what the problem is. I sued to think I'd love to teach classes for those on SNAP and WIC. Now I understand my circumstances, resources and season of life is markedly different than most folks on public assistance. Who the bleep do I think I am to tell them what's in their overall best interests? SO what they buy, whether or not they have a pet, or pick a topic, I'm in no position to judge. Heck, I've either worked from home or been a SAHM for 18 years. A thought that goes through my mind is whether or not I deserve Social Security when the time comes. Have I earned it?
Abigail says
I've really appreciated your insights. And I think we could all stand to learn a little humility about judging others' abilities based on our own situations. I think you have the right attitude.
As for Social Security, if you've worked, you've earned it. And I think the majority of SAHM more than earn their spousal benefits, remarkably low though those are.
pvcccourses says
Argh. When we say a stay-at-home parent has not earned Social Security, we devalue the very real and very hard work entailed in the most important job of all: raising the next generation.
Says a lot about our culture. IMHO.
Abigail says
Indeed. Not to mention the support the person gives the spouse to keep him/her able to go off to work in peace.
Vicky says
If the above reference of a "recently widowed woman ( who was an expert in Indian cooking) " meant me, then I need to clarify to the other readers that there was NO suggestion or mention of me writing a cookbook. I was indeed widowed, and I am well versed in cooking Indian food, but the rest of the above is totally false.
AuntLeesie says
Forgive my typos. I've had 12-1/2 hours sleep in 3 days. A seasonal thing. 🙁
pvcccourses says
Huh. Well, who do we think we are, to tell other people how they can live? Most Americans live on junk food and highly processed products (read "over-salted, over-sugared, and full of weird chemicals"). However you pay for it — whether from a salary or from food stamps — when you make yourself sick on bad food, tobacco, alcohol, or drugs, the rest of us get to shoulder your medical bills through our insurance premiums and taxes. So what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if the goose is buying junk with her salary, the gander has every right to buy it with his food stamps.
Pet? Sure, if the person owns the property she's living in. If it's a rental or subsidized housing the taxpayer is paying for, not so much. Pets do a lot of damage that someone — landlord or taxpayer — has to pay for. They can make a lot of noise that disturbs neighbors. And they leave allergenic hair and dander that can take up to two years to clear out of a dwelling, making life miserable for the next wretch who moves in.
How can one convince WordPress to let one post as who one is: Funny about Money! 😀
Abigail says
Yeah I really don't understand why you can't log in sometimes. You might want to email WP if you haven't already.
I like your points about junk food being a widespread phenomenon. Not sure I completely agree that you should be a property owner to get a pet, but it's an interesting point.
Crystal @ PET says
My personal opinions in my head when I see someone using food stamps and buying cigarettes are one thing. Wanting to legally enforce the way people spend their money – earned or given? Nope.
Abigail says
Good point. Although, to be fair I don't think she came to the conclusion that we needed to legislate it. I think it's certainly out there as an idea.
FF @ Femme Frugality says
I’m so sorry I missed this when it went live. I agree with this response, and to the end of different “entitlements” being judged differently, I think unemployment was left out of the mix.
Also, when people talk about “my” money and then purpose additional programs, I have to laugh. At least in our area, so little is invested in the programs that already exist. Social workers, who regularly mess up and largely don’t care, leaving people who qualify hungry or without medical care as they battle to get the errors fixed, get paid so little that the results aren’t surprising. Proposing additional programs is going to cost more of that “my” money for both infrastructure and man power. Which I’m okay with. But I’m also not one who judges what other people do with *their* money, lest we not forget that many of them pay into the system, as well.
Not my most concise thoughts, but it’s a couple years after the fact anyways. Kudos to you and your commenters.
FF @ Femme Frugality recently posted…Here is What it Means to be Frugal in the Modern Age
Abigail says
Thanks. I think it’s a slippery slope. I mean, no one wants to see people digging themselves further into the hole — and there is that ridiculous indignation we feel about our tax dollars. (As though the rest of the government spend taxes wisely all the time.) But you don’t get to deny people some basic, if you’ll forgive the pun, creature comforts. Within reason, anyway. And a pet can be invaluable. Sandy was, may she rest in peace. Sniff sniff.
Femme says
For sure. I know a lot of the low-income neighborhoods I frequent often have pets as types of security alarms, too. On top of the companionship they bring.
And I just don’t get why there’s even a discussion about if someone should be allowed to have a pet because of their income level, regardless of the purpose. If we open up that can of worms, maybe we should ask the same of the majority of households in this country that have debt.
Which we should not do. It’s kind of ridiculous.
I also love this idea that “poor” people must be uneducated because they are poor. I’d say the vast majority of our populace lacks general personal finance education, regardless of income level. Again, Exhibit A: massive consumer and student debt. And from my personal experience, when you have a lower income, you’re much more cognizant of where every last penny is going.
I think I need to stop commenting now. I’m getting too riled up. Haha.
RIP Sandy. She sounds like she made such a huge impact in her time here!