Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[UGAalum94]

I didn't even read the whole thread, so I apologize in advance:

What is the income threshold to qualify for food stamps? I guess I'm lucky that I never had to find out.

Isn't it a bit unrealistic to think that a person on food stamps would have no other income to be spent on food? I mean, I know you're not going to be rich and be on food stamps, but are all 26 million people trying to live on the food stamps alone?

$21 a week plus 25 to 50 dollars more you earned would still required a lot of planning, but it wouldn't be quite what living on only the stamps would do you.

Are the bottom ten or twelve percent of income earners in the US (which is what I'm figuring the 26 million is out of the 300 million of us total) people who have no income at all?

I think poor people may need more money for food, particularly for healthy food; I'm not really prepared to dispute that. But is what these congressional yahoos are doing really representative of what people on food stamps face? Wouldn't the real situation of surviving on X income total with $21 dollars in food stamps be bad enough without these self aggrandizing jerks pretending to face the same conditions?

[JWithers]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I didn't even read the whole thread, so I apologize in advance:

What is the income threshold to qualify for food stamps? I guess I'm lucky that I never had to find out.

Isn't it a bit unrealistic to think that a person on food stamps would have no other income to be spent on food? I mean, I know you're not going to be rich and be on food stamps, but are all 26 million people trying to live on the food stamps alone?

$21 a week plus 25 to 50 dollars more you earned would still required a lot of planning, but it wouldn't be quite what living on only the stamps would do you.

Are the bottom ten or twelve percent of income earners in the US (which is what I'm figuring the 26 million is out of the 300 million of us total) people who have no income at all?

I think poor people may need more money for food, particularly for healthy food; I'm not really prepared to dispute that. But is what these congressional yahoos are doing really representative of what people on food stamps face? Wouldn't the real situation of surviving on X income total with $21 dollars in food stamps be bad enough without these self aggrandizing jerks pretending to face the same conditions?

Good point. It was kind of a dog-and-pony show.

It seems to me that with the epidemic of diet-related health issues, it would be a priority to make healthy foods less expensive, or increase the supplement for WIC and food stamps. That's just good business sense for old Govco. Damage control. Paying for sick people with no insurance is a lot more expensive.

When my grandparents went through the depression, there were a lot of truly poor and hungry people. But this country was still a very rural one and many people had access to foods grown and raised on their own farms in in their backyards. They may not have had much but at least it wasn't nutritionally bankrupt. Those aren't real options in today's world. At least not for most of us.

So that $21 is a big part of a family's total grocery budget (hopefully not the entire budget). I am sure most families have some other means, but I will bet it's not much.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by JWithers

Good point. It was kind of a dog-and-pony show.

It seems to me that with the epidemic of diet-related health issues, it would be a priority to make healthy foods less expensive, or increase the supplement for WIC and food stamps. That's just good business sense for old Govco. Damage control. Paying for sick people with no insurance is a lot more expensive.

When my grandparents went through the depression, there were a lot of truly poor and hungry people. But this country was still a very rural one and many people had access to foods grown and raised on their own farms in in their backyards. They may not have had much but at least it wasn't nutritionally bankrupt. Those are real options in today's world. At least not for most of us.

So that $21 is a big part of a family's total grocery budget (hopefully not the enitre budget). I am sure most families have some other means, but I will bet it's not much.

with all thats being said in this thread...if we keep things up...in order for us to get totally healthy food we may hasve to start hunting and growing our own food again...heh

[JWithers]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

with all thats being said in this thread...if we keep things up...in order for us to get totally healthy food we may hasve to start hunting and growing our own food again...heh

Right? I am sure my neighbors wouldn't mind if I tore up my back yard and put in some beans and tomatoes! BTW, I meant to post "AREN'T real options".....

[UGAalum94]

I don't know that for sure, but it seems to me that we've been in need of reviewing how the gov't subsidizes food for low income people for a while.

In previous, less sedentary days, (when kids would have been involved in active play, teenagers in manual labor, and adults in manual labor plus maybe walking more for transportation), school lunches and food stamps and WIC funds were all set up to guarantee a lot of calories. High fat foods were an easy way to do that.

Now, we live very differently, and our big problem isn't starvation as much as obesity and nutritionally empty calories. It seems like "they" have started to review this with school lunches, so maybe, they will follow through with food stamps and other forms of food aid.

About politics, here's the thing as I see it: I think it's possible to conclude that the government is never going to successfully make everything equal. The societies that have made economic equality the most important government function haven't, in my opinion, worked out that well. On some level, you have to try to take care of all people, but you can't ever make it so good for people who can't or don't work that not working becomes as attractive as working. We have a moral duty to our fellow man, but the government may be the least effective and most destructive way to deliver on that duty.

So, maybe the government keeps you from starving, and if you will stay off drugs and avoid violence and take your medicine for mental illness, should help you find basic shelter. Maybe the gov't should provide basic preventative care, so we cut down on the expenses for emergency services later. But we can't really set up a system where the gov't provides everything for everyone or the whole thing will go under. And we can't keep treating people who continually make destructive decisions as if they aren't responsible for those decisions because what they do hurts other people. Kevin sounds mean spirited in these debates, but some of the rest of you seem downright delusional about what the gov't can actually do for people.

[JWithers]

I agree that often times, poor personal choices put people in the position to need assistance for food, etc.

However, children are not responsible for those choices made by their parents. But if the only food that these kids are fed is laced with chemicals, preservatives, sodium, fat and zero vitamins and minerals, nor dietary fiber, these kids will perform poorly at school, have more health problems (and frankly, taxpayers like myself so not want to pay for their medical bills) and fall behind in general.

All moral obligation to fellow man aside, it just seems like if I were running a company(hello; government?), I would want my employees happy and healthy and productive. It would save me money in the end to prevent a problem, rather than fix it once it occurs.

Again, people see this obesity epidemic and think that we are the best-fed country in the world. Well, most caloric intake does not = best fed. Some of these kids are fat maybe, but certainly not healthy or well fed. I guess the same for adults in the lowest SE groups.

I agree with Kevin on personal choice leading to a rough life. But children shouldn't have to pay that price and as a taxpayer, I would like to see my dollars go for nutrionally sound food programs, not for 'how much cheap crap can I buy" WIC programs.