For Those Who Want to Impose Limits on the Use of Federal Benefits

[Commodore]

This nice little editorial uses sarcasm to illustrate the idiocy of dictating how any kind of federal assistance or subsidy should be used by the recipient is completely stupid and just flat-out wrong.

Missouri State Representative Rick Brattin (R-55) has proposed a bill that would prohibit Missourians who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, aka food stamps) from using their benefits to buy “cookies, chips, energy drinks, soft drinks, seafood, or steak.” But why stop at food stamps? Let’s limit beneficiaries’ use of all federal benefits.

Start with an easy one: unemployment benefits. No spending that money on a new suit for job interviews. That old sport coat or pantsuit will be fine.

How about crop subsidies? Some farmers buy fancy farm implements with GPS and air-conditioned cabs. No more of that. And no spending those subsidies on high tech seeds, fertilizers, and weed killers.

But I’m a tax guy and want to focus on tax benefits. The earned income credit (EITC) is a good place to start—it can use the same rules Representative Brattin has proposed for food stamps. And do the same for the child credit—kids don’t need the omega-3 that they’d get from seafood.

The child care credit? No spending it on private nannies or daycare centers that feed into those tony private schools. Public daycare centers should be fine.


Education credits and deductions for tuition and interest on student loans? No using those to study classics or English lit. Every student getting educational assistance should require to major in a STEM subject. That might even yield a positive return for the government—those majors are the ones getting good jobs these days and they’ll pay lots of taxes.

One of my favorites: the mortgage interest deduction. Some people use the savings to buy houses with Jacuzzi tubs, walk-in wine cellars, and his-and-her master bathrooms. No more of that. People getting a tax break on their mortgages should settle for a tract home no larger than 1,500 square feet with one bathroom and no garage.


Okay, you get my point. Just because you get benefits from the government doesn’t mean the government should tell you how to use them. Maybe Representative Brattin really did see “people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs” with food stamps and maybe he really can’t afford to buy those items. But maybe, just maybe, the person had saved up and was buying them for a special occasion. You can’t afford to buy much food, much less very much expensive food, on a food stamp budget. The average daily benefit in Missouri last year was just $4 per person per day.

Congress created the various federal programs that assist people in many ways—to attend school, save for retirement, buy homes, take care of their children, and, yes, eat. Let’s trust them to use that assistance as they see fit and not tell them how to live their lives.

 

[civman110]

I agree.

If you decide to hand out money you shouldn't be able dictate how that person spends it. That's idiotic. However, I do think far too many people are on social assistance. Ideally there should be a safety net there if you run into hard times, but many people are on it forever.

Is this part of Michelle Obama's nutrition campaign?

 

[Wrymouth3]

In the Spring of 2010, while I was in college, I was fortunate enough to obtain a visitor's pass to the Halls of Congress and saw them in session. I lasted 2 hours there and one of the bills proposed was a Republican proposal to allow individuals making over $80,000 to write off gambling losses as tax-deductible. It passed.

 

[Commodore]

However, I do think far too many people are on social assistance. Ideally there should be a safety net there if you run into hard times, but many people are on it forever.

That's actually not true at all. Just about every state either places limits on how long one can be on a given assistance program or sets goals for the person on assistance to meet in order to continue receiving assistance. I know this, because there was a time when I came on hard times and had to use public assistance, so I became pretty well-versed on the inner workings of the system.

 

[civman110]

That's actually not true at all. Just about every state either places limits on how long one can be on a given assistance program or sets goals for the person on assistance to meet in order to continue receiving assistance. I know this, because there was a time when I came on hard times and had to use public assistance, so I became pretty well-versed on the inner workings of the system.

Generally speaking these limits only exist if you fail to prove you have continued to look for work. It's not a hard goal to achieve. In most cases all you have to do is chuck a few resumes around and prove that you applied so these positions and were not hired. I'm sure it varies from state to state somewhat.

 

[Commodore]

Generally speaking these limits only exist if you fail to prove you have continued to look for work. It's not a hard goal to achieve. In most cases all you have to do is chuck a few resumes around and prove that you applied so these positions and were not hired. I'm sure it varies from state to state somewhat.

Again this is false. That is the way it used to be, but in the past decade just about every state has placed much stricter requirements on long terms assistance benefits for those who do not have some sort of significant physical or mental disability.

For example: With the SNAP program, you can't even get the assistance if you don't have a job. You have to at least have some sort of earned income to be eligible for the program (unless you are disabled of course). And for those on the program that don't have any minor children in their assistance group, they must fulfill a work requirement of at least 20 hours a week or they will lose their SNAP benefits. The states all have each recipient report in at regular intervals to ensure they are meeting the requirements for SNAP assistance. Some states are better at that than others with my state of Ohio requiring recipients to report in every 3 months while a state like California only requires reporting once a year.

 

[MobBoss]

This nice little editorial uses sarcasm to illustrate the idiocy of dictating how any kind of federal assistance or subsidy should be used by the recipient is completely stupid and just flat-out wrong.

Unemployment isn't a federal benefit.

But isn't the argument about this not that they would buy junk food with food stamps, but they would sell them on the black market to get non-food items, drugs or whatever?

 

[Commodore]

Unemployment isn't a federal benefit.

But isn't the argument about this not that they would buy junk food with food stamps, but they would sell them on the black market to get non-food items, drugs or whatever?

Not in Missouri. In Missouri they actually want to limit the types of foods one can buy with their SNAP benefits. To me, it sounds like the Missouri state government is trying to say they don't believe poor people deserve to eat the good food and should be stuck with the low-quality cheap crap or just the bare essentials. It just reeks of "well I'm rich and had to work hard to afford the nice stuff, those lowly free-loaders shouldn't be allowed to eat as good as me".

 

[MobBoss]

/meh. If the democrat Mayor of NYC can impose limits on the size of your big gulp, then what's wrong with Missouri trying to promote healthy eating? I read cookies, chips, energy drinks, etc. And for the price of steak and lobster you can buy a whole lot of chicken which is better for you as well.

 

[Future PM]

If we don't keep poor people from buying certain kinds of food, how else will we lord our superiority over them? All the current methods, such as better houses, better healthcare, and getting our children into expensive private schools with fences to keep out the riff-raff, just aren't enough anymore. We've had them for too long. We need new ways to punish the poor for being poor, and denying them certain kinds of food is one we haven't used in a long time. Let's get back to it.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

People who are so irresponsible that they have let their life deteriorate to a point where they need welfare can't be trusted with their own well being. Instead of food stamps or money they should just get a weekly delievery of oats and expired milk.

In the Spring of 2010, while I was in college, I was fortunate enough to obtain a visitor's pass to the Halls of Congress and saw them in session. I lasted 2 hours there and one of the bills proposed was a Republican proposal to allow individuals making over $80,000 to write off gambling losses as tax-deductible. It passed.

Is this a joke ?

 

[Future PM]

/meh. If the democrat Mayor of NYC can impose limits on the size of your big gulp, then what's wrong with Missouri trying to promote healthy eating? I read cookies, chips, energy drinks, etc. And for the price of steak and lobster you can buy a whole lot of chicken which is better for you as well.

Do you really think it's about healthy eating? What's unhealthy about steak? It's a great source of iron and vitamin C. I recently went through a period where I ate chicken breast 10 days in a row. Trust me, it gets very, very old, no matter how healthy a little chicken and pasta was. I was craving McDonalds simply for the beef patty, and I hate McDonalds. Thankfully I am now able to eat far too much beef stir fry, which really hits the spot.

It's poor-bashing, nothing more. Provided something is legal, the government shouldn't have any right to tell you not to spend your money on it. I thought the big gulp law was effing stupid as well.

 

[Commodore]

/meh. If the democrat Mayor of NYC can impose limits on the size of your big gulp, then what's wrong with Missouri trying to promote healthy eating? I read cookies, chips, energy drinks, etc. And for the price of steak and lobster you can buy a whole lot of chicken which is better for you as well.

I doubt they are trying to promote healthy eating since this initiative is only targeted at those receiving SNAP. If the state of Missouri wanted to promote healthy eating they would provide incentives for grocery stores to stock healthier food items and ditch the junk.

And for what it's worth, I'm against the limits on the Big Gulp in NYC as well. Let people eat and drink as healthy or unhealthy as they want. Life is too short to not live on your own terms and enjoy it in your own personalized way. If that means someone wants to suck down Big Gulps and a dozen doughnuts every day, then so be it. Even if those doughnuts were purchased with federal SNAP dollars.

 

[Zkribbler]

/meh. If the democrat Mayor of NYC can impose limits on the size of your big gulp...

You forget that proposal didn't last as long as a snowflake in the Sahara.

 

[Wrymouth3]

Is this a joke ?

No it's not, here's the thing on the IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc419.html

 

[gay_Aleks]

If we don't keep poor people from buying certain kinds of food, how else will we lord our superiority over them? All the current methods, such as better houses, better healthcare, and getting our children into expensive private schools with fences to keep out the riff-raff, just aren't enough anymore. We've had them for too long. We need new ways to punish the poor for being poor, and denying them certain kinds of food is one we haven't used in a long time. Let's get back to it.

They might even accidentally become middle-class! In this day and time? Can you even imagine it?

 

[warpus]

People who are so irresponsible that they have let their life deteriorate to a point where they need welfare can't be trusted with their own well being. Instead of food stamps or money they should just get a weekly delievery of oats and expired milk.

My parents had to go on welfare once or twice you know.. Without it they would have likely had their lives turn to crap, instead of being able to use it as a springboard to relative success for themselves and their children.

Back to the OP - Why don't Republicans want welfare recipients to be able to buy cookies?

And why care what they buy, anyway? It's not like they're getting more welfare just because they buy a steak. And if they're able to continually buy $30 steak and fancy cookies, and they have enough money left over for rent and other necessities, what's the problem? Are they getting too much money overall? Well, then address that, don't take away their friggin cookies, you jerks.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

My parents had to go on welfare once or twice you know.. Without it they would have likely had their lives turn to crap, instead of being able to use it as a springboard to relative success for themselves and their children.

But just imagine how succesful you could be now if you hadn't grown up under a system that disincentvizes hard work !

 

[warpus]

But just imagine how succesful you could be now if you hadn't grown up under a system that disincentvizes hard work !

Oh, sarcasm. I was never good at picking up on German humour.

We are actually also quite indebted to the (West) German state - for providing us with welfare for 3-4 years while we figure out our situation.

Without welfare I'd be just some guy in Poland right now, likely with a wife, some kids, and not much else going for me. Heck, I'd probably be drunk right now, or working as a plumber somewhere in London, England. No way I'd ever be able to play amazing video games or travel to Norway. Welfare made it all possible.

 

[MobBoss]

Do you really think it's about healthy eating? What's unhealthy about steak? It's a great source of iron and vitamin C. I recently went through a period where I ate chicken breast 10 days in a row. Trust me, it gets very, very old, no matter how healthy a little chicken and pasta was. I was craving McDonalds simply for the beef patty, and I hate McDonalds. Thankfully I am now able to eat far too much beef stir fry, which really hits the spot.

It's poor-bashing, nothing more. Provided something is legal, the government shouldn't have any right to tell you not to spend your money on it. I thought the big gulp law was effing stupid as well.

I think its simply about getting your best bang for your buck. I don't think it is poor bashing, but rather putting emphasis on the aide and what it is really meant for: meeting the basic sustenance needs of a family.

The real issue is should we expect people receiving aid dollars to spend it responsibly?

And I myself was on food stamps at one point in my life...however, I was wise enough to want to eat ok for a week instead of eating like a king for only a day.