Poll: Food stamps not for crab legs

Yum! Giant undersea spider legs with butter! (AJC file photo)

Yum! Giant undersea spider legs with buttered corn! (AJC file photo)

If there’s one thing Americans can agree on, it’s that we know best how other people should act.

The Huffington Post polled 1,000 presumably well-fed adults and asked them how the less fortunate should go about their business.

The results? The poor should not eat crab legs.

I’m not on food stamps, but I rarely eat crab legs for several reasons:

  • They remind me of giant underwater spiders
  • I have observed them eating dead stuff
  • I am a Cancer (but not on journalism)
  • They are expensive and I am cheap
  • They are a pain to eat
  • Shrimp is just as tasty if i get in the mood to eat underwater bugs

HuffPo asked “Do you think people who receive food stamps should be allowed to buy expensive food items, such as crab legs, using their food stamp benefits?”

54 percent said no. 32 percent said yes and 14 percent wished they had not answered the telephone.

People are more tolerant of the poor when they decide to eat nutritionally valueless snacks like candy, soda and chips.

45 percent said OK to the sweet and salty stuff, but almost as many, 43 percent, said the poor should not be purchasing such things with food stamps.

Americans, being the lovers of personal freedom we are, think the poor should be allowed to buy crab legs (52 percent) and chips (63 percent) with their own money.

The Huffington Post article says 47 million Americans are enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides funds for low-income (and no-income) families. In fiscal year 2012, the program cost about $75 billion. The average person received $135 each month in food money, but most households have more than one recipient. In 2011, the average per household was $287.

Eligibility for food stamps is dependent on income and family size. But a single person would have to gross less than $1,211 and take home less than $931 per month.

Georgia has the 6th most receiving benefits, almost 2 million people.

Old school “food stamps” have not existed since the 1990s. Now, those who get benefits use an EBT (electronic benefits transfer) card at the cash register.

The following CAN NOT be purchased with SNAP benefits:

  • Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco;
  • pet foods
  • soaps, paper products
  • household supplies
  • Vitamins and medicines
  • Food that will be eaten in the store
  • Hot foods

This means crab legs you take home and cook are perfectly legal to purchase using SNAP funds.

A woman in the HuffPo article that receives food stamps said she thinks some people misuse the program.

“I see a lot of food stamp recipients, look in their shopping carts and it’s Ho Hos and Ding Dongs and you go, ‘My tax dollars are paying for this?’ Even as a recipient myself I judge those people,” said Hannah Aldrich.

Still, SNAP only accounts for about 2 percent of the $3.5 trillion federal budget. By comparison, 19 percent of the budget goes to the military and related costs.

The House of Representatives will soon vote on a bill to trim SNAP by $40 billion, or 5 percent, over the next 10 years. It is doubtful such a measure would pass the Senate or be signed by the president.

151 comments Add your comment

Rockerbabe

August 16th, 2013
2:46 pm

There have been a number of attempts over the years to further restrict what the folks on Food Stamps purchase. All have failed miserably because the food industry goes out and literally “buys” elected officials to not limit whatever products are under consideration. This includes soda pop and junk food manufacturers; so since crab legs are raw and cold and uncooked at purchase, they are availble for sale to those with Food Stamps. So unless those who complain about what folks on Food Stamps purchase are willing to go to “bat” for further limitations, in defiance of the junk food manufacturers, then these folks should keep their mouths shut. Crab legs is the least of our food insecurity problems.

Lawrence

August 16th, 2013
2:51 pm

I would be for these types of limits as soon as the federal government first decides to limit the type of house I can buy in order to get the home mortgage tax deduction. Oh wait, we’re only concerned about the choices of poor people – not the choices of ALL people benefiting from federal benefits.

Horsetoothedjackass

August 16th, 2013
3:19 pm

Years ago, I worked as a cashier at a grocery store and the type of items one could use food stamps on shocked. I had a customer come through my line with over $200 in deli meat and cheese trays and paid for them with food stamps. One should be using such benefits to feed their family, not to throw a party.

Irishmafia116

August 16th, 2013
3:20 pm

“some people ” abuse the system ? Let me tell you I ran a chain of nationally known food stores in the the Atlanta metro area, most in the low income areas, this was 6 years ago before11% of the popualtion got the freebies. At a MINIMUM more than 50% of the people with food stamps were trying to by items that werent allowed -mostly beer, cigarettes, and the like. Many of these people drove up in a nicer car than I had, most if not all had a cellphone/smartphone in hand. None looked hungry in the least, in fact most were overweight. –Sure hit me with -you can’t judge everyone ….blah blah blah , but when you see it day after day, location after location, and different people all doing the same thing —well you can make a pretty good assumption. BTW there were plenty of people outside the stores willing to pay cash for the EBT”S and pl nty of people selling them –call the police ??? LOL U R kidding right?

Shaye

August 16th, 2013
3:38 pm

What out to be required is some sort of education, even if it’s just a pamphlet and a phone call, on what equals good nutrition and how to stretch your food dollars. Heck, even a suggested basic grocery list would be a step in the right direction.

sliderule

August 16th, 2013
3:43 pm

“SNAP only accounts for about 2 percent of the $3.5 trillion federal budget”.

ONLY 2%. Reporters that have no sense of numbers make insipid statements as above thereby masking the enormous cost of the program. That’s 45 billion dollars. That’s with a B. That’s enough to employ at least 450 THOUSAND reporters per year.

[GEORGE ADDED THIS COMMENT] I believe my math is correct. 3,500,000,000,000 (thats 3.5 trillion, the actual size of the federal budget) times 2 percent equals 70 billion (70,000,000,000), which is roughly the size of the food stamp program. I am not sure how you get 45 billion. The actual percentage rate is closer to 2.2 percent, but I rounded off.

LilburnLady

August 16th, 2013
3:45 pm

Many years ago when Food Stamps were actual books of “stamps”, I worked as a cashier in a grocery store. Most recipients tried to stretch those stamps as far as they could, buyer cheaper cuts of meat, fresh greens, etc. Some however, knew how to work the system. If the “change” received back from their purchase was less than a dollar, we had to give them real coins back. I can’t tell you how many packs of cigarettes and other banned items were purchased by sending every one of the family’s kids through the line with a dollar foodstamp in hand and a piece of candy or gum. Then after all the change was tallied up, Mom or Dad would use it to purchase cigarettes. The abuse has been going on for generations. The switch to EBT cards has not solved this as unscrupulous shopowners now have found ways to sell beer, wine and cigarettes to EBT card holders.

bamabelle2000

August 16th, 2013
3:56 pm

Here is there issue: If this does not affect your family or take food out your mouth, then why do you care what someone buys at a grocery store?

Host versus parasite

August 16th, 2013
3:57 pm

Let’s be clear. The money people receive as food stamps is first stolen from others against their will. Many may be fine with the outcome, but there is no denying that refusal to pay your taxes will result in loss of liberty (prison) or even loss of life if resistance is strong enough. There was a time when we relied on voluntary charitable contributions but that was before Progressives instituted a tax on the fruits of one’s labor and made the government our masters (100 years ago).

If I were to make a voluntary contribution to a private charity that helps the poor (and I make many), it would be incumbent upon me to care how that money is spent, that it is not wasted, and that real value is delivered for this contribution. Nobody would question my concern and most would in fact expect that I would hold the charity accountable for its fiscal responsibility, stop donating when corruption is discovered, and choose alternate options until they “earn” my donations again. But not government. We are not only expected to just trust government to do what is right, but are criticized by progressives at magazines like HuffPo if we set expectations that the poor should not have the pleasures of expensive food items, etc. And heaven forbid we question the “critical” role government plays in keeping people from “dying in the streets from hunger.” Let’s not even get into the role the Federal Reserve and other government agencies and protected monopolies have played in the destruction of our economy that has forced over 100 million to need food aid of one kind or another. And of course, anyone suggesting that all government aid be done away with in favor of accountable private charities that must actually EARN the money they have through demonstrations of good fiscal management, positive outcomes, and real deliverables, will be immediately skewered on the sharp post of “public opinion.” (As I fully expect to be with this comment). Funny how nobody questions that private charities don’t serve crab legs at every meal, or steak, or any similar expensive items (unless of course that is what someone donates of their own free choice).

There is an old saying “beggars can’t be choosers.” In America we still use this saying, but now nobody needs to beg. They have professional lobbyists for that now who simply con government agents to STEAL on their behalf or they have congressman and women who STEAL and then use the handouts to purchase votes in future elections.

Beggars actually can be choosers. Most do their important choosing at the ballot box.

Host versus parasite

August 16th, 2013
4:05 pm

Lawrence – Somehow you think it is appropriate to equate money that one keeps in one’s pocket to the money one receives via government theft as a “handout.”

While I am no fan of the way the income tax code is used as a social engineering tool (the mortgage interest tax deduction being the most blatant example), our elected officials consciously choose to spend beyond our country’s means without taking into account this lost revenue. That money was actually EARNED by the taxpayer. I would rather have no tax on income and have people from all economic levels spend their money as they see fit with no government incentives or disincentives.

That being said, a significant portion of our economy is driven by the home industry and everyone from rich to poor takes a cut in one way or another from the revenues generated. Again, that is not a justification for the current distorted situation, but please to not treat these elements of our economy as if they exist in a vacuum – they do not.

Government charity begins with theft. Those who are taken from have every right to expect responsible use of that money (even though that is intrinsically impossible with government).

Rockerbabe

August 16th, 2013
4:55 pm

Host versus parasite: And I suppose that you think keeping kids hungry is a way to do what? Most folks on Food Stamps do not make enough money while working to feed themselves or their kids. Most haven’t had a decent raise in over ten years and many work two or more jobs just to try and make ends meet. Most would gladly give up Food Stamps if they would get a better paying job and go it alone. Your comments are so common among those who hate any assistance given to other – that is, until you need such assistance in your life.

Rockerbabe is Delusional

August 16th, 2013
5:15 pm

“And I suppose that you think keeping kids hungry is a way to do what? Most folks on Food Stamps do not make enough money while working to feed themselves or their kids.”

You are delusionally fantasizing about how food stamps should be used. Host versus parasite is DEAD ON ACCURATE. Wake up, take a good wiff and smell your crabby legs, Rockerbabe!

Truthpaste

August 16th, 2013
5:21 pm

bamabelle2000 said:
Here is there issue: If this does not affect your family or take food out your mouth, then why do you care what someone buys at a grocery store?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It most certainly does affect our families if we are here complaining. My tax dollars go to pay for your overbreeding and / or laziness.

Complain about Food Stamp Abuse = Contributes to society
Support Food Stamp Fraud = Taker, entitled, overbreeder, and lazy

Poopy McPherson

August 16th, 2013
5:50 pm

“Just because you can make babies doesn’t mean you should.” Don Lemon July 2013 CNN anchor

The Real Guy from Grayson

August 16th, 2013
5:53 pm

Which bank gets to manage all of these millions of cards and collect the management fees? Follow the money!

swan

August 16th, 2013
6:12 pm

if u do not eat them then why shoudnt the “poor”. sounds like its poor food to me, hence SNAP worthy. I want my crab legs!

Tracy

August 16th, 2013
6:44 pm

I worked pretty much full time from the time I was 15, got my degree, professional designation, am a CPA. I paid more than my share of taxes, lived responsibly and had savings. But sometimes life happens and I’ve had EBT for about 3 years and don’t know what I’d have done without them.

I treat my EBT balance like any limited bank account and try to be a responsible steward of that money, buying markdowns. using coupons, buying nutritional things etc. And if I have plenty left towards the end of the month, I might treat myself to a steak (the ones turning brown w/ the orange markdown sticker or something similar) or other “luxury” food item. I’m guessing most are responsible.

I myself do resent it when I see people with buggies full of luxury items, items like Twinkies w/ no value, people obviously buying for a daycare or restaurant etc. But in the end, it’s none of my business.

And in my experience as a tax accountant and a human, I find that those who resent the spending of “their tax dollars” on the less fortunate probably don’t pay much, if anything, in net taxes and are often the biggest recipients of such things as the earned income credit, free schooling for their children, free healthcare for those children etc.

I don’t know what it is in this country that breeds such resentment when folks think someone is getting something they’re not.

Catlady

August 16th, 2013
6:50 pm

If you need help, you are a parasite. If I need help, I DESERVE it!

cooper

August 16th, 2013
7:02 pm

white americans now receive more food stamps then any other race…and the fastest rising race to be destitute

Shawn

August 16th, 2013
7:27 pm

I believe the government should limit what can be purchased with food stamps. Food stamps were intended to be temporary support for individuals/families in need. I am okay with tax dollars being allocated to the program so long as the “temporary support” doesn’t last for 20 years. Taking advantage of public assistance for that long is indicative of someone who is not trying to find a job and provide their own financial support. Instead, they are holding their hands out to take whatever handouts federal, state and local governments are willing to shell out. If you are in the midst of transitioning to a self-sustaining life, you shouldn’t be forced to eat scraps, but crab legs are a luxury that should be paid for with cash, VISA, MasterCard, AMEX or whatever form of payment that requires the person eating them to be responsible for the cost.

BossLady

August 16th, 2013
7:59 pm

Annabelle you are correct

BossLady

August 16th, 2013
8:00 pm

Auto correct Bamabelle

olddogclassof80

August 16th, 2013
8:08 pm

ONLY $75 BILLION! That costs us each about $670 per year!

kenny

August 16th, 2013
9:26 pm

Who in the hell are we to suggest that a person receiving help should buy this and not that? The list of what can be bought is set, and some damn crab legs are not listed. People get over yourselves already!!!!!!!!!!

miladyanne

August 16th, 2013
9:44 pm

Yes, there are people who abuse the programs but it’s there business what they decide to eat and feed their families. Although it seems that people receive way too many food stamps for their need its the other way around. They might be able to get enough food to last 2 weeks (depending on how many children they have). After that they have to spend money on food for the rest of the month. If a person works but doesn’t make enough to care for their needs, they are eligible for food stamps. Not all are eating high on the hog. They are not in the lap of luxury.

MrLiberty

August 16th, 2013
9:47 pm

kenny – “Who in the hell are we to suggest that a person receiving help should buy this and not that?”

I’ll tell you who we are. We are the people who are not VOLUNTARILY contributing to a private charity that we entrust to make good decisions regarding the money we donate, we are the people who are being STOLEN FROM by a government that spends over a Trillion Dollars more than it takes in to buy the votes of poor people and rich people alike with our money. We do not have the right to refuse to be victimized by this government so we yell and scream at the top of our lungs to try and at least impose some sense of propriety to the situation. If you came to me begging for money for liquor it would be my right to demand that any voluntary contribution I made to you be spent on food or something you need to survive, not some luxury that is beyond your need.

I do not care how a private charity spends the money it receives unless it receives it from me. I do not care how anyone spends the money they earn for themselves or even the money someone gives to them freely through charity. It is not about control, it is about property rights.

MrLiberty

August 16th, 2013
9:56 pm

You can see what 80 years of government welfare have done to the morality of this country. Charity – something that was once considered the last resort – is now considered acceptable, an entitlement, and is craftily masked by the government so that it no longer is even treated as something that came from the hard work of others on one’s behalf. It is a plastic card that everyone becomes eligible for simply by existing. There is no longer a connection to the fact that others will do with less because you will do with more. There is not even the realization of the truth that many who are taxed to pay for these programs are barely surviving themselves. The theft of property (and all of its immorality) is magically wiped away simply by having a government employee commit the theft on your behalf.

Don’t get me wrong. I am fully aware of the fact that much of this money really helps folks, but so do the meals, housing, clothing, and other forms of aid that are donated voluntarily (rather than by force) to private charities throughout this country. And nobody faults any of these charities for the limits they impose on their recipients.

David Hoffman

August 16th, 2013
11:20 pm

Sometimes frozen crab legs go on sale for a significant discount from average daily prices. I would much rather have SNAP recipients buy crab legs than corn syrup filled soda, no nutritional value cookies and cakes, or corn syrup infused candy. I would rather see crab legs than bacon or lousy frozen batter covered shrimp, fish, or chicken.

Gunluvr

August 17th, 2013
12:04 am

I used to be a critic of what food should be authorized to be purchased with food stamps, no more. Food is food to be consumed for nourishment and the cost of the program is nothing compared to our defense budget. Such programs have been a political and social cornerstone going back to the Roman Republic and nothing has changed in over 2000 years.

There are two programs that I unequivocally support; One is the Food Stamp program and the other is elder care. Because as long as society beckons people to come, live, work and die in the cities that society has a responsibility to address the needs of the people it asks to keep it’s cities working.

David Hoffman

August 17th, 2013
4:41 am

Gunluvr, the WIC(Women, Infants, and Children) food program has very clearly defined limits on what types of food can be purchased. WIC emphasises food with real nutrition, not non nutritious food. Similar limits could be put into place for SNAP. One benefit of doing so would be to avoid the all too common last week of the month running out of food situation in SNAP households. The WIC foods provide enough calories and nutrients as many SNAP purchases, but at a significantly lower cost. That cost difference would significantly reduce the number of limited food days during the last week or so of the month. Instead of 10 days, you might only have 3 days.of limited food. The other benefit would be a much better public image for the SNAP program. If people saw SNAP participants with only WIC type foods in the shopping cart, I believe there would be a lot less disagreement with the program’s existence.

camille

August 17th, 2013
4:46 am

I really believe that people on food stamps should buy what they want to. Who am I? My tax dollars are spend on MILLIONS of items that I dis-agree with.. MILLIONS.. If all of us collectively in a society make these decisions no one would get anything. A vegan would say that a food stamps can’t buy meat or any meat by product.. a meat lover would say spend it all on meat.. some would say no juice .. only water… others would say only this type of bread.. they type of ice cream… and then here come the lobbyists trying to get their company on the approved list.. SMH….

David Hoffman

August 17th, 2013
6:30 am

Camille, there are a lot of federal procurement programs with buying restrictions that federal government employees must follow, even if the employee disagrees with them. The employee may think a a certain computer manufacturer offers a better value for the work to be done, but is restricted to only buying from a limited list of approved to purchase computers. There are restrictions on what office chairs they can purchase, even though the non approved chair manufacturers often offer a much longer lasting chair that would be a better long term value. If the federal government can operate with all those purchasing restrictions that are put into place to achieve some Congressional mandate, then users of the federal government SNAP can learn to limit purchases. The WIC users manage to do it, so why not the SNAP users?

kenny

August 17th, 2013
7:30 am

MrLiberty, if you decide to give money to someone who is begging, after you give that person said money, it now belongs to the person you just gave it to. You or no one else have the right to tell that person how to spend it. We all want our hard earned money to be spent the way we think is best. But the reality of it is once it is out of our hands it is not ours any longer. I dont understand why that is so hard to realize…….Are the programs being taken advantage of, YES, in a huge way. But unless you get off your high horse and do something about it, instead of crying about it here, the norm is what you get!

Bumper

August 17th, 2013
9:08 am

bamabelle2000
August 16th, 2013
3:56 pm
“Here is there issue: If this does not affect your family or take food out your mouth, then why do you care what someone buys at a grocery store?”

What a mindless comment. We’re allowed to care because we (taxpayers) are paying the bill. No one wants to see poor people go hungry, but buying crab legs, cigarettes and beer with food stamps -I don’t think so.

Catlady

August 17th, 2013
9:28 am

David Hoffman, I certainly agree with you re using the WIC requirements! Milk, eggs, cheese, real juice, fresh fruits and veggies. Add in real meat up to a certain price per pound. A meal!

I grow an organic garden ( which a person on SNAP can do also). I made the mistake of taking some beans, greens, squash to the local food bank. When I arrived, an hour before opening, I saw grossly obese white folks standing around, smoking, under the NO Smoking sign. When I took the food in, one of the workers took me aside and told me that people wanted cans of food,they could just warm up, not food that had to be prepared! So the next week, and thereafter, I have taken the food to the Senior Center, where the folks almost fight over the fresh stuff!

In my county alone, there is the food bank, food stamps, WIC, free breakfast and lunches, three churches have their own pantries, a free lunch 5 days a week for anyone, and in the summer kids under 18 can come to certain food spots for free lunch and snacks–no questions asked. You can sign your child up for a snack backpack for the weekend. Plus, virtually everyone has space for a garden. I have a hard time understanding how we can claim people are going hungry!

TigerlillyLady

August 17th, 2013
9:46 am

Bumper… one cannot buy cigarettes and beer on food stamps. What a thoughtless comment.

Kacy

August 17th, 2013
9:46 am

There is a need for food stamps. Not all who apply or receive them purchase nutritious foods. Some people use them for twinkies, chips, and other not so healthy foods. Not too long ago I remember growing up and food stamps were used for people whom cooked full course meals. Minimum starch, lots of vegetables and meat. Sometimes an fresh baked apple pie was for dessert. These days people dont understand the worth of an dollar, whether its there own hard earned dollar or someone elses. Lets be cautious and conscience of what we buy and put into our bodies. Healthy spedning equates to healthy living.

SEE

August 17th, 2013
9:55 am

We tried growing a garden. We discovered that the cost of water, soil amendments, and organic, “debugging” sprays far outweighed the very little produce we got. It really was cheaper to buy from the store (and no, I don’t buy organic. It’s simply too expensive). Perhaps you live in a different area where you do not need all these items to grow enough vegetables to share. For us, lots of time and $$$ with little reward. Ugh, won’t try that again.

MrLiberty

August 17th, 2013
10:40 am

kenny – I guess you missed my point. Yes, once I give over my money someone can do with it exactly what they want. My point was that if you come begging for money for booze, you aren’t going to get it from me. Contrast that with government programs (which everyone seems to think MUST be in place – I completely disagree). With the government my money is STOLEN from me and spent any way a politician believes.

And yes, I do work to change this. I do not support republicans or democrats because they both believe in the welfare/warfare state that doles out hundreds of billions in welfare of one form or another to their politically-connected friends/prospective voters. I support candidates who espouse the libertarian philosophy that if it is immoral for an individual to do it, it is equally immoral for a government to do it and that people should be allowed to live their lives and dispose of their property and their bodies as THEY see fit so long as they are not violating the rights of others. The way that extends to charity is that there would be NO government theft of income to hand out to others but that only private charities receiving VOLUNTARY contributions would be allowed and that donors would be put back in the drivers seat to hold these folks accountable for how their donations are used.

So long as you put a pile of “free money” on the table (as government does), you are going to get abuse. You can only stop it by stopping government and massively limiting what they are allowed to do. This kind of abuse is inherent in the government system. The private sector is not free of this (I am no idealist), but when everyone stops buying a product, shopping at their business, or ceasing their donations (as happened years ago when United Way was found to be full of corruption), the problem is either handled to the satisfaction of the consumer/donor or the business/charity goes away and someone better takes its place (that is of course unless government steps in, uses its power, steals money from the productive sector, and bails them out or otherwise acts to prevent proper market forces from working properly).

I will take the competitive private free market anyday over government monopoly and its inherent failure.

M. Gail Williams

August 17th, 2013
10:51 am

why should the poor have to stick to the cheap simple things in life? if crab legs are what they can buy with food stamps then why should they be denied because of someone else’s opinion of what they should do. and I am one that made less and was never allow the stamps when I needed them. but if people find a way to find a little bit of happiness, then why should it be denied that happiness. even if it is with the foods that they eat.

Catlady

August 17th, 2013
11:29 am

SEE, I DO live in a rural place where there are virtually no apartments. People live on pieces of land, small and large.

It is possible to garden on little money. I am not saying I save money gardening (if you figure in the cost of my work) but I can control what goes in or on the food I eat. I feed several families, mostly on my sweat, so if you look at the total worth of the food I grow, it is many more times the cost.

Consider taking a class, doing a lot of reading, or find someone whose garden you admire and ask for advice, or offer to help them. Some vegetables return their initial cost many times over.

My daughter, who lives on some of the worst, deadest ground in all Dekalb county(Gresham Park) did pretty well her first year with about 30 sq ft. She even froze and canned some. This year, she has way too much and is giving away and canning and freezing, with less space(she has too many tall pine trees shading). Her deck is a veritable jungle of tomatoes, peppers, tomatillos, herbs, and potatoes, all started herself (some from seeds saved from plants last year). She saves rainwater and composts. All things almost any person can do!

Buying food at the store is up to you, but it isn’t fresh and you would not like what has actually gone into making it.

My point is, there should be no reason for hunger in these United States. Sometimes it is a lack of sense with priorities! ( I might note that virtually every kid in our school is on free lunch, yet most have an x box and cell phone at home!)

kenny

August 17th, 2013
11:37 am

MrLiberty, I get where you are coming from. We can forget about the government doing anything about this problem. At least until we either revolt or we start electing the right people for the job. I dont normally like to claim a party, but my thinking is sort of in line with the republicans or Independents. But most of the time I try to vote for the person instead of the party.

Anyway, I thank you for keeping it on the up and up with me and not going off the reservation like some usually do.

Kat

August 17th, 2013
12:11 pm

Better crab legs than cheesey poofs.

Bumper

August 17th, 2013
1:40 pm

TigerlillyLady
August 17th, 2013
9:46 am
“… one cannot buy cigarettes and beer on food stamps. What a thoughtless comment.”

George already told you that they’re not supposed to buy cigarettes and beer. However if you’d bother to read some of the earlier posts by people who worked in grocery stores you’d see that, apparently, they do. Sometimes reality can be a real bummer.

solo

August 17th, 2013
1:51 pm

I seriously do not care what the poor eat.

Grshpr

August 17th, 2013
1:59 pm

Simple solution would be to make food stamps like WIC. WIC vouchers actually list what you can use them for (milk, cheese, eggs, cereal etc). Anything that is not on the WIC voucher must be paid for. I don’t have a problem with people using either solution as a temporary measure for getting back on their feet, but purchasing junk with SNAP defeats the purpose. I would rather my tax money go to a program like WIC that essentially forces recipients to get healthy food than to a program like SNAP that lets recipients purchase any type of food they want.

Courtney

August 17th, 2013
2:04 pm

Eliminate the entire program.

logan

August 17th, 2013
2:13 pm

There should be a time limit put on all government handouts. People after two years like unemployment should be able to find some type of work. Living a life time on hand out should not be a way of life.

KatyWatts

August 17th, 2013
2:32 pm

And this is exactly what Obama wants!!!! Everyone feed off the Gov’t teat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Testing testing

August 17th, 2013
2:33 pm

Enter your comments here