First, their EBT amount is in excess of what my family spends on groceries, so they won't starve.
Second, most don't rely on EBT to eat. Its gravy on top of their undeclared income. People in "poverty" have a nack for spending 150-200% their reported income.
Third, many sell EBT cards for cash at a discount. This allows the buyer to purchase $600 of lobster/steaks at a cost of $300. The black market EBT for cash would dry up a bit if you could only purchase staples.
Fourth, attaching a stigma to being on the dole is a good thing. Only being able to purchase certain cheap foods would serve that purpose well.
Fifth, people working hard to purchase hamburger get pissed when the EBT buyer in front of them loads up on expensive foods that they can't buy. It makes them feel like chumps and has the opposite effect as #4.
I don’t disagree. Most should get less, or no, benefits. End them completely for all I care. Many ought to be audited to check for undeclared income. Cracking down on resales is a major problem. Stigma is essential — though you can’t force those without conscience to feel bad.
I agree most welfare queens are about as resonsible as children. I disagree that the government ought to parent them to the extent that we decide their menu.
If they’re selling cards, or are living more luxuriously than earners, or are defrauding the system by hiding income, or whatever ... freaking cut their benefits off.
The government just shouldn’t be in the business of monitoring what people eat. It won’t be too long before they extend that monitoring to all of us — for our own good, of course. If we have to go so far as to have some bureaucrat monitoring their dessert intake ... just end it altogether.
SnakeDoc