Posted on 02/19/2016 10:38:02 AM PST by nickcarraway
The concept of the food-stamp queen was first proffered by Ronald Reagan during a 1976 campaign speech. "In Chicago, they found a woman who holds the record," he told the assembled crowd. "She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans' benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year." Reagan's story turned out to be a gross exaggeration of a minor case of welfare fraud, but since their patron saint conjured her up, conservatives have been unable to rid themselves of the image of the food-stamp queen. And despite her nonexistence, they've tried over and over again to stamp her out.
Their latest attempt takes the form of a bill introduced by New York senator Patty Ritchie designed to keep people from using New York's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to buy things like expensive steaks, lobster, decorated cakes, or energy drinks. "The goal of this legislation is to improve dietary quality and reduce obesity," as well as to "restrict the abuse of the program," reads the bill's memo.
Even if it passes the Democratic-controlled senate, the bill is unlikely to accomplish either goal. According to a 2007 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "no evidence exists which indicates that food stamp benefits directly contribute to poor food choices and negative dietary outcomes, such as obesity." The majority of food-stamp recipients still buy a portion of their food with their own money, with which they can make as many unrestricted choices as they want.
The Republican fear of "abuse" of food stamps to purchase "luxury items" is founded on a decades-old and highly unrealistic stigma. Last April, when Missouri politicians introduced a similar bill, Representative Rick Brattin told the Washington Post, "I have seen people purchasing filet mignons and crab legs with their EBT [Electronic Benefit Transfer] cards. When I can't afford it on my pay, I don't want people on the taxpayer's dime to." Similar outrage flared up in Kansas when a bill was introduced to limit "a long list of items, including alcohol, cigarettes, concert tickets, theme park tickets, or cruises," and in Wisconsin, where another aimed to strike "crab, lobster, shrimp, and any other shell fish" from the list of available foods. Yet in studies of the diets of people on food stamps, they're shown to eat less seafood than the rest of us, and about the same amount of beef. (How they would buy cruise tickets with their benefits is unclear.)
"It's seeking to legislate urban myths in our society," Milwaukee representative Evan Goyke told WSAU when Wisconsin's bill was in the spotlight. "Forty-one percent of the people who receive food stamps are under the age of 18, and the next largest chunk are the elderly. And they're not eating lobster; they're struggling to get by."
50% of the population pay no federal income tax and receive few benefits while the moochers pay nothing and get most of the benefits.
I can’t recall how many times I’ve been shopping on a budget and gotten stuck behind someone at the checkout buying shrimp and king crab legs and paying for it with an EBT card.
The most outrageous one was a young white hipster buying a bottle of truffle oil with an EBT card.
The myth is reality.
Yes - they have gone by the wayside as friends as well. The guy was an okay worker and I would hire him for some help. Until I found him sitting and playing some game on his phone while the work I gave him to do wasn’t finished and we were in a time crunch. (He was 29 at the time- father of three kids - playing games!)
Old school Southern home cook here, too. I can stretch the stretchings. Just opened a jar of home canned corn cob jelly and have a pot of chicken broth in the fridge from the chicken bones saved from dinner a couple nights ago. The leftover meat had been picked off the bones for a BBQ Chicken pizza - of course, homemade dough. Dinner tonight will be sandwiches from a bit of leftover pork chops that was originally from a boneless pork roast bought on sale and cheaper than bone-in chops. The onions on the sandwich are from the smaller rings not used from frying onion rings. The onion root went to the garden and the skins went to the compost. The sauted bell pepper was home grown. The sandwich spread will be homemade so didn’t have to buy a costly pre-made spread.
I can make 5 Scholtzsky’s sandwiches on a homemade bun and homemade spread for what one costs at the drive-thru. That’s still a costly sandwich but so good.
Can’t stand it when the grocery cashier says, “You saved $14.28!” for buying the cheaper store brand. My normal reply is, “No, I spent $223.87.” The only thing that’s stopped me from throwing the eggs at them is that the eggs have been paid for.
Lol, I hear you, and well done! You are stretching it even beyond my good efforts.
Worse yet is that the latest numbers out a few months ago show 71% of the population receives a check from Uncle Sugar. 71%. That means even conservatives have some kind of monetary incentive for federal spending, even if justified, because ion that 71% must be some conservatives getting a check.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, thanks.
“Claire” would probably never stoop to shopping at WalMart or Food4Less, so she doesn’t see what the rest of us see. Her black lipstick cones from a trendy and exclusive store, no doubt. Conservatives will never lose the myth of EBT shoppers spending foolishly because it is not a myth. Food stamps and debit money go a long way when your kids eat free at school and you can stock up at a free pantry. I actually heard a woman complain that her local food pantry mostly had store-brand foods and why can’t people donate name brand foods, do they think people getting food at the pantry deserve less?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.