Grocery shopping with food stamps

**nodmicks** · 06-26-2011, 10:20 AM

If you really want to have steam soming out your ears and be confused read this article about the lottery winner who still uses food stamps!

Leroy Fick, Millionaire Lottery Winner, Still Using Food Stamps (VIDEO)

**PennyWise** · 06-26-2011, 03:43 PM

I do agree there needs to be classes within the DSS on how to use couons and cook frugally...but, I could never imagine telling my kids that they were never allowed to have ay pop or candy.
And if someone suggests paying for that stuff with cash...someone else will say, if you can afford pop and candy, you don't need FS.

Don't forget, unemployment benefits are also considered "welfare", so maybe the Gov. should delegate how that is spent as well.

**nodmicks** · 06-26-2011, 04:01 PM

Honestly if I ever would need FS I would have no issue with being told what I could buy. I'm sure I would shop the way we do now~ healthy and no frills

I also have no problem telling my kids we cant buy pop or candy. I can count on one hand how many bottles of pop we buy in a year. Even with rarely ever buying pop or candy they still always had a bit at school, friends homes, grandmas etc. My teenage sons friends occasionaly balk because we dont have soda. I tell them tough it out or bring your own. I just dont agree with people who look at pop and junk food as necessities they can not live without. For us it is more about nutrition than $ on that issue because pop is cheaper than milk which we dont limit. Hope that made sense.

**Vanilla** · 06-26-2011, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by PennyWise

Don't forget, unemployment benefits are also considered "welfare", so maybe the Gov. should delegate how that is spent as well.

I didn't realize that 'Unemployment' is considered as 'welfare'. My understanding is: employers pay the 'Unemployment Insurance' (part of employer's taxes) to a 'trust fund', & employees who are laid off can apply for the unemployment benefits, those benefits come from that trust fund, & employees need to pay income tax on those unemployment benefits they receive.
Those who never been employed cannot apply for 'unemployment benefits', but can apply for other government's assistant.
I'm not sure if those who receive food-stamp need to pay income tax on the amount of food-stamp they receive.

**brainyblonde** · 06-26-2011, 05:09 PM

In our area, low income elderly and WIC recipients can get vouchers to be used at the farmers' markets. Seems like a win-win to me. Healthier food for people who need it, and support for our local farmers.

**mh3rdwheel** · 06-26-2011, 05:55 PM

Here in West Virginia any money you get instead of a check it is put on your food stamp card, but Ohio doesn't, soon we will not be getting food stamps. Hooray.

**NikoSan999** · 06-27-2011, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Vanilla

I didn't realize that 'Unemployment' is considered as 'welfare'. My understanding is: employers pay the 'Unemployment Insurance' (part of employer's taxes) to a 'trust fund', & employees who are laid off can apply for the unemployment benefits, those benefits come from that trust fund, & employees need to pay income tax on those unemployment benefits they receive.
Those who never been employed cannot apply for 'unemployment benefits', but can apply for other government's assistant.
I'm not sure if those who receive food-stamp need to pay income tax on the amount of food-stamp they receive.

Vanilla you are exactly right. Our business pays Unemployment Insurance etc...you are stating it correct. I know cause I deal with that end of it at the business. Every week.

It is in NO way, shape or form welfare. If you have never worked you can't get it unlike the government assisted programs. It comes out of the "trust" you are speaking of.

Yes, you pay income tax on unemployment...No you do not pay income tax on food stamps.

Unemployment is NOT welfare. It is EMployer based.

**bumplett** · 06-27-2011, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by nodmicks

Honestly if I ever would need FS I would have no issue with being told what I could buy. I'm sure I would shop the way we do now~ healthy and no frills

I also have no problem telling my kids we cant buy pop or candy. I can count on one hand how many bottles of pop we buy in a year. Even with rarely ever buying pop or candy they still always had a bit at school, friends homes, grandmas etc. My teenage sons friends occasionaly balk because we dont have soda. I tell them tough it out or bring your own. I just dont agree with people who look at pop and junk food as necessities they can not live without. For us it is more about nutrition than $ on that issue because pop is cheaper than milk which we dont limit. Hope that made sense.

I agree with you nodmicks. If I'm ASKING the government for help, I should be willing to accept the rules/regulations of that help.

No different than borrowing money from my mom or dad or anyone else to pay a bill - if she/he wants to see the bill, or pay the bill directly, so be it - I should just be grateful for the help.

I don't fault those that receive assistance, I hope nothing I say comes across as such. I fault those that abuse it. I fault the government that allows the abuse.

I think that EVERYONE that receives any government benefits should be drug tested EVERY month. This includes TANF, WIC, foodstamps, Section 8 housing, etc.

I wouldn't fault private church food banks for doing the same

Again, these benefits were never designed to be a constant, but only a helping hand when needed.

This economy is kicking everyone's butt. Including ours. If those that abuse their benefits were reined in, how many others could be helped??

JMHO.

**Palooka** · 06-27-2011, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by bumplett

I think that EVERYONE that receives any government benefits should be drug tested EVERY month. This includes TANF, WIC, foodstamps, Section 8 housing, etc.

And if they are found positive.... just cut off nutrition, daycare money so the parent can't work making minimum wage or a little higher and shelter for the kids too?

Nah, there's gotta be a better way to regulate this...

**bumplett** · 06-27-2011, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by Palooka

And if they are found positive.... just cut off nutrition, daycare money so the parent can't work making minimum wage or a little higher and shelter for the kids too?

Nah, there's gotta be a better way to regulate this...

actually, they would receive their daily nutrition in JAIL.

Drugs are illegal.

**bumplett** · 06-27-2011, 01:21 AM

seriously though palooka,

you do have a good point.

but is it the tax payers responsibility to provide a meal for my kid if I, as the adult, choose to spend my money on drugs??

Will it (hopefully) instill in those adults the need to stay clean?

If mom/dad can't pass a drug test, do you really think that kid is receiving proper care at home anyway??

Would mom/dad be able to find a better job, making more than minimum wage, IF they COULD pass a drug test??

just sayin'

**Palooka** · 06-27-2011, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by bumplett

actually, they would receive their daily nutrition in JAIL.

Drugs are illegal.

I was talking about the kids here and how they would lose out if the gov't cut off the parents funding.

**bumplett** · 06-27-2011, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Palooka

I was talking about the kids here and how they would lose out if the gov't cut off the parents funding.

so it's really a vicious circle because those kids (whose parents are in jail because drugs are illegal) would then be placed in foster care, thus costing the government even MORE money.

**Palooka** · 06-27-2011, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by bumplett

seriously though palooka,

you do have a good point.

but is it the tax payers responsibility to provide a meal for my kid if I, as the adult, choose to spend my money on drugs??

Will it (hopefully) instill in those adults the need to stay clean?

If mom/dad can't pass a drug test, do you really think that kid is receiving proper care at home anyway??

Would mom/dad be able to find a better job, making more than minimum wage, IF they COULD pass a drug test??

just sayin'

If someone has a drug problem..illegal or not...cutting off funding will not make them clean or not. I also doubt people that are working for minimum wage all have a drug problem. Maybe a lack of funds for a real education...just sayin.' And if they can't pass a simple drug test, what should we do with the kids? Leave them with less of a future? And it's not all that black and white really.

**Palooka** · 06-27-2011, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by bumplett

so it's really a vicious circle because those kids (whose parents are in jail because drugs are illegal) would then be placed in foster care, thus costing the government even MORE money.

Well maybe those that want to cut off funding will adopt them.

Problem solved and they will get a tax cut too!