To Heck With the Food Stamps, I'm Mad about the Manicures!

Messed Up Priorities

Published on March 12, 2004 By JillUser In Blogging

There has been a lot of talk about the rules and regulations regarding food stamps. A lot of us seem to experience the same observation, these women tend to have beautiful nails! *Notice I didn't say they all have* I would love to have beautiful nails. I don't. You know why? I don't have the time because I am taking care of my home and family!

Before children, I would get acrylic nails because I have a hard time growing my own. It is expensive and very time intensive. You have to sit there for at least an hour every week to two weeks. You have to make it a priority. Once I had kids, it simply wasn't a priority anymore.

I am wondering A)How do these women afford it? and B)Why is it they have time to sit on their butts getting their nails done?

I am sure I will get the "They deserve to feel normal too" argument. Manicures are another luxury item. Not a necessity at all! Designer clothes and coiffed hair, more luxuries. Seem to see a lot of those accompanying food stamps too.

Even seeing an example of this once (which I have seen much more than that) is enough to make you feel a bit bitter about paying for these peoples' groceries. People who deserve the assistance can feel defensive about people citing these instances, but it is one of those frustrating flaws in the system. I have so much respect for the woman with the calculator and pile of coupons in tote as she shops. She plans out a list, estimates the cost and sticks to her plan. I can't say I have ever seen a food stamp user ever reference a list or use a coupon. That is just my experience though.

Another thing I can't figure out is the cell phones. How is it they have cell phones too? Example I saw yesterday, leather coat, designer glasses, manicured nails, talking on the cell while yelling at 3 kids to stay out of the candy. All 3 kids had new sneakers, designer clothes and new coats.

I'm all for helping the needy. I am all for seeing kids get the nourishment and clothing they need. I am not for paying for luxuries I don't even have for myself or my family. My family is buying sneakers from Pay-Less and they are wearing Nikes. That just isn't right.

I am not sure how we are going to get there, but I think somehow our society needs to return to the times when people were proud to make the best of what they could with what they had. They would do anything they could to avoid hand outs. Anyone who doesn't believe that government assistance is a handout is fooling themselves. It used to be people were fine working their way up. Now any job other than the top is beneath them. Why work for less than you can make getting assistance? I'll tell you why, you can start a work record and work toward better jobs. Gain experience. Learn new things. Do for yourself and see how rewarding it is. That is how I was raised and it has worked out pretty well so far.

Comments (Page 3)

KarmaGirl

on Mar 25, 2004

With five of us, we spend over $150 a week....so that was only paying half of our food...sorry that it upsets you. And I was working full time, teaching school...and he was working 20 hrs a week as well as going to school full time....and yet we were still below the poverty level.

I think you missed the point- "school" was a choice. He could have been working full time to support the kids. I'm not "upset" about it, it's just pointing out a mentality. People saying "we're poor" and "need" the money, yet they made a lifestyle choice that caused it. Having three kids then going to school full time is a lifestyle *choice*. ALternately, the *choice* could have been to work and support the family. I worked 20+ hours a week while in school, but that was to pay for my school. If you can't pay for food, I can't see how you can afford school.

JillUser

on Mar 25, 2004

I have to agree with Kharma, higher education is not a right or necessity. Taking care of you family is number one on your priority list. If you can't afford to take care of your own, you can't afford school.

PoetMom, from your writing you seem like an intelligent person. I pose this question and I want you to consider it in an unbiased manner if you can. Do you truly think that a family who is working 2 full time jobs and being responsible for their own family should pay for someone else's schooling?

Your money was given in food stamps but was essentially paying for your husband's schooling. After all, if he worked full time you wouldn't have needed $3600/yr from the tax payers.

You sound like a hard working family. You certainly don't fall under the lazy category but it could be argued that this is another example of abuse of the system because it was your choice to pursue higher ed in lieu of working full time that caused the "need" for assistance.

crimson

on Mar 25, 2004

Jilluser, I see where you are going with your comment, but I choose to disagree. Is schooling a necessity? For some people, i think it is. You are also forgetting that, generally, those who do proceed further on in their education do 'pay back' their money that they receive as 'charity'. Yes, there are those professional students, but there are others who truly pursue education to better their circumstances. For those who are on assistance, end up finishing degrees and then enter the workforce at mid-entry level because of their higher education that they worked for, they then get taxed a hell of a lot higher than if they just stayed at McDonald's the whole time.

To be honest though, I don't think that there is a lot of people on welfare who can make it through university. Not smarts-wise, but dedication-wise. It takes a lot of hard work, too in order to succeed. I've never been on welfare when at school, our province does not allow you to collect welfare while undertaking training. Those who go on in education, either do it by receiving scholarships or grants, or getting student loans: another area that needs reconsidering. I didn't know you could in the States, though.

KarmaGirl

on Mar 25, 2004

For those who are on assistance, end up finishing degrees and then enter the workforce at mid-entry level because of their higher education that they worked for, they then get taxed a hell of a lot higher than if they just stayed at McDonald's the whole time.

Why is it an all or nothing thing? Why are people who are poor only able to work at McDonalds? If they spent four years working their way up in a company (even a manager at McDonalds) wouldn't they be making more money.

An average cost of a 4 year degree is a little higher than $115,000. If you could make $25,000 prior to college and $40,000 after (we'll ignore the lost income during the 4 years) than it will take you (assuming that *you* paid for it) almost 8 years before you are on even ground again. Another way of looking at it: 4 years of University -$115,000 + 8 years of work at $40,000 ($320,000) = $205,000 (that averages about $17,000 for the 12 years involved). 12 years of working at a $25,000 job = $300,000. So, How much more ahead are you? How can you say that it is a "necessity"? Working to feed your family is a necessity. Going to school is a lifestyle choice. If you can afford it, great. But, if it's a lifestyle choice, then the government should not be involved.

I know quite a few people who have made it on little or no education. Staying at a job and working hard will get you places, too. There is more than one route to success- some are just require more work.

Poetmom99

on Mar 27, 2004

ALternately, the *choice* could have been to work and support the family. I worked 20+ hours a week while in school, but that was to pay for my school. If you can't pay for food, I can't see how you can afford school.

He got grants and scholarships to pay for school...and went on to graduate school, to become a college professor. Therefore, he's making a HECK of a lot more now than he was while working in a flower shop for his father. The point was, we used the system in the way it's designed...to get up on our feet and support ourselves.

Poetmom99

on Mar 27, 2004

Your money was given in food stamps but was essentially paying for your husband's schooling. After all, if he worked full time you wouldn't have needed $3600/yr from the tax payers.

I WAS woriking full time...and his working full time, at his $5 an hour job, would still have qualified us for food stamps...we wanted to rise above the poverty level, and he wanted to be a teacher just as I was, so we did what we felt was best for our family in the long run. Perhaps not the way everyone would have done it, but it IS what the system is there for....and since we were both paying taxes at the time, we were in essence paying for our OWN food stamps.....

WiseFawn

on Mar 27, 2004

Poetmom99 - What a wonderful thing that you are both teachers! You did in essence pay for your own stamps and have paid back much more since then! There are many taxpayers that feels that helping your family get on it's feet and be able to finish your schooling to become much needed teachers was nothing but a win-win situation!! Good for you!!!

JillUser

on Mar 27, 2004

Poetmom, you hit upon another misconception. If you were both working but were still at poverty level, you were not paying taxes. Sure taxes were withheld from your paycheck but then you got them back if you truly were qualified as at poverty level. Therefore, you were not paying for your own food stamps. How long were you on assistance?

I am asking the next question because I truly want to understand how this happens. If you both were bringing in such little money, why did you have 3 children?

WiseFawn, I agree that it is wonderful that they are both teachers. The part that irks me, and I am not feeling this personally toward you Poetmom, is that those of us who scrimp and save and make sure we are responsible about not taking on things like marriage and children before we can support them, have to pay those who weren't as careful so they can pursue nice careers like being a college prof. I too would love to some day go back to college and finish my teaching degree (I started out studying teaching then switched to applied math and computer science) and possibly teach high school or even college. I can't yet do that because I am busy taking care of my own family.

I disagree that you used the situation as it was meant. The system is meant to sustain people while they secure employment sufficient to cover their family's basic needs. The system is not their to provide you with money while you enrich yourself.

I didn't get married until I got a college degree and was certain I could take care of myself. We didn't have children until we could not only take care of ourselves but had money saved and secured a home. None of that was easy. None of it was due to luck. We didn't inherit money. We worked hard and were careful not to have kids before we could take care of them.

Again Poetmom, this isn't personally against you because I don't know your individual set of circumstances.

Draginol

on Mar 27, 2004

You spend $600 per month on food for 5 people? Ever thought of budgeting? Our family of 4 doesn't spend anywhere near that much on food. Then again, we don't have the government to foot the bill for half of it. And then again, we didn't crank out 3 children we could't afford.

One of the things that seperates humans from animals is our ability to control our urges. Animals just mate whenver they can. But humans don't have to. We can think ahead. One example of thinking ahead might be to think "I don't think we can afford 3 children."

Would you have had 3 children if you didn't know the government would step in and help take care of them for you? Or would you mate yourselves into starvation?

I WAS woriking full time...and his working full time, at his $5 an hour job, would still have qualified us for food stamps...we wanted to rise above the poverty level, and he wanted to be a teacher just as I was, so we did what we felt was best for our family in the long run. Perhaps not the way everyone would have done it, but it IS what the system is there for....and since we were both paying taxes at the time, we were in essence paying for our OWN food stamps.....

I don't know what's worse. The fact you don't know how the tax system works or that we paid for you to become teachers who know so little.

Unless you make over $30,000 per year, you're not paying federal income taxes. as Jilluser pointed out, you may get money withheld, but you get it back at the end of the year (and in some caes, even more back with child credit and earned income tax credits depending on the circumtances).

PoetMom, your mentality is the same mentality that leads to Enron type situations. It's the mindset that you've earned it. I'm sure Ken Lay felt the same way.

Which puts the lie to Wisefawn's claims that it's all "temporary". How temporary is something that allows you to go to school and become a PROFESSOR? That's not exactly a 2 year associate's degree there. If anything, your example is why welfare needs to be reformed more dramatically. It's not designed so that people like me pay for people like you to attend college for years to get a master's or whatever so that youc an become professors. It's there to help get you back on your feet.

People who live responsbility end up paying for people like you who have lived irresponsbily. I didn't have children until I could afford them. I finished college first. And I worked my rear end off to pay for it ON MY OWN. I didn't get food stamps even though it meant soup, and left over soup were our "staples". Meanwhile, your family lives it up on $600 per month in food for only 5 people. That's $120 per month per person with 3 of them being children.

Ultimately though the problem is the confusion between NEED and WANT. Sure, now that you've used the system for years you're able to start paying it back. That's nice. At least you're contributing now. But that isn't what welfare is designed for. If all of society behaved as you did, the system woudl come to a screaching halt. How about living responsibly? Family planning? There are a lot of things I *want* but I can't do them because I have responsibilities.

Your story is pretty straight forward: You and your husband cranked out 3 children before you had the means to support them. So society, namely, people like me and JillUser, end up having to help pay for your irresponsible lifestyle. You then made use of that so that your husband could go to school to become a teacher and later a professor.

That is now what welfare and food stamps were for. A better plan would have been this: Get your degree FIRST then crank out the kids as you can afford them. Then you don't have to drain the system at all.

crimson

on Mar 27, 2004

know quite a few people who have made it on little or no education. Staying at a job and working hard will get you places, too. There is more than one route to success- some are just require more work.

I agree with this comment, but I disagree with your numbers backing your statement. Or, rather, because of differences in welfare regulations in my country and yours, I do not see how this statement would apply.

I haven't recieved welfare while at school. Here, we cannot do so. I've won close to ten thousand dollars in grants and bursaries that have paid for much of my education. The amount of money that I have received to date in welfare has been less than seven thousand dollars. To have quit school to work at anything paying less than $650./m instead of continuing on would have been stupid. (That's in Canadian funds, too). I couldn't afford to work there once you factor in transportation and childcare.
In ON, if you are going to school and need to apply for welfare during time between sememsters, it is far better than to not work at all and collect it for those 3 years. (oh, and your schooling costs are double what we would be paying, too.)

But maybe that's the problem in the States, having a system that allows you to both collect welfare and go to school at the same time. Why aren't they separate programs?

Janders

on Mar 27, 2004

My husband is a teacher, and to support the lifestyle we desire, we work more than one job each. I would like to go back to school to make my 2 year degree into a 4 year. But right now this is not feasible. Now if we were to each quit one of our jobs and only work one full time job each. We would qualify for welfare, and I could go back to school. Is this what we do? NO, we have more pride in working hard and saving! Welfare is supposed to be for the truly needy. Not those who have just wanted to make a different lifestyle choice.

JillUser

on Mar 28, 2004

Kudos to you and your husband Janders! That is the attitude we need to instill. Pride in doing for your own on your own. Living with your own choices. Taking responsibility.

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

I disagree that you used the situation as it was meant. The system is meant to sustain people while they secure employment sufficient to cover their family's basic needs. The system is not their to provide you with money while you enrich yourself.

I had a full-time job, remember...one that many families have as their SOLE source of income...there are more teachers out there receiving food stamps than you would imagine. Should all those who are just quit their jobs and find something which makes more money.....then who would be teaching the children?

Those who administer the system would disagree with you, btw....they ENCOURAGE those who are eligible for benefits to attend college and get a good education, and then get out of the system. According to them, that IS the purpose of the system.

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

Which puts the lie to Wisefawn's claims that it's all "temporary". How temporary is something that allows you to go to school and become a PROFESSOR?

Temporary...four years....while he got his BACHELOR'S degree....the master's came afterwards, while both of us worked full time, and he took classes on weekends.

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

I am asking the next question because I truly want to understand how this happens. If you both were bringing in such little money, why did you have 3 children?

I had two children from a previous marriage, who were easily afforded when they were born...their mother was a teacher, and their father was in the AF....we had no problem supporting them...and there was no problem supporting them after the divorce and remarriage, either. Child number three was a result of faulty birth control, and came along after my husband had already begun college...

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!