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 4)

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

A better plan would have been this: Get your degree FIRST then crank out the kids as you can afford them.

EXACTLY what I did....thank you for agreeing with me!! LOL

KarmaGirl

on Mar 29, 2004

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?

You hit the nail on the head with that one, Nicky. You can't compare Canadian Welfare to the US. The way food stamps work are much different.

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.

He couldn't have worked full time and took classes at night and weekends so that you didn't have to collect food stamps?

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?

Ah, the "somebody has to teach our children" stance. There are *way* more teachers than there are jobs right now. It's not like there aren't plenty of people willing to take a "teachers" wage. The national average teachers wage for secondary education in 2002 was $43,030. Considering that teachers don't work for at least two months out of the year, there is no way that any full time teacher should be getting food stamps.

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

The national average teachers wage for secondary education in 2002 was $43,030. Considering that teachers don't work for at least two months out of the year, there is no way that any full time teacher should be getting food stamps.

A) I was never a secondary teacher

I never made more than $25000/yr. working full time as an elementary teacher. That's the average in the area where I lived. And how many months a year we work is irrelevant, as in my district we got PAID twelve months out of the year, not just during the months we worked.

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

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.He couldn't have worked full time and took classes at night and weekends so that you didn't have to collect food stamps?

You have to take the classes when they are offered...at the college he attended, the majority of the classes were only offered during the day...and there were NO weekend classes for anything other than the master's program.

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

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?

I somehow missed this question before: IMO, those who have should share what they have with those who don't have....now that our financial situation is improved, we do everything we can for those in need, whenever we can. We donate our old clothing to local clothing banks, we work at homeless shelters, we donate food to the food bank, we sponsor a child in need, we adopt a family at Christmas, and then help them out for the following year......and we include the children in all these activities, so that they will also learn to give to those less fortunate.

KarmaGirl

on Mar 29, 2004

Why the other months off was relevant is that you can work at another job during that time.

at the college he attended, the majority of the classes were only offered during the day...

Again, you are pointing out another choice.

I understand that you have totally reasoned with yourself that you used food stamps as they were intended. But, you have to understand that *many* people do not agree. Food stamps are there to keep people from starving.

You say that your husband was working for $5.00 an hour. What prevented him from getting a different job? You say that 2 of your kids were from a previous marriage, did you not receive child support for them?

Oh, and Janders, your post is right on with my thinking.

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

Why the other months off was relevant is that you can work at another job during that time.

And spend most of what I made paying for child care for three children? It wasn't financially prudent for us to do that..however, my husband DID work full time during the summer instead of only 20 hr weeks, so we did have extra money during that time.

Poetmom99

on Mar 29, 2004

What prevented him from getting a different job? You say that 2 of your kids were from a previous marriage, did you not receive child support for them?

Yes, I did...but fifty dollars a month doesn't go far for two school age children.....and that's total, not per child.....you see, their father wasn't working, either.

WiseFawn

on Mar 31, 2004

Which puts the lie to Wisefawn's claims that it's all "temporary". hmmm

Draginol

on Mar 31, 2004

And spend most of what I made paying for child care for three children? It wasn't financially prudent for us to do that..however, my husband DID work full time during the summer instead of only 20 hr weeks, so we did have extra money during that time.

No offense but welcome to the real world. I mean, this is something the rest of us have to face every day. It doesn't mean teachers should somehow get paid even more.

Just so that we're clear: I don't think you're bad or immoral or anything like that. I just don't think welfare programs should be used in the way you used them. They are supposed to be a temporary safety net while you get on your feet. Using them as a means to pay for college is not what I think most people had in mind. If everyone did as you did, our economy would come to a screeching halt.

You made decisions based on the existence of welfare. That's the problem. Rather than acting like a safety net, you used welfare as a springboard. I'd have no problem if there were government programs designed to help people go to school or whatever.

Wisefawn: Yes, PoetMom's example discredits your arguments very effectively. Why? Because you claimed how we're not doing enough for the poor. And yet here you have a clear cut example of people who could have avoided being on food stamps if they had made different choices. Her husband did not need to stay at a $5 per hour job. I mean, for crying out loud, *I* made $8 per hour back in high school driving a van around for the bank and that was probably around the same time. Two people working full time should be able to pay for 3 children. But listen to what PoetMom has said: They need $600 per month just in food. Come on, that's ridiculous. No attempt at going without there.

The welfare programs are currently so lax and so flexible that people can be on them, go to school for FOUR years while still spending $600 per month just on food. That's precisely why I'm against spending more on these programs. If there's so much money to go around as-is that this scenario occurs -- on that you, Wisefawn, applaud, then I can only imagine what would happen if we threw even more money at it.

Those of us who struggled our way through college ON OUR OWN tend to resent the idea that we did so that we coudl later bear the burden of people who wanted mother government to pay for other people to use welfare and food stamps to subsidize someone else's eventual rise to being a college professor. Professor of what btw? It better not be philosophy or political science or history where he's espousing his political views to his students.

At the end of the day, the question is this: Without welfare, would PoetMom's family have starved? No. They would have just had to make different choices. Therefore, they shouldn't have gotten welfare. It's not supposed to be used that way.

KarmaGirl

on Mar 31, 2004

True, Brad, very true. Considering that I lived on $15 - $20 a week in groceries for almost 2 years ($20 was with "spcial occasion" stuff), I have to agree that $600 a week for a family of 5 is insane. That becomes a lifestyle choice, not a need.

But, in general, it appears that people really can't see the difference between "need" and "want".

dharmagrl

on Mar 31, 2004

I have to agree that $600 a week for a family of 5 is insane

Did you mean a week, or a month??? Either way, that's still more than I spent on all 5 of us!! That's insane!! Our average grocery bill is $400 a month, and we eat well...I cannot imagine spending $600 on food (and remember that if that's food stamp funds you can't buy toiletries, paper goods etc with that money - it all has to be spent on edible items)

But, in general, it appears that people really can't see the difference between "need" and "want".

I think that you hit the nail on the head there.

KarmaGirl

on Mar 31, 2004

oops, sorry, I meant a month... should have drank more coffee before posting

KarmaGirl

on Mar 31, 2004

Dharma, she said earlier that she got just over $300 in food stamps, and paid for the rest out of pocket. Since you have a family of 5, do you think, that if you had to, that you could feed them on $300 (that's just food)? I know that I feed my family on less than that, and my husband is like having 3 teenaged boys

But, I know that about half my food bill is stuff that I want, not need.

dharmagrl

on Mar 31, 2004

Since you have a family of 5, do you think, that if you had to, that you could feed them on $300 (that's just food)?

Yes. We have in the past, when we were broke. I'd make up a menu plan for the 2 week period between paydays, and then only buy what was needed for the plan. Everybody ate well; actually we all ate more healthily because we cut out all the junk and convienience items. I'm not talking about ramen noodles for supper every night either, we had meals that were based on the USDA food pyramid, and we usually had left overs...for example, if we had chili one night then we'd have chili dogs for lunch the next day, thereby using up the leftovers. Planning like that allowed us to spend less - less of OUR money.

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!