$200 alloted for school supplies - Page 3

[Green~*~Tara]

Originally Posted by Dar

People who get food stamps love their children and want what's best for them. In some situations the $200 will be best spent on school supplies, and in some it won't. If they use the $200 to pay the electric bill, or buy diapers, or take the kids out to McDonalds... cool.

Originally Posted by Dar

I think poor people should be able to spend their money on the same things not poor people spend their money on... and I can buy beer with my money.

If kids are suffering because of their parents' decisions, that's a separate issue, but I don't think it's right to assume that because parents are poor, they're not capable of making the decisions that are best for their children and families.

I love you.

[vbactivist]

I guess I feel like certain things are luxuries, not "rights". And if you are receiving assistance, or you can't support yourself (general you), then you are not entitled to certain luxuries.

[enkmom]

Ouch. That is a really hard-line attitude. So you can only have a beer if you have a job? No McDonald's (even on your birthday) because you are on food stamps? The opinions that you only "deserve" certain things if you are on any assistance and that the poor don't know how to cook/budget/manage their money/won't buy school supplies because they spent the money on xxx/... it makes me sad to read this thread, not to mention how it may make mothers on assistance feel.

I still think the $200 was a fabulous idea, and if I ever win the Lottery, I plan to do the same thing!

[AndrewsMother]

Originally Posted by vbactivist

I guess I feel like certain things are luxuries, not "rights". And if you are receiving assistance, or you can't support yourself (general you), then you are not entitled to certain luxuries.

If you and your family lost it all and had to apply for foodstamps, would you still feel the same way? Would you tell your children that they could not have a special food because it is a luxury item? Honesty, would you?


If it's sold at Kroger, I can bet that it is not a luxury item.

But seriously, what groceries are luxury items? What one considers a normal dinner another might consider a spartan meal, and what some might consider as a luxury is their cultural norm.

That is basically saying that families on FS should be limited to bread, rice, beans, egg and bags of frozen mixed vegetables.


I am one of the few people I know that would support a complete overhaul of the system, but at the same time I would never think that it is fair to tell someone what they can eat, and how they should spend a gift.

I guess that I liken the $200 to student loan refunds. The money is to be used for school related expenses. Putting gas in in the family car, or getting an oil change is a necessity for some to get to school? Having lights is a requirement to enable the family computer to work.

What if they parent had already purchased school supplies, should the mom who maybe spent all of her money on her children not be allowed to purchase a pair of shoes for herself?

[vbactivist]

Originally Posted by enkmom

Ouch. That is a really hard-line attitude. So you can only have a beer if you have a job? No McDonald's (even on your birthday) because you are on food stamps? The opinions that you only "deserve" certain things if you are on any assistance and that the poor don't know how to cook/budget/manage their money/won't buy school supplies because they spent the money on xxx/... it makes me sad to read this thread, not to mention how it may make mothers on assistance feel.

I still think the $200 was a fabulous idea, and if I ever win the Lottery, I plan to do the same thing!

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad. I've been on assistance. I just don't think people (in general) are entitled to "treats" per se. I think everyone is entitled to a warm dry place to sleep, nourishing food=, clean water. But Mcdonalds? Thats a treat - not a right. Beer? Again - noone in this world is entitled to a beer. Unfortunatly, certain luxuries cost money. And I don't think its the governments job to priovide them.

[AndrewsMother]

Originally Posted by vbactivist

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad. I've been on assistance. I just don't think people (in general) are entitled to "treats" per se. I think everyone is entitled to a warm dry place to sleep, nourishing food=, clean water. But Mcdonalds? Thats a treat - not a right. Beer? Again - noone in this world is entitled to a beer. Unfortunatly, certain luxuries cost money. And I don't think its the governments job to priovide them.

I don't understand how McDonalds is considered a treat. Going to Houston's or a real restaurant for a $15 burger is a treat. A family of four spending $20 at McDonalds costs the same as buying ground beef, buns, lettucs, tomatoes, cheese, french friens and oil. Actually is would cost more than $20.

[mamatoakd]

I agree that public assistance is to help people get back on their feet. I don't think that we should have the poor living like characters out of a Charles Dickens novel, but there has to be some limit on what "needs" are.

What's wrong with Folgers? I buy it - the more expensive coffee is a treat. That's the difference - needs vs. treats. We don't need treats to survive. Why should a kid buying new clothes with my tax money also deserve a trip to a restaurant for lunch when my kids can't do the same? We work hard - why can't we have a free lunch too?

I never had new back-to-school clothes. We went through a bag of hand-me-downs for a "new" outfit each year. New clothes were purchased on clearance weeks after school started. I walked out of the house with my head held high and worked my a** off to make sure I wouldn't have to live that way my whole life.

Kudos to Soros for being so generous with his money. Not sure why that had to mean that the government also had to be so free with our money.

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by vbactivist

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad. I've been on assistance. I just don't think people (in general) are entitled to "treats" per se. I think everyone is entitled to a warm dry place to sleep, nourishing food=, clean water. But Mcdonalds? Thats a treat - not a right. Beer? Again - noone in this world is entitled to a beer. Unfortunatly, certain luxuries cost money. And I don't think its the governments job to priovide them.

Personally, I have no problem with people getting assistance when they need it, as long as it's used for its intended purpose. I personally was referring to the 1/5 rich guy+ 4/5 stimulus grant of $200 per 3-17 y.o. in NY. Of course, truth be told when compared to the $800 billion+ of the stimulus is the $140million is small change!

I don't think anyone should feel bad...it actually has been VERY controversial in the media/state of NY how it was handled. Many people are upset about that. And, even stranger that the money was deposited before even notifying people what it was for. Do a google search about it...people are pretty upset about that alone. People spent it before even finding out it was supposed to be for school supplies because they didn't even know!

That's what one of my friends who lives/works in NY said...at the store she works at people were discovering that there was money on there and were spending it on beer/cigarettes while she was there. She didn't find out until later on the news that it was supposed to be for school supplies.

So I think personally the whole thing was handled kind of weird--but then again what do we expect from the government?

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by AndrewsMother

I don't understand how McDonalds is considered a treat. Going to Houston's or a real restaurant for a $15 burger is a treat. A family of four spending $20 at McDonalds costs the same as buying ground beef, buns, lettucs, tomatoes, cheese, french friens and oil. Actually is would cost more than $20.

LOL...my kids would consider McDonalds a treat because "it's not a healthy place to eat." Though I will admit to getting some kids meals there recently when they were for sale for $1.99 because their teeny beenie babies were SO CUTE!

I know, guilty.

[natural_mama89]

Originally Posted by vbactivist

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad. I've been on assistance. I just don't think people (in general) are entitled to "treats" per se. I think everyone is entitled to a warm dry place to sleep, nourishing food=, clean water. But Mcdonalds? Thats a treat - not a right. Beer? Again - noone in this world is entitled to a beer. Unfortunatly, certain luxuries cost money. And I don't think its the governments job to priovide them.

Pertaining to "treats", what is a person with food stamps left over after buying a whole lot of healthy food supposed to do? Is organic fresh produce or raw milk a treat? If I have a pantry, freezer, and fridge full of healthy food is it still not ok to buy my children a cookie to share for a "treat"? What if I decide to bake a cake for my child's birthday? Should a child be denied this simple joy because it is a "treat"? There have been times when I was totally broke except for food stamps. If I can make my children feel more secure by offering occasional treats when they have little else do you really think that is shameful? Even in emergency food plans it is stressed that desserts and treats are important to boost morale during lean times. What kind of food exactly do you think poor people should be allowed to eat? Luckily, my town has an CSA organization devoted to providing safe local food to everyone regardless of income. They offer discounts for people on ebt, do you think that they should not? I think it is wonderful. I am so grateful that even when I have nothing else i can feed my children a variety of wonderful organic healthy food AND treats. Sometimes that is all people have. Why try to make them feel worse?

[Herausgeber]

From the perspective of the government, it really doesn't matter what people spend this money on. In terms of stimulating the economy, it could be clothes, school supplies or Jim Beam.

[Green~*~Tara]

Originally Posted by AndrewsMother

If you and your family lost it all and had to apply for foodstamps, would you still feel the same way? Would you tell your children that they could not have a special food because it is a luxury item? Honesty, would you?


If it's sold at Kroger, I can bet that it is not a luxury item.

But seriously, what groceries are luxury items? What one considers a normal dinner another might consider a spartan meal, and what some might consider as a luxury is their cultural norm.

That is basically saying that families on FS should be limited to bread, rice, beans, egg and bags of frozen mixed vegetables.


I am one of the few people I know that would support a complete overhaul of the system, but at the same time I would never think that it is fair to tell someone what they can eat, and how they should spend a gift.

I guess that I liken the $200 to student loan refunds. The money is to be used for school related expenses. Putting gas in in the family car, or getting an oil change is a necessity for some to get to school? Having lights is a requirement to enable the family computer to work.

What if they parent had already purchased school supplies, should the mom who maybe spent all of her money on her children not be allowed to purchase a pair of shoes for herself?

Very well said.

Originally Posted by mamatoakd

What's wrong with Folgers? I buy it - the more expensive coffee is a treat. That's the difference - needs vs. treats.

Coffee is not a need. Folgers is junk. If you're going to treat yourself to coffee, then get the good stuff.

[Norasmomma]

Originally Posted by mamatoakd

What's wrong with Folgers? I buy it - the more expensive coffee is a treat. That's the difference - needs vs. treats. We don't need treats to survive.

There's nothing wrong with Folger's except for me it gives me wretched heartburn. I buy Seattle's Best at Walmart because it's cheap there, and no heartburn. It's organic and basically the same price as other coffee.

I guess some people may think a frozen pizza is a treat, while others think it is garbage, either way it's all in the eye of the beholder. For someone else having frozen pizza is a need.

For us going to McD's is a treat-just like a PP, it is not that healthy and for us it means we are somewhere out of the sticks where we live. DD gets to play at the playland and that's a teat for her. For others McD's is a way of life.

[karne]

Originally Posted by AndrewsMother

I am one of the few people I know that would support a complete overhaul of the system, but at the same time I would never think that it is fair to tell someone what they can eat, and how they should spend a gift.

The part I disagree with here is the term "gift", if you are applying it to the $200/school supplies. It wasn't totally a gift unless the taxpayers got together and decided to create a gift to other families of this amount of money for school supplies. If it's partially funded by the govenment, it's coming out of someone else's pocket.

On the whole, I don't especially have an issue with that. I believe we need to support those in need, especially children. But if the $200 is to rectify shortcomings somewhere else, then call a spade a spade and address it honestly. I guess I still don't get the $200. That is definitely not our back to school budget, and I'm pretty floored by it.

[KayleeZoo]

Unfortunatly, certain luxuries cost money. And I don't think its the governments job to priovide them.

I agree. I also don't think that it's the government's job to buy school supplies for some families and not others; our tax dollars really should be enough to provide what kids in public schools need. But that's not the case; our government chooses to spend tax funding on many other things instead. But to give money to some families, with no accountability, and nothing to others seems inappropriate to me.

And really, I don't think that providing other families with money for luxuries (and eating out is a luxury, as is alcohol) is the government's job OR my DH's, especially when we're not eating out because we can't afford it. To pay taxes that allow someone who is receiving assistance to get cash to take their kids to McDonald's is, um, messed up.

[phathui5]

I'm wondering if they have put any safeguards to make sure that parents actually spend the money on their kids?

No, there aren't. And I think that's a huge mistake.

[ollineeba]

I believe that most of the people will be responsible & do the right thing with the money & buy their children needed supplies/clothes/food.

There are the few bad apples, of course, but overall, I think most parents want to see to it that their children have clothes that fit, food to fill their bellies, and school supplies so they can succeed in their studies.

In the future, it might be smart for them to rework the guidelines a bit, though.

[AndrewsMother]

Originally Posted by phatchristy

LOL...my kids would consider McDonalds a treat because "it's not a healthy place to eat." Though I will admit to getting some kids meals there recently when they were for sale for $1.99 because their teeny beenie babies were SO CUTE!

I know, guilty.

Thanks for the different persepctive. I never realized thought of McDonalds as a treat. I guess that it is, as my son begs to stop for ice cream.
I do know people who eat there often, and compared to what I can spend making dinner it seems like for some it would be an economical option.

Originally Posted by karne

The part I disagree with here is the term "gift", if you are applying it to the $200/school supplies. It wasn't totally a gift unless the taxpayers got together and decided to create a gift to other families of this amount of money for school supplies. If it's partially funded by the govenment, it's coming out of someone else's pocket.

I used the term "gift" because it was not a part a regular monthly allotment. Some of the families only receive foodstamps, and not TANF. So, would/should regular TANF rules apply to them?

Originally Posted by karne;Norasmomma

I guess some people may think a frozen pizza is a treat, while others think it is garbage, either way it's all in the eye of the beholder. For someone else having frozen pizza is a need.

:

My son and I just ate a pint of organic blueberries, the cost $4.99. To some that is a treat or a luxury, but, even while quite pricey, they are part of our weekly diet. Is it wrong for a family receiving assistance to purcahse blueberries? Non organic blueberries cost $3.99 a pint, would it still be considered a luxury. Luxuries/treats mean different things to different families.


The type of thinking that wants the government to control what a person does with their foodstamps and TANF money (this does not include those who fail to provide for their children) is what makes me not want government healthcare. I can imagine being forced to room in a ward with 15 other people and take half a dose of pain medicine, because the government is paying for it and privacy and being free of pain would be considered a luxury. No, thank you!

[ollineeba]

Originally Posted by AndrewsMother

If you and your family lost it all and had to apply for foodstamps, would you still feel the same way? Would you tell your children that they could not have a special food because it is a luxury item? Honesty, would you?


If it's sold at Kroger, I can bet that it is not a luxury item.

But seriously, what groceries are luxury items? What one considers a normal dinner another might consider a spartan meal, and what some might consider as a luxury is their cultural norm.

That is basically saying that families on FS should be limited to bread, rice, beans, egg and bags of frozen mixed vegetables.


I am one of the few people I know that would support a complete overhaul of the system, but at the same time I would never think that it is fair to tell someone what they can eat, and how they should spend a gift.

I guess that I liken the $200 to student loan refunds. The money is to be used for school related expenses. Putting gas in in the family car, or getting an oil change is a necessity for some to get to school? Having lights is a requirement to enable the family computer to work.

What if they parent had already purchased school supplies, should the mom who maybe spent all of her money on her children not be allowed to purchase a pair of shoes for herself?

[Epona]

So much negativity towards low income parents.