Should we get food stamps? - Page 5

[frugalmum]

I forgot to mention that if you do cut cable, and manage to cut TV watching as well (i.e. you don't watch dvds instead) you might save a lot on electricity.  We all but eliminated TV watching for a while and it was amazing how much our electric bill went down.  It depends on what kind of TV you have.

So many things are luxuries if you think about it.... when we were poor I would think of people in the third world, the truly poor, and realize how much more I had compared to them.  Running water, a roof, access to healthcare.  I find that's a good way to think about things when you're trying to cut spending.  What do you REALLY need just to stay alive and reasonably healthy?

[JesKace]

Off-Topic a little...

agreeing with LifewithSage on the mortgage interest..

When we bought our first house 7 years ago, DH and I were only 21.. I had no idea about using the interest paid on your mortgage and real estate taxes as a tax deduction.  Nevermind trying to figure that into how much we'd be able to spend on a home.  I looked at how much we could afford for a mortgage each month, current interest rates and prices of homes and we bought a house we could afford.  Same thing when we sold that house and bought our current house, the tax deduction for the mortgage interest never even crossed my mind.  Maybe when you're getting into really high priced homes and working with a financial planner or something you take the interest deduction into consideration and are able to spend more money on the purchase price, but I don't see the average person doing that.

Originally Posted by LifewithSage 

hmmmm... so following your logic, I could say that the child tax credit and child care credit encourage people to have more kids than they could otherwise afford.  Where's the logic in that?  Keep in mind that you don't receive as much of a benefit as most people believe.  In order to itemize, you must have more itemized deductions than the standard deduction.  Therefore, you're only receiving a benefit at the amount equal to your itemized deduction amount less the standard deduction.  I know for sure that we didn't figure in our marginal tax saved on the additional $3,000 we received this year as a result of taking the mortgage interest and property tax deduction when we decided to buy our house 4 years ago.  I don't think the mortgage interest deduction does anything to sway people to spend that extra $50,000 on a house that they shouldn't (as an example).  I think that's the banks doing as well as predatory lending. 

[frugalmum]

Originally Posted by mar123 

I find the argument that taking a deduction on mortgage interest being government assistance ludicrous.

I am simply keeping the money I have earned in that case, the government is not giving me money over and above what I have paid. Each year, I have paid the government tax money. Doesn't matter how many deductions I take, when all is said and done, I have contributed to the government coffers. I may contribute less, but that is NOT government assistance. They are not giving me anything. I am simply giving them less. They are not helping me out by letting me keep my OWN money, money I have worked hard for and earned.

Agreed.... saying that a tax deduction is a handout in the same vein of food stamps doesn't make sense, because the income is yours, in the first place, to deduct.  The poster making this comparison seems to think the income somehow "belongs" to the government to begin with, and that by not paying it to the government, you are in fact taking it! 

A better comparison would have been public school.  This is a handout that is "socially acceptable" and no one is looked down on for expecting the government to fork over 15k+ a year for their child to be educated.

[choli]

Originally Posted by sonrisaa29 

I Would be concerned that I could be taking it away from a family that needs it more .that being said where I live people get 350 to 1000 a month in food stamps and I would love to have that cushion as well..but since I could cut out other things and I am not actually starving I know there are people who might need it more...

 I can see that attitude toward using  a food pantry, but is there a certain amount of money allocated toward food stamps per state, and once that is gone, no new recipients are allowed even though they qualify? Genuine question, I really don't know.

As to the idea of not getting foods stamps because of having cable, where do you draw the line at intrusion into others' budgets? Should we take into account how high the thermostat is, whether they "overspend" on food because they buy organics, ask whether they use the cheapest brand of toilet paper?

IMO, if you meet the qualifications, then you should have no qualms about receiving the assistance.
 

[treeoflife3]

Originally Posted by choli 

 I can see that attitude toward using  a food pantry, but is there a certain amount of money allocated toward food stamps per state, and once that is gone, no new recipients are allowed even though they qualify? Genuine question, I really don't know.

As to the idea of not getting foods stamps because of having cable, where do you draw the line at intrusion into others' budgets? Should we take into account how high the thermostat is, whether they "overspend" on food because they buy organics, ask whether they use the cheapest brand of toilet paper?

IMO, if you meet the qualifications, then you should have no qualms about receiving the assistance.
 

This exactly.  I think it is really unfair to say someone who needs government assistance shouldn't have any luxuries.  I ALWAYS hear this as an argument over assistance and it boggles my mind.  Why SHOULDN'T someone who works their butts off trying to make ends meet spend 30-50 dollars on cable each month?  Will that money will make the difference between feeling the need to use food stamps and feeling comfortable without them?  Cable is entertainment.  The point to television is to escape life and enjoy something fictional.  Someone living below the poverty line whom the government says qualifies for food stamps certainly should be able to veg out once in awhile and just relax without thinking about money or working.  having one unnecessary thing that allows them to enjoy themselves isn't abusing the system.  We can't all draw happiness from working non stop for little reward.

and where DO you draw the line for luxuries?  I can see being able to buy a brand new tricked out SUV, have a brand new iphone with all the bells and whistles, going out to eat multiple times a week, buying only the most expensive organic brands of food and designer clothing, and having the best most expensive internet and cable options out there on the best and most expensive computer and tv being an issue... but would someone with that much disposable income qualify anyway?  There ARE rules after all for those who can get assistance.  Does the system need to be fixed?  Maybe... but its not like anyone can just waltz in and say 'hey!  give me 300 bucks for groceries!'  It doesn't work that way.  Besides, anyone getting assistance pays taxes in the first place.  Who is to say the amount they are getting in assistance isn't equal to the amount they've paid in over time?  It could very well be THEIR money anyway, meant to help those in need... and now they are in need.

I've heard people complain about how they saw someone with a coach bag using food stamps and CLEARLY they are abusing the system.  If they needed food stamps, they shouldn't be able to have a coach bag.  Nevermind that it might have been a gift, or that they might have acquired before hitting hard times... the mere act of having something nice and expensive is indicative of the fact that the government just gives anyone who asks all sorts of money to waste.  I've heard people complaining about someone buying soda and chips with food stamps... never mind that this might have been their only vice for all they know or it could have been for their kid's birthday party... they should only be buying rice and beans and frozen veggies!  And that is really what it comes down to...

when you are poor, you are expected to live how others tell you and heaven forbid you do anything differently!  You don't deserve assistance if you won't let everyone and their mother all up in your business telling you what you should be doing at all times.  being poor either means asking for help and losing rights to your own life or not asking for help and risking losing you home or your car or your children.

the truth is, we could all survive just fine living in a small cabin with no electricity and only a well or a running stream/river for water and two changes of clothes and only the food we can grow, raise and trade for.  Few people choose to live that way.  We choose to have the luxury of electricity and entertainment and vehicles and indoor plumbing.  Next time you run into money troubles, should you turn off your electricity?  Pee outside so as not to use water?  Sell all your books to earn extra cash?

OP, if you would feel more comfortable having food stamps to help out and you qualify, it isn't wrong to use them.  Having pets doesn't mean you don't deserve help.  Having the internet so you don't have to rely on the business hours of the library or use gas to drive to a place with wifi isn't living beyond your means.  If cable is your only real luxury and it helps you get through the hard times then you aren't being a bad and selfish citizen.  These are all small in the grand scheme of things.  You'll know where you need to cut back and I'm sure you are plenty smart enough to know when to weigh your happiness against the money you could be using from the cable bill on something more necessary and the price of gas against the price of internet.  You'll know if parting with your furry family is more important than keeping them and not having enough money because of how much they might be taking.

[LifewithSage]

I agree with this... I think that if you qualify for it and need it then you should have it.  I don't begrudge someone having additional expenses because in all honesty, if they're income is low enough that they qualify for food stamps then that extra little bit probably isn't going to make a huge difference in their bills every month... or at least not enough to keep them from needing these services.

However, the OP seemed to wonder if these "luxuries" should preclude her from taking FS because she specifically listed them in her OP without regard to other expenses.  It seems to me that if she thought it was just fine and did not present any sort of ethical issue that she wouldn't have specifically stated that they had money in their budget for these specific items?  I'm just not entirely certain what the original question was... was it "if you could pay for these costs, would you take food stamps?" or a general, "if you qualified for FS would you take them?"  I think this would have been a different discussion if those items were left out.
 

Originally Posted by choli 

Originally Posted by sonrisaa29 

I Would be concerned that I could be taking it away from a family that needs it more .that being said where I live people get 350 to 1000 a month in food stamps and I would love to have that cushion as well..but since I could cut out other things and I am not actually starving I know there are people who might need it more...

 I can see that attitude toward using  a food pantry, but is there a certain amount of money allocated toward food stamps per state, and once that is gone, no new recipients are allowed even though they qualify? Genuine question, I really don't know.

As to the idea of not getting foods stamps because of having cable, where do you draw the line at intrusion into others' budgets? Should we take into account how high the thermostat is, whether they "overspend" on food because they buy organics, ask whether they use the cheapest brand of toilet paper?

IMO, if you meet the qualifications, then you should have no qualms about receiving the assistance.
 

[TiredX2]

Originally Posted by mar123 

I find the argument that taking a deduction on mortgage interest being government assistance ludicrous.

I am simply keeping the money I have earned in that case, the government is not giving me money over and above what I have paid. Each year, I have paid the government tax money. Doesn't matter how many deductions I take, when all is said and done, I have contributed to the government coffers. I may contribute less, but that is NOT government assistance. They are not giving me anything. I am simply giving them less. They are not helping me out by letting me keep my OWN money, money I have worked hard for and earned.

When someone is on government assistance, the government is giving them something extra over and above what they have contributed. Yes, I used student loans to go to college, but I paid them back. The government didn't GIVE me anything- therefore that is not government assistance. (actually, when I went to college, I didn't use any of the government programs for loans- 30 years ago that was actually possible.) 

Actually, if the person is working, they are paying taxes.  The majority of people (in the US) pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.  Those who make less money also *statistically* recieve social security for shorter time periods.  Additionally, there are a variety of taxes that most people end up paying (local & state taxes, sales taxes, etc...).

And yes, I do consider everyone to "owe" the government the amount of money their tax bracket would suggest they pay.  Deductions on top of the standard deduction are, in effect, paid for by the people who are not elligible for them.

Originally Posted by honeybunmom 

Bolding mine.  And these two highlighted comments conflict.  In the first instance, you argue that someone using mortgage interest deductions needs to do so in order to buy more house than they can afford.  Then you go on to state that they don't need the deductions.  I'm not following.  In any event . . .

To me, the glaring flaw in this argument is that it seems to be based on the presumption that people actually consider how much interest they are going to be able to deduct and consider that a determining factor in the consideration of how much house they can afford.  This argument is based on the presumption that people are in homes they could not otherwise afford without the ability to deduct their mortgage interest.  Something they get to do once a year.  When the mortgage payment is due every month -  twice a month for some.   This just doesn't make sense.

... 

The sad thing is that the abuse of the food stamp program has been highlighted much more than the abuse of tax shelters (considering mortgage deductions a type of shelter for purposes of this discussion).  At least it is probably fair to say that the ability to spin the discussion on these issues is more in the hands of the tax shelter users than the food stamp users.

I do not see the contradiction.  The mortgage interest deduction allows people to buy more house than they could otherwise afford, often times more house than they *need.*  Therefore, from my perspective, they don't actually *need* the deduction--- they could either rent or buy a house they could afford without the deduction.

People should consider the tax consequences of home ownership.  I know we did.  Even the most basic home-buying books ("Homebuying for Dummies") includes how to calculate if you will be itemizing.  I know it has made a big difference for a lot of the people we know (both people with homes in the $1+million range and those who are already itemize due to tithing making *all* of their mortgage interest deductable).  I think if you really think through my arguement, you will see it does make sense from my perspective.  The people I know who recieve the most from mortgaqge interest deductions do not *need* the money.  They're not worrying about the monthly mortgage payment, so it doesn't matter if they only get the money back once a year.  Instead, it is just a bonus $5K. 

Originally Posted by Mama J Rock 

The mortgage interest deduction is not about the government imposing a moral "good" on the idea of home ownership but rather about giving people that own homes and therefore pay real estate property taxes a deduction that puts them more in line with people that have the same income but don't own homes and therefore pay no property taxes.

I disagree.  Tax deductions are often about encouraging or discouraging certain behaviors.  Our society places a large value on home ownership and tries to encourage people with tax breaks.  You don't see tax deductions for interest for buying a $150K car instead of a $10K car because it's not something the "people" have decided is financially worth encouraging. 

If it is cheaper to own or rent is based more on location than anything else.

 

Originally Posted by JesKace 

Off-Topic a little...

agreeing with LifewithSage on the mortgage interest..

When we bought our first house 7 years ago, DH and I were only 21.. I had no idea about using the interest paid on your mortgage and real estate taxes as a tax deduction.  Nevermind trying to figure that into how much we'd be able to spend on a home.  I looked at how much we could afford for a mortgage each month, current interest rates and prices of homes and we bought a house we could afford.  Same thing when we sold that house and bought our current house, the tax deduction for the mortgage interest never even crossed my mind.  Maybe when you're getting into really high priced homes and working with a financial planner or something you take the interest deduction into consideration and are able to spend more money on the purchase price, but I don't see the average person doing that. 

Well, simply by buying a home at 21 you obviously weren't "average."

My initial arguement stands, though--- the government loses $5K of tax money to both families: one for food stamps for a year, the other for each extra $100K (approximately) of value in their home over a certain amount.
 

Originally Posted by frugalmum 

Agreed.... saying that a tax deduction is a handout in the same vein of food stamps doesn't make sense, because the income is yours, in the first place, to deduct.  The poster making this comparison seems to think the income somehow "belongs" to the government to begin with, and that by not paying it to the government, you are in fact taking it! 

A better comparison would have been public school.  This is a handout that is "socially acceptable" and no one is looked down on for expecting the government to fork over 15k+ a year for their child to be educated.

Excellent comparison.  As stated before, I do consider each person DOES owe the government a certain amount of money.  If you instead do things to pay a lesser amount you *are* taking it from them.  Its simply a matter of symantics, though.

Discussions like this always frustrate me because it seems like many people who are so very opposed to food stamps and other assistance programs seem almost... angry (and I am not talking about posters on here, just in general)... about the idea that someone, somewhere is getting something they are not.  But, if you *really* think it's such a great thing to have to explain all your finances over and over to strangers, get looked at funny in the store, never have comfortable savings, etc... they can just live that way themselves.  Personally, I believe that adequate food is a human right and, as such, should be guaranteed to all.

[sublimeliving]

Exactly! You paid (obviously at the time not equivalent) in, and took full advantage of the public program. Just like a lot of people do with PUBLIC high school, or a PUBLIC library, or PUBLIC assistance. People on food stamps do work-they are low income, not dead beats. There is a small percentage that don't contribute, and take assistance; just like there is a small percentage of people that don't work and send their kids to public school, use the library, drive on the roads, and call the police. EVERYONE uses tax money (any kind of tax money). It doesn't matter if you think you fully payed it back, you used it. It's the same as using the money for food stamps. To assume that people on food stamps don't work, have never worked, or are not going to work to pay taxes, is unbelievable. They are (At a time when they need it; they're deemed in need by professionals.), getting what they paid for. 
 

You said, " We can't have it both ways; freedom to do things the way we feel is best, but have the government fund it. It won't happen that way; never has, and never will." 

I agree w/ you. I homeschool; I pay for my children's education (down to the penny). I do this because I want to choose what I feel is best. Although, I in no way feel that taxes shouldn't support public schools or any other government run program. If people want to send their kids to a government run institution, then I think they should be able to. 

I understand your point of view. Really, I do. We just believe differently. 

Originally Posted by mar123 

Just because I went to a state college, doesn't mean they gave me money. Our state funds universities with sales tax, so technically everyone contributes. I paid in (my parents REALLY paid in), I went to the school, so in essence I got what I paid for. Again, I didn't get more than I had put in.

Many years ago, student loans were not all backed by the federal gov't. Even the ones you didn't finance through a bank. We had many, many choices. Now the loans are with the government, in essence. So the gov't isn't paying the interest. They are waiting until you can pay it.

I just think this argument that everyone takes some type of assistance is ridiculous and meant to make people feel guilty. I personally feel that our government is way too big and this movement to have the government be everyone's sugar daddy is what is causing our problems today. When teh government is picking up the tab, people don't see the true cost and it leads to personal irresponsibility. I have a more libertarian view than many here. I just think the government needs to get out of our lives and let personal responsibility take over. With gov't assistance comes rules and regulations. We can't have it both ways; freedom to do things the way we feel is best, but have the government fund it. It won't happen that way; never has, and never will.

[BetsyS]

I suppose, from my point of view, I'd rather see lots of people get helped by food stamps, even if there is a little bit of abuse/waste in the system.  The income limit is $22,000 a year.  Where I live (a moderate cost of living city in the south), that wouldn't go very far.  I don't begrudge someone with that income taking food stamps AT ALL.  In fact, I'm thinking, TAKE THEM!!!  That frees up additional money that will allow for some savings, some education to get a better job so that someday that won't need food stamps, some piece of mind so that they don't make themselves sick with worry, or whatever. 

And, I've stood behind someone paying for crablegs with food stamps.  It does cause a moment of question on my part.  Cause I know that my $80/week budget can't handle crab legs.  But, in the end, like I said, I'd rather there be some abuse/waste and know that lots of people are able to feed their kids and not go to bed hungry.  In the end, there's a greater good in this country (which is a great, wonderful country) ensuring that people aren't hungry.

[Smithie]

As a cashier, I have sold fresh lobster to somebody who paid with food stamps. I'm still irritated about it 15 years later. But when it comes right down to it, the income limits for FS are so low that I think anybody who qualifies should take them. I also think there should be a limited selection of staple items that FS will cover, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

OP, you obviously need to adjust things in your household until income exceeds expenses. You already know this. If food stamps tide you over during that process, then I'm calling that a good use of my tax dollars. 

[Drummer's Wife]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

As a cashier, I have sold fresh lobster to somebody who paid with food stamps. I'm still irritated about it 15 years later. But when it comes right down to it, the income limits for FS are so low that I think anybody who qualifies should take them. I also think there should be a limited selection of staple items that FS will cover, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

See, and I don't get this kind of judgement at all. I'll probably still be irritated 15 years from now when I think that cashiers or other people in line seriously are cranky about what a food stamp recipient buys. Again, are lower income families only worthy of rice and beans? What about free-range chicken? Sure, it's more expensive, but it's better for the chicken. I've gathered that items like soda, filet minon, crab, lobster and skittles are not acceptable for tax dollars to pay for... (not just from you, Smithie, but from people who complain about food stamp usage). I can't imagine giving it a second thought - surely it doesn't impact me or what I choose to feed my family.

I can see being a bit annoyed knowin that every single day food stamps are sold/traded for booze, cigarettes, and illegal drugs. But to pass judgement about food to nourish another human's body is just odd to me. Either way, they get the same amount of funds - whether it's spent on birthday cakes from the bakery or on fresh produce.

[EviesMom]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

As a cashier, I have sold fresh lobster to somebody who paid with food stamps. I'm still irritated about it 15 years later. But when it comes right down to it, the income limits for FS are so low that I think anybody who qualifies should take them. I also think there should be a limited selection of staple items that FS will cover, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

OP, you obviously need to adjust things in your household until income exceeds expenses. You already know this. If food stamps tide you over during that process, then I'm calling that a good use of my tax dollars. 

I don't know, I think I would figure that they saved their food stamps and ate simpler to afford the lobster as a one time special treat. Same as someone else would do with saving up cash for a birthday dinner. One lobster for a family to share in a stew on someone's birthday? I can't fault it when it's food, personally.

[spedteacher30]

I would assume that the person who bought the fresh lobster with their food stamps was doing so because they had a special event to celebrate and couldn't afford to go out to eat in a restaurant and couldn't afford to buy the person a gift to mark the celebration. I'm assuming we have no problem with a food-stamp using family having a special dinner to celebrate birthdays, anniversaries and other special events?

[grisandole]

Originally Posted by Drummer's Wife 

I don't see why not.  People who are on food stamps don't have to go without nice vehicles, pets, internet and cable TV.  If you qualify and you feel like you need the assistance, that's what it's there for. 

Yes. I don't see why you wouldn't apply if you need them and qualify. In CA it doesn't matter what type of cars you have or how many, they do not take that into consideration (in the past they did, as of 2003 iirc the rules changed). Some people seem to think that FS and other public aid should only be used in certain circumstance. They can think that and act accordingly. However, the purpose of the program and the eligibility rules are not subjective and there are no requirements (in most states) to be w/out pets, internet, etc to get help with food.

[Pumpkin_Pie]

Originally Posted by Smithie 

As a cashier, I have sold fresh lobster to somebody who paid with food stamps. I'm still irritated about it 15 years later. But when it comes right down to it, the income limits for FS are so low that I think anybody who qualifies should take them. I also think there should be a limited selection of staple items that FS will cover, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

OP, you obviously need to adjust things in your household until income exceeds expenses. You already know this. If food stamps tide you over during that process, then I'm calling that a good use of my tax dollars. 

Ouch. 

[Hannah32]

Lobster is obviously a lot more expensive than soda, but I imagine it would provide more nutritional benefits too. And grocery store lobster is hardly the most expensive sort, at least where I live. 

[Smithie]

I have no idea why that lady was buying lobster, and I agree that it's not rational of me to feel that irritation so deeply for so long, and my irritation does not translate into a general opposition to FS. In my own lifetime, I've seen huge improvements in the FS program with the advent of EBT cards.


But if I were setting federal guidelines for FS, I would not choose to further subsidize the makers of crap convenience foods, and I would not choose to have FS be the equivalent of cash in the grocery store. It's NOT cash - it's government funds advancing a government agenda, and I feel that the current agenda is corrupt. The goal of FS is to prevent hunger, and one of the positive externalities of the FS program is to create a market for certain kinds of foods. We can alleviate hunger and support sustainable agriculture, or we can alleviate hunger, enable obesity, and support PepsiCo.

From that standpoint, the lady buying the locally harvested lobster was doing a lot better than all the other folks buying soda - which is why my irritation is not rational. I imagined her being out of $$ at the end of the month and her kids having a lean week, and being a kid myself who was dependent on my parents to make sensible budget decisions, I just saw red. The first of the month, little kids would be opening packages as they came down the conveyor belt and jamming the food in their mouths. I am never going to get over seeing that, and I am never going to be able to forgive the stupid, thoughtless adults who were spending $200 of their allotment on convenience food in the first week, basically guaranteeing another week of hunger at the end of the month.

[Drummer's Wife]

Gosh, this makes me wonder if people judge what others use their EIC tax refunds for.  Like, is it unfair if it's used to fund a trip to Disney?  Or is using it for something like medical bills the only kind of acceptable expenses.  That's government money, too, as is foster care and adoption subsidies, to mention a few other examples.  We could complain that a foster parent happens to drive a newer model minivan, yet her foster kids aren't in every sport or activity that they could be. 

[weliveintheforest]

If we had foodstamps here, and I qualified, I would take them.  

[crazyms]

Debating food stamps and what they are used for is off topic from the original thread but I think a lot of people judging what fs is used for is because of bad experiences with the system and also general ideas about budgeting. FS income guidelines are low so if someone qualifies they should be able to get them. The amount paid out for food stamps can be high though. It basically goes by the federal standard of what you should spend for groceries but the fact is most people on a budget can't afford to spend that much. I think that is where a lot of the judgment comes from. I mean if I have to budget my bills and expenses to take care of my family and I can afford to spend $400 a month on groceries then I have to make cuts and decide what is really necessary. That could be eating more beans, rice, and filling foods; making tea, juice, etc at home instead of buying prepackaged; eating breakfast for dinner, meatless meals, or other cheap meals; etc. Just examples but that is the sacrifice that has to be made to afford to feed the family so to see someone get $600+ a month in FS for the same size family and buy sodas, chips, expensive meats, etc and live without concern for what is being spent on groceries then it can be annoying/stressful for low income families that don't qualify or don't take advantage of the system. I think that does carry over some to the point that if someone is budgeting tightly to provide for their family (basic phone service, no cable, choose your cut here) that it can be annoying to see someone have fs and buy whatever they want in groceries, have cable, internet, top package cell phone and more. Yes I have seen people that obviously lie to take advantage of the system (brand new expensive car that isn't in their name intentionally, etc) and I've also seen people that qualify but that use the system when they could avoid doing so. One in particular: has top cell phone package and the latest high tech cell, high satellite package, internet, spends often on new clothes and at times even buying silly items like expensive designer sunglasses, purses, etc. This person does qualify by income but could easily afford to buy groceries for the family without food stamps if she chose to not spend money on her fun stuff. She opts to take advantage of the system so that she can live as she wants instead of budgeting to take care of her own. That can be annoying to see for some people that do budget and try to make sound financial decisions. I think that is where a lot of people that judge the system are coming from.