How do you feel about this?
 

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...95116846_n.jpg

I don't mean to imply that all food stamp recipients are spending your tax dollars in questionable ways, but the image got me thinking about how different people may feel about the welfare system we (in the U.S.) have, and whether welfare reform would be a good idea, and if so, how we should go about it, and if not, why?

Personally, I think the welfare system is a good thing in concept. It ensures that we, as a developed nation, don't simply let the poor and disabled starve. It ensures that everyone has an opportunity to have the basic necessities to live. It helps those who are unable, both permanently and temporarily.
On the flip-side of that coin, however, I think there's a tendency for some to take these things for granted and not utilize them to the extent they could be. I've grown up around many people who required some sort of government assistance, and it seems that now, more than ever, the majority feel as though these things aren't assistance, but bonuses.
I've known people to only disclose certain incomes in order to qualify for food stamps so they could buy things like lobster and steak while spending the money they earn on drugs, alcohol, and lots of Ramen noodles.
These are people with children...
And I've definitely heard of many cases where food stamps are outright traded for drugs. (Cue drug tests for food stamps debate)

I know I can't say that's the case for everyone, but it would be equally wrong to assume that it isn't the case at all. As a single taxpayer whose federal withholdings are quite sizable, I'd like to know that money is being spent wisely.
If I were to reform welfare, I'd probably pursue verification avenues that provided greater assurances that assistance was not being abused, but without making it harder for legitimate access.
And therein lies the problem. How do you accomplish that?
Do you think it's even necessary?
How would you approach something like that?

I don't know what it's like in the States but I live in a street with a high presence of public housing which seems synonymous with housing for junkies and dealers. Those with kids just don't give a **** about their kids getting any sort of future. They never send them to school unless they are forced to meet requirements for some sort of official scrutiny and then as soon as the pressure's off the kids are back out of school. I know resources are pretty scarce in the welfare sector but I really think the focus needs to be on kids getting the help they won't get from their wasted parents.

There's probably no way to accurately tell what percentage of people on welfare are abusing it, so there's no way for me to substantiate whether or not welfare is efficient. It's government operated, so I'd guess it's extremely inefficient, and that image is evidence.

Then again maybe it's just an overblown issue, and only a small percentage actually live off of it/abuse it, but I've actually been on food stamps, I got 200 month for 2 months earlier this year, and I have to say, keeping them obviously isn't a problem.

I know a couple that's had 300 a month for a few years now, and one of them has had a job the whole time.

I wonder if there could be a system in place that actually inputs legitimate food item codes into the same database that groceries use to scan items, and simply approves which foods are allowed?
I know that some people would probably feel like that is crossing some sort of dictatorship line, but I don't see how it would be. I mean, what if the food welfare system simply consisted of government trucks delivering nutritious, stretch-able foods to those who qualified? Would there be an outrage that those trucks did not deliver lobster and steak while the rest of the population could afford it? I think that doesn't seem too far-fetched of a possibility, but honestly, if the goal is to provide basic sustenance for those who can't afford it, I don't think I'd understand the outrage that it didn't include high-dollar, unnecessary items that ultimately use up those benefits inefficiently, which not only has an effect on the family in question, but the people paying into that system.

I sat next to someone who worked with a welfare office last year in one of my criminal justice classes and she shared a number of anecdotes about people completely abusing the system. It's an inevitability and as I slowly start to take on a more Conservative ideology in some areas, I've always supported food stamps. Shit like this is annoying and severely screws over the people that actually need the help, but it could be worse. I just wish there was an easier way to punish the people that do abuse the system, I'm sure there's a good solution that satisfies as many people as possible, but I for one don't know what it would be.

Regardless of whatever they are doing with their lives, I feel that food stamp recipients should spend their food stamps on whatever types of foods they want to eat.
What's the alternative? They can only purchase shitty food with them? Who would get to decide what they eat? What a horrible, even more fucked up system it would be if the government provided food stamps that can only be spent on macaroni and cheese. Especially considering that Medicare (not Obamacare but Medicare as we've known it for decades) will pay out for life-saving heart surgeries, etc.

Yeah, but then which foods do you decide people can and can't have? Where do you draw the line as to what is excessive? Is it a price range for the item? What if it's on sale?

Also, it would probably cost more tax money for the system/the effort to decide what is/isn't excessive.

Maybe just make sure these people are actually trying to get a job. I think the welfare itself just needs to be cracked down on. They should have to go to the workforce center every day except for weekends. I know I got ****ing sick and tired of going to the WFC even once or twice a week when I was on EBT.

I don't think that this illustrates abuse as much as it illustrates irresponsibility or just plain stupidity. As someone whose family has been on stamps for a few years now, I can tell you that that person went hungry later that month. We made 12K last year and get around $150 a month in stamps. So I guess we could be gluttons for a day and buy steak and lobster, but then we wouldn't get any more money until next month.

The thing is, it's not some arbitrary source (the government) that's providing its own money to support welfare out of the goodness of its heart. It's the taxpayers. There has to be some sort of effort to ensure that the money that we put into that system is being utilized efficiently and to the benefit of the families involved. Multiple lobsters and steaks taking up about half of the entire highest monthly payout is obviously not efficiency, and would not benefit a family for 2 weeks. Not even a single individual.
140 dollars worth nutritious meal ingredients you can cook at home and stretch for 2 weeks is efficient. I don't think anyone who supplies their own sustenance on a budget would disagree (unless you live in some crazy high-priced place like NY).

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that food stamps should be restricted to cheap, processed box food. The suggestion implied that it should simply restrict high dollar items that don't stretch. Because why would you provide a service that intends to meet the basic needs of people when you don't have some oversight into making sure that your entire goal is actually being met?

Simply giving people 300 bucks a month to spend how they want is not achieving the goal of ensuring low-income households have what they need to survive. It's simply spending tax dollars on the assumption that most of them will be responsible enough to utilize government assistance responsibly. I'm sure most of them do, too. But I don't see the harm in ensuring that those who don't are unable to neglect the purpose of the funds to begin with.

It's living assistance, not splurging assistance...

Agreed. I think most states have fairly strict unemployment benefit systems now. Food stamps are food stamps. Why should the government pay employees to monitor the spending of food stamps? The cost/benefit ratio would just get even more ridiculous.

Sounds like y'all should start cooking meth. Just as a side income generator (tax-free until the US acknowledges that its War On Drugs is a complete disaster).