The Food-Stamp Gourmands
Attend art school instead of accounting school? Not a problem. Not one that you should let stop you from enjoying the finest organic baby vegetables. Check out "Hipsters on Food Stamps" from Salon, by Jennifer Bleyer. An excerpt:
Magida, a 30-year-old art school graduate, had been installing museum exhibits for a living until the recession caused arts funding -- and her usual gigs -- to dry up. She applied for food stamps last summer, and since then she's used her $150 in monthly benefits for things like fresh produce, raw honey and fresh-squeezed juices from markets near her house in the neighborhood of Hampden, and soy meat alternatives and gourmet ice cream from a Whole Foods a few miles away."I'm eating better than I ever have before," she told me. "Even with food stamps, it's not like I'm living large, but it helps."
Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago and toiled in publishing in New York during his 20s before moving to Baltimore last year with a meager part-time blogging job and prospects for little else. About half of his friends in Baltimore have been getting food stamps since the economy toppled, so he decided to give it a try; to his delight, he qualified for $200 a month.
"I'm sort of a foodie, and I'm not going to do the 'living off ramen' thing," he said, fondly remembering a recent meal he'd prepared of roasted rabbit with butter, tarragon and sweet potatoes. "I used to think that you could only get processed food and government cheese on food stamps, but it's great that you can get anything."
Think of it as the effect of a grinding recession crossed with the epicurean tastes of young people as obsessed with food as previous generations were with music and sex. Faced with lingering unemployment, 20- and 30-somethings with college degrees and foodie standards are shaking off old taboos about who should get government assistance and discovering that government benefits can indeed be used for just about anything edible, including wild-caught fish, organic asparagus and triple-crème cheese.
Food policy experts and human resource administrators are quick to point out that the overwhelming majority of the record 38 million Americans now using food stamps are their traditional recipients: the working poor, the elderly and single parents on welfare.
But they also note that recent changes made to the program as part of last year's stimulus package, which relaxed the restrictions on able-bodied adults without dependents to collect food stamps, have made some young singles around the country eligible for the first time.
So, wait...I'm "sort of a foodie," too, but buying the old vegetables and cheap meat at the Ghetto Ralph's supermarket...and my tax dollars are going to support Magida's raw honey habit and Mak's fondness for tarragon roasted rabbit? I'm tempted to track these two down and invoice them. Not that I'd imagine them paying. But, if she did, I'd turn over the money to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association.
And yes, even if you don't have a job or much of a job, there is an alternative to forcing other taxpayers to buy you a gourmet dinner. It's called "eating beans."
Holy pimento loaf, people are using food stamps to buy real food? We're gonna need a shipping container of Spam and a thousand pallets of Twinkies, stat!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 19, 2010 12:21 AM
I'm sort of a foodie, and I'm not going to do the 'living off ramen' thing,
For the love of Pete, what a douchebag. I'm sort of a foodie, too, and, like Magida, I do the meat-substitute thing. But if I were on food stamps, I would not be going for the expensive stuff. Your expensive lifestyle choice should suffer at the hands of your budget. I used to know a pregnant working woman who was on food stamps, and she made sure she got the most value out of the money. These people in the article sound like they're in the underparented-yet-ridiculously-entitled camp. How much of this stuff could they possibly be getting for $150-$200 a month? Unless Mark is taking advantage of roadkill laws to procure his meats, I doubt it's very much. You don't have to "do the living off ramen thing" to get inexpensive groceries. I would be so embarrassed to be using government money to buy rabbit and Whole Foods ice cream. I about worry myself into an ulcer if I think I'm buying produce that's a little high. I would have thought that living on your own with little income would incite you to be a little more prudent in your spending, but I guess I was wrong.
NumberSix at March 19, 2010 12:27 AM
Gog, I have no problem with people buying real food with food stamps. I have seen it done. In fact, I encourage it. You can get quality food to make good meals. But that is not what these people are doing.
NumberSix at March 19, 2010 12:29 AM
I hadn't finished this before I accidentally posted it and then comments started coming in. Here's the rest of the post that you may not have seen:
And yes, even if you don't have a job or much of a job, there is an alternative to forcing other taxpayers to buy you a gourmet dinner. It's called "eating beans."
Amy Alkon at March 19, 2010 12:39 AM
One of the reasons I like the WIC program and detest food stamps is because the WIC program dictates what you can buy. You will not be buying junk food, or living on shrimp and escargots. You'll be buying wholesome staple items, milk, peanut butter, cereal (and I don't mean Trix or Lucky Charms; they actually specify which brands you can have).
Food stamps should do the same.
But at least they switched them to credit cards. When I worked at a convenient store, some drunken loser could come in, buy a five cent piece of candy, give a dollar foodstamp and use the change. He could leave the store, repeat the process and eventually amass enough for his next drink.
Patrick at March 19, 2010 2:44 AM
Patrick, the cards are just as easy to dope. Just find a clerk who will give you cash back.
Radwaste at March 19, 2010 3:17 AM
You know what? The procedure for getting foodstamps should have been stretched out a bit for these folk. obvioulsy they have never been as hungry as those that food stamps were originally created for...the edge of starvation.
They wouldnt be so cavalier and entitled if they were on the edge calorie-wise.
rsj at March 19, 2010 3:55 AM
Heh. I didn't qualify for food stamps because I make too much money on unemployment!
Flynne at March 19, 2010 5:25 AM
Well hell, if that kid in Baltimore is able-bodied, you'd think someone could put him to work for that $220 a month. I'm sure that after the snows that town got this winter, there are lots and lots of potholes to fill.
old rpm daddy at March 19, 2010 5:39 AM
You're late on this bandwagon, this article and a response from one of the kids was up on Salon last week.
Basically, they get the same amount of money no matter what they spend it on, so does it matter whether they get $200 of honey or $200 of cheetohs? It's not like they get a bigger budget for buying expensive food... they just get less food.
NicoleK at March 19, 2010 5:56 AM
I consider myself a foodie, too, but that means I eat more inexpensively than most people by taking very plain foods, which are usually inexpensive (think flour, sugar, eggs, chicken, cheap cuts of beef), and creating something great out of them.
Contrary to popular belief as expressed by Gog, the foods generally though of as cheap usually are not; they are just lazy. I could make something much better than Twinkies in 15-20 minutes for a fraction of the cost. I'm not hurting for money (much), so I add some occassional steaks, fish, imported cheeses, wines as I prefer, but most of my foods come from Wal-Mart and cost little. These people are just brats.
Lyssa at March 19, 2010 5:59 AM
Also, there's nothing wrong with eating beans. Ever had cassolet?
(Cassolet has some rich ingredients, like duck, but can be made with chicken, plus it is stretched out by the beans and other inexpensive ingredients.)
Lyssa at March 19, 2010 6:01 AM
I say we blame the government. Quite frankly, if they qualify, it's the gov't's fault. And once they have that $200, why does it matter what they spend it on? I'm pissed they have it in the first place. $200 of ramen is still $200 of our money.
momof4 at March 19, 2010 6:14 AM
I am actually kinda jealous. And a little petrubed that these "foodies" are being so cavalier about it. When I lived in NYC, I couln't get any assistance at all. They have definitley changed the eligiblity requirements big time.
I was working full time AND going to school full time. I couldn't get a second job anywhere I applied, even McDonalds (Hey, I ain't to proud to flip a burger if it pays the bills), and every penny I had was going to pay rent, bills, and subway fare to get to class. When I could buy food, it was Ramen, Spagettios, and PB&J. If I got to buy some fruit or veggies, it was a good week. Then when my savings started to deplete, I dropped my health insurance because I just couldn't afford it anymore and was considering dropping out of school because I didn't know if I could even afford the tuition for next semester. There were days where I had to choose between using my money to buy groceries or paying for my Metrocard to get to work. I swallowed my pride and applied for food stamps. I figured even $50 a month could go a long way. It would be the difference between me eating or not. So, I went and got screened for eligiblity. The conversation I had with the lady I spoke with went something like this:
Her: I am sorry miss _____ but your application for food stamp assistance will not be approved.
Me: I'm sorry...what? Why?
Her: Unfortunately you do not meet state criteria at this time.
Me: What!? How is that even possible? I meet the income and work guidelines. Actually I more than meet them. I don't understand.
Her: Well, income is just one factor in determining eligibility.
Me: Well, what exactly is your "criteria" for eligiblity?
Her: Well, to be honest, since you have no dependants and don't live in what is considered an underprivelaged area, we must reserve our resources for someone who's need is greater.
Me: Wait. First of all, I live in Jamaica Queens, not 5th avenue...
Her: ...I am sorry but there is just more to it.
Me: So because I didn't go and get myself knocked up and am white... I don't meet the "criteria" for assistance. Really? Are you seriously telling me that?
Her: You just don't meet the criteria for assistance according to state standards. I am so sorry.
Me: So, what if I went and got pregnant? Would that change things?
Her: Well, working families are considered a higher need then single person homes...
Me: So the answer is yes. Seriously? So, in order to get help, I have to basically have to drop out of school and find myself a baby daddy?
Her: No that is not what I am saying...
Me: ...Then what are you saying?
Her: (long pause) I am sorry. We just aren't able to offer you food stamps at this time.
We went around in circles for a while and I walked out empty handed. Fortunately for me, I ended up joining my schools work-study program which paid twice as much per hour than my full time job did so I got lucky. And the irony about that, if I had applied again while on work study, I understand I would have been eligible. It completely baffles me. I really don't know if anyone else in a similar situation to me had the same problem or if the system back in 2001 really was that fucked up. All I know was, I couldn't get the help when I needed it so these poor fucking self proclaimed "foodies" would be wise to just be grateful to get anything at all.
Sabrina at March 19, 2010 6:18 AM
What is disturbing about this is not that they eat good food. If you buy raw ingredients, you can cook yourself very nice meals on a low budget. Rabbit is nothing special, really, just a bit unusual. Neither is tarragon - you can easily grow it in your garden.
What disturbs is the attitude. These are people who apparently have no shame at being on the dole - indeed, they see it as a treat. The idea that your tax money and mine is paying for their treat is just not on their radar.
Being on the dole ought to be something you only do when you are desperate. There needn't be a huge stigma attached - bad luck can happen to anyone - but it certainly shouldn't be something that anyone does if they have a choice.
bradley13 at March 19, 2010 6:19 AM
If someone qualifies for food stamps, and they get $150 a month to use on food...I guess that's $150 a month no matter what?
So, yeah, it's initially annoying that someone is using tax payers' (MINE!) money to eat fancy schmancy stuff, but if they blow $150 in the first two weeks of the month on gourmet cheese spreads and and imported Italian capers packed in the piss of god - then that's it. It's the same amount of money to us. If they qualify, then they're pretty poor. If they blow the money on a reasonably large amount of low-cost food, or a small amount of high-cost food, I guess I don't see the difference? 150=150.
They still have to eat the last two weeks of the month and if they have to donate some sperm or sell off some of their obnoxiously hipster vinyl collection I don't really give a shite. As long as them buying the good stuff doesn't somehow enable them to get MORE than the agreed/accepted $150/month.
So, then, am I still annoyed with these idiots? Yes:
They're eating better than they did pre-food stamps. They say this in the article. Therefore, before qualifying for tax payer assistance, they were eating on much less money. That means the $150 is probably too much for them and we're paying more than we have to in order to keep them eating at a level that's reasonable (they're probably less likely to seek out deals or buy stuff on sale, b/c suddenly, their food budget just got bigger and it has to go towards food - spending the extra $3 on X doesn't mean having less money do go do Y later on). I spend too much on food so $150 wouldn't feed me unless I changed my habits and sucked it up and ate stuff I didn't *love* - which should absofuckinglutely be expected of me if I were to go on the state's dime.
Gretchen at March 19, 2010 6:25 AM
Basically, they get the same amount of money no matter what they spend it on, so does it matter whether they get $200 of honey or $200 of cheetohs?
It matters that they're getting food stamps. Look, I got a BFA in Film and TV at NYU (I got a real education in three years at University of Michigan, then transferred to NYU's silly undergrad film school after I wrote my way into a scholarship).
Anyway, there were times, because I didn't have an accounting degree or a degree in something practical, that I was really, really tight for cash. To the point where I had to work as a mover and as a chicken (handing out flyers on a NYC street). But, I did those things, and ate beans mixed with salad dressing to make them go down. I could've gotten food stamps at that point, but I never would've. It's nobody's obligation to pay for my career choice but me.
Amy Alkon at March 19, 2010 6:45 AM
I happen to be in the personal responsibilty camp. I believe a person should do everything in their power to try and take care of themselves. I think I have made that pretty clear in a lot of my posts here.
Having said that, I don't have a problem with govt assistance programs in general. (Like I said, there was a time when I needed it too...) I understand that sometimes people fall into bad situations and need a little help... temporarily. And that is what is getting lost I think. The temporary part. It has gotten to the point now where people practicially live off the taxpayer dollars for years and have to do virtually nothing to get it. It has gotten too easy for certain people to get the assistance. There is very little follow up on the people who are using govt assistance and there is no real deadline for getting off it. Why should they want to get off it anyway? They are getting free money.
If Obama wants to reform something, how about that?
Sabrina at March 19, 2010 7:00 AM
When the middle and artisan class gets a taste for welfare living, and finds it comfortable enough to like it long term, our society is pretty much finished, I think. You will then (now?) have a voting bloc that will vote themselves *more* of other people's money, and defend at the ballot box their wealth transfer payments, without much understanding of how the wealth they consume is created.
To get a glimpse of that, just think of your typical government worker or university employee. They live relatively comfortable and highly predictable lives, where money is something that appears every two weeks in their checking account via direct deposit. They are tax consumers, and taxpayers not at all. That class exists in a bubble, insulated from failure or risk the way most others fret over. We can support some number of people like that, given our startling productivity.
But now expand that class to 50-60% of the adult population. At that point, we are sunk.
I understand the appeal of such a life. Who wouldn't like to live off another's toil, pursuing intellectual or artistic hobbies without interruption or signigicant care?
But alas, someone somewhere must pay the bills.
The two thirty-something adults in this story don't understand that the work habits and skills they developed in their twenties are pretty much what they will have for the rest of their lives. If they didn't focus on developing *marketable* habits and skills, they are highly likely to be 48 years old and doing the same damn thing: nothing much.
Of course, it will be society's fault (or rich people, take your pick) somehow, when their incomes stagnate, while more diligent people around them rise in prosperity during those same years, thanks to decades of laying the foundation for a "sudden" prosperity at ages 48-53.
The crap degrees in art or liberal arts from places like the Universtiy of Chicago only makes all this worse. Now these sort of folks experience an upper middle-class lifestyle as kids and college students, which they enjoyed via their parents and enrollment in schools until their mid-twenties. They seen such living as the norm, but never having had a real job, they do not connect it to the work necessary to sustain that lifestyle.
Now in their early thirties, they cannot self-sustain at that level of working professional or professor. Their natural reaction? Find someone else to maintain them. For women, that may mean marriage and a child to a hard working guy. For guys (or women not interested in marriage and kids), that likely means they need a university or government gig. But now? It seems welfare is providing yet another option. That is, you and me pay for their lifestyle, folks.
So, suckers, how do you feel about working today? =D
Spartee at March 19, 2010 7:30 AM
Spartee, you just made me want to call out all next week.
Speasking of hard working middle class... I have way too much time on my hands these past two days, most of which has been spent here... (YAY! I can multitask) Well, if I have to give part of my paycheck away for stuff like this, I might as well enjoy the time I spent earning it right?
Sabrina at March 19, 2010 7:45 AM
If they're buying gourmet foods at high priced markets like WholeFoods, then they don't need foodstamps. They acknowledge as much by revealing that they're eating better now than when they were fully employed.
I don't care that they can buy what they like, but the fact that they use the stamps to buy gourmet ice cream and rabbit indicates that they're not using them as a primary food budget. They're treating them like birthday money. They can obviously afford to feed themselves without using foodstamps.
Miko at March 19, 2010 8:00 AM
Basically, they get the same amount of money no matter what they spend it on, so does it matter whether they get $200 of honey or $200 of cheetohs? It's not like they get a bigger budget for buying expensive food... they just get less food.
If they can buy the kinds of foods mentioned in the article by adding the Food Stamp money to their existing budget, then they didn't need the Food Stamps in the first place. They could easily save that much money by buying normal-people groceries.
WayneB at March 19, 2010 8:05 AM
Lyssa, that's my approach. Where's the art in making a T-bone gorgeous?
"and my tax dollars are going to support Magida's raw honey habit and Mak's fondness for tarragon roasted rabbit?"
And the ironic thing is both of these could be very cheap eats if they were raising the rabbits or growing the tarragon, neither of which takes any skill or very much luck. Magida could probably get all the raw honey she wants in return for a few odd jobs, such as humping someof the hives off the truck here and there.
Oh, wait, I mised this part:
"Mak, 31, grew up in Westchester, graduated from the University of Chicago ...."
Westchester County. That says it all.
Jim at March 19, 2010 8:09 AM
*****One of the reasons I like the WIC program and detest food stamps is because the WIC program dictates what you can buy. You will not be buying junk food, or living on shrimp and escargots. You'll be buying wholesome staple items, milk, peanut butter, cereal (and I don't mean Trix or Lucky Charms; they actually specify which brands you can have).
Food stamps should do the same.*****
THIS, exactly. I've been saying that exact same thing for YEARS.
Thing is, I'd bet 99.9% of the people on welfare think there's some magical money tree at the White House that pays for it all, or they just don't fucking care. Either way, pretty much EVERYONE can do some sort of work, and should earn their keep to the extent that they can. No one should get paid for sitting on their ass.
Ann at March 19, 2010 8:24 AM
I'm on board with limiting WHAT you can spend with the money. This would inherently lower the cost to supply food for a person, so the amount given/month might go down to, say, $100.
I was the the grocery store one day. It was a week day. I'd taken a vaca day for some reason. The woman in front of me was buying milk and stuff with WIC stamps (called stamps?). It was all store brand stuff. Then in a separate order was all expensive rubbish like Special K "protein water" or something. Pepperidge Farm cookies. Chocolate Pop-Tarts. You get the idea.
Then she whips out some card and turns to her haggard man friend and says "I think I got eighty bucks left". He shrugs. I tried to think nice things, like it was a debit card for her personal monies and not a gov't assistance debit card.
Then a 3rd order. Cigs. Cash.
I stared in disbelief and disgust.
Gretchen at March 19, 2010 9:08 AM
"Then a 3rd order. Cigs. Cash.
I stared in disbelief and disgust."
Disbelief? lol
Subsidize poverty, get more of it. Make it widespread, it becomes the new norm. Try to end it, suffer the righteous indignation of the dependent.
You will get used to it, I promise. Now get back to work. Someone has to pay for those ciggies, sucker.
Spartee at March 19, 2010 9:22 AM
His rebuttal to the slew of comments on Salon.com is worth reading, as it addresses many of the comments above.
http://www.salon.com/life/sustainable_food/index.html?story=/mwt/pinched/2010/03/17/hipster_food_stamp_response
shass at March 19, 2010 9:30 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/19/the_foodstamp_g.html#comment-1702803">comment from shassAgain, the question isn't "Why can't they buy nice food with food stamps," but why are they being supported by the rest of us?
Amy Alkon at March 19, 2010 9:32 AM
My boyfriend's roommates are like this! I have been trying to figure out how the hell they eat better than I do while barely working, and it all made more sense once they started talking about their food stamps applications. Pisses me off, I'm a foodie but I PAY FOR IT.
Sam at March 19, 2010 9:35 AM
But actually, the guy's response in Salon is worth reading. He's right about some things.
Sam at March 19, 2010 9:47 AM
We can't legislate attitudes. I'm impressed that young white educated people were able to get help. I lived in Oakland in poverty after college and in total desperation went in for help, any help, to the local State "assistance" office.
Apparently you can get help if you own less than $2,000 worth of belongings, including your car, clothing, tv set, and bank account, or if you're a racial minority and you've been on welfare, food stamps, handouts, grants, loans, etc since before time began.
I was literally laughed out of the place by the state employees. A white boy with a college degree? You ain't gettin' nuthin'.
Now I figure, if you can game the system, game it. The war profiteers aren't bitching about the hundreds of millions (which add up to billions which add up to trillions) they're making in pilfered taxes off yet another war against a country that didn't attack us, right?
So, screw it. Someone got a couple hundred bucks and wanted to make Rabbit Schwarzeneggere' with Welfare Sauce? Good on 'em. I can't stop the thieving juggernaut of government that went out of control after Eisenhower left office. I'm sure as hell not going to blame unemployed people with bad attitudes for treating themselves on the government dime.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at March 19, 2010 10:18 AM
Every year for I don't know how many years now, I have seen or heard ads encouraging people to use food stamps. They talk about how you may be eligible for them and not know it, and then list all the different ways in which you might qualify.
These ads aren't just aimed at struggling people with kids who somehow don't know they could get assistance. Gee, it's like they're trying to expand the need, and therefore expand the justification for their own existence. Or something.
And this monster has it's own agenda, and gets larger regardless of what type of presidential administration we have.
Pricklypear at March 19, 2010 10:28 AM
"Her: I am sorry miss..."
And of course, that is what the nice government clinic operator will tell you. You are sick? The clerk is not sick. Fill out this form. When the form is filled out, then, by definition, you are well.
Radwaste at March 19, 2010 10:52 AM
Thanks for that article shass.
Actually, I don't think he is right at all Sam. If he couldn't afford to buy organic only cuisine with his own money, than he can't afford it. Period. I believe he actually got a food upgrade when he got the food stamps.
I am not going to say that he isn't entitled to the food stamps because the govt said he was. I don't even object to buying lettuce and juice over a bag of chips and soda with it. However, he is only entitled to eat organic expensive food when HE pays for it. Otherwise, he needs to suck it up and eat like the rest of us. He isn't too good to eat regular lettuce. He just doesn't want to give up his "foody" lifestyle and make the sacrifice he needs to survive. He said so himself.
[i]"I am sort of a foodie but I am not going to do the living off Ramen thing"[/i]
Why not? Is he too good for Ramen? Is he so special that he gets to use tax payer money to buy better food that even *I* eat? I would love to eat an all organic diet, but I can't afford it. So, I eat as healthily as I CAN afford. My carrot stick has the same nutrients that his organic carrot stick has. The only difference is *I* paid for mine and it cost half as much. Why does he get to eat whatever he wants while I have to make sacrifices for my dinner? How is that right?
What does his diabetic father have to do with anything anyway? That still doesn't make him entitled to the admitedly more expensive rabbit dinner when he had a perfectly healthy and less expensive option that he could have used his stamps for.
Besides, wouldn't it just make more fiscal sense to stretch that govt dollar where possible? If I really need the assistance THAT bad, I would try to make it go as far as possible. If my choice is to buy a $10 dish or a $6 dish and the only difference is that the $10 is organic, then I would buy the $6 dish and use that $4 to get something else I needed. Or just not use it. Just because you have it doesn't mean you need to spend it all.
And why must he only shop at Lexington Market, or Farmers Markets or whatever trendy "health food" store is around. I am all for supporting local farmers, and eating healthy but if you can't afford it, then you can't afford it. Besides, local grocery stores do carry fresh fruit and veggies, and some even have whole ailes of organic food that it is still cheaper than the trendy health stores. My grocer, Publix, has thier own line of Greenwise organic food. It is a tad more than the non organic, but it is still cheaper than if I were to go to Whole Foods. And again, it is MY money that I am spending on it. If I couldn't afford it, then the non organic, or even store brand, works just fine. And you know what, I am pretty damn healthy. My point is, there are options to eat healthy that don't involve spending hundreds of dollars at trendy stores that cater to people with this very entitled mindset.
You can make excuses all you want my precious hipster boy, but the truth is this: Just because you get the food stamps, doesn't mean you are entitled to eat expensive organic food. If you can't afford it on your dime, then you can't afford it on mine either.
Sabrina at March 19, 2010 11:13 AM
If you have your own place you dont need food stamps.
If you own a car you dont need food stamps.
If I were in charge of the nations welfare system NO ONE would get any welfare money unless they were living in government barracks and spending at least 12hr a week in the barracks kitchen helping to cook communal meals and wash dishes, or washing clothes or providing day care. And the privialge of being accepted into the government welfare system would be dependent on spending at least 40 additional hours a week getting job trainging or taking community college courses.
lujlp at March 19, 2010 11:20 AM
I don't think that Mak's rebuttal did him any favors. He's trying to shift blame and garner pity.
like..
Cheap food is the real extravagance.
Right.
and
it's about the shifting class boundaries in this country.
Like when the boundary for welfare shifts to hipster arts grads who see public assistance as a lifestyle choice.
What's annoying is that he's trying to conflate his situation with those of people who genuinely need food stamps to eat regularly, and then condemn his critics as heartless. But the criticism is of him, and he's not that kind of poor, so his rebuttal is dishonest.
After reading his response, I still don't understand why he needs food stamps. Much less food stamps to buy gourmet organic tofu burgers.
Miko at March 19, 2010 11:26 AM
Sam, what, exactly is he right about?
Crap like this?
"Ultimately, though, this debate isn't about my personal story, it's about the shifting class boundaries in this country."
I see he absorbed class theory nonsense at college. So strap in, folks, for more coffee house talk like this:
"The comments both attacking and defending people like me reflect the insecurities and fears we all harbor in a nation where, in a time of corporate bailouts and 'Too Big To Fail,' even upper-middle-class people struggle to put food on the table."
Ah, I see. Once we all get past the false consciousness imposed on us by our bourgeois-led society, we will discover our true life of poverty, like him, so we must therefore make common cause with him, the enlightened, "starving," dependent artist spouting this warmed-over Marxist nonsense?
Is that, Sam, what he is right about? Or maybe this:
"What makes [artist types] less deserving of assistance when they need it than anyone else who qualifies, and why is it such a travesty that food stamp recipients have access to quality, healthy food?
This is, however, irrelevant because the core of this discussion is an ideological debate between those that believe private entrepreneurship and simple hard work are the cures for poverty, and those that believe that the the poverty line is permeable in both directions. Among the latter, there is yet a deeper debate about whether we can, in a deep recession with record unemployment rates, make the same old assumptions about class based on race, occupation and education, particularly when increasingly, only poorly paid, unprotected, insecure jobs are available even to people with master's degrees."
(Oh? *Even* to people with Master's degrees....I can get a master's degree in a lot of useless areas. That does not mean I have a skill people will then pay for. /eyeroll)
Here he made very large economic and societal claims that, for a better thinker, can ONLY be tolerated if data is presented. But none is. Naturally. This tool thinks his statements are self-evident or self-proving. Helloooooo liberal arts major! He mistakes his complete sentences for substantive arguments.
He is not "right" about a goddam thing, Sam, he is not even saying anything substantive enough to even be wrong. This is twaddle.
The saddest part of all this is, he doesn't even know where his shit-for-brains rhetoric comes from, or that it was effectively demolished over the past two generations by a really effective counter-movement in the disciplines of philosophy and economics. He is too busy marvelling at some goddam rabbit I bought for him.
Spartee at March 19, 2010 11:33 AM
He's right that cheap food is cheap because of massive government subsidies that are hidden in obscure language in our giant and archaic farm bill. I take far more issue with that than any type of food stamps recipients, I garuntee it's a larger portion of our federal budget.
The rest of his attitude is annoying; like I said, my boyfriend's roommates are hipsters on food stamps and they definitely aren't actively trying to find jobs.
Sam at March 19, 2010 12:09 PM
What ever happened to growing your own food? I'm no gardener, but even when I was the most broke I could still manage a tomato plant, garlic, watermelon vines and a fig tree. Heck, half those things grow themselves.
My roommate kept rabbits meant to be used in paella (alas, the neighbor's dogs raided the hutch).
C’est à rire.
lsomber at March 19, 2010 12:11 PM
Spartee's right, this guy is spouting a lot of BS.
For instance, the government subsidies he mentions inflate food prices by sequestering farmland, they don't reduce prices. Remove those subsidies that the gap with gourmet and boutique foods will widen dramatically.
And the claim that the upper middle class can't feed themselves is simply false. It doesn't even make sense when you consider that this group is typically defined by a household income exceeding $100K / yr.
And not one's saying that food stamp recipients shouldn't have access to healthy foods. He's either too dense to make the distinction between healthy and exotic or deliberately misrepresenting the argument.
Basically he's just making shit up.
jacob markle at March 19, 2010 12:18 PM
And not one's saying that food stamp recipients shouldn't have access to healthy foods. He's either too dense to make the distinction between healthy and exotic or deliberately misrepresenting the argument.
This was my take, too. This guy seems to have been raised to believe that healthy foods=expensive organic foods. Not so. Like someone said above, the organic carrot has the same molecular makeup as the nonorganic carrot. I will reiterate my point that your lifestyle choice should suffer because of your financial situation. This is the third item on the site this week that has made me cringe because of the sense of entitlement. I have known people who needed food stamps, and they fell into the "working poor" category. They knew how to use the money judiciously to get the most out of it. None of them thought they were entitled to organic veggies because the government said they could have financial assistance.
NumberSix at March 19, 2010 12:54 PM
Foodies on Food Stamps, huh? Must be part of that "funemployment" thing I keep hearing about. I'm not too worried that out of work hipster douches choose to spend $150 on ten items when they easily could have bought 20. There is no way to police good housekeeping. What I don't like is the smugness and C'est la vie attitude. It's almost like they revel in the fact they made a stupid career choice instead of owning up to the consequences.
Robert E at March 19, 2010 1:14 PM
"It's almost like they revel in the fact they made a stupid career choice instead of owning up to the consequences."
No, it's exactly that!
momof4 at March 19, 2010 2:26 PM
Haha, ironic that this pops up the first day of my life I'm seriously looking down the barrel of unemployment benefits. It fucking sucks. It is a kick to the nuts of my pride, that's for damn sure.
Elle at March 19, 2010 2:26 PM
(HUGS) Elle.
That fucking sucks.
Sabrina at March 19, 2010 2:49 PM
Here they give them cash each month, a lot of the homeless welfare recipients just drink it in a few days. Really, really stupid. I've discussed the idea of food stamps with my city hall, they'd never heard of them of course. The thing they said at the time was that the impression we got was that people might be embarrassed at the cash register.
They'd at least have to buy some food! We had a homeless guy coming to our clinic for his arthritis, he was the drink-my-welfare-money-in-three-days type, we always prepared food like obentos and bread for him when we knew he was coming, as we knew he'd rather drink than eat. The Japanese government is naive when dealing with this kind of person....they expect getting them help to suddenly make them do a turnaround and start to care about themselves.
crella at March 19, 2010 5:41 PM
I was there for a while, too, Elle. It does suck. My company shut down Christmas 2008, and I found out right after I had bought a (used) car. I made myself feel better by telling myself I was getting everything out of that money that I could: health insurance, car payment and insurance, and basic groceries. Everything else had to wait until I could get some income. Not like the douchebags in the article above. Smugness always keeps me warm.
NumberSix at March 19, 2010 6:19 PM
Back when, I was with a lady who was on SSI - numerous health problems - but valid. She automatically qualified for food stamps. She was getting about $120 a month.
We made a deal -- she would cover the basics, 5 lb bags of frozen chicken pieces; canned veggies; 10 lb bags of potatoes. If we wanted to do a nice steak; shrimp; expensive foods; I paid.
When she passed, I had $500+ on the card. I went to turn in the card -- the FS official was that money goes to the estate. I took her not quite poor daughter out on a shopping trip from hell. Do you know what $500 dollars of staples looks like? Fill the back of a minivan!
But that is what she would have wanted.
Jim P. at March 19, 2010 7:19 PM
Radwaste: Patrick, the cards are just as easy to dope. Just find a clerk who will give you cash back.
That's not how it works. Food stamp recipients can get a cash credit if they volunteer at certain organizations.
Patrick at March 19, 2010 7:55 PM
When my children were young and i was on wic. I would buy the stores' brand for the milk, cheese, juice and cereal.. I would use the store coupons as well if i had them! The wic check i was using would have an amount not to go over. I didnt know if the store would get the full amount written on the check or not, but, i didnt feel right buying the spendy brands, just cause i could...
As well, The few times i have used foodstamps, I use coupons, like buy one, get one free.. Never on things like frozen snack shit! I would buy foods like, raw rice, bulk hamburger and chicken,(legs and thighs are half the price as breast meat!) Veggies that keep like, potatoes, onions, cabbage, carrots... Planned right, being minus the junk! Yourself and children can afordably eat well and healthy!
annieday9909 at March 19, 2010 8:15 PM
Thanks Sabrina and NumberSix, I appreciate the sympathy immensely. The company will be hiring me back when they can afford it, but right now they can't so . . .
I figure I've paid into the system long enough that there's not *much* shame in taking it out now that I need it. I'm glad the safety net is there, but the safety net's purpose is not to be hanging out there; it's to keep you from going 'splat.' But then you have to scramble out of the net and get back to what you were doing.
Yeesh, what a way to stretch a metaphor . . .
Elle at March 20, 2010 9:55 AM
If the question is "Why should they have food stamps at all" then the fact that they use it on brie is not relevant.
Frankly, a small piece of brie costs as much as a hunk of cheap cheddar, what does it matter which one they spend it on?
I dunno, my Dad had to go on unemployment for a few months back in the 70s. I was either a baby or not born yet. Then he got a job and started a business and is now a solid upper-middle-class professional, who has paid way more into the system than he got out of it. Don't you think it is probably true for these kids, too?
NicoleK at March 20, 2010 2:16 PM
I just don't get this entitlement mentality.
When I was fresh out of college, I was making under $30k a year, but I wanted out of my parents' house so bad I was sharing a 3 bedroom third-story walk-up and living on hot dogs, boxed mac and cheese, and frozen burritos.
It never occurred to me that I ought to get government assistance. The very thought of turning to the government offends me.
Unemployment is a different thing - money that the company COULD have paid you was instead paid into a government fund for unemployment. Between 20 weeks of that and draining my 401(k), I was able to start my own business and now I don't worry about management.
Of course, what's a snot-nosed little punk with an art degree got to offer the world that it's willing to pay for?
brian at March 21, 2010 7:08 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/19/the_foodstamp_g.html#comment-1703206">comment from brianOf course, what's a snot-nosed little punk with an art degree got to offer the world that it's willing to pay for?
Well, I have a BFA, and I went into advertising, as an assistant producer at Ogilvy & Mather, on the strength of a little film I made in undergrad, but truthfully, not just that. I had worked as an intern at the TV station my senior year of high school, worked summers at an ad agency in Detroit, begged to work for free on a Rickie Lee Jones music video shooting in the village my first four days in New York (they let me, and I worked harder than all the paid P.A.s and she invited me out to their dinner afterward). I don't come from a connected family; I'm just dogged as hell. And I knew I had to be if I wanted to have a "fun" job.
After I quit Ogilvy, I made short films for Comedy Central and Glamour Women Of The Year Awards, and produced freelance for Mad Dogs And Englishmen, an adorably-staffed ad agency with writer Mikal Reich's bulldog scampering around the place, and other craziness. And I starved, trying to get my writing going. That's the price of having a "fun" job, too.
And there is a point: That's a price *I* need to pay, not other people, since I could have chosen to do something more practical.
Amy Alkon at March 21, 2010 7:50 AM
But that's the difference, Amy. You're not a snot-nosed little punk.
I can't tell you how many people I ran in to even when I was in college 15 years ago who thought they were going to walk right from graduation to a corner office.
I did two different stints as a co-op (think paid internship), and wound up working for the second one for eight years. Most students even in the "hard" sciences (engineering, etc.) don't take advantage of the co-op programs.
Expectations don't match up with reality. Those stories you hear about people living in their parents' basement until they're 35? Those are the ones most likely to end up like the subject matter in the article. Their parents never let their precious little flowers face any adversity or take any responsibility for their own existence, and now they don't have a clue.
And they feel that those of us who do owe them one.
brian at March 21, 2010 8:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/03/19/the_foodstamp_g.html#comment-1703313">comment from brianTrue, Brian. I thought it was pretty damn cool my parents paid for college. They're middle-class, not rich, and my dad works really hard.
Amy Alkon at March 21, 2010 9:23 PM
Amy I agree with your point, but; this part of the article pissed me off:
Why does the fact that you pushed out a screaming meat sack that you couldn't afford, or; that you survived to you're 60'th birthday make you more worthy recipient of food-stamps then a single male who can't find work?
Paying single mothers to have kids via additional welfare benefits is a classic case of moral hazard, and a recipe for disaster. The same goes of giving benefits to old people who squandered their earnings on foreign vacations, and luxury items instead of saving for retirement.
Mike Hunter at March 24, 2010 9:48 PM
Leave a comment