Soulstrut Catnip: Hipsters on Foodstamps
- Thread starter Garcia_Vega
- Start date
That movie Food Inc was nominated for the best documentary Oscar. My biggest complaint, and something that I thought derailed the fairly solid case the film had gathered, was the poor family toward the end that couldn't "afford" to eat anything but fast food. There was a scene with a young girl who picked up some broccoli at the grocery store and her parents made her put it back. All they can "afford" to eat is the cheap calories from McDonald's so they can pay for the father's diabetes medication. Where am I doing with this? I don't know, but I don't disparage someone who doesn't have a lot of money from using what they have to eat well. It's like the article about those modern-day cavemen in the New York Times, naked and hunting, overrunning a dear in the park and then eating it right there, but then knowing that the raw meat would be their sustenance for a couple of days. Yeah, on food stamps, you might have to trade up your grass-fed porterhouse for a fillet, your red-wine shallot reduction for a yellow onion and a dash of beer, but it's still going to be a bigger meal than Ramen noodles, Hawaiian Punch and a Ho-ho. I would have appreciated a little covering-of-the-bases as far as income levels and food stamps type of information. And as far as the low-paid blogger, people don't want to buy newspapers or magazines is fine, but you pay for what you get: some ex-art student blogger on food stamps running the Fourth Estate. F*ck that.
whatever. do what you gotta do, so i'm not gonna begrudge anyone for getting food stamps. i'll get them if i ever need them. but F*ck if i'ma let myself get in that position.
agree with white tea though, if you got them, dont buy shit food
agree with white tea though, if you got them, dont buy shit food
I remember when foodstamps were part of the street economy, back when they were actually made from paper.
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
Broccoli is on average $1.60 per pound, get organic broccoli and the price almost doubles. 1/4 double cheeseburger at Burger King: $1.
Just to stir the pot a bit:
My ex was on food stamps at one point. She told me how remarkable it was that people in the DSS office (she was from a middle class family and out on her own lost her job, had a hard time) had the newest cellphones, Nintendo DS for their children, etc., yet couldn't buy "good food" to eat. Food stamps provides you with enough money to shop wisely and buy healthy food for you and your kids, people just don't.
My ex was on food stamps at one point. She told me how remarkable it was that people in the DSS office (she was from a middle class family and out on her own lost her job, had a hard time) had the newest cellphones, Nintendo DS for their children, etc., yet couldn't buy "good food" to eat. Food stamps provides you with enough money to shop wisely and buy healthy food for you and your kids, people just don't.
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
Broccoli is on average $1.60 per pound, get organic broccoli and the price almost doubles. 1/4 double cheeseburger at Burger King: $1.
You can get a pound of pasta, a jar of sauce and some veg to throw in and feed a whole family for way less than it would cost to eat the garbage at McDonalds.
Considering the overall size of the social welfare system, it's not hard to find people using resources from that system irresponsibly. In other words, there's no doubt there probably were some welfare queens back in the '80s when Reagan was talking that shit up.
But the question is: do these constitute a tiny minority of recipients or are they the norm? And I've never seen any kind of convincing evidence to suggest that most people receiving some form of social benefit don't actually need it in some way. However, for some programs - welfare especially - the ability to conflate and scapegoat is made easy, especially when there's a perceived divide between those "on the dole" vs. those who've never had to ask to receive benefits.
Compare that with, say, Medicaid or SSI. There's no question there are people misusing both systems, but by and large, you don't see either system being maligned in the same way that welfare and food stamp programs tend to be. I think that's largely because so many more people depend on it (my father just retired this week after 38 years of working white collar and went and applied for Medicaid) that they're less likely to demonize the system even if there's surely people making use of it unethically.
But the question is: do these constitute a tiny minority of recipients or are they the norm? And I've never seen any kind of convincing evidence to suggest that most people receiving some form of social benefit don't actually need it in some way. However, for some programs - welfare especially - the ability to conflate and scapegoat is made easy, especially when there's a perceived divide between those "on the dole" vs. those who've never had to ask to receive benefits.
Compare that with, say, Medicaid or SSI. There's no question there are people misusing both systems, but by and large, you don't see either system being maligned in the same way that welfare and food stamp programs tend to be. I think that's largely because so many more people depend on it (my father just retired this week after 38 years of working white collar and went and applied for Medicaid) that they're less likely to demonize the system even if there's surely people making use of it unethically.
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
Broccoli is on average $1.60 per pound, get organic broccoli and the price almost doubles. 1/4 double cheeseburger at Burger King: $1.
You can get a pound of pasta, a jar of sauce and some veg to throw in and feed a whole family for way less than it would cost to eat the garbage at McDonalds.
If you eat off the dollar menu, drink water, and share fries, they are about the same cost. And Ragu type sauce, nutritionally, is not very good for you.
I don't for a second think most (or many) people on public assistance are misusing their benefits. I was just countering the 'high cost of broccoli' argument. It's probably difficult to eat really well on welfare/food stamps, but there are clearly lower cost, relatively healthy ways to eat, i.e. high protein, low fat. It might not be very glamorous, but it'll feed the kids.
I think the article about the 'hipsters' was clearly written with an agenda.
I don't want it to be percieved that I am criticizing welfare or the food stamp program. I am criticizing the hipsters in this article who should be ashamed of themselves for being on public assistance because their art world jobs didn't materialize. These are not the down and out working poor types, they are mainly college educated people from the middle class who want help while they "ride out" the financial storm and the art jobs come back. Although I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if there really are no other jobs out there for these people.
How does this work? I don't really eat fast food, so I don't know how much it costs, but can't you buy enough food at a grocery store to make food for several days with what you would drop at McDonald's in one meal?
Sorry if I'm a bit
Sayin -
A head of Broccolli should be less than French Fries and/or Regular Hamburger
Broccoli is on average $1.60 per pound, get organic broccoli and the price almost doubles. 1/4 double cheeseburger at Burger King: $1.
You can get a pound of pasta, a jar of sauce and some veg to throw in and feed a whole family for way less than it would cost to eat the garbage at McDonalds.
If you eat off the dollar menu, drink water, and share fries, they are about the same cost. And Ragu type sauce, nutritionally, is not very good for you.
Please tell me you're not advocating eating at McDonalds, as a cost saving measure or otherwise...
I'm not advocating eating at McD's at all. I'm saying that price wise they are comporable, and throwing a few vegtables with pasta and ragu does not make a significantly healthy eating alternative to McD's. Read the Obesity-Hunger Paradox article I linked further up, you'll see where I'm coming from.
I don't want it to be percieved that I am criticizing welfare or the food stamp program. I am criticizing the hipsters in this article who should be ashamed of themselves for being on public assistance because their art world jobs didn't materialize. These are not the down and out working poor types, they are mainly college educated people from the middle class who want help while they "ride out" the financial storm and the art jobs come back. Although I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if there really are no other jobs out there for these people.
My post above was really meant as a response to the original article, not towards any one post. I just find Salon's approach to be f*cking lame though I suppose it's better to pick on the creative class for a change vs. the typical scapegoats (i.e. urban poor of color).
In regards to what you just wrote above, as you point out, one of the problems with how the welfare system is currently put together is precisely the inability to properly discern between what's known as the "permanent vs. temporary poor." The temporary poor are those who, technically, qualify for public assistance but have the basic social tools (education and/or work) to get themselves out without requiring much help. The permanent poor include those who are incapable of full integration into the labor market as well as former full-time workers now displaced by the disappearance of entire sectors of the labor market with insufficient skills or education to retool into another sector.
A more effective (though probably not efficient) welfare system would be one that could better discern between the two and direct benefits appropriately. However, the path of least resistance is simply to allow those who qualify to apply, regardless of their long-term need profile.
Similar threads
