Post: #1

By WARREN KOZAK

Beware of little expenses.
A small leak will sink a great ship.

—Benjamin Franklin

There is a large chain grocery store in my neighborhood that I rarely frequent because the prices are too high. Instead, I will travel an extra 30 blocks to another store where the costs per item are 20%-30% lower.

I arrange my travel around this activity. It takes a little extra effort, but within a year the savings are substantial. As it turns out, I am not alone. The average income of Costco discount shoppers, it was reported recently, is $96,000—so perhaps they're not the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about, yet not the folks one might immediately expect to be watching their pennies either.

But every so often I will need one item late at night—a quart of milk, a missing part of a school lunch—and I run over to the high-price store nearby. There, I've noticed something happening with increased regularity: The person ahead of me in line or at the next checkout counter is using a benefits card. Since we are now in the third year of our national recession and unemployment remains depressingly high, I understand this.

Recently I had to run into that store and, sizing up the three lines, chose to stand behind a woman with one item in her cart. It was one of those large ice-cream cakes. When the checkout person said "Forty-one dollars," I wasn't the only one who blanched. The shopper's son, around 12, repeated it as a question: "Forty-one dollars?"

I quickly calculated that the woman's cake was eight times more expensive than the kind I make at home to celebrate birthdays. The mother ignored her son's question.

She took out her benefits card, swiped it through the machine, and they were off. My turn.

I stood there, wondering what lesson the young boy takes away from this transaction. Does he grow up with the faintest understanding of delayed gratification—that you have to earn your money before you can buy candy—or, in this case, an ice-cream treat? I wondered how we arrived at this point as a nation. I also felt like a chump.

Enlarge Image
KOZAK
Close
KOZAK
Associated Press

Items purchased using food stamps at a Philadelphia grocery store.

The vast majority of Americans—Democrat, Republican or independent—will readily help someone who cannot make ends meet in a bad economy. Americans want a hungry child to be fed. I know this because in no other country do people donate more to charities. Americans will go far beyond what our taxes already pay for to help the less fortunate. We have been blessed with overabundance in this land, and we are a very generous people.

But over the last four decades, our government has quietly done away with almost all of the restrictions once placed on food assistance. SNAP cards (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) can be used to purchase practically anything with the exception of liquor and cigarettes. These cards are also openly and illegally sold for cash, which allows the recipient to buy anything they want, including cigarettes and liquor.

Food assistance is helping many families keep their heads above water when they would otherwise not get by, and many of these families watch every dime. But the system also allows people to flagrantly disregard the program's original purpose.

Of course there are instances of fraud in every corner of the government, from Congress to defense spending. Why single out food stamps? Because, with over 48 million Americans now using some form of food assistance and few restrictions, the possibilities of waste are unlimited.

My grandmother did not serve on the president's Council of Economic Advisers. She did not have an M.B.A. from Harvard. She never went to high school because she had to go to work to support her family. But she gave me an astute piece of financial advice when I was about to enter the world. "Never," she told me, "spend more than you earn" and "always try and save a little something."

When we wonder how this great nation traveled from our grandparents' common sense to where we are today, it might be easier to understand with this question: How did the country that created the strongest middle class in history, the country that offered everyone the chance to succeed, the country that built and paid for the transcontinental railroad and the Hoover Dam, won World War II and put Neil Armstrong on the moon—how did that country rack up trillions in debt?

One $41 cake at a time.

Post: #2

I'm not the biggest fan of most welfare programs. They tend to foster dependency and probably only increase inter-generational poverty. That being said, I have to disagree with this post. The federal budget is a matter of public record and the food stamp program is a minuscule portion of it.

Two-thirds of all budget expenditures are for defense spending and for social security and medicaid. The US is not in debt because of $41 cakes. The US is in debt because our defense spending is above and beyond anything we actually need for self-defense and because our middle-class transfer programs are unsustainable.

Post: #3

How many $41 cakes could Wall Street buy with bailout money?

How many $41 cakes could Halliburton buy from Iraq and Afghanistan "rebuilding" money?

How many $41 cakes can BigPharma buy with "healthcare reform" money?

How many $41 cakes could you buy with the $2.3 trillion (that's trillion, not billion) that disappeared from the Pentagon?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-325985.html

The rich and power elite have done an amazingly good job at convincing people who earn five figures (and will be lucky to earn six figures) that the problem with America is poor people are buying expensive cakes.

Post: #4

Exactly,

while the "elite" go ahead and steal billions on useless "security" and weapons programs - and elective wars, and bailouts to trillionaires they get you think that some idiot who spends 40 bucks as opposed to 10 on some food is the real problem.....not by a long shot.

Post: #5

I can't hate those 'ghetto people'. Actually I like them as customers. I do not take food stamps in my restaurant.

they spend more than well dressed, driving nice car white family.

When this professional looking guy is spending $10 for family of 4, they spend $10 for two.
I get disgusted by those people all the time.

Post: #6

Obviously $41 cakes aren't the reason we are $16 trillion in debt, but doesnt it bother any of you that the people who are receiving "help" and "aid" from your hard earned money are spending that money on extravagances you wouldnt indulge on yourself?

Post: #7

(05-20-2012 09:55 PM)Brian Wrote:  Obviously $41 cakes aren't the reason we are $16 trillion in debt, but doesnt it bother any of you that the people who are receiving "help" and "aid" from your hard earned money are spending that money on extravagances you wouldnt indulge on yourself?

No, and it shouldn't bother you, especially when you look at the big picture and see that the boys at Goldman Sachs and other major banks are enjoying $41 cocktails for lunch on FDIC backed earnings.

If you want to get annoyed at least get annoyed indiscriminately.

Post: #8

(05-20-2012 10:01 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(05-20-2012 09:55 PM)Brian Wrote:  Obviously $41 cakes aren't the reason we are $16 trillion in debt, but doesnt it bother any of you that the people who are receiving "help" and "aid" from your hard earned money are spending that money on extravagances you wouldnt indulge on yourself?

No, and it shouldn't bother you, especially when you look at the big picture and see that the boys at Goldman Sachs and other major banks are enjoying $41 cocktails for lunch on FDIC backed earnings.

If you want to get annoyed at least get annoyed indiscriminately.

Both piss me off. The $41 cocktails and accompanying issues are perhaps more impacting in the grand scheme of things, but most of us see food stamp abuse up close more often than we intimately observe billionaire bankers gnoshing on foods we can't pronounce and shit we might not ever drink.

Post: #9

(05-20-2012 09:55 PM)Brian Wrote:  Obviously $41 cakes aren't the reason we are $16 trillion in debt, but doesnt it bother any of you that the people who are receiving "help" and "aid" from your hard earned money are spending that money on extravagances you wouldnt indulge on yourself?

No.

I recognize a red herring when I see one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

Post: #10

(05-20-2012 09:55 PM)Brian Wrote:  Obviously $41 cakes aren't the reason we are $16 trillion in debt, but doesnt it bother any of you that the people who are receiving "help" and "aid" from your hard earned money are spending that money on extravagances you wouldnt indulge on yourself?

Not a disgusted as thwe trillions of dollars fo welfare bankers received so bad loans they wrote could be taken off their books.

Then they paid themselves performance bonuses on top of that.

An more hefty extravagence than a $41 cake.

Post: #11

The irony is that the elites whom have plunderd and pillages America's purse will create a climate in which deep cuts to assistance programs will have to be made. The problem is far from $40 cakes when you realize 40 million Americans live on food assistance, that's the real '40' the author should be talking about. The system is flawed and politicians and the elites will play of the insecurities and oddities that were painted in this article as a way to divide people.

I am currently in the states right now and for sure the prevalence and acceptance of food assistance is every ware. In Canada it is still taboo, even with our "socialist" safety nets most Canadians shy away from being openly on Govt assistance.

Last point. It's interesting, if you adjust numbers for inflation we make less today then in the 70s, min wage would be at $21, and 90k-160k simply just represents middle class - not rich. Politicians and the elite make us believe it's other people's fault for this (unions, the poor, Mexicans) when it has 98% been their doing which has gotten us to this point. Where people are paying 80-120% of thier income on food, housing, and debt service.

Post: #12

When I read this article, I don't read it as solely an indictment on the assistance system. Instead, I see it as another example of socialism creep. (If that's not a term I guess I just made it up) Our society is gradually becoming not only accustomed to relying on the government for more and more, but if a small group makes enough noise their needs will be catered to over the less vocal majority. Assistance programs are little different than the massive military budget in that way, as entire communities and industries would wither up without it. Basically, when the only thing keeping your economy going is government spending, I think there is a problem.

Concerning the, likely fat, broad buying the $41 cake on an assistance card; That wouldn't have happened years ago not only because of an restriction on the card. She would have been too embarrassed to buy such a thing. And the person in line behind them likely would have called them on it. Today we just carry on sinking deeper into the abyss.

Post: #13

The great disadvantage the poor have is that they highly visible. The great advantage the rich have is that they are invisible.

Post: #14

The irony of this thread: how many of the people complaining about government waste, whether it's to the poor or the rich, support or vote for libertarian leaning candidates?

Post: #15

(05-21-2012 11:04 AM)kosko Wrote:  Politicians and the elite make us believe it's other people's fault for this (unions, the poor, Mexicans) when it has 98% been their doing which has gotten us to this point.

No, it has been our doing.

As Ted Nugent said, "If the coyote's in your living room, pissing on your couch, it's not the coyote's fault. It's your fault for not shooting him."

We keep electing snakes and then complain about all the vipers in power.

Post: #16

What do you expect when this type of shit is going on

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-player...51264.html

It's a little-noticed part of the federal budget: Each year U.S. taxpayers pick up the tab for the expenses of our former Presidents. For the likes of Carter, Clinton and Bush that means free rent, postage, phone and office staff — all courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.
In 2010, taxpayer-financed expenses included $15,000 for Jimmy Carter's postage, $579,000 for Bill Clinton's rent and a whopping $80,000 for George W. Bush's phone bills. It adds up: All told, U.S. taxpayers were on the hook for more than $3 million of expenses for the four surviving former U.S. presidents.

They certainly don't seem to need the money. These days being a former U.S. President is a lucrative business. After all, Bill Clinton raked in more than $10 million just in speaking fees last year. George W. Bush made even more: $15 million just for giving speeches.

Post: #17

Ex Presidents shouldn't get anything beyond security after their time in office.

The should return to being private citizens.

Post: #18

(05-21-2012 01:48 PM)assman Wrote:  The irony of this thread: how many of the people complaining about government waste, whether it's to the poor or the rich, support or vote for libertarian leaning candidates?

Ron Paul would cut 3 Trillion from the budget excluding defense. I support soft Libertarian ideals but you can't build up a strong social entitlement system and then pull the rug out from it. Reducing food stamp levels from about $1.56 per meal to $.87 is not a economic plan, it's class warfare. People die in those types of radical situations.

People vote for whom they feel will give them something back (this is part of the issue of not having a type of direct democracy). The look for a system or ideology that they perceive will make thier lives easier. Paul and libertarians are in this same boat just as much as phony republicans and democrats.

America has always had a strong support system. In the past it was taking care of by the Church and non-profits like the Salvation Army and United Way. Americans were some of the most generous in past times giving up 15-20% of thier incomes to charity groups. All went to hell when to Govt got involved and used the excuse of entitlements to grow the scope and size of Govt 3 fold.

The issue is not canidates. It's the system. Politicians and elites exploit the faulty system for thier gain. It's citizens fault for not grasping who, what, where, when, and why things are the way they are.

MLK always said it best. People confuse him for being a communist or somebody looking for reparations. But MLK later towards the end saw how the system was flawed and simply made note of how it does not work. He said if America simply invested money in its own people equally all of our problems of poverty and desiese would be fixed overnight. When he called out the system or being a joke and started to get white peoples attention to that. Well. They took him out.

The biggest fear is a population whom knows to much. People whom have control keep people to busy to know they are being fucked over. It's our job to call out the system for what it is. But the people up top are liable for being shady fucks whom exploit and deseave to keep things rolling as is.

Post: #19

(05-21-2012 11:04 AM)kosko Wrote:  The irony is that the elites whom have plunderd and pillages America's purse will create a climate in which deep cuts to assistance programs will have to be made. The problem is far from $40 cakes when you realize 40 million Americans live on food assistance, that's the real '40' the author should be talking about. The system is flawed and politicians and the elites will play of the insecurities and oddities that were painted in this article as a way to divide people.

I was going to reply in much the same way. This is an article sponsored by the ruling elites, for the purpose of dividing people (i.e. the middle class.)

(05-21-2012 11:04 AM)kosko Wrote:  I am currently in the states right now and for sure the prevalence and acceptance of food assistance is every ware. In Canada it is still taboo, even with our "socialist" safety nets most Canadians shy away from being openly on Govt assistance.

Even if you call it acceptance, it then begs the question, why have we become accepting? Some will say it's because we've lost our values. For many people, they've just given up the fight. FWIW, the woman buying the cake was also attempting to conceal her reliance on public assistance. You'll note this little story took place "late at night." I would bet that many of the late night shoppers these days are former members of the middle class, fallen from grace, who don't want to risk being seen by their acquaintances using an assistance card.

(05-21-2012 11:04 AM)kosko Wrote:  Last point. It's interesting, if you adjust numbers for inflation we make less today then in the 70s, min wage would be at $21, and 90k-160k simply just represents middle class - not rich. Politicians and the elite make us believe it's other people's fault for this (unions, the poor, Mexicans) when it has 98% been their doing which has gotten us to this point. Where people are paying 80-120% of thier income on food, housing, and debt service.

They use welfare, unions, immigrants, and public workers to convince us to blame each other for the problems, and they continue to reap profits while slowly self destruct.

Last year I did construction. I wasn't in a union. But I know one thing. The job I was on that had a union pay scale put a lot more money in my pocket and ran a lot better then the jobs that weren't union scale.

Post: #20

Concerning food stamps, I wonder if people still find it offensive in this situation:

You're working for $10/hr at a Starbucks in Santa Monica. You work 35 hours per week (not 40 because they can't afford another full time worker). You live with a roommate in close enough proximity to your work that you can take public transportation.

$10*35*4= $1400/mo wages
Rent: $900 (split apartment) (average cheap apartment in the west side of los angeles is about $1800-2000 per month)

$1400 after tax is about $1000-1100

That leaves you with about $100-200 per month to live.

Without something like food stamps, a person like that would have a very hard time living. Is that person a bad person for using government assistance in order to live?

Post: #21

I'd suggest they move to someplace with a lower cost of living if the only job they can find pays 10 bux an hour.

Or, get another job.

Post: #22

(05-21-2012 03:32 PM)kerouac Wrote:  You're working for $10/hr at a Starbucks in Santa Monica. You work 35 hours per week (not 40 because the SWPL mecca known as Starbucks is just as crooked and miserly as Wal-Mart)...

FIFY. BTW, I don't think the person is bad for taking public assistance.

Post: #23

(05-21-2012 03:32 PM)kerouac Wrote:  Concerning food stamps, I wonder if people still find it offensive in this situation:

You're working for $10/hr at a Starbucks in Santa Monica. You work 35 hours per week (not 40 because they can't afford another full time worker). You live with a roommate in close enough proximity to your work that you can take public transportation.

$10*35*4= $1400/mo wages
Rent: $900 (split apartment) (average cheap apartment in the west side of los angeles is about $1800-2000 per month)

$1400 after tax is about $1000-1100

That leaves you with about $100-200 per month to live.

Without something like food stamps, a person like that would have a very hard time living. Is that person a bad person for using government assistance in order to live?

This is a good example of what I an getting at. People are pinching pennies just to put a roof over their heads, something is obviously systematically off. Only debt and credit cards could mask it for a decade but now that has run dry people are sitting going "wtf!?".

Ideally no more than 20-25% of income should go towards housing this has been the classic measure for low income housing since they figured if you made to little you would be homeless or starve. The importance of shelter ussually trumps food for most people and a stable address and location is critical in locking down work. I don't know what the American average for income-to-shelter is, but in Canada it's ranging from 30-75% percent depending on the City - the national average is about 40% percent.

Unions have always been used as a boogie man as of late. Back in the day they were looked highly upon but I feel now it's mostly envy as most union jobs mimic what the pay scale should be. They are (ussually) just going with inflation rates, not perfect but you can't fault a organized front for lobbying thier interests which benefit many.

But yes the big question is have we been exploited or just have become complacent. It's probably both as Govt thrives on people being needy as it endures their power and relevance. Even after the New Deal and Social Secruity Govt was still quite small and people did no expect anything. Where did the pendulum shift?

Post: #24

(05-21-2012 03:57 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I'd suggest they move to someplace with a lower cost of living if the only job they can find pays 10 bux an hour.

Or, get another job.

Moving isn't cheap. And generally places that our cheap to live have shitty economies. It's not that simple.

Go move to Flint and live for dirt cheap. Good luck finding a job tho.

Post: #25

(05-21-2012 04:12 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 03:57 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I'd suggest they move to someplace with a lower cost of living if the only job they can find pays 10 bux an hour.

Or, get another job.

Moving isn't cheap. And generally places that our cheap to live have shitty economies. It's not that simple.

Go move to Flint and live for dirt cheap. Good luck finding a job tho.

Jobs are out there, too many people don't want to work for it.

Example-Paid a guy $300 to attend training and rules tests. Passed the tests then left his shit in the parking lot and disappeared. Never worked a day.

Would have made $200/day minimum. Usually much more but 300 was enough for him I guess....

Why work when the government will support your ass?

Got a $10/hr job and it's not enough? Get another $10/hour job on top of it.

Way too many strokes out there. Both bottom feeders and those that won't do a job because they won't get their hands dirty. They'd rather be a barista than making $400/day.

I have no time for those people.