You do know CBT (SNAP) cards are only usable for specific things (food items) in grocery stores? They certainly have value, but they are not money. CBT cards cannot be used to buy “luxury” items (or even other necessities.)
Yes. Hence the “money is fungible” comment.
<snip all the common knowledge stuff>
Do they (or you) know what the “S” in SNAP is for? It doesn’t mean you cannot buy things with the money you have.
Why shouldn’t a family buy a six-pack of beer? Or pet food? Or vitamins? Or shampoo?
Should people go shopping once with SNAP and once without to avoid the image conjurred up by imaginations of people worried about being “cheated?”
If they care, yes.
SNAP has nothing to do with handbags or tattoos. If you look at the eligibilty requirments for SNAP benefits, you’d see that beneficiaries aren’t required to be destitute or living on the street. In most cases, the recipients have to be working. They may already have those “luxury” items (e.g. handbags and tattoos.)
What you’re suggesting is what creates the stigma associated with public assistance and drives the falsehoods associated with it.
What “falsehoods” are you referring to?
Your point seems reflect exactly the point in Tim Wise’s article pointing out that because people are using public assistance, the expectation is they must forego any “luxury” that rest of society enjoys. And this is a direct result of the misconceptions promulgated about what public assistance is and what it provides.
Odd paragraph, that. As far as I can tell, people don’t have any serious misconceptions about what public assistance is and what it provides. The only point being made is taxpayers care about how their money is spent, and when there’s evidence (not proof) in their faces that their money may NOT be well spent, they become concerned.
Let me elaborate on that a bit, because prior statements you’ve made indicate to me that you’re unclear about the point. Everyone knows that the SNAP card can’t be used for the NBA-logoed jersey; but if an individual doesn’t have to pay for food, then the money they do have can be used for other things. Perhaps even a luxury item.
Which then fuels a political debate about the earning levels where SNAP kicks in.
I’m not sure what trait of “human nature” you’re arguing. Unless it’s the one where people are prejudiced and jumping to conclusions.
I would have thought it would be clear. People who are being taxed have the right to question how their money is being used.
Certainly you’re not suggesting that people should just pay their taxes, shut up, and trust the government, are you? :-)