comment: >
  
  That's clearly not the issue. They can get food. They are choosing to use welfare to get food so they can buy expensive luxuries. They aren't going to starve if they use Lego money for food.
context: This isn’t about food stamps, this is about poor money management. >
  
  If someone has a history of poor money management like this though, why should they still be granted food stamps and support from the government? There's people out there who seriously need that kind of assistance. More than someone who doesn't have the common sense to save at least a couple dollars for ramen, but instead buy out the lego store. >
  
  They alternative is they and their innocent family go hungry, why would you prefer his innocent children go hungry because he's got a problem? >
  
  Isn’t he, and his family, already going hungry because he keeps buying legos? >
  
  You can't buy Legos with food stamps >
  
  Can you trade food stamps for cash? >
  
  Well it's more of a debit card with your name on it. You'd be pretty SOL if you did, but I'm sure some people do. Or sell their groceries or something. If you really wanted to, it's used to buy things with value, so it has value.
  But not really. Not directly. >
  
  So… yes? >
  
  In the sense that any two people who agree that the other has something of value to them and that they want to trade for it can make a trade happen. That's just humans assigning value to things. >
  
  So… still yes? >
  
  It's not a question of fairness, it's a question of economic stimulus. 
  Food stamps are one of the best investments then government can make exactly because it is money being put into the hands of people that we can be sure is going to be spent on consumer goods. In fact, for every $1 spent on food stamps generates $1.54 in economic activity and creates in total $32 million in farm income. 
  It doesn't matter if somebody on food stamps is buying Legos or making other frivolous purchases. The fact is that the food stamp programs provides a far larger benefit than its price tag and also keeps people from starving. >
  
  This comment really should be higher. >
  
  Hard agree. >
  
  Look I don’t know how often this person does this so this doesn’t necessarily apply. That said, I think about a concept I call a “right to luxury” a lot. It’s the idea that poor people should not be crucified for spending some money on fun. It’s unreasonable to expect people to NEVER spend money on anything outside of their necessities when they’re poor because as you might guess it would drive you insane. Working all the time with no respite is not what we should expect from anyone regardless of class. Everyone is going to go out to dinner, or go bowling or whatever it is at least sometimes. That said there’s obviously a limit and you can only help someone who won’t help themselves so much before the onus is on them to change. >
  
  Title is wrong. The plural form of Lego is Lego not Legos. >
  
  Legos my loss >
  
  Eye aye aye aye aye el >
  
  I was going to be like 'thats not fair' but then I saw it's a regular occurrence. I think if people budget extremely carefully to buy their kid the one set they want for their birthday - good for them. But people who are just crap with money are annoying.
  It's like all the welfare people who drink and smoke heavily. It's frustrating as hell man. Especially when they have kids who should be getting the benefit from welfare. >
  
  Op said he isn’t buying sets for his kids but himself >
  
  Food is a human right, even if they’re really bad with money I’m glad the family is not going to starve