comment: >
  
  Taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund poor people’s hobbies
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 >
  
  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. >
  
  We have no idea where that money came from. Could have been a gift that they decided to blow on legos. That seems fine to me >
  
  If a parent is struggling to feed their children and they don't put that money away toward a food budget, rainy day fund, towards say new shoes, school supplies or any other need for their kids you shouldn't be fine with it. >
  
  If a parent spends 100 a year on fun legos but then needs 150 per month for food the legos aren’t the problem. 
  All those things you mentioned are available through charity works (backpack, school supplies, new shoes, etc). >
  
  Do you not see an issue with what you are saying? That others will provide so you don't have to be responsible. That you should take from the people who need those items because you want Legos. It's not a one time thing or just 100 dollars as op indicated >
  
  These are the people that need them. This is the conservative (not saying you are one) fearmongering about the undeserving poor. They point to someone buying something for fun that has some type of government assistance and say “see look at this evil person taking a spot from the REAL poor”. 
  Buying 100 bucks in legos once a year isn’t going to alter the budget. If the dude never bought another Lego he’d probably still need food stamps and need help with those extra materials. 
  These charity organizations almost always have specific qualifications that people need to meet to get help. If they meet those qualifications I don’t see how anyone else has any room to complain >
  
  I think people who count other people’s money are the most miserable. I volunteered for AmeriCorps one year and we qualified for food stamps because we were getting just a very small monthly stipend. My volunteer role was at a business center so I had to dress up for work daily and when I would go to the supermarket, people would make the rudest comments when I pulled out the EBT card because I was dressed in business clothes. The stigma is ridiculous. You never know what people are going through or need and it’s not your business. >
  
  So, my family gets food stamps and WIC. We are both cooks for a living, and the wages are better than they used to be, but still not great.
  We have two little boys, and the money that we don't have to use for food is absolutely used to buy them toys like Legos, drones, rc cars, etc, etc.
  The reason we qualify for these programs is because our rent is very high, versus our wages, and it's borderline, but I'm grateful. So that's just our story, but we are a happy family, and we do our best. Our boys deserve fun toys to play with. >
  
  Hell yeah they deserve fun toys to play with! They also deserve universal healthcare and the ability to go to schools that don’t have the fear of mass shootings happening. We all deserve way more >
  
  Definitely an unpopular opinion, but you're right!
  My wife and I used to be on food stamps years ago.  I remember what it was like trying to figure out how to pay for gas for the cat, keep up on rent, keep the lights on...
  I won't deny that everyone has to have a little enjoyment in their life, but homie didn't buy one little Lego set.  He spent all his food money on it.  I'm all for helping people out, but at what point is it no longer society's responsibility to enable this behavior? >
  
  Your first mistake was getting a gas powered cat. Those things are super expensive to maintain, you’re much better off going with a food powered one. They tend to be less temperamental as well. >
  
  That’s why I spent a little extra to get an electric cat. Pays for itself in the long run. >
  
  The infrastructure just isn’t there yet for electric where I live unfortunately. Somehow I feel like an electric cat would be a very dangerous creature. >
  
  It is tough. My dog is diesel powered in case of a blackout or emergency. 
  I’m thinking of investing in a Tabby Super Charger for the garage though. >
  
  I'm not gonna weigh in on what your friend is doing, that's a personal situation nobody but you can ever truly know. But if you're going to use that personal experience and generalize it in that sense, then I've gotta disagree with you. 
  Yes, food is a priority, and people above all else deserve to be able to eat. Yes, obviously people should buy groceries instead of video games if they are starving. This is obvious stuff, probably moreso to those without than anyone else. But people also deserve comfort, to be able to relax and unwind. It's not a privilege, or even a right, it's a basic psychological need; it nurtures our brain, decompresses built-up stress, and wards against the very real and very harmful threat of mental illness. With that in mind, it's perfectly reasonable that families with lower income would want to occasionally save up and buy something like a nice box of legos every once in a  while, as a treat. 
  And before anyone says anything, no, normally this sort of purchase is not directly eating into groceries. Food stamps aren't just for the literal starving, but for a range of lower incomes that'll have different capabilities at different times. Sometimes money will be tight, and sometimes they'll have a little left over to do something nice. It's not laziness, it's not poor money management, it's people making an informed decision on something nice they're interested in, just like anyone else. 
  It's easy to look at a kid playing a switch, or a mom on a new cell phone, and say 'clearly they don't need food stamps because they were able to buy this or that'. But what are we really saying when we say that? That the luxury items we dip into on a whim should just be gated off to certain people just because of their circumstances? That those who are struggling, often families, should just sit around and do nothing because they should just be thankful they're allowed to survive? It paints a very bleak picture of society when we believe poor people don't deserve fun like we do. >
  
  I see what you mean but 12 boxes? Like ofc if you save up, you can soend that money on whatever you want to, but if someone needs help with groceries I don’t think they can easily save up to buy that many boxes. I think OP wouldn’t find it weird if it was just one or two boxes >
  
  I don't know why you are getting downvoted.
  First things first you spend on food, water, shelter and MAYBE THEN you can buy luxury items but only those that you can afford. Why is that so hard to understand? >
  
  Simply put, people always have money for what they want (cigarettes, alcohol, TV, consoles, etc) over stuff they need (rent, utilities, food, etc). >
  
  Poor money management skills aside, I don’t think them and their family should starve. Everyone has a weakness, I’d be hard pressed to find someone who spends their money responsibly 100% of the time >
  
  Maybe poverty is soul crushing and sometimes you buy novelties you can't afford just to maintain your sanity. >
  
  Shouldnt we all have food AND legos? Instead of being mad at him for having both, why not advocate for both for everyone? >
  
  Maybe someone bought him the lego >
  
  Thought that too. But then he was in the comments telling people how much he spent, and how he shouldn't be allowed in that store. In his next post he was asking someone to Venmo him because he couldn't afford dinner till his food stamps came in. Lmao >
  
  Someone who's that bad with money sounds like the exact person who does need food stamps? >
  
  Someone who's that bad with money in their mid 20s shouldn't be granted it. Seriously. It's a waste of time when someone else could be needing it more. This person is fully functional, works a full time job, doesn't have any disabilities- Yet says they're so broke and low income, but can go buy out the lego store. >
  
  The whole point of a food stamp system is to give people who are poor with their money coupons that can only be used for food, and not wasted on addictions or luxury shopping.
  Or would you say they should be starved and malnutritious until they need to go to a hospital, coating way more taxpayer dollars than the food stamps ever would have? If you can avoid one night in the ER, it's probably worth at least couple years' food stamps. >
  
  Until they scalp them anyway >
  
  That's a question of shit coupon design, not a problem of the entire system. Food stamps should be personal, IDing the recipient of stamps upon purchase using said stamps should be a given. This is trivial to arrange in modern information society. >
  
  I've seen one woman buy Gucci boots, then ask the community center for gifts for her children's Christmas. It's absolutely insane how people will buy themselves the most expensive shit, then turn asking for help because they're so poor. >
  
  I’m surprised how many people in here disagree with OP.  I agree with her.  If you’re on food stamps or any kind of government aid, your ass should be focused on getting your life back in track, not buying damn legos >
  
  The plural of Lego is Lego >
  
  🤷🏼‍♂️ >
  
  Food stamps is related to income. If the person's income meets that (low) threshold, they are entitled to it.
  How the person spends the money is none of our concern. That being said I have known people like this and it's wise to keep the relationship at arm's length because if you get too close, their financial problems will become your financial problems. >
  
  Man can't live by bread alone... >
  
  I agree with you, but it’s a hard battle to take on without hurting innocent people. 
  What is the solution? To make the rules more strict and harder to buy food. This would mean that some people wouldn’t be able to do it (time, incompetent people denying them etc). This would hurt a bunch of kids who probably wouldn’t get enough food to study and become good citizens. And for what? To save some money for the government? I honestly don’t think it’s worth it, and I would rather spend my energy hating the mega rich who earns $$$$$ and doesn’t pay taxes. They hurt our economy on a whole different level and they should have harder rules. >
  
  imagine being such a shitter as to tell people how they should or shouldn't spend their money lmao >
  
  My unpopular opinion is people should mind their own business when it comes to other people’s finances. >
  
  I'm amazed so many people disagree with you. >
  
  Who hurt you with Legos? >
  
  Their prices. Lmao >
  
  Poors gonna poor >
  
  This is the class warfare people talk about. Instead of being upset about the lack of social services or the widening wealth inequality you decided to zero in on some dude buying toys. Like I get it's morally unfair and you have a front row seat to it, but banks and big businesses take a million times that in tax dollars they didn't earn. Wasn't the government bailing out airlines like crazy during covid? Where's the outrage at their budgeting skills? It cost you way more money than buddy's food. >
  
  Collapse of an economy is different to someone buying something they don’t need when that money can be used to eat and not die >
  
  Basically sounds like you're saying we shouldn't help people unless they have zero disposable income and are literally starving. Let's apply that logic to big businesses too. >
  
  The person the talking about doesn’t have disposable income. Also why in the world would you let every sector of your economy crash. That would lead anarchy >
  
  Bank makes bad decision giving out unsecured mortgages, goes bankrupt, government spends billions to save them.
  Poor struggling guy makes bad decision, can't afford groceries, government gives him 100 bucks worth of food.
  I'm really not seeing a huge difference here. The economy crashing would be bad. Citizens starving is bad. Government does what it can to prevent both. Main difference is how much it costs us.
  If we're gonna say people should learn from their mistakes and participate in a free market let's at least be ideologically consistent. >
  
  Yeah! How dare people in poverty have things that make them happy!! >
  
  Spending your money on "things that make one happy" to the point you cannot afford to eat isn't gonna make them happy obviously or else they wouldn't complain.
  OP's friend isn't poor. He makes himself poor. >
  
  You're clearly wrong. OP's friend is in fact poor, if government assistance is involved. People don't get food stamps by going to city hall and just saying, "Hey, I'm out of food."
  No. They have to demonstrate a lack of income and an ongoing need. So, let's dispose of that argument immediately.
  What we have, then, is a person who is poor (and god knows there are plenty of people struggling in the US) and who wants to have something in life to enjoy. Is that really such a sin? >
  
  Someone poor couldn't afford such expensive Lego sets to that extebt.
  
  You're clearly wrong.
  
  So no, I'm not. 
  
  Is that really such a sin?
  
  If you do that at the cost of your family's food - yes. >
  
  Goooo fuck yourself. >
  
  …so because they spent possibly $100 on legos, you want food stamps taken from his family? >
  
  You do understand that Public Assistance is based on your household earnings and has nothing to do with how you spend the money you earn, right? Who the fuck are you to tell somebody what they can or can't purchase with THEIR OWN MONEY? Unless they are lying about their earnings to the county they live in, they aren't doing anything wrong. >
  
  I made a post similar to this one and was attacked for it. I agree though. >
  
  Probably cause it’s a dumb opinion >
  
  Worked at the grocery store. Made me mad they all got name brand food and canned cokes. I’m like my mom busts her tail, doesn’t qualify, we drink tap water and eat great value brand things lololol. >
  
  Don't be mad at the people be mad at the system. >
  
  That is how I was. >
  
  I live in a small country with lots of poverty and what you'll always find in the poorest of houses is a big screen tv.  if you buy a small set of legos or a 32"tv then that's you getting something that makes you happy in a responsible way but a big set of legos juest like a big screen tv is a luxury. >
  
  people can spend their money how they want >
  
  Sure,  but don't complain about it. >
  
  These same people too will post on Facebook asking for people to Venmo them because they can't afford dinner. Then five minutes later talk about a lego set they pre ordered. 
  I fully agree people can spend money the way they want. But you shouldn't be granted government help for feeding yourself/family when you buy over 100 dollars in lego sets. >
  
  You have to have under 2,000 in the bank to be approved for it . They don’t give it to people who don’t need it. >
  
  
  They don’t give it to people who don’t need it
  
  Again, I'll say if you have extra money to blow over hundred in lego sets- you don't need government assistance. That money they used to buy legos could've been used for food. 
  It's funny too how common this misconception is on how they only give it to people who need it. I work with some people who could desperately use it, but make a few dollars over the number to qualify. Watching them scrape by to make ends meet, then seeing people like in my post is just a disgrace. >
  
  Thing is, he actually can't afford it but is so bad with money he's valuing individual luxury over family necessities. The exact kind of person who shouldn't have kids, and they're going to suffer if not represt the cycle due to poor financial literacy >
  
  Your friend certainly sounds like a piece of shit. I would want to know what he does for work and what his income is. If there's a chance he's committing welfare fraud you should report him. >
  
  Or just mind your own fucking business, you sound more like a piece of shit than he does. >
  
  If I'm allowed my take on this; I personally feel that people who make under a certain amount a year should be on food stamps (due to the increase in price of all food items) now I'm not saying you're wrong about what you said, but at the same time, some people do deserve it, and others don't, but I wouldn't go super far into saying that he doesn't because there are more people who don't deserve it but have where as people who need it but don't have it, that's just my take on this >
  
  Facts >
  
  I have a friend who I love to death, but her lack of self-awareness kills me. She refuses to work and receives food stamps and other government aid. She’s fully capable of working, though, and constantly spends whatever money she has on cigarettes, make up, and psychedelics to “attain a higher self” like girl get outta here. >
  
  Or alcohol, smokes, weed, video games, etc. >
  
  Legos?? Hell, my neighbor bought a fishing boat and trailer, which he carts around with his 4x4 truck. Both are parked in the driveway of his subsidized house. Lego guy needs to up his game. >
  
  Money managment should be a required class. Lots of people have no idea how to do it. >
  
  "Poor people shouldn't be allowed happiness" - Op >
  
  I would say if they qualified for food stamps in the first place they’ve gotta be pretty low income. Poor people gotta have fun and hobbies too. Just be glad you don’t need food stamps yourself and quit picking on someone who’s life is hard enough that they need food stamps and people think they are so undeserving of happiness that they shouldn’t even have some damn legos. >
  
  As a Lego fan myself....I agree. >
  
  Poor people don't have the right to have a hobby?