And IIRC, there's a much higher income threshold on WIC requirements because it stops when the youngest child turns 5 and only covers certain food items.

That being said, it sometimes pings me, too Gud.

Gudanov -- or a borrowed Volvo, given how hard it is to make a large grocery run if you don't have your own car. But still, it's not what you expect to see.

(Which reminds me of the time I asked the driver of an airport stretch limo to stop at an all-night Target on the way to the Breakers hotel in Palm Beach. The airline had misplaced my luggage, so I bought pajamas & et cetera. Since it was all on the company's dime, he didn't mind.)

Should the people have to worry about how it looks when they go grocery shopping? Or just how it is? Because it could have been a brother taking his sister grocery shopping or any one of a hundred things, and I am not sure someone should have to think through how it "looks bad" before they accept a ride.

Also, I think almost no one would be on WIC to "beat" the system, because WIC is an enormous PAIN IN THE ASS that nets you milk, formula, cereal, cheese, juice, beans, peanut butter, eggs and fruit. With enormous restrictions on the size and type you can buy.

Should the people have to worry about how it looks when they go grocery shopping?

I meant it more as a commentary on me than on them. The power of the anecdote is strong even though there are, like you said, a hundred reasonable scenarios. If I was a righty instead of a lefty, I wonder if I would search for the reasonable or just take it as confirmation that government is wasting money on people who abuse the system.

Sophia - nah, they shouldn't have to worry about it. It's one of those irrational pings. For me, anyway. But then, working with DHS so much in previous jobs and helping people to get qualified for benefits, I've seen some people try to pull some major shit to get any benefit they feel they deserve. I'm all for a hand up and help when people need it, but I hate it when people abuse the system. So when I see someone pay for their food with government benefits and then get into a car newer than mine when I don't qualify for anything on my paltry salary or Joe's unemployment, I get pinged. Like I say, it's not rational or right, it's just a feeling.

Or it could be the car is the one damned thing they have paid off, and they have no ready income right now. There was an article in the Washington Post a while back profiling families in just such circumstances. I think one was very close to being homeless.

Yeah, you just never know what someone's circumstances are. I was trying to explain that to a co-worker the other day who was complaining about unemployment benefits being extended. He thought the time you get unemployment should be shortened and that you should have savings to support you if you lost your job. And that if you hadn't found a job in a year (or whatever) you just weren't trying. @@

ION, today's xkcd is funny: Cemetery

@@ indeed. The uncertainty of Joe's unemployment continuing is why when we moved, I made damn sure we could pay everything with my paycheck alone. God knows what we'd do if I God forbid lost my job.

My point was just because you were able to easily find jobs and you are able to have enough savings to support your family doesn't mean everyone can and it doesn't make them bad people! A medical crisis can drain anyone's savings quickly even if you have decent insurance, for example.