Food stamps or junk food stamps?

[AllieBaba]

I work for a family that gets $250 in foodstamps. And they do buy chips and pop, but they also buy items that you would probably approve of.

Most food stamp recipients are children, and most of the adults on foodstamps work.

 

[boedicca]

Did you know that food stamps have the best return when wanting to stimulate the economy?

Yes!

These people just care about feeling superior to the poor though. Sad really.

Your comment reveals much more about your own attitudes towards the poor than those who oppose food stamps being used to buy unhealthy food. If anything, wanting the poor to have a healthy diet is indicative of concern for their well being - why you want them to eat garbage....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Of course it should be regulated.
It is pure insanity for a country that is bankrupt to pay for soda pop and candy bars for as many as 40,000,000 people.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's fine when the money for purchasing is coming from your own pocket, Luissa.

But when it's being given to you, the entity providing it gets to choose how much, what, etc. If a charitable institution wants to just give out white underwear, they can opt to do that.

Likewise, if the government wants to just give out certain types of food, I think it can do that.

So then cut the fund allotments to recipients, and just provide them with the actual food.

But don't give me $500 and then tell me what I can and can't buy with it.

They give out allotments to people going to college, but they don't say "well, you can go to XYZ State College, but fuck you, you aren't going to Notre Dame".

If you offer direct food distribution instead, and designate certain things like rice, milk, bread, meats, etc, then you are regulating what people receive without dictating their decisions. People can either choose to accept it or not, but they haven't had any freedom curtailed.

I'd be ok with that. But then, the supermarkets would suffer and the lobbyists have certainly made sure that something like that won't happen.

However you can get grants specific to certain schools or disciplines, that are to be used only towards that discipline or school.

Again, if it's charity, the giver gets to determine what they give. It isn't reasonable to hand out the actual food so you give vouchers for specific foods. It's perfectly reasonable.

 

[Luissa]

Did you know that food stamps have the best return when wanting to stimulate the economy?

Yes!

These people just care about feeling superior to the poor though. Sad really.

Your comment reveals much more about your own attitudes towards the poor than those who oppose food stamps being used to by unhealthy food. If anything, wanting the poor to have a healthy diet is indicative of concern for their wellbeing - why you want them to eat garbage....

Now, it sounds like you want the government to have more ccontrol over people's lives.
Isn't the right that always talks about how liberals just want to control the people's lives when they need help? You want to give corporations tax credits, but don't want them regulated. But it is okay to regulate some poor person's life.

Who is going to do more damage?

 

[AllieBaba]

Did you know that food stamps have the best return when wanting to stimulate the economy?

Yes!

These people just care about feeling superior to the poor though. Sad really.

Your comment reveals much more about your own attitudes towards the poor than those who oppose food stamps being used to by unhealthy food. If anything, wanting the poor to have a healthy diet is indicative of concern for their wellbeing - why you want them to eat garbage....

No, it's a control thing. My objection was always that you have no right to control what people eat. If you give them money for food, why would that give you the right to determine what food they eat?

But I've come around. I think it's reasonable to provide $$ for only certain types of food. It would be super cool if they could percentage it out...that you had to spend 20 percent on meat or protein, 20 percent on whole grains, 40 percent on fruits and vegetables, and then whatever is left on what you want (well dairy products would have to be in there too..but you get the drift). I think that would be cool.

 

[AllieBaba]

Though I have to say...

I had to buy snacks for my kids' class today. You have to buy something that will keep, because they all go into storage and get doled out. What sort of thing can you buy that will provide a snack to 20 kids?

Cookies, crackers, juice. You can't send homemade cookies, and juice might as well be soda for all the sugar and nutrient content.

 

[boedicca]

Yes!

These people just care about feeling superior to the poor though. Sad really.

Your comment reveals much more about your own attitudes towards the poor than those who oppose food stamps being used to by unhealthy food. If anything, wanting the poor to have a healthy diet is indicative of concern for their wellbeing - why you want them to eat garbage....

Now, it sounds like you want the government to have more ccontrol over people's lives.
Isn't the right that always talks about how liberals just want to control the people's lives when they need help? You want to give corporations tax credits, but don't want them regulated. But it is okay to regulate some poor person's life.

Who is going to do more damage?

No, I don't want the government controlling people's lives. My comments point out the inconsistency of your viewpoint. As you support food stamps, why do you want them to be used on unhealthy crap?


I already addressed my stance in another post. We have too many programs that transfer payments. Consolidate them into one, and leave it at that. All these programs do is support massive bureaucracies to push around minor amounts of money on a per recipient basis.

It's similar to the bureaucracy that takes away peoples $100 per month of public transit benefits and then pays it back to them to make sure they actually spent it on public transit. Insanity - and a huge waste of time and resources.

 

[AllieBaba]

Cost around $12....

 

[Paulie]

That's fine when the money for purchasing is coming from your own pocket, Luissa.

But when it's being given to you, the entity providing it gets to choose how much, what, etc. If a charitable institution wants to just give out white underwear, they can opt to do that.

Likewise, if the government wants to just give out certain types of food, I think it can do that.

So then cut the fund allotments to recipients, and just provide them with the actual food.

But don't give me $500 and then tell me what I can and can't buy with it.

They give out allotments to people going to college, but they don't say "well, you can go to XYZ State College, but fuck you, you aren't going to Notre Dame".

If you offer direct food distribution instead, and designate certain things like rice, milk, bread, meats, etc, then you are regulating what people receive without dictating their decisions. People can either choose to accept it or not, but they haven't had any freedom curtailed.

I'd be ok with that. But then, the supermarkets would suffer and the lobbyists have certainly made sure that something like that won't happen.

However you can get grants specific to certain schools or disciplines, that are to be used only towards that discipline or school.

Again, if it's charity, the giver gets to determine what they give. It isn't reasonable to hand out the actual food so you give vouchers for specific foods. It's perfectly reasonable.

So vouchers for specific foods then. I'm ok with that.

I don't agree with cutting someone a check, and then telling them what they can and can't buy.

You wanna give me a handout? Tell me exactly what it is you're giving me, and I'll decide if I want to participate or not.

Where we've gone wrong is just handing out money to people.

The grocery chain lobby is probably most responsible for the food stamp program being the failure that it is. They don't care who's eating what, as long as it's being bought at the grocery stores.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, I don't want the government controlling people's lives. I already addressed my stance in another post. We have too many programs that transfer payments. Consolidate them into one, and leave it at that. All these programs do is support massive bureaucracies to push around minor amounts of money on a per recipient basis.

It's similar to the bureaucracy that takes away peoples $100 per month of public transit benefits and then pays it back to them to make sure they actually spent it on public transit. Insanity - and a huge waste of time and resources.

I'm with you there.

 

[Si modo]

Of course it should be regulated.
It is pure insanity for a country that is bankrupt to pay for soda pop and candy bars for as many as 40,000,000 people.

How the hell does that contribute to the bottom line, if that's REALLY what you NOW want us to believe concerns you?

First of all, soda and candy are allowed, so we do what Iam wants - disallow it and now the folks buy oatmeal, for example. The sameamount of money is spent. Or we disallow soda and candy, estimate how much soda and candy those on assistance buy each month and adjust their amount of assistance. OK, that actually would save a bit of money; but you penalize those who do NOT currently buy soda and candy.

Make up your mind, Iam. What really bothers you? I trust your initial reaction is what really bothers you but so many pinpointed how authoritarian that was and now you backpeddle.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It is amazing how the brain of liberals work.
Somehow by saying the government shouldn't be buying "X" for people with taxpayer's money - somehow equals "the government is trying to control their lives"..

These people have their own money, they can buy soda pop anyday they want to - if they can't afford to - that doesn't mean then that the gumnent should take money out of someone else's hand and give it to them so they can...and yet in the fascinating thinking process of a liberal - not doing so constituents some kind of unfairness.

Jimmy Carter would be proud.

 

[AllieBaba]

Honestly, I don't think anyone would be penalized if they are unable to purchase soda and candy.

For the occasions that require soda and candy, they can save their own money to purchase it.

I'm telling you, I converted on this one, and not too long ago. I sympathize with people on food stamps, I regret they get glared at and spoken to disrespectfully in the store...but I think, considering it's charity, we have the right to determine what exactly we're paying for.

 

[DiveCon]

it's my understanding that there ARE limits to what can be purchased with food stamps
unless those laws have been changed

 

[Paulie]

Of course it should be regulated.
It is pure insanity for a country that is bankrupt to pay for soda pop and candy bars for as many as 40,000,000 people.

How the hell does that contribute to the bottom line, if that's REALLY what you NOW want us to believe concerns you?

First of all, soda and candy are allowed, so we do what Iam wants - disallow it and now the folks buy oatmeal, for example. The sameamount of money is spent. Or we disallow soda and candy, estimate how much soda and candy those on assistance buy each month and adjust their amount of assistance. OK, that actually would save a bit of money; but you penalize those who do NOT currently buy soda and candy.

Make up your mind, Iam. What really bothers you? I trust your initial reaction is what really bothers you but so many pinpointed how authoritarian that was and now you backpeddle.

I'm not cool with removing junk food from the purchasing, and then reducing the benefit amount in kind.

You're just taking more money from them that could have been used to buy healthier food instead. So now they lose the junk food, but also lose part of their much needed funds to otherwise buy different foods.

There's no good way to regulate how someone spends a handout of cash.

The only way is to cut that completely out, and just offer them certain foods directly, with vouchers or what have you.

Amazingly though, some of these people here like Iam and jester would be satisfied with just knowing they got to control the decisions of the recipients.

 

[syrenn]

Are food stamps "food" stamps or all you can eat junk food stamps?

Considering that the government is now telling us what we can and cant eat, should or shouldn't eat, should be be limiting foods that you can and cant purchase with food stamps?

We are banning sodas from schools and city property because they are bad for your health. We are telling corporations what they can and cant sell. I.E. McD's happy meals having to many calories and fat and forcing company's to get rid of trans fats in food.

My question is should the food stamp program allow "junk" food to be purchased on tax payers dollars? Should soda, chips, candy, pre-made cookies and cakes now be disallowed?

I was always under the impression that the food stamps program was to provide the necessities. I would consider soda, candy and junk/snack food as luxuries.

Funny, I'm not aware of one single law that restricts what I'm allowed to eat... unless you're talking about psilocybin mushrooms.

San Francisco has officially taken out sugary drinks and replaced them with soy milk, rice milk, and certain diet sodas in vending machines on city property.

Mayor Gavin Newsom made the executive order several months ago but the order didn't take into effect until this week, reported the San Francisco Chronicle.

Sodas, sports drinks, artificially flavored water, and juice with added sweeteners will not be present in vending machines. Juice must be 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice.

The ban on the sugary drinks are part of the Mayor's war on obesity and to improve the health of residents in San Francisco, following in the steps of First Lady Michelle Obama.

Soda Ban in Effect in San Francisco City Vending Machines | United States | Epoch Times

 

[Si modo]

it's my understanding that there ARE limits to what can be purchased with food stamps
unless those laws have been changed

Yes. Consumable food stuffs.

If they want to buy TP with that money to wipe their butts, they can't. So, I wonder if they purchase TP with cash if they would get the same scorn from some?

Probably, because that's all they have at the moment to feel better about themselves.

 

[DiveCon]

Of course it should be regulated.
It is pure insanity for a country that is bankrupt to pay for soda pop and candy bars for as many as 40,000,000 people.

How the hell does that contribute to the bottom line, if that's REALLY what you NOW want us to believe concerns you?

First of all, soda and candy are allowed, so we do what Iam wants - disallow it and now the folks buy oatmeal, for example. The sameamount of money is spent. Or we disallow soda and candy, estimate how much soda and candy those on assistance buy each month and adjust their amount of assistance. OK, that actually would save a bit of money; but you penalize those who do NOT currently buy soda and candy.

Make up your mind, Iam. What really bothers you? I trust your initial reaction is what really bothers you but so many pinpointed how authoritarian that was and now you backpeddle.

I'm not cool with removing junk food from the purchasing, and then reducing the benefit amount in kind.

You're just taking more money from them that could have been used to buy healthier food instead. So now they lose the junk food, but also lose part of their much needed funds to otherwise buy different foods.

There's no good way to regulate how someone spends a handout of cash.

The only way is to cut that completely out, and just offer them certain foods directly, with vouchers or what have you.

Amazingly though, some of these people here like Iam and jester would be satisfied with just knowing they got to control the decisions of the recipients.

since they have the "food stamps" on a debit card now
the computer should be programed to not allow junk food items to be purchased with them and that those must be paid for with cash

 

[syrenn]

Are food stamps "food" stamps or all you can eat junk food stamps?

Considering that the government is now telling us what we can and cant eat, should or shouldn't eat, should be be limiting foods that you can and cant purchase with food stamps?

We are banning sodas from schools and city property because they are bad for your health. We are telling corporations what they can and cant sell. I.E. McD's happy meals having to many calories and fat and forcing company's to get rid of trans fats in food.

My question is should the food stamp program allow "junk" food to be purchased on tax payers dollars? Should soda, chips, candy, pre-made cookies and cakes now be disallowed?

I was always under the impression that the food stamps program was to provide the necessities. I would consider soda, candy and junk/snack food as luxuries.

The problem is that it's just a specific amount of money allotted to the individual. It will still cost taxpayers the same amount of money whether they spend it on junk, or on necessities.

And then you have the slippery slope issue of constituting 'necessity' and who should have that authority. You're delving into dictating people's lives now, and that's hardly conservative, ideologically speaking.

Someone's opinion that junk food will ultimately lead to bad health and extra medical expenses is just an opinion. There is more to health than just diet, and exercise happens to be just as important, and FREE.

A healthy exercise regiment can easily balance out a less than healthy diet, so that's a poor justification for regulating the purchasing.

Yes i know it would be hard to regulate. However i think we could agree on soda, candy and chips, packaged cookies and cakes.