Limit what foodstamps are able to buy?

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is not about diet but limiting how the taxpayer is fleeced .

I don't see how. Taxpayers will get fleeced for the same amount regardless of how recipients spend the money.

This is about control. If we can't help people without imposing the nanny state on them, we shouldn't bother.

Its a question of how effectively the taxpayer's dollars are spent. By your logic we should just hand the needy cash money. While their is certainly a large portion of needy people who would take that cash money and spend it on the same food they would have bought with the food stamps - another portion would spend it on booze and smokes - things the taxpayer doesn't really want to buy for them as it does not accomplish the purpose that the taxpayer as set forth. A lot of the irresponsible poor have children to feed - and while they'd spend the cash on booze - they'll spend the food stamps on food and the children will get fed.


One way I think that might be both good for businesses, the taxpayer, and those in need is just to find a way to encourage the grocers themselves to restrict the items that can be bought with food stamps. Perhaps a grocer who does not allow junk food to be bought with food stamps could receive some tax credits in exchange. This way we don't have to monitor ever single recipients spending patterns and the problem is taken care of by the market in exchange for financial benefit. We could use the already existing IRS to enforce the rules - busting grocers who sell junk food on food stamps but claim the credit for fraud.

 

[dblack]

Its a question of how effectively the taxpayer's dollars are spent. By your logic we should just hand the needy cash money.

By my logic, we wouldn't be using government to do this at all, at least not to the extent we are currently. But as long as government is doing it, we must understand that it is not the same as private charity. With private charity, those doing the giving can put whatever constraints on the gift that they like. But government must play by different rules.

Equal protection under the law is an incredibly important concept. We don't, or at least shouldn't, tolerate a government that treats some people as "more equal" than others. The nature of state services is that they are paid for from general revenues (taxes) that everyone is subject to, and provided to all more or less equally. Most importantly, we don't want to allow the eligibility for any state service to be based on extenuating 'demands'. We wouldn't tolerate cops who only patrolled neighborhoods that regularly supplied them with coffee and donuts, for example.

As I mentioned earlier, the concern I have is with any policy whereby enlisting the services of government reduces your rights as a citizen. In particular, I don't want to see the services we pay for via taxes, used as indirect means of control. The means by which government can exert power over us are supposed to be constrained by constitutional limits, and I see this as just another way around those limits. In short, if I've paid taxes for various safety net programs, or any other government service for that matter, I shouldn't be required to sign away my basic rights to utilize them.

I'm curious how you see the point I was making earlier about nationalizing health care. If health care is turned into a government entitlement, will you be ok with the state setting up similar restrictions and demands in order to use it? This seems like a dangerous development to me, and will open up our personal lives to micromanagement by the state.

I understand the impulse to not want to see 'handouts' misused. But as long as the 'handouts' are provided as a government services, they must (in my opinion) be offered up as equally as possible. I don't want to see them used as yet another tool for social manipulation. We should resist the urge to tell the poor that the must buy the 'right' kind of food, or go to re-education camps, or church, or whatever other thing that well-meaning people might feel is good for them. Those sorts of conditions are fine as "quid-pro-quo" for private charities, but it's improper use of state power.

One way I think that might be both good for businesses, the taxpayer, and those in need is just to find a way to encourage the grocers themselves to restrict the items that can be bought with food stamps. Perhaps a grocer who does not allow junk food to be bought with food stamps could receive some tax credits in exchange. This way we don't have to monitor ever single recipients spending patterns and the problem is taken care of by the market in exchange for financial benefit. We could use the already existing IRS to enforce the rules - busting grocers who sell junk food on food stamps but claim the credit for fraud.

This seems like a horrible idea to me, and a perfect example of the kind of indirect control I'm opposed to. The IRS is there to collect taxes to finance government. Not to push us around.

 

[AllieBaba]

The government does not have to provide nothing or all, that's ridiculous. The government can subsidize however it likes....for example, some improvement grants are given only to people with homes on the register of historical sites...just because they are given for those homes doesn't mean the same money must be spread amongst ALL people with homes that need repaired. The money is earmarked for that, specifically.

The foodstamp program can certainly be a program that fulfills the requirement of preventing hunger without providing an all-inclusive smorgasborg of dainties and empty calories, and nobody's rights are violated in putting restrictions on what these department of agriculture dollars can be used for.

In fact, one could argue that since the money is managed through the Dept. of Ag, it should be provided with the disclaimer that it be used only for staples, fresh and non-processed produce, and US meat.

 

[dblack]

The foodstamp program can certainly be a program that fulfills the requirement of preventing hunger without providing an all-inclusive smorgasborg of dainties and empty calories, and nobody's rights are violated in putting restrictions on what these department of agriculture dollars can be used for.

Alright, then I have to ask again about the health care example - not to be a nag, but because I'm honestly curious how this is going to go down (assuming we do end up with health care as another entitlement). Will you advocate the same reasoning there? Should we withhold health care (or otherwise penalize) people who have unhealthy personal habits? Should people who smoke, or drink, or participate in dangerous sports or hobbies be held 'accountable' for potentially costing the taxpayers more?

 

[AllieBaba]

No because food isn't being withheld from people who have bad eating habits. We're (theoretically) just providing certain foods. It's like the tribes provide salmon, or the dept of Ag provides whatever they have for food boxes. Same concept. Food is being provided; you don't ration certain foods based upon people's behaviors, you just don't provide $$ for any of those foods, period.

Health care....certain medical procedures aren't covered for anyone. They are elective procedures. Same concept. You can live without those procedures, you don't have to have them to live...and you can live without those foods...you don't have to have them to keep from starving.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Its a question of how effectively the taxpayer's dollars are spent. By your logic we should just hand the needy cash money.

By my logic, we wouldn't be using government to do this at all, at least not to the extent we are currently.

Well I heck I suppose we could provide NO assistance to needy families but then there's the issue of what the fuck do we do with all the hungry children? It costs MORE money to put them into foster care, both in terms of direct costs and the indirect costs that shitty system places on society. And we can't have a nation of hungry children - its bad for national security. In times of grave emergency the nation needs healthy young adults to draft, not malnourished young adults.

Equal protection under the law is an incredibly important concept. We don't, or at least shouldn't, tolerate a government that treats some people as "more equal" than others. The nature of state services is that they are paid for from general revenues (taxes) that everyone is subject to, and provided to all more or less equally. Most importantly, we don't want to allow the eligibility for any state service to be based on extenuating 'demands'. We wouldn't tolerate cops who only patrolled neighborhoods that regularly supplied them with coffee and donuts, for example.

You make absolutely no fucking sense whatsoever.

This seems like a horrible idea to me, and a perfect example of the kind of indirect control I'm opposed to. The IRS is there to collect taxes to finance government. Not to push us around.

What control are you even talking about, it would be voluntary moron!

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

A bunch of nice food on food stamps and high priced Tampa bay ray ray clothes for a 2 years old.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Egg size, bread type, type of cheese , and milk and type of cereal and baby food is highly regulated under WIC.

 

[Shogun]

Although I tend to fall on the liberal side of the fence I DO support this kind of initiative.

 

[syrenn]

After watching this in the grocery the other day..

I also think that "convenience" food should be off of the list. This woman had pre packaged salad mix, pre made chef salad in little plastic bowls, ice cream bars and international flavored coffee.

WTF?.... buy lettuce..wash it... and make your damn salad!

Food stamps should not be about being fucking lazy.

 

[editec]

Limit what foodstamps are able to buy?

More hate your neighbor blather.

Grow up.

This nation's macroeconomic problems have nothing to do with what your neighbors are buying with their food suppliment dollars.

 

[dblack]

IWTF?.... buy lettuce..wash it... and make your damn salad!

Food stamps should not be about being fucking lazy.

We should have minders that keep an eye on their preparation techniques, to make sure they're doing it right.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

200$ worth of food on ebt and a 760$ dell laptop.

 

[JohnA]

It is NONE of your business what they chose to spend their money on. Feeling left out? Once again take it up with your State legislator they decide the laws regarding your States food stamp amounts, who can get them and what they can and can not buy.

Im a tax payer 4000 $ this year it is my business.

Guess what my tax dollars are used to pay for roads that you drive on so from now on I'm going to require you submit to a drug screen on a weekly basis to make sure you're not driving high.

quess what my tax dollars pays for your kids education and the public library so im going to insist the schools only teach what i believe in the library only has books that get my approval

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, but I'm not so crazy about playing Nanny to people in the form of buying them food in the first place, that I want to go even farther and start trying to tell them how to eat and how to live their lives. That, to me, is just another step in the wrong direction of treating adults like helpless, retarded five-year-olds, and encouraging them to act that way.

Focus on encouraging them to get off the dole, and mind your own damned business about their nutrition or lack thereof. It stopped being your money at the point where the government took it to give to other people. By the time it's on their EBT card, it's DEFINITELY not yours. The time to worry about the misuse of your money is way back when the government was first fleecing us all, and THAT is where you need to put on the brakes.

It really amazes me how much time and energy some people spend scrutinizing the contents of other people's grocery baskets. When did we become such a nation of Gladys Kravitzes?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I notice when they put it in the belt for me to ring it up .

 

[syrenn]

I notice when they put it in the belt for me to ring it up .

I notice it when they are fucking holding up the line in front of me!

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

the point of the thread is to open a dialogue about the dole and the benefits .
If we tax payers are going to be asked to pay these taxes, we aught have a say on the waste.
I dont want a nanny state .
I want grown ups in charge, not premises enablers sucking up for votes

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Beer wine and movies on government gift cards and food on EBT all day long.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the point of the thread is to open a dialogue about the dole and the benefits .
If we tax payers are going to be asked to pay these taxes, we aught have a say on the waste.
I dont want a nanny state .
I want grown ups in charge, not premises enablers sucking up for votes

You have no say in how people choose to live their lives, nor should you. If you think the money going into food stamps is being wasted, then you need to campaign to have the program itself limited or eliminated, not try to use it to micromanage people's lives. The solution is to BACK AWAY from being involved, not get in even further.