Food stamp foods

[SportsChick]

Here's what happens when a WIC customer has a wrong items (happens ALL the time)

We get a message - Said item is not on the approved list. Tell customer it's not on the approved list, have line build up while he or she goes and gets the correct item.

THEN when they don't like that they're slated for 1% or Fat Free milk, they return them and get a credit which then is used to get the whole milk they really wanted.

You can attempt to limit what people buy but there is no way to stop returns (Publix does not require a receipt, I can't speak for other stores) and then they can get whatever other food they want.

I can tell you it is much cheaper to buy less healthy, pre-packaged junk than it is to buy fresh produce. Heck a bag of frozen veggies was over $2.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

, but I think that trying to legislate the foods is probably not very effective to solving the problem.  I think it may end up causing you more trouble, more red tape, etc.

Not withstanding what Sportschick says, I think WIC does that and it works pretty good (not perfect, but I think it is a better program than foodstamps)

What do you do with vegetarians, kosher people, vegans, those that only believe in free range chicken, medical diets that only allow for gluten free, kids that are picky eaters.

As landshark propose it that could be a problem.  As I propose it, there wouldn't be problem unless you have a medical condition requiring you to eat marshellows for breakfast and to my knowldge no such condition exists, dispite the claims to the contrary by one of my neices.

  Do you allow for only certain brand names?  If so, how does the government justify supporting one company over the other?  It's a tangled web of 1000 issues.

not by brand name but by nutritional value.  Generic Frosted flakes is banned along with Kellogs, but we allow both generic and name brand rice crispies. 

It just opens so many doors of problems to solve a problem that I'm not completely convinced exists, at least to the level that it's being reported.

I think if you're really truly interested in stopping the so-called "dependency culture", you'd be better off to monitor it at the human level.  Have the equivalent of parole officers, like a social worker you have to check in with and report job-progress in order to be eligible.  Even that, while it might make us feel better about not getting scammed, will probably be more expensive for the taxpayer.

Agree the changes should not be made to punish those on foodstamps but to drive healthy behavior. 

[Phishfan]

Have a government distribution center

Interesting concept from a guy that has many times objected to the size of government. I don't want to take the time to look back but didn't you also call Obama a socialist?

[Fins4ever]

This is a good topic and makes great debate. Not sure there is a right answer, but here is a thought.

The amount of food stamps a person get is set (finite). Let's say it is 200 dollars a month. When it's gone, it's gone. Let them buy anything they want... even dog food and hot chicken.  This is based on the theory that most people will make purchase decisions based on value. Do I buy a cooked rotisserie chicken for 6 dollars or buy 2 uncooked chickens for the same amount?

Here is a true story. It will show my age, but what to heck!

Some years ago when our son was about 13 or 14 it was time to go back to school shopping. The Michael Jordan "Air" sneakers were all the rage. They also went for about 125.00, even back then.

The wife and I decided this was a good time for junior to learn how to budget. We gave him a set amount (around 300 dollars I think) and said "you can buy anything you want. Want the Jordan's, then you will have less to spend on stuff like pants, shirts, socks and underwear. You like clean underwear don't ya?" lol

It really got him thinking. He ended up passing on the Jordan's and made good decisions. I would like to think the food stamp people could do the same.

[Dave Gray]

To Hoodie:

I don't have a great objection to the concept, and I understand that it could be done on the cashier level.  But when I say more red tape, I mean who decides what foods we allow?  Does the government have to specifically allow/disallow every new product in existence?  Do we have lobbyists pushing for their foods?  Is big sugar then pouring a ton of cash to get sugary foods allowed?  Are they greasing the pockets of politicians?  Is soda allowed?  What about diet?  It's just a lot of questions and we would need some kind of legislation for all of the answers.

And to solve what problem?

[Fins4ever]

To Hoodie:

I don't have a great objection to the concept, and I understand that it could be done on the cashier level.  But when I say more red tape, I mean who decides what foods we allow?  Does the government have to specifically allow/disallow every new product in existence?  Do we have lobbyists pushing for their foods?  Is big sugar then pouring a ton of cash to get sugary foods allowed?  Are they greasing the pockets of politicians?  Is soda allowed?  What about diet?  It's just a lot of questions and we would need some kind of legislation for all of the answers.

And to solve what problem?

Agree, it just gets government more involved and makes things more complicated. Should the government have any say on how they spend their money / food stamps? I don't think so. The only restriction I would be adamant about is alcohol.

[Brian Fein]

In response to this discussion it is a good point.  If a food stamp customer wants to spend their entire allotment on filet mignon and lobster, so be it.  Then they will have great dinners for 4 nights and starve for the next 26 until they get the next month's food stamps?
 
Or will they supplement with their own money?

If they supplement, one could argue that they don't need the food stamps to begin with.

[Phishfan]

If they supplement, one could argue that they don't need the food stamps to begin with.

One could argue it but I don't think it is an effective argument. The use of food stamps does not mean you cannot buy food at all. It means you need assistance.

[Brian Fein]

Fair enough - but if you can afford to buy nearly a month's worth of food on your own and use the "assistance" to buy some luxury items you never would have bought otherwise, do you really need "assistance?"

[Phishfan]

Fair argument and I can agree but I also can see the flip. Maybe it is a special occasion month like a birthday or anniversary and the rest of the month consists of Ramen noodles and sandwiches.

[Brian Fein]

^^ right, maybe it does.  Point is, we don't know and taking one single receipt out of context doesn't constitute a broken system.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

And to solve what problem?

Obesity, unhealthy eating, cavities, etc.  Keep in mind the same folks who are on food stamps are also on gov't assistance for health care and dental care.

[Dave Gray]

^ I see.

I understand where you're coming from.  It sounds like you're OK with the concept of food stamps and want them limited, not to stop the poor from living large, but to stop them from being unhealthy.

I didn't realize that was your angle.

[badger6]

Damn, just saw this thread. Anyhow, I would think that it would work better if it was set up like the WIC centers they have here. They only stock certain things and you can only get a certain amount of the items based on their criteria. Like has been said, this is to supplement. You don't want or like the free food don't eat. Beggars can't be choosers.

However, is this an agenda to keep people healthy?  Or are you trying to be cheap?  It seems like its not the government's job to keep people healthy.  That's a personal lifestyle choice.

If you believe that it's not the government's job to keep people healthy them in my view, by default you shouldn't support mandatory seat belt laws, mandatory motorcycle helmet laws, drugs laws, or Obamacare.

[Brian Fein]

Wrong.  there's a difference between eating captain crunch and smoking crack.  The fact that I have to state that is irritating at the least.