Food stamp foods

[Dave Gray]

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.

It might not be the job of the country to keep people healthy, but it's in the interest of the country, and it saves money.  Healthier people are more productive and a much smaller strain on things like the healthcare industry.

[Spider-Dan]

So if I'm on food stamps, should I be permitted to buy ramen for the first three weeks of the month so I can afford to buy steak for my wedding anniversary at the end of the month?  Or should that be disallowed?

If we are giving people $x in food stamp benefits today, and we turn around and prohibit all the cheapest food, are we going to increase the food stamp benefit levels to make up for this new Healthy Food Stamps initiative?  Or is this program also designed to combat obesity by making sure that people go hungry a little more often?

Also: what percentage of objectors to these food stamp programs are sincerely doing so out of concern for the healthiness of the diets of food stamp recipients?  Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like arguing that food stamps encourage unhealthy eating at the same time you argue for reducing the cost of the food stamp program (even though healthy food costs significantly more) displays a complete lack of intellectual honesty.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

Or foodstamps.  Isn't the underlying principle of foodstamps is we don't want people to go hungry/suffer malnutirian.

I oppose Republican NYC Mayor Bloomberg's ban on large soda as an unreasonable limitation of personal freedom.

But I have no problem with the goverment saying you can't use foodstamps to buy soda. 

If WE (as society at large via taxes) are going to pay for your food we (as in appointed members of the dept of agr) can dictate what foods you can use the money for.

I would say it is similar to my stance on student loans.  I would oppose a law banning all wine tasting schools.  But I don't think students should be attending wine tastings on federal grants. 

[Dave Gray]

I think the argument that upsets people is this:

Why should I have to work hard to afford hamburger meat, when you do nothing and get to have lobster?

It's not a very good argument when you dig down, but it's an emotional one that plays to people's concepts of fairness.  That's what it's all about.

[badger6]

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.

You are correct, but now you're picking and choosing how the government should protect us stupid citizens from ourselves. How about prostitution or suicide ?

[badger6]

I think the argument that upsets people is this:

Why should I have to work hard to afford hamburger meat, when you do nothing and get to have lobster?

It's not a very good argument when you dig down, but it's an emotional one that plays to people's concepts of fairness.  That's what it's all about.

Why is it not a good argument. Hell, I'm paying for hamburger for me and lobster for someone else. Shows how crazy this whole thing is....

[Dave Gray]

Or foodstamps.  Isn't the underlying principle of foodstamps is we don't want people to go hungry/suffer malnutirian.

I oppose Republican NYC Mayor Bloomberg's ban on large soda as an unreasonable limitation of personal freedom.

But I have no problem with the goverment saying you can't use foodstamps to buy soda. 

If WE (as society at large via taxes) are going to pay for your food we (as in appointed members of the dept of agr) can dictate what foods you can use the money for.

I would say it is similar to my stance on student loans.  I would oppose a law banning all wine tasting schools.  But I don't think students should be attending wine tastings on federal grants. 

I find this position consistent with reality.  Well done.

[bsmooth]

Why is it not a good argument. Hell, I'm paying for hamburger for me and lobster for someone else. Shows how crazy this whole thing is....

You are doing the same exact thing with those billions in subsidies to rich corporations and businesses that allows them to profit....and to eat more expensive food than you.
This whole debate is nothing more than a poorly disguised attack against those who cannot hire people to make them look better. Our economy is not in the crapper because of poor people on food stamps. The unemployment rolls and food stamp recipient numbers did not increase so much the last four years because they want to be on the government dole. There is a very real issue as to why the numbers are so high and what is actually hurting our economy.
Social Security, Medicare and Defense alone massively crush the amount of spending by all the social programs combined.
This issue and the other thread are nothing but divisive political smoke screens.

[Fins4ever]

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

Nah, that is just one example of millions. Seen it. Hard to believe (roll of eyes) but many people hide assets and use the FS for purchases they would not normally make. To see someone buy expensive food with stamps and then give a roll of hundred dollar bills for dog food and such is not unusual.
 

[badger6]

You are doing the same exact thing with those billions in subsidies to rich corporations and businesses that allows them to profit....and to eat more expensive food than you.

I'm discussing the topic of the thread which I didn't start. Want to discuss subsidies, start a thread and I may join you !!!

This whole debate is nothing more than a poorly disguised attack against those who cannot hire people to make them look better. Our economy is not in the crapper because of poor people on food stamps. The unemployment rolls and food stamp recipient numbers did not increase so much the last four years because they want to be on the government dole. There is a very real issue as to why the numbers are so high and what is actually hurting our economy.

I disagree with you, as I'm sure half the country does.

Social Security, Medicare and Defense alone massively crush the amount of spending by all the social programs combined.
This issue and the other thread are nothing but divisive political smoke screens.

Kinda like the stimulus and bailouts, huh ?

[bsmooth]

I disagree with you, as I'm sure half the country does.

So the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the loss of millions of jobs, had nothing to do with increased people getting food stamps in the last four years?

[Lee]

This might completely turn this entire thread upside down, but:

When I was 15, I was a cashier at Albertsons.  We could only accept food stamps for certain foods.  Generally only allowing for healthy foods, and not allowing "sugary" or "luxury" food.  So, the picture above, is a fraudlent use of food stamps and proves Hoodie's point all along.  Of course, it has been 19 years since I have had to cashier, so I don't know if the rules have changed.  Has anyone actually researched what you are and are not allowed to buy with food stamps prior to these arguments?

[Lee]

Ok, so I did some more research for you all.

There ARE restrictions.  See: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

But apparently, in 2007, the government basically got lazy in adding items to the banned "luxury" list because it was "too burdensome" to determine what is considered nutrious for each food item.  Now the government merely classifies items based on edible and unedible.  (See http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramOperations/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf)

So, you may now proceed to bash each other in a more educated fashion :-)

[Lee]

And as a last note, I find it very odd that one of the "inelliglbe" items is "Vitamins and medicines" .... why on Earth would those be inelligble?

But, you can buy cakes, ice cream, lobster, filet mignon, and even energy drinks...

[Brian Fein]

It might not be the job of the country to keep people healthy, but it's in the interest of the country, and it saves money.  Healthier people are more productive and a much smaller strain on things like the healthcare industry.

How long will it be before the government steps in and outlaws McDonald's then?  One of the most notoriously unhealthy food chains serves billions of people every month in this country.  Ever think maybe that dollar menu is making people fat?  Why is it OK to regulate what you buy at the grocery store, but this company is allowed to serve 1000-calorie sandwiches with no repercussions?