PDA

View Full Version : should the government restrict food stamps to "healthy" foods?




Thrashertm
05-01-2011, 12:07 PM
Yesterday I was in line behind a mom with two kids. Their cart was loaded with junk food; 4 12 packs of grape soda, chips, candy, ice cream, hamburger. I don't think I saw a single fruit or vegetable. The total on the cash register was $96. I was disappointed to see that the mom paid for the groceries with a food stamp card (the LCD displayed it for all to see). While I don't think the government has any business mandating what people must eat, it's pathetic to see tax dollars used in this way.

What do you think?

TIMB0B
05-01-2011, 12:18 PM
I agree, but who determines what's healthy? The government?

mrsat_98
05-01-2011, 12:20 PM
I agree, but who determines what's healthy? The government?


That would not be healthy.

Occam's Banana
05-01-2011, 12:38 PM
Should the govenment restrict food stamps to "healthy" foods?

Absolutely not. Doing so would only further entrench & empower the special interests that already have far too much influence over what the gov't claims is "healthy" or "nutritious."

Kludge
05-01-2011, 12:43 PM
You haven't seen the people who buy gourmet cheeses, international luxury deserts, and pre-made deli foods with their Food Stamps, then? Best you can come up with is junk food purchasers? Ha!

QueenB4Liberty
05-01-2011, 12:44 PM
I agree, but who determines what's healthy? The government?

Yeah, that's the problem. I wish people wouldn't be able to buy crap with food stamps but I don't want the government telling me what I should buy. Maybe the taxpayers could somehow decide? Since it's our money that pays for that. They like mob rule so much, give them a taste of their own medicine.

MelissaWV
05-01-2011, 12:46 PM
You haven't seen the people who buy gourmet cheeses, international luxury deserts, and pre-made deli foods with their Food Stamps, then? Best you can come up with is junk food purchasers? Ha!

This happens quite a bit.

People on foodstamps would still buy that stuff with their own money; that really is their idea of healthy and good for children. Restricting what they buy with EBT would have to be done with something akin to electronic WIC checks, where only certain sizes, brands, and types of foods are allowed. Of course, "balanced" meant dry beans, Juicy Juice, and milk, up until pretty recently. I saw where WIC now has a fruit/veggie allowance.

Do away with foodstamps, and people would need to make do with what they could get at food pantries, churches, charities, or from generous shoppers.

JamesButabi
05-01-2011, 12:48 PM
Maybe the government shouldn't be involved in welfare at all.

Humanae Libertas
05-01-2011, 12:59 PM
Why not just restrict food stamps/EBT cards to bread and water ONLY?

DeadheadForPaul
05-01-2011, 01:02 PM
If you're going to have other people paying for your food and healthcare, I don't think it's unreasonable to require them to prevent further spending on them.

Kludge
05-01-2011, 01:08 PM
Did you guys know DPW doesn't count assets in allocating food stamps? All they care about is "regular" income. You could receive a $50,000 check and it wouldn't affect your benefits, or own a $250,000 home, or have four cars -- so long as you don't have a regular job, you've got a first-class seat on the gravy train.

This is the real method the USG is using to screw the low & middle class. If you have a low-paying job, it's economically irrational for you to keep it. You're wasting your time, and probably not earning as much money. You lose your $5.7k tax "refund," your free medical care (NO CO-PAY!) which covers all sorts of asinine shit, your LIHEAP benefits, your free government cell phone, cash assistance (likely upward of $400/month) if you have kids or are pregnant, and of course food stamps (with benefits of $4,400+/yr for childless couples).

If you chose not to work, it's very reasonable to assume (if you are a couple with one kid) you'll receive $15-30k every year in gov't benefits (likely way more if you use the medical care), which is well-enough to live comfortably off of with no other income if you're in a rural-ish area. I go over some of these calculations here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/blog.php?11246&blogcategoryid=24

heavenlyboy34
05-01-2011, 01:09 PM
Although it would be ideal for the welfare/warfare state to be abolished, it is not immoral to take money from the government in and of itself (especially if there is no viable alternative). It has the benefit of taking money out of the treasury (national and state), thus giving them less money to do nefarious deeds with. Also keep in mind that the welfare state has undermined most opportunities for people in need. If this weren't the case, it would be more rational to seek out charity.

emazur
05-01-2011, 01:09 PM
You haven't seen the people who buy gourmet cheeses, international luxury deserts, and pre-made deli foods with their Food Stamps, then? Best you can come up with is junk food purchasers? Ha!

Yup. Hipsters on Food Stamps (http://www.salon.com/life/pinched/2010/03/15/hipsters_food_stamps_pinched/)

And in cities that are magnets for 20- and 30-something creatives and young professionals, the kinds of food markets that specialize in delectables like artisanal bread, heirloom tomatoes and grass-fed beef have seen significant upticks in food stamp payments among their typical shoppers. At the Wedge, a market in the stylish Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis; at New Seasons Market, a series of nine specialty stores in and around Portland, Ore.; and at Rainbow Grocery, a stalwart for food lovers in San Francisco's Mission District, food stamp purchases have doubled in the past year.

"The use has gone way up in the last six months," said Eric Wilcox, a cashier who has worked at Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco for 10 years. "We're seeing a lot more young people in their 20s purchasing organic food with food stamp cards. I wouldn't say it's limited to hipster people, but I'm certainly surprised to see them with cards."

MelissaWV
05-01-2011, 01:22 PM
During my oh-so-brief experience with an EBT card, I bought a lot of the "hipster" stuff, but it didn't really cost that much more overall. Fresh food that happens to be on sale (example: whole chickens sometimes go BOGO) coupled with organic veggies and filling, real cheeses (which make food richer than the plasti-cheese sold in bags, which means you eat less at each sitting), and mixed in with a dose of frozen veggies and fruit, a pastry or two, ingredients to make your own bread and desserts, and a bottle or two of water. I guess I could have bought purple/orange drank and some mac & cheese, but that doesn't seem any healthier to me, thanks, and it doesn't save you much money over the long haul.

The really sad thing, though, is that a lot of these families teach one another to live in "poverty." No one taught me, and I must have sucked at it. We really didn't qualify for much in foodstamps. We didn't qualify for too many programs. The "free medical care" consisted of putting my name on a waiting list, and they would call me in about six months (by the time they called I had moved away). I don't know how to actually go around and game the system and get a bunch of benefits to help me live off of the Government.

I'm happy with that.

Other families, though, teach it as a craft, just the same as a carpenter might have once taught their son the trade, or a mother handed down cake recipes to her children.

LibertyEagle
05-01-2011, 01:31 PM
Although it would be ideal for the welfare/warfare state to be abolished, it is not immoral to take money from the government in and of itself (especially if there is no viable alternative). It has the benefit of taking money out of the treasury (national and state), thus giving them less money to do nefarious deeds with. Also keep in mind that the welfare state has undermined most opportunities for people in need. If this weren't the case, it would be more rational to seek out charity.

I call bullshit. This is pure rationalization of theft. This is the reason why it once used to be that only landowners could vote. So that those sucking off of the government teat could not vote for more "milk".

LibertyEagle
05-01-2011, 01:37 PM
I agree, but who determines what's healthy? The government?

Probably. But, those sucking at the government teat (i.e. living off of the rest of us) chose to invite government into their lives; as opposed to those whose bank accounts are being bled dry.

If those on food stamps don't like it, they can pay for the food themselves, with money they have earned.

LibertyEagle
05-01-2011, 01:38 PM
Yesterday I was in line behind a mom with two kids. Their cart was loaded with junk food; 4 12 packs of grape soda, chips, candy, ice cream, hamburger. I don't think I saw a single fruit or vegetable. The total on the cash register was $96. I was disappointed to see that the mom paid for the groceries with a food stamp card (the LCD displayed it for all to see). While I don't think the government has any business mandating what people must eat, it's pathetic to see tax dollars used in this way.

What do you think?

I agree and that used to be the way it was. You couldn't buy junk food with food stamps. Nor could you buy alcohol or cigarettes.

heavenlyboy34
05-01-2011, 01:42 PM
I call bullshit. This is pure rationalization of theft. This is the reason why it once used to be that only landowners could vote. So that those sucking off of the government teat could not vote for more "milk".

I disagree. Had the regime not stolen from the public to begin with, there would be no demand for welfare. Charities and churches could take care of the needy (as it should be). Since the regime has undermined this natural order, taking money away from the regime is a good. This is why RP defends his votes to bring money back to his district. By your rationale, RP is a "thief".

TIMB0B
05-01-2011, 01:49 PM
I disagree. Had the regime not stolen from the public to begin with, there would be no demand for welfare. Charities and churches could take care of the needy (as it should be). Since the regime has undermined this natural order, taking money away from the regime is a good. This is why RP defends his votes to bring money back to his district. By your rationale, RP is a "thief".
Except I'd imagine those on food stamps don't pay taxes, so the money they are taking is still not theirs.

LibertyEagle
05-01-2011, 01:51 PM
I disagree. Had the regime not stolen from the public to begin with, there would be no demand for welfare.
Oh yeah, there would be. There have always been lazy people who want to live off other people's work.


Charities and churches could take care of the needy (as it should be). Since the regime has undermined this natural order, taking money away from the regime is a good.

Stealing is wrong, no matter who does it. Two wrongs do not make a right.


This is why RP defends his votes to bring money back to his district. By your rationale, RP is a "thief".

Uh, NO!! Ron Paul sends his constituents' requests to committee. He most certainly does not vote for the spending bills that may result.

You've been around here long enough to know that.

AZKing
05-01-2011, 01:59 PM
If I didn't expect the government to totally screw it up, I would say yes.

The one problem with this is that these people tend to buy junk food for a reason -- it's cheap and there's lots of it. You have to eat a lot of fruits, vegetables, and water to get that full feeling you get from junk food.

I would rather institute some policy that gives people an incentive to buy vegetables and fruits as opposed to the junk... not exactly sure what it would be. I'm not totally familiar with the food stamps program.

Unfortunately, I don't see the church as a good alternative. I played that game when I was young and every church I ever went to held out the plate for donations, but never did any good with that money. Probably part of the reason I'm so anti-religion.

lester1/2jr
05-01-2011, 02:00 PM
bigger fish to fry. you could make a joke about that but really we as a country have bigger fish to fry than food stamp users not having enough green beans or whatever! that's all I want to say.

pahs1994
05-01-2011, 02:14 PM
i will say yes because every time i don't realize it is the 1st or the 15th of the month and i goto the supermarket they are always out of hot pockets! in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the hot pockets people have been lobbying for the govt to give out more stamps because that is all that these people eat!:rolleyes: (fyi i don't actually eat those things!)

WilliamC
05-01-2011, 02:21 PM
Obviously the Federal Government should not be providing food stamps at all but as an intermediate measure on the way to their elimination I think that their use should be restricted.

As with all such ideas though the devil is in the details, since some bureaucrat will be making the decisions.

Perhaps if there were a 'government' store in each county that was the only place to use the 'government' provided food stamps to get 'government' approved foods then perhaps that would be a least bad solution.

YumYum
05-01-2011, 02:24 PM
This is a big problem. Many people on food stamps hate to cook, but they love to eat.

LibertyEagle
05-01-2011, 02:27 PM
Perhaps if there were a 'government' store in each county that was the only place to use the 'government' provided food stamps to get 'government' approved foods then perhaps that would be a least bad solution.

I don't think that would be a good idea. This would make government larger; we are trying to go the OTHER way. heh

When I was a kid, food stamps could not be used to buy junk. There is no reason why they couldn't go back to that. Ideally, food stamps would not exist. This should be done by charities. But, this issue certainly is not anywhere close to a priority right now.

Note: What was the name of the organization that had places all over the country where people could go to buy food cheaply? Most of it came from donations from stores, as I recall. It was talked about frequently during the last election.

heavenlyboy34
05-01-2011, 02:45 PM
Oh yeah, there would be. There have always been lazy people who want to live off other people's work.

True, but it would be much harder to do without government's institutionalized redistribution of wealth. Such lazy people would have to use brute force or trickery.


Stealing is wrong, no matter who does it. Two wrongs do not make a right.
True, but taking money out of the regime's hands is reallocation into a productive sector. No new theft has occurred.



Uh, NO!! Ron Paul sends his constituents' requests to committee. He most certainly does not vote for the spending bills that may result.

You've been around here long enough to know that.

You're thinking of earmarks, which is a different matter.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22379734/ns/politics-decision_08/
"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's "Meet the Press" about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.
"I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back," said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

RonPaulIsGreat
05-01-2011, 02:46 PM
Hell, I'll go a step further, I would not even allow people to vote that receive any welfare benefit. I'd take their children from them until they got a job if they received benefits for longer than 6 months, if they have any assets other than a car those would be liquidated to pay for such. It's child abuse to indoctrinate children to live off welfare, so by default they are abusive parents. I wouldn't care if they forced them to take drug tests, or dig ditches. Really, I have zero respect for longterm welfare addicts.

In my view if you go to the welfare office, in that agreement they sign, they would be abdicating many of their standard sets of rights for the privilege to return to a child like state of dependence, and like a child you don't vote, you don't select when you go to bed or wake, you don't get to own a house, you don't get anything, other than a small room to sleep in, some healthy food. Oh, and your right to enter contracts is void while on welfare, unless you get prior approval from you guardian, in this case it would be your assigned temporary government counselor.

Of course they can get back their "adult" status by merely supporting themselves, then they can go buy alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, and hot pockets, until then nope. Welfare receipent=child.

Yeah, a bit fascist, but long term welfare addicts aren't people. LOL. At least no form of human to be respected or trusted with the responsibility of raising kids. Obviously, children should not be allowed to vote, why should adults that select to return to child like dependence be allowed.

In the end I'd make the penalties for receiving welfare so restrictive, people really really wouldn't want to go on welfare, unless they really had no choice.

LOL, but I hate welfare, but if we are going to say it's necessary there should be a price attached, and a tattoo on the forehead is to permanent. Maybe we could make them walk around in diapers. LOL.

angelatc
05-01-2011, 02:50 PM
I agree and that used to be the way it was. You couldn't buy junk food with food stamps. Nor could you buy alcohol or cigarettes.

These days I see liberals arguing that people should also be allowed to buy paper towels and pet food with their food stamps.

eduardo89
05-01-2011, 02:54 PM
Unfortunately, I don't see the church as a good alternative. I played that game when I was young and every church I ever went to held out the plate for donations, but never did any good with that money. Probably part of the reason I'm so anti-religion.

Seems you were visiting the wrong churches.

WilliamC
05-01-2011, 02:57 PM
This is a big problem. Many people on food stamps hate to cook, but they love to eat.

I hate to cook, but I'm really good at doing dishes.

Unfortunately my wife hates to cook too.

Makes for pretty boring mealtimes I tell ya!

Brian4Liberty
05-01-2011, 03:09 PM
One trend among those who tend to be on the dole is that they become very interested in "bartering". They are usually terrible at getting good value, but they will trade $100 in food stamps for $10 cash, which they can spend in any way they want. There's a way around limits when you have something of value to barter or sell. This also effects charity, where people request or choose things based on resale value, not what they really "need". The invisible hand, always working overtime.

Another fun fact: you ever notice "food" packaged in/with a toy of some sort? It's a way to buy cheap toys with food stamps.

MelissaWV
05-01-2011, 03:12 PM
If I didn't expect the government to totally screw it up, I would say yes.

The one problem with this is that these people tend to buy junk food for a reason -- it's cheap and there's lots of it. You have to eat a lot of fruits, vegetables, and water to get that full feeling you get from junk food.

I would rather institute some policy that gives people an incentive to buy vegetables and fruits as opposed to the junk... not exactly sure what it would be. I'm not totally familiar with the food stamps program.

Unfortunately, I don't see the church as a good alternative. I played that game when I was young and every church I ever went to held out the plate for donations, but never did any good with that money. Probably part of the reason I'm so anti-religion.

Funny, churches I never even attended helped me when I was down, even with things like gas and part of my rent. :)

LibertyEagle
05-01-2011, 03:13 PM
True, but it would be much harder to do without government's institutionalized redistribution of wealth. Such lazy people would have to use brute force or trickery.


True, but taking money out of the regime's hands is reallocation into a productive sector. No new theft has occurred.
So now, we are putting a time and date stamp on theft, saying that if it is not new theft, it is ok? Uh... NO. Complete fail. Again, stealing is wrong, no matter who does it and when it is done.

To argue otherwise is pure rationalization.


You're thinking of earmarks, which is a different matter.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22379734/ns/politics-decision_08/
"I've never voted for an earmark in my life," the Texas congressman said under questioning on NBC's "Meet the Press" about reports that he has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for special projects in his home district.
"I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back," said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

Yup and that sounds like earmarks. He puts the requests in. If you have something else in mind, please cite the specific bills of which you are thinking, and his vote for same. Thanks.

LibertyEagle
05-01-2011, 03:15 PM
Funny, churches I never even attended helped me when I was down, even with things like gas and part of my rent. :)

You went to the wrong church, then. The church my sister and her husband attend help people all the time.

MelissaWV
05-01-2011, 03:16 PM
You went to the wrong church, then. The church my sister and her husband attend help people all the time.

I think you misread what I said.

I didn't attend that particular church, but they did help me. At the time I wasn't attending any churches. The gas this place helped me afford was strictly to get to work and back.

NYgs23
05-01-2011, 03:18 PM
The government should restrict food stamps to unpopular foods. As my grandmother told me, when all this stuff first came around in FDR's time, people had to follow all kinds of Spartan restrictions to be on welfare. They couldn't own radios, for example, or they were kicked off welfare. Give people an incentive to get off it.

BlackTerrel
05-01-2011, 03:21 PM
Seems you were visiting the wrong churches.

+1 ... apparently I'm out of rep.

pcosmar
05-01-2011, 03:28 PM
Churches, charities and food banks.
No need for "food stamps".

What do I think? I think a lot of people are going to be in a world of hurt when the economy crashes and the stamps don't come.