Should people be allowed to buy "junk food" with food stamps?

But the meaning on behalf of our Republican friends is clear; they want to punish people for taking foodstamps.

Bryant

But as a society we need to do a much better job of reining in the food companies and shift the public subsidies to more local and healthy choices especially for those who need food aid the most.

We can and should do better. Its a shame that many poor don't have access to decently nutritious food and can only get empty calories in untra processed forms.

Uh yeah.

Isn't that one of the four basic college food groups? Along with chili and beer and... I can't remember the 4th.

Ramen is definitely the fourth food group.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

hence why a lot of poor people buy the "junk food". I like how someone above posted that freedom means allowing one to make bad choices so yes, you should be able to buy "junk food" with food stamps.

I am currently on food stamps and I'm glad that I have the choice of foods I can buy.

Those in need shouldn't have to choose between empty calories and enough healthy food to feel full. IT's the farm subsidies that go to mega food corps and their factory farms. This artificially lowers the cost of crap instead of healthy food.

Let me ask you because you are one of our resident experts on this subject. If you had a choice between nutritious as opposed to "junk", and assuming that the prices and availability were stabilized or subsidized so that you would feel full either way, which would you choose? I think we all know the answer.

In the meantime, until my fantacy becomes reality you should be able to buy whatever the heck you want in order to survive with the entitlement you are entitled to.

Some people eat healthy a lot of the time, but appreciate snack foods for treats.

The problems that the current subsidy system takes the healthy choice away from folks, or at least makes it damned hard for them to find or afford and still live/function.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You must really be ticket off. :-)

Nothing to fear!

Either that or Monsanto - new motto: trusts us - we make roundup.

Potatoes fried into potato chips.

Exactly.

End of story.

First because of Farm Bill subsidies that go to corporate crapfest crops instead of veggies, and then back again with food stamps.

Incentives to encourage recipients to choose healthier foods, sure.

But this is an issue that affects *everyone* who eats.

Obama wants to budget $7.2 billion dollars for WIC spending in the 2012 budget. How and where that money is spent could have an amazing impact. We want to take care of the unfortunate? Okay, but they have some responsibilities as citizens, too.

but not constitute 'micro-management'.

So it never becomes an issue of their children suffering or rising the cost of public medical care.

Firstly, it just begs the enormous and loaded question of who gets to define "junk." Secondly, it ignores the fact that a lot of what we call "junk food" happens to provide the most calories per dollar, so poor people who are buying it are, in fact, doing it for a good reason.

This is one of those issues that the GOP gets huge leverage out of, because it makes sense on the surface, but when the rubber hits the road it always seems to mysteriously punish poor people.

Someone living on minimum wage and working long hours ought to be able to carry a candy bar.

People are really weird about this question.

I don't think squeezing the most calories out of every dollar ought to be our primary concern.

... then I say let hungry folks in need buy a damn snickers or some corn chips if it works for them. For example, while I think nutritious food is a great idea, it tends to not store as well as a twinkie without refrigeration and can be more complicated to prepare. For someone who is homeless and being pushed along every hour of every day by cops, thugs, cold weather, hot weather, bugs, and a host of other problems, a bag of corn chips is a meal that has it's own storage container, won't go bad for a while, stays dry, and is easily trasportable and/or stashed. You can't say that about meatloaf.

that's a big part of the problem (and ag subsidies).

No matter how you look at it we are using tax dollars to promote junk food (not exclusively but largely).

And the average person on food stamps isn't homeless. There's what, 40 million people on food assistance right now? Something like that.

Most of them have homes, and microwaves, and refrigerators.

Monsanto, ADM, Simplot, etc. are the devil. And we shouldn't be letting them suck up public funds in so that they can turn around and profit privately. But we do.

And yes, limitiing the junk food choice is needed IMHO - but we need to either have healthy alternatives in place or a mechanism to get the food and extra funding to those most desparate BEFORE we cut off their options. On the hairy edge, where some live, it isn't too far off a fall to DEAD.

And I think that the realization that many are just barely getting enough to slowly starve makes them, er, a little passionate about the subject. I think you were the one to suggest that there be a sliding scale program where those with the most need be given a bigger budget so that they could afford enough of the healthy food to live and I agree with that idea.

Why not?

Someone on assistance can't have a cookie?

What is wrong with people?

They're all for helping their fellow person, so long as they obey what the CC deem as worth buying.

What we need more of is "unconditional compassion". I give my money freely. Do with it what you will :)

After all, we poor folk provide an important service to liberals.. we give them someone to look down on.

Thanks for keeping my occasionally self absorbed ass grounded. How's the health?

It's patronizing and condescending. That's a diagreement I've had with my more affluent liberal friends more than once. Some of them will buy food for panhandlers but refuse to give them any money, because they might buy cigarettes or booze or drugs with it. I guess I can add junk food to the list too, huh? Anyway, they tell me this in the most self-righteous way possible.

I tell them that when you give a person money, it then becomes THEIR money and they can do with it whatever they want. After all, does someone tell YOU what you can do with your money? If you want to spend it on cigaretes or booze that's your business.

I realize it's a little different with food stamps because they are for food only, but the recipient should have the right to define "food" any way they want.

It's like: "Let them eat lentils."

But that doesn't matter to ego-maniac control freaks. You see, it really isn't about "health". It is strictly about control and feeling superior.

of health and nutrition, I would consider nearly all foods within the "center aisles" (i.e. non-perishable, excluding canned fruits and vegetables) as "junk food" in comparison with the fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, and dairy.

However, I totally get that those operating on a limited budget would view the fresh stuff as a luxury on a price comparison basis, so they're in effect almost forced to go for the "junk" options.

In other words, it's easy to sit and pass judgment if you've always been in the position of being able to afford high-quality, fresh, healthy and tasty foods!

As for Food Stamps, I think people should be given free FOOD and not food stamps.

Government cheese, for instance.

But since that likely won't ever happen here, Food Stamps are the only solution and keeping track of what they go towards is ridiculous.

Managing food distribution would be more expensive than any portion of food stamps that anyone might define as "mis-spent".

from Chase's hands - they take a percentage of every purchase.

It is always charming to see just how TRULY concerned about our health conservadems ReALlY are.

"Do you have cooking facilities available?" Homeless people obviously have to answer "No" so they often get a different bag. It's sad but that's just the way it is.

I don't know what it's like in other industrial nations, but here in America we have more or less engineered a situation where healthy food is the least affordable, both in the sense of calories/dollar and in the sense of time available to prepare it.

As with a lot of issues, the actual solution to this problem is a very unsexy restructuring of economic incentives, but it's very easy (and corporation-friendly) to just superficially demagogue people's food choices, so that is what happens instead.

but sadly, judgementalism has taken hold.

:yourock:

are all equally junk food?

... and the stuff I consider real food isn't?

Candy, soda, certain 'juices,' etc.

Other than that, I think food stamp recipients should be left alone.

All food is taxable in my state, but at a lower rate. I'm looking at a receipt right now where I was taxed for two tomatoes.

Wait, what were we supposed to vote on?

:applause:

Civil disobedience... I love it. :pals:

anyway...

When you go to the grocery and buy a piece of fish, some fresh vegetables, a loaf of whole-grain bread, a few pieces of fruit, maybe some tea, and some nuts and raisins for snacking ... you think that is "junk" food?

PS: I don't think people should be prevented from buying junk food on food stamps. There is simply no bright line. But I do think we should encourage healthy eating and give out information: those are legitimate roles for government to play.

most processed food

No further comment.

but once again, there seems to be more bigotry on the part of the yes voters.

not "Should they be allowed to?" but, "Why should they have to?"

I've never been on food stamps, but I've lived some very lean years. Junk food is cheap and very filling. I never understood why. With processing and chemicals you'd think it would be more expensive than something natural and healthy. I'm sure it has to do with mass production.

Fresh food has a pretty limited shelf-life.

Depending on the climate, as well.

Compare a bag of potato chips to a bag of potatoes. Bag of chips about $2.50-$3.00 (Lay's Classic Potato Chips). Five pound bag of potatoes about the same. Calories in the Lay's bag - 1950 (1170 fat calories) - 5# bag of potatoes - 2115 calories (26 fat calories). Eat a 1/5 a bag of chips and 1 pound of potatoes and which is more filling (not necessarily better tasting but I do prefer a plain potato to chips anyday). Potatoes are amazingly easy to fix in a microwave.

A chocolate candy bar costs about a $1.00 but so does a large apple (apple at 116 calories, candy bar at 176 calories). The apple will fill you up far more and be much better for you, and a chocolate candy bar is probably the best that candy has to offer. Compare to Skittles for example.

When I shop (and I work 50 hours a week) I spend a considerable amount of time assessing options. I look for the sales and readily substitute to accomodate. I also prepare about half the meals at home for a family of four. Typical prep time for stir fry is about 45 minutes. I can make a stir fry meal good for 2 meals (dinner and lunch the next day) for $15 for a family of four. Maximum food stamp payment is about $5/person/day in my state. You also have breakfast and lunch paid for at the school. Also WIC assistance for preschool kids.

While I don't begrudge someone a candy bar, does anyone really know what is being purchased with food stamps? We all have our horror stories about what we see being purchased with food stamps (actually cards now). Back when stamps were being used, I was aware of situations in which you could purchase stamps for 50 cents on the dollar. These people were feeding their families somehow? Obviously the converted dollars were not going for nutritious food. Buying something and getting change was another method used. I had friends doing this trick to pay for cigarettes.

An article on stretching food budgets:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36507576/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/

Why? Ummm, where exactly was I supposed to put that "microwave" for the potatoes? And did you notice the very large difference in calories between the apple and the candy bar? If all you have to eat that day is one candy bar's worth of food, those extra 60-100 calories are very important (in fact, I bought candy bars by reading the back to see which had the most calories, and then which had the highest fat content, because fat was more filling).

You have no idea what it is like to starve.

with my family living in a car so I can relate. I think we are talking about two different things here - if you are in a reasonably settled situation (subsidized apartment, kids, etc) then you have some obligation to try to provide decent nutrition for your family). If it is only a question of calories, then you can get 2000-3000 calories/dollar from vegetable oil. Not pleasant to drink but it is calories.

If you don't have a place to prepare food, then obviously the food stamp program has issues. I still can find reasonably nutritious options (a can of corn for $1 has 315 calories) and it is very tasty to eat straight out of the can. A can of beans which can be eaten straight out of the can as well (about a $1 for 315 calories). Both better options than a $1 Skittles for 240 calories. 2 cups of whole milk for under a $1 has 292 calories. A 6 oz of tuna in oil ($2) has 275 calories drained - undrained probably double that (putting it into the Skittles per calorie range). 1400 calories for $5 with fairly good nutritional value and no need to prepare. Even draining the tuna still yields 1200 calories. Contrast with 5 candy bars at $5 and 1150 calories.



Actually raw potatoes are pretty good. I eat them sometimes. Chocolate candy bars are actually not a bad option (I said so in my post). If I had to choose between the Skittles and the cooking oil - I am going with the cooking oil. $.004/cal versus $.0004/cal - you get 10 times as many calories from the cooking oil. Coat your raw potatoes with it.

Because it is not purely a matter of calories. Calories from sugar are much less filling than calories from fat.

The poor are not stupid. If it were that easy, they would be eating fresh fruit and vegetables all day. It is easy to question people's judgment when you're not in their shoes.

calories per dollars for a reasonably nutritious diet at $5/day (no prep) versus what you get with five candy bars (highly recommend Hershey's chocolate bars if you go that route). I grant that the preferred fruits and vegetables may be out of reach for $5/day when you are bumping up against a calories shortage, but buying candy bars and chips are not the solution (the original point of this post). If you are so destitute that a candy bar seems attractive for its calorie content (see other posts) then grab a can of corn instead (no calorie difference).

If you explore juices you will get extra calories with the extra nutrition (oj works out to about 225 calories/dollar which is comparable to the Skittles or Hershey's). Still a much better option than Skittles or Hershey's. Perhaps half the milk and add orange juice to my Homeless example.

Junk food is not an option over regular food especially when you are poor. Getting fresh fruits and vegetables are a challenge for everyone. The question is between junk food and good foods. How can substituting potato chips for potatoes make any sense? Remember the $5/day does not include the free school breakfast and lunch that many children can access through school. WIC is another program. TANAF is over and above Food Stamps.

Right now in Iowa we don't tax certain junk foods because they are paid for by Food Stamps. Seems to me taxing it at the going rate while excluding it from Food Stamps makes sense. More revenue and the Food Stamps are spent on more nutritious food.

unless what you want is solanine poisoning.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/369187-what-are-the-dangers-of-eating-raw-potatoes/

I never knew that. I guess I will stop eating them.

Potatoes are also on the no-no list for hypoglycemics and diabetics... same with eating a lot of beans, rice, etc.

Clearly, the interest in NOT in health, but in power and control.

you advocate are the same thing.

Superiority always rears its ugly head in these kinds of threads.

Then all of you wonder why we poor folk have lost all interest in who wins YOUR elections!

Anyone who has had to go without food because of poverty knows that an apple will not fill you up the way a Snickers bar will. Neither will a potato. What fills you up is fat. Try eating an apple when you're so hungry that your stomach is growling: I can guarantee that you will be hungry again ten minutes after finishing the apple. I know this from experience. I still go for a Snickers when I am hungry and need to go without food for a few hours.

What bothers me about this debate is the unfairness of it all. Why should the poor be held to a different standard than the rich? Why is it that the rich have the right to spend their money on liquor and cigarettes, but the poor don't? I see nothing wrong with the poor spending their food stamps on junk food, liquor, or cigarettes if they choose to do so.

If you are concerned that this is self-defeating behavior, then by all means provide free counseling services for those on welfare to help them overcome their addiction. Preventing them from buying liquor or cigarettes will not cure their addiction or help them to get back on their feet.

I suppose some people think that if the poor are spending money on cigarettes, then this means they don't really need the money. But the point of welfare is not to ensure that the poor will not get more aid than they need. The point is to have a safety net where a person can get enough help to survive when they need it. When I was a child, my mother were on welfare for a year. Without that welfare, my mother would not have been able to get back on her feet, and I would not have been able to go college. Making sure that help is readily available to one person who will truly benefit from it is worth having ten people abuse that help.

What it boils down to is what kind of society we want to live in. Without welfare and food stamps, there will be people who are forced to stay in unhealthy marriages because they can't afford to leave. There will be people who are too depressed to work, who would have been able to get better and lead productive lives with some help, but who will instead commit suicide. With welfare that is too difficult to get, there will be people who will fall through the cracks because they are in no state to jump through hoops. There will be bright, promising children who will lose the opportunity to be productive members of society because their parents could not provide them with a home. But the poor will not be out buying booze or cigarettes with their food stamps. Is that the kind of society you want to live in?

P.S. The "you" in this is generic; it does not refer necessarily to the poster above.

dime, then we should have some say in how the money is spent (especially when it involves children). We actually tell the very rich how to spend their money as well (no drugs, no alchohol before 21, no cigs before 18).

Years ago in England they found that when they gave the welfare to the fathers, it was typically spent in a fashion not in keeping with supporting the family (think pub). When it went to the mom, then there was a greater chance for it to be spent for the family. Deciding to give the benefits to the mom is the same situation.

You have described very well the basis for all of this... power, control and Calvinistic judgementalism.

There is absolutely no reason on earth why you should have to explain all of this, and lay your life open to those who don't care, on a board of "progressives", "liberals" and "democrats".

No reason whatsoever for this amount of wilful ignorance and just plain hatred of poor people.

look at how much of it is corn derived.



We're paying exorbitant fees to make ourselves less healthy.

Sub Sid EE's

And don't want to start a flame fest.

no hot food allowed

Should people buy junk food with EBT?

No.

Should we micromanage what they do in some hope of stopping them?

No as well.

I see a lot of people buy crap food with EBT. I once saw a woman buy a soda which she then put into her baby's bottle.

But as bad as that is, I do still see plenty who use it to buy bread and milk and meat.

The point of EBT is to make sure people don't go hungry. IF we try to micromanage what people do too much, it seems we risk undermining that mission.

Better to subsidize fruits and vegetables so they are as cheap as corn syrup and grade D beef.

It's amazing how Republicans ALWAYS view businesses and various government contractors as being totally 100% trustworthy with the millions and billions of taxpayer dollars they are given by the government annually despite some of the major rip-offs and frauds we know they've committed yet they flip out about the minute "pittance" of money that might be getting used "inappropriately" by poor people. They always want to focus on defunding organizations like Planned Parenthood while protecting others like Blackwater. :puke:

To mix metaphors, this is par for the course.

Imagine being on the receiving end of this kind of Calvinistic power and control stuff.

So, the next time you see a DUer being castigated for not accepting the "help" that is offered.. think back to this. The power and control are why so many have said "No, thank you".

My underlying problem with the question has always been who gets to do the defining. It doesn't take long to realize the huge political implications of the question with respect to very large food companies such as Kraft.

Having worked with the target population, in the long run there would be nothing wrong with using the program to "teach" some basic cooking/nutrition/value knowledge. The problem is the process. On day one, you have to let them buy a huge variety of items, until you can teach them about more economical, and nutritional ways of existing. As time goes by, one would hope to teach them the nutritional, and economic, value of purchasing and preparing better food, and more economical as well.

A much better method of course might not involve words like "allow" but maybe something to the effect of "incentivize". Have embedded "subsidies" for certain foods (i.e. the card/food stamps will purchase "more" if you choose better ingredients/volumes).

But in my short time working with the target population many years ago, the most frustrating part of food stamps wasn't that they were buying potato chips, it was that they COULDN'T buy soap, and napkins, and cooking utensiles.....

:sarcasm:

I still remember this nonsense from a few months ago, and the responses there made me think I was on that other site.

disgusting.

you are on the receiving end.

Which is precisely why many of us don't want "help" from the likes of these.

:hi:

I'm not going to vote on this because I don't see this as a black and white issue.


I will say that I can see the argument which would limit food stamps to items like fruits+vegetables, breads+cereals and dairy items. I can also see the argument that placing more limits on poor people is unreasonable.




Maybe limiting the ability to buy junk food would help create a demand for items that would fit into one of the categories without being bad for you.



I would vote "undecided" or "other" if given the chance.

food stamps. Food. To tell them what food they can or can't buy is a kind of patronization that should never be tolerated.

For people on food stamps who do not have access to kitchens, fast food is the only affordable option. Is it good for you? Perhaps not, but going hungry is worse for you.

Supply the means, and let those who receive it decide for themselves.

I came to be on them as a part of disability. My payment is only about $450/mo through SSI, and I add about $107 in food stamps. I never expected to be mostly bedridden by age 26, never wanted to ask for this kind of help, but fate didn't leave me a choice either way. Keep in mind that the SSI payments also have to go to medical things not covered by Medicaid, household and personal needs, etc.

My life is a thing of constant, terrible pain, the likes of which has separated me from family and life in general. I rarely get to enjoy anything. Sometimes, you just want a damn bag of chips amidst the misery.

As well, there's a long list of things you can't spend food stamp money on. No prepared foods, among other stuff, which means no restaurant food or cooked offerings from your store's deli. Some of us aren't physically capable of laboring over a stove to prepare good food from more economical offerings. Anyone who'd tell me to buy organic or to buy more fruits and veggies hasn't compared the cost of those things to how little I receive.

When it's whittled down, sometimes you do end up needing to spend the money on things you wouldn't qualify as being entirely healthy, but they still fill the pantry and keep you from starving.

We never criticize those at the top with what they do eat or buy yet when you are closer to the bottom everything you do is under a microscope and criticism is at every turn. I very well understand the not being able to cook as I once did so many of my foods are short cuts. If I was on food stamps I would find it most difficult to enjoy ready made foods or deli foods or that once in awhile junk food. Like you said life has already given you a nasty turn. You need that once in awhile not so great for you food,that ready made food just to be like everyone else. When I see life pass me by(I often have to stay indoors for weeks at a time) it's often a morsel of junk food that makes me feel a little bit better--a little more like the rest of the population out there.

If a bag of chips now and then brings you pleasure, go for it. I have MS and I know what you mean about preparing food. I used to be a good cook and now, I barely ever turn on the stove or oven. I'm lucky enough to be able to afford some prepared food and that helps to sustain me along with frozen stuff I can microwave quickly. I eat a pretty vegetarian diet (I will have poultry about 4 times a month) and can do it fairly cheaply with decent frozen products. And once a month I indulge and go to a local health food store that has great prepared food. I buy a whole butterflied chicken breast and feel so extravagant doing it, but I end up getting at least 4 dinners out of it, taking the cost down to about $2/meal including veggies. I'd love to cook some of my favorite dishes but it just ain't gonna happen.

Seriously, of all the people with disabilities I know who've had to live on SSDI & food stamps, you're the first person to bring up the prepared food thing. That's a built in discrimination against people with disabilities. Why am I not surprised?

USA!USA!USA!

It's only a matter of time until it gets real bad - about 1 more generation at current trend speeds.

craziness.

Also people seem to get pissed if you suggest pointing the gun in a different direction because that would be "mean" and "unfair" and "judgmental".

It's a matter of perspective. You and I share a similar vision of a movement to get good quality food to everyone, while at the same time improving local economies and placing the power back in the hands of "we, duh people."

But for someone living on the hairy edge ... it's a matter of survival. It's almost impossible to have a long term view of things when you are always hungry. If you've never tried it, go and live outside without any food but what you can scavenge or get at a shelter, etc... Keep in mind that food = calories = body heat. When you are hungry AND cold, pretty much nothing matters but calories and a warm place to sleep SAFELY.

I get your frustration. I share your goals. But don't take it personally because it ain't.

Send me a PM - we should FB.

If this was aimed at me ... why? Are you suggesting that I'm content with only being able to purchase junk? No, certainly not.

If you think I should be forbidden anything other than healthy food, well, I have to laugh. I'm not obese, I'm crippled. I get $107 in food stamps per month. Not per week, but per month. That's really not even enough to stock the pantry with marginally decent products, but it somehow gets stretched. Improvement will have to mean either lower prices on quality foods, or higher payouts on food stamps. If one more person comes at me with rice and onions - which I am deathly allergic to - I may scream. :)

Good luck with higher payouts, by the way. Those of us on disability haven't had a COLA increase in two years, and I don't expect food stamps to be any better.

"Sometimes, you just want a damn bag of chips amidst the misery." Is largely what I was refering to.

"If you think I should be forbidden anything other than healthy food, well, I have to laugh."

Forbidden, absolutely not. But it shouldn't be purchasable with food stamps.

The same way I don't think cigarettes or alcohol should be forbidden but also don't support using federal aid to purchase them.

"I'm not obese, I'm crippled."

That does not describe the average person on food stamps however.

The solution isn't to continue subsidizing frito-lay.

It's to end ag-subsidies and put the money towards food stamps. So the program would be increased, but also limited in scope. You get more money but can buy a narrower range of foods.

The reason junk food is cheaper is that we subsidize it, not that it is the only thing that can make it's way from the farm to the city. So we've created a situation where we pay on one end to produce cheap potato chips and on the other end pay people to eat them. Great for the potato chip producers, less so for taxpayers and welfare recipients.

End the subsidies and I guarantee you the price for those will skyrocket, and the cost of other goods will drop as demand for them increase the amount of acreage dedicated to their production.

For the most part - hell for every part of your post I completely agree.

But then I think to those staff lectures that our medical staff give us stupid admin and front end staff on what the hell they actually do back in the treatment and consulting rooms. And I know that if you dont get the right nutrition then you can't heal and your pain levels will be correspondingly higher.

but the answer isn't limiting what the poor can spend their money on, UNTIL (and if) we get the food system staightened out to the point where good, inexpensive and nutritious foods are available.

Bah - this is not an easy one. On the one hand I want you to get as well as you can and I know baseline nutrition is needed for that. On the other hand, if you wanna a fuckin bag of chips for DVD night on the couch, you should get a fucking bag of chips.

As for myself, good nutrition or no, I have an incurable condition. The debilitating pain will always be there, even with the pain management I'm on. So, I'm pretty unashamed of the fact that I purchase the occasional comfort item.

It's not as though you can do anything particularly awful with the food stamps. Yes, you can buy chips. No, you can't buy McDonald's, booze, cigarettes, and so on.

I'm in pain most of the time too. I was also given a daignosis of pain forever but I'm getting better bit by bit, although it is a process of healing and regrowing some spinal damage which is freakishly painful in and of itself.

Don't give up and enjoy the doritos.

I don't care what a person buys with them. As long as they are using them for food and not trading them for drugs, I could care less.

best for them. They have no right to make decisions of their own. They forfeited that right by the crime of being poor and should be reminded of this at every opportunity. :freak:

the girl in front of me bought a pack of zig zags with a twenty, she paid for the 3 slurpees and 3 packs of sour straws and twizzlers with a lone star card.....I was pissed, I had to go to work, and really I wanted to help her smoke out and eat twizzlers all day!!

everything into one question "Should people be allowed to buy anything other than food that is good for them with food stamps? If yes, name the item."

Sure. Soap. Toothpaste. Toothbrushes. Toilet paper. Deodorants. If you are to take away some alternatives, then give back others. the issue shouldn't be to reduce food-card use.

People should be buying potatoes and corn instead of chips on food stamps. Fruit juices, but not fruit 'drinks'. No sodas.

People buying junk food are getting fat with rotting teeth.

I have done volunteer work in a food pantry, and I know that when things get tight, people who have choices go for the basics. They make their own lasagna as a treat. They get rice and beans -- not the processed stuff, and certainly not the sweets.

this OP regarding food stamps. There have been about 10 since October - asking about such things as organic foods, cigarettes, sodas, beer/alcohol.

Rather than an individual poll on every possible product, I was hoping the OP could combine his future food stamps into one all-encompassing poll.

A pipe dream.

Served by their maids.

;)

cigarettes, alcohol, soda, junk food, organic food, and so on to be purchased with food stamps. It's a regular feature.

nt

your personal approval, LoZoccolo. Not just for food stamps, but for all decisions made by poor people.

She was trying to pay for her cart of groceries/food with a WIC card (food stamp). I guess dog food wasn't covered because I overheard her say to the cashier sternly, "Then I guess the dog will eat meat this week!" The lady sent one of her kids (maybe 8-10yrs old?) back to the pet aisle with a huge bag of food and another kid to the meat dept who eventually came back with a couple pounds of hamburger under each arm.

I just scratched my head...
:wtf:

For example, only certain types of cereal can be purchased with WIC. Most cereals are not allowed.

It sounds as if the lady was using regular food stamps and not WIC.

The answer to the poll...they should be able to make their own choices with their food stamps.

They've been selected to receive that money because they meet the criteria. Telling them what they can/cannot buy is ludicrous.

that Republicans don't seem to notice (or care) what corporations and contractors are doing with taxpayer monies (even though at least some is most assuredly going towards illegal, immoral, and/or unlawful purposes)?

For some reason they think that we should tell food stamp recipients what they can/cannot buy. What if the corporations we work for told us what we can/cannot buy with the money we make from them? We wouldn't be happy, would we? So why should taxpayers tell them what they can buy?

It's nuts.

I don't think it's up to us to oversee how military contractors use their funds. They've been selected to receive that money because they met certain criteria. Telling them what they can/cannot do with it is ludicrous.

Essentially we're paying through the nose to ensure that we have the least healthy people of any first world nation to the benefit of large food producers.


I don't see what about that is defensible.

You hit the nail on the head. Me and every other person I've talked (only very few admittedly) to on here that is for limiting junk food, also seems to be for raising food stamp allotment to offset any costs. Basically should people on welfare either by choice or because of lack of funds be forced to feed their family on potato chips and Little Debbies, hell no. At least I don't want to pay for it

we should hire YOU to go out shopping with every person on welfare to make sure they DON'T spend money on junk food.

As if they aren't humiliated enough. :eyes:

FR is down the road. You took a wrong turn.

Should people be able to use welfare money to buy guns? How about alcohol? You can use food stamps to buy soda, why not alcohol which, in moderation, is much better for you than soda.

What an idiotic comparison.

The stupid. It hurts.

Beer is rich in calories, poor in nutrition. And it makes people happy (briefly). It is exactly as much a food as Doritos. Actually probably better for you since it doesn't have tons of salt in it.

Should that be covered by food stamps?

Also: does it bother you in the least that you are paying to subsidize multi-billion dollar food companies with the end result of having a morbidly obese population that is putting an even greater burden on our strained healthcare system?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I gotta admit, I'm not a huge fan of seeing a little kid sucking on an industrial sized slurpee while gnawing on a string of red licorice, but that would be MY call as a parent, I can't make it for anyone else. Similarly, I don't think anybody should be able to say what food items are "valid" choices for food stamp recipients.

I will admit, however, that I really don't want my hard earned tax monies to fund somebody's addiction to smoking or booze. Seems to me that stuff should not ever be a part of a "food stamp" program...

YMMV.



Laura

on junk food...that's their business and their LOSS.

Nun-ya damn business!

Again, nunya damn business...

:rofl:

He only makes inflammatory hit-and-run posts on days that end in -y.

with public subsidies?"

When taxpayer dollars come back around again as WIC?

It's not a matter of whether or not one should be able to buy "junk food" with food stamps. It's whether or not corporations (that's what they are) should be able to sell their worthless material under the disguise of "food." Much of that junk goes to children in place of actual food that would nourish them.

if you can buy junk food with food stamps then what's the incentive to get off of food stamps.

four.. three..two...one...

There is none. I'm crippled for life. What's your suggestion for me?

If and only if they are allowed to also post banal polls designed for many purposes, yet rarely the purposes that are actually stated or passively implied... :shrug:

So healthy food is an enumerated right...? :shrug:

If I give my son $20 to go get a haircut and put gas in the car and instead he goes out and spends that money on beer and weed I am going to be irritated.

At the point where the money is being handed to you there really isn't an ethical right to complain about restrictions. It's FREE MONEY! (to them at least)

who purchased things that might seem questionable but wouldn't be if someone knew why.

They make their own lunch and their kids lunches to take to work/school. Who cares if they buy a big bag of chips or some Little Debbies for lunches? When I was a clerk we'd have people come in and buy cookies and chips along with baggies and split them up for lunches. They purchased the food with food stamps.

Most people don't buy a ton of junk food with food stamps but if they want a treat, why not? Why can't they have a treat sometimes?

I think rutabagas are junk food, even though they have nutritional value.

I take it a step further and think that toilet paper and toothpaste/toothbrushes should be bought with food stamps...after all, they are part of the equation to health, and are related to food intake...:D

:rofl:

a couple of hundred a month in food stamps to someone struggling and authoritarian worshipping democrats think it's personal a invite to micro manage those less fortunate.

Disgusting.

in their grocery buying habits.

Why couldn't we assign a higher value for healthy options - for example, if the item is fresh produce or a nutritionally sound option, the recipient of the benefit would receive a "rebate" every month, which would increase their purchasing power. Maybe the healthy stuff, which sells for $4 at the store, would garner a value of $6, $2 of which would be a rebate, with which they could use to apply to their next purchase.

Items that are nutritionally suspect would not - a $1 candy bar would only be valued at $1.

I know I'm not really good at explaining my thoughts on this - my apologies. I just think that if we could provide a incentive to make healthy choices, rather than punitive measures.

Households can use food assistance benefits to buy breads, cereals, fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, poultry, dairy, and plants and seeds to grow food for your household to eat. Households cannot use food assistance benefits to buy nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, household supplies, grooming items, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, vitamins, medicines, food to eat in the store, or hot foods.

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/access/foodstamps.shtml

At my store, the cash register automatically sorts out merchandise not covered under benefits, and you have to pay for those yourself. It's quite well monitored in that respect. Those necessities which don't comply have to be paid for out of my disability.

The restrictions still leave plenty of options for buying things. It's just a matter of stretching the benefits far enough, which usually means not buying the best of the best.

CalFresh benefits can be used to purchase:

Foods for human consumption.
Seeds and plants to grow food for household use.
What can you not purchase with CalFresh benefits?



CalFresh benefits cannot be used to purchase:

Any non-food item such as pet food, soaps, paper products, household supplies, grooming items and cosmetics.
Alcoholic beverages or tobacco products.
Vitamins and medicines.
Any food that will be eaten in the store. *
Any food marketed to be heated in the store. *

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/foodstamps/PG846.htm

1. food stamp funds should be increased.
2. fresh foods and veggies should be discounted on the card
3. I said before no junk food should be allowed to be purchased, maybe this was a little extreme. I would have no problem with a small reasonable percentage of food stamp funds going toward snacks.

My whole purpose of wanting to cut down on junk food is not to punish the poor, it is allow poor people access to nutritious food. Because it is cheap and high in calories many poor people do practically live off of junk food. Since they are not starving (although many are malnourished) the government refuses to raise the amount of money they provide for food stamps. Ironically many Republicans refuse to raise food stamps because they then think people will waste it on "junk". By fighting for the rights of all to eat Twinkies who are we really helping? Like I said I really don't have a problem with a kid eating some cookies after a meal that actually provides him or her with needed nutrients. But, no I don't think poor people should be made to eat a bag of chips for dinner because it costs less.

Simple as that.

Controlling what people eat is not a liberal view, IMO.

I live in NC, we've had no junk food for food stamp laws for years. The only way the republican party ever allows for increases in food stamps is if you do it through promote fresh foods and vegetables. (the farms vote for them). You will find this all over the country in most non-north eastern states. So by backing farmers you get higher food stamp allotments, its a win-win. But most people would rather let the poor eat cake and be able to maintain their smugness.

It's none of my business. It's none of your business.

I kind of agree with you now :blush:

(or just in need of assistance) as if they are children who need our input or opinions about how they should or shouldn't live. Its the same feeling I get when I listen to anti-choicers cavalierly talking about inserting themselves into a woman's Dr's office. :sigh:

It's patronizing, condescending, and gross.

You know what would be a real healthy choice? A living wage, affordable decent housing, and good medical care. For EVERYONE. That's a choice that millions of people don't have.

When everyone in the country has the option of choosing those things, maybe then we start to talk about sticking our noses into other people's shopping carts. Until then, I don't wanna hear it.

...and then they argue amongst themselves about whether to train us by punishment or rewards. >_<

If you limit junk food and push fresh food you get the farmer's pacs on you side who pressure republicans to up the food stamp pay outs. Maybe in the NE USA you might unilaterally raise them, but know where else.

Sure, promoting healthy foods is fine, but telling what someone should/shouldn't eat is ludicrous.

And I find it really annoying how LoZoccolo posted this and ran, never to return. The poster knew it was going to be flamebait, posted it, and ducked. This poster always has this behavior. Why is it allowed?

I'll you NC for example say you say what 2/3 of the people on here are saying.

1. People are entitled to food stamps
2. Its no business what they eat

All the Republicans and probably more than half of the Democrats are more than likely to cut benefits.

Or you can limit the amount of junk food that can be bought and tie a rise in food stamps to fresh foods (the farm lobbyists here usually back Republicans.) Fundamentally I really don't care what people eat if they won't to overfeed their kids and then their kids get diabetes then it is on them. But they should at least have a choice. By manipulating the farm interests, sort of like they did a while back to get an increase in foreign food aid to Africa, you can get a increase in food stamps.

Even people on food stamps should be able to indulge themselves in a bag of potato or tortilla chips, soda pop, ice cream, etc., once in a while. Perhaps a limit should be set on the amount of junk purchased with each cycle of food stamps instead-- for example, no more than 15% of food stamp value can be used to buy processed snack foods/cola/sweet pastries/candy/cookies, etc.