Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Food Stamps Restriction
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »jhildebrandt73 wrote: »The government is trying to do what it can to control the child obesity epidemic. It is obvious that parents are failing to make smart decisions so micro management is the only way. Freedom is a fine thing, but without responsibility it is a detriment.
Things are more complex than just 'parents are failing'. When you have a government that looks the other way when these mega corporations put everything including poison to preserve the shelf life of products and make it so hard for small farmers to compete it costs you an arm and a leg to eat healthy then we shouldnt just pin this on parents. Capitalism ensures profits will be above any health concerns, point blank. Whatever makes the food and drug industry make more money, even if it means more cancer, more diabetes and more obesity, then that is what will happen.
Pretty sure there's no poison being added to any US foodstuffs.
Pretty sure you are wishful thinking. Plenty of articles to back my statement up. Quite sure the USA looks the other way on things we ban here in Europe. http://www.eatthis.com/worst-food-additives
http://www.shape.com/blogs/shape-your-life/13-banned-foods-still-allowed-us
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/banned-europe-safe-us/
Eat This, Not That and Shape magazine. Don't recognize the third.
You will find a fault with any article I post. Do the search yourself. I posted the first three articles from a google search that yielded thousands. Want an RT one? https://www.rt.com/usa/banned-additives-food-outlawed-089/
The Chicago Tribune? http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-01-21/news/ct-met-banned-food-practices-20130121_1_safety-of-food-additives-bvo-ingredient
Face it. A country that pays the drug industry hundreds for medicines that costs pennies elsewhere will lobby and benefit from an unhealthy population. On both ends of the issue. Obesity, cancer and diabetes epidemic is not just because people are overeating, its because the food is not healthy at all.
Obesity IS because people are overeating. Diabetes IS because people are overeating.
I honestly don't know enough about cancer, but I do know "all things in moderation" and most cancer studies (rats and aspertame comes to mind) is because they fed the subjects 100s of times the normal amount.
If a food is legitimately laced with poison, then it will put you in the hospital. Immediately. Clickbait "science" articles are just fear-mongering woo.
Yet the results are there. Last 50 years or so obesity, cancer and diabetes have increased. A bagel that used to be 150 calories 15 years ago has now more than double its caloric value because of how the food industry prepares it and the ingredients used. But here, have some more 'clickbait' science https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257829/
As I said earlier, this is not an exclusive problem of the individual and them overeating. The industry is at fault as well and the government has no true interest to solve it as it really benefits from it.
30 -
Yes, and add foods that are considered junk or only allow a certain % of the monthly benefits to "junk" food. Its not anything different than what has already been done to the school lunch program, which is subsidized by the federal government. We shouldn't have to pay for people to eat unhealthy foods and again pay for their healthcare because of the foods themselves (diabetes, heart disease, obesity related issues).
The argument against it could be that inner city folks don't have access to healthier foods, but if you make the change to not allow or limit unhealthy food, you are also forcing (in a good way) stores to provide healthier choices or lose that income from the food stamps.11 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I'm not exactly sure what food stamps are, but here in Aus you can go to a charity (salvation army etc) and get a cheque written to spend in the grocery store. You are not allowed to use the money on soft drinks, chocolate, chips etc, basically no junk food.
Gov't benefits to help poor and lower income people afford food.1 -
Yes, and add foods that are considered junk or only allow a certain % of the monthly benefits to "junk" food. Its not anything different than what has already been done to the school lunch program, which is subsidized by the federal government. We shouldn't have to pay for people to eat unhealthy foods and again pay for their healthcare because of the foods themselves (diabetes, heart disease, obesity related issues).
The argument against it could be that inner city folks don't have access to healthier foods, but if you make the change to not allow or limit unhealthy food, you are also forcing (in a good way) stores to provide healthier choices or lose that income from the food stamps.
What's considered "junk"? Where does it end? What if the person is homeless too with no where to cook?22 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I'm not exactly sure what food stamps are, but here in Aus you can go to a charity (salvation army etc) and get a cheque written to spend in the grocery store. You are not allowed to use the money on soft drinks, chocolate, chips etc, basically no junk food.
In the United States food stamps are actually a government program called SNAP- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program- for low income people. If you apply and meet the eligibility requirements then you can receive this benefit. I believe you get something that is like a debit card these days but in the past they were paper vouchers or stamps.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility
There are already things you can not use the SNAP benefits to buy.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items
To the OP topic-
I think SNAP recipients should be able to choose their own food and drinks just like anyone else. I think people who get huffy about poor people drinking soda on the tax payers dime are being petty and should think about ways to help people get out of poverty instead. If anything offering a free class on budgeting and nutrition would be more helpful.42 -
Average SNAP benefits per person are about $130 a month. It's hard to fit in nutritionally diverse foods in that budget. Despite all the Judgy McJudgersons out there, people on SNAP have to get creative about feeding their families. Yes, there are ways to eat healthy and stretch a budget and I know that it's possible because 1) I've done it and 2) at least once a week there is a thread on here about how to eat healthy for cheap. Eating healthy doesn't have to be expensive, but it DOES require an education into food economics.
Many people, to include those who don't depend on assistance, don't have the basic knowledge of how to make healthy, cheap meals. People who do need assistance are just like everyone else - they're trying to feed their families the best way that they know how. Why should we demonize them for making sub-optimal nutritional choices? Do YOU make perfect food choices at the grocery store every week? I don't . . ..52 -
The government puts restrictions/taxes on all kinds of things it subsidizes.
Government housing, government schools, government roads, etc -- all come with some level of government control.
The government already puts restrictions on what can be purchased with food stamps and I haven't heard much objection to that.
5 -
where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.20
-
For $1 in benefits I can buy a 2 little bottle of cola which will provide me 800 calories and keep my stomach happy. Cheap calories. The link above showed energy drinks were allowed in they have a nutrition label. Interesting. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items
Hey, the government is going to pay for my healthcare... why not have fun and eat anything I want? Cookies, candies, snack cakes. And if I'm obese enough and get medical complications I can get dissability and never have to work.14 -
where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.
That is just disgustingly shameful
4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »jhildebrandt73 wrote: »The government is trying to do what it can to control the child obesity epidemic. It is obvious that parents are failing to make smart decisions so micro management is the only way. Freedom is a fine thing, but without responsibility it is a detriment.
Things are more complex than just 'parents are failing'. When you have a government that looks the other way when these mega corporations put everything including poison to preserve the shelf life of products and make it so hard for small farmers to compete it costs you an arm and a leg to eat healthy then we shouldnt just pin this on parents. Capitalism ensures profits will be above any health concerns, point blank. Whatever makes the food and drug industry make more money, even if it means more cancer, more diabetes and more obesity, then that is what will happen.
Pretty sure there's no poison being added to any US foodstuffs.
Glyphosate: an ingredient in many weed killer and it's used extensively on commercial farms. It's a carniogen, and banned a lot of countries, but not here - because it helps make for larger crop yeilds. So if you eat fruit of vegetables that are grown commercially, guess what you're also eating. Oh yeah, it permeates ground water so you can't wash it off, it's in your food.
Bleached flour... A purposefully toxic addition
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines chlorine gas as a flour-bleaching, aging and oxidizing agent that is a powerful irritant, dangerous to inhale, and lethal. Other agents also used include oxides of nitrogen, nitrosyl, and benzoyl peroxide mixed with various chemical salts.
Enjoy35 -
11
-
where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.
There's always this extreme argument in every debate about assistance.13 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.
There's always this extreme argument in every debate about assistance.
Yup. There are always the small minority who game the system successfully. But to extrapolate that and act to the detriment to the vast majority who aren't doing that is illogical.26 -
no its not extreme, your worried about people drinking to much sugar,more importantly is the children who dont get the food thier food stamps are suppose to buy, and that topic is more important and its a reality.
11 -
no its not extreme, your worried about people drinking to much sugar,more importantly is the children who dont get the food thier food stamps are suppose to buy, and that topic is more important and its a reality.
What are you talking about? :huh:
Who's worried? Who's not getting food?
One example of an extreme case does not make the majority rule.10 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »no its not extreme, your worried about people drinking to much sugar,more importantly is the children who dont get the food thier food stamps are suppose to buy, and that topic is more important and its a reality.
What are you talking about? :huh:
Who's worried? Who's not getting food?
One example of an extreme case does not make the majority rule.
Yep. Punishment of the many for the sins of a few. Combined with polarising deliberate divide and rule by the press and we had a huge change in policy here in the UK that has done nothing but caused harm and saved nothing in terms of catching the so called cheats, fraudsters and misusers.
But yeah, everyone on welfare totally deserves to be pissed all over.22 -
Christine_72 wrote: »where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.
That is just disgustingly shameful
Yes, why would the small country store do that? It doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense, and thus I'd be ashamed to call myself a merchant!8 -
I honestly do not see what is so wrong with limiting what people can buy on food stamps. How can someone feed their family somewhat nutritionally when all or the bulk of their trolley contains soda, chips and god knows what else. Having a rule of what they can't buy will force them to make better choices.
I've lived on the bones of my *kitten* before, and junk food was the last thing i wasted my money on!15 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I honestly do not see what is so wrong with limiting what people can buy on food stamps. How can someone feed their family somewhat nutritionally when all or the bulk of their trolley contains soda, chips and god knows what else. Having a rule of what they can't buy will force them to make better choices.
I've lived on the bones of my *kitten* before, and junk food was the last thing i wasted my money on!
Because it starts a slippery slope where there is no end. We can always go back to the days of the slop line since that's all that will be left for the poor.
ETA- There already are restrictions on what people can buy with SNAP.20 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.
That is just disgustingly shameful
Yes, why would the small country store do that? It doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense, and thus I'd be ashamed to call myself a merchant!
Both the store and the people doing this should be penalised IMO.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »where we live people will use there food card to buy 50 liters of pop, 12 packs, etc, they then sell the pop to small country stores for money,ive seen them pulling 3 wallmart carts full of pop before, so that means the children go without food, im sure the goverment knows what they buy with there food cards they should put a limit on how much pop they can get, they wipe out the pop shelves every month so apparently they dont need food.the kids are the ones who suffer.
That is just disgustingly shameful
Yes, why would the small country store do that? It doesn't seem to make a lot of economic sense, and thus I'd be ashamed to call myself a merchant!
Both the store and the people doing this should be penalised IMO.
They can if they are reported. Welfare fraud is a crime.11 -
Here's an analysis of what is bought with SNAP: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf
How do gov't provided food subsidies (or more general welfare programs for the poor if it's encompassed within) work in Australia, Christine? (or others)3 -
Bring back the poor house! The state should have full control over those pesky people daring to live in poverty and need state assistance.
I really despair of our attitude to those at the bottom of the pile.26 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I honestly do not see what is so wrong with limiting what people can buy on food stamps. How can someone feed their family somewhat nutritionally when all or the bulk of their trolley contains soda, chips and god knows what else. Having a rule of what they can't buy will force them to make better choices.
I've lived on the bones of my *kitten* before, and junk food was the last thing i wasted my money on!
Because it starts a slippery slope where there is no end. We can always go back to the days of the slop line since that's all that will be left for the poor.
ETA- There already are restrictions on what people can buy with SNAP.
Lets not forget that food is Insanely cheap in America.
There is no slippery slope, anyone with a semblance of common sense knows that feeding themselves and their kids predominantly on junk food is unhealthy. These people are fortunate to get public assistance, so therefore they are bound by the rules of that assistance. Take it or leave it!11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's an analysis of what is bought with SNAP: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf
How do gov't provided food subsidies (or more general welfare programs for the poor if it's encompassed within) work in Australia, Christine? (or others)
That link doesn't seem to work for me. What's the main idea?0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I honestly do not see what is so wrong with limiting what people can buy on food stamps. How can someone feed their family somewhat nutritionally when all or the bulk of their trolley contains soda, chips and god knows what else. Having a rule of what they can't buy will force them to make better choices.
I've lived on the bones of my *kitten* before, and junk food was the last thing i wasted my money on!
Because it starts a slippery slope where there is no end. We can always go back to the days of the slop line since that's all that will be left for the poor.
ETA- There already are restrictions on what people can buy with SNAP.
Lets not forget that food is Insanely cheap in America.
There is no slippery slope, anyone with a semblance of common sense knows that feeding themselves and their kids predominantly on junk food is unhealthy. These people are fortunate to get public assistance, so therefore they are bound by the rules of that assistance. Take it or leave it!
Where does it stop then? Table sugar to bake a birthday cake for a child? Or some treats after a long day working 10 hours or so?
ETA- Who determines cheap? Who's feeding their families on predominately "junk"?17 -
I adore people who think that taxpayer money should not be used by people on food stamps for things they personally disagree with. Go tell your State and Federal representatives that also use your taxpayer money for their lunches and cafeterias what to eat. effffff judgement of others.
19 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Here's an analysis of what is bought with SNAP: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf
How do gov't provided food subsidies (or more general welfare programs for the poor if it's encompassed within) work in Australia, Christine? (or others)
That link doesn't seem to work for me. What's the main idea?
It's a detailed report/analysis, so hard to summarize, but basically SNAP and non SNAP households have similar buying patterns.11 -
the small country store buys the liters of pop for 50cents then they sell it for 1.50 so they make alot of money, instead of purchasing it from the cola company's, this goes on in every town in america.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 421 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions