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
Options
Replies
-
it is a slippery slope but when I was on assistance it was because we were very low income and needed the food I would have been fine to have the food stamps be only for real food . Meat,fish ,poultry, dairy ,grains ,cereal,fruit and veg and cooking ingredients . I was grateful for the little help we received and junk food soda and candy . were not a good buy to stretch my food dollars. I would have been fine with a no soda or junk food clause
8 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Gov't money, gov't rules.
Gov't money taken by force from it's citizens. If anyone should decide how recipients use their stamps its the voters.
Same with corporate welfare... we vote for the representatives and a lot of people don't even do that. But they complain.
I have 0 sympathy for people who don't vote on issues then cry about them later on.
Agreed.1 -
I worked for the American Red Cross 40 hours a week in NYC and made $900 a month. I had food stamps. I bought vegetables and fruits, rice and beans mostly and once a week after a nice work out I'd buy a diet soda and some chips (all fit into my calories).
I was the healthiest ever while on food stamps, lost 120 lbs without having any crazy restrictions.
There is no reason to control what people buy on food stamps because it has no effect on your life, besides that why are you assuming poor people will make terrible food choices? Junk food is often more expensive and less stretchable than rice and beans anyway.24 -
I support giving people the choice to make their own decisions. Who am I to tell someone on assistance what to do with it? Being poor is typically not a choice for people. If I am ever in that situation, I would be so grateful to have such help. I don't understand the argument of 'I am a tax payer so I should have all authority to tell other people what to do with my tax money'. You pay taxes as part of the state to pay for public needs. Needs that you might need one day. It's for the common good of your fellow humans.
TL;DR life's a *kitten* and then you die. Don't concern yourself with what other people are doing.37 -
deleted2
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »We have food banks here, same thing, largely run by church groups and charities. Again you can't go every week and you have to be referred by another agency like a social worker etc. Even they try to throw in a "treat" like a packet of biscuits or some chocolate.
Same here.
A good majority on SNAP are elderly, disabled and children. Not these extreme cases that people seem to pull out their *kitten* whenever this debate comes up. They don't deserve treats or snacks?
They deserve and need their resources to be used for nutrient dense foods.
Only?
Need to prioritize. The government should provide assistance to ensure good nutrition so yes.
And if they already are providing good nutrition and have left over?
Then they are probably getting too much assistance.
Or they budget their assistance well.
Good for them. In that case they don't need as much.
To be honest, I would like to see restrictions on SNAP to allow payments for nutrient dense foods only. Along with that, I would be willing to increase the amount of payments.
So a grass fed ribeye would be ok?
Nope (although I did watch a guy in front of me buy one and a can of Pringles with a SNAP card and pulled out cash for a $11.99 6 pack of beer and 2 packs of cigs).
I would propose something along the lines of foods allowed in the WIC program. Nutritious, but not premium products.
So the rules change from $200 a month on any food, to $200 a month on nutritious food defined by you. Where does this affect your life?9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »We have food banks here, same thing, largely run by church groups and charities. Again you can't go every week and you have to be referred by another agency like a social worker etc. Even they try to throw in a "treat" like a packet of biscuits or some chocolate.
Same here.
A good majority on SNAP are elderly, disabled and children. Not these extreme cases that people seem to pull out their *kitten* whenever this debate comes up. They don't deserve treats or snacks?
They deserve and need their resources to be used for nutrient dense foods.
Only?
Need to prioritize. The government should provide assistance to ensure good nutrition so yes.
And if they already are providing good nutrition and have left over?
Then they are probably getting too much assistance.
Or they budget their assistance well.
Good for them. In that case they don't need as much.
To be honest, I would like to see restrictions on SNAP to allow payments for nutrient dense foods only. Along with that, I would be willing to increase the amount of payments.
So a grass fed ribeye would be ok?
Nope (although I did watch a guy in front of me buy one and a can of Pringles with a SNAP card and pulled out cash for a $11.99 6 pack of beer and 2 packs of cigs).
I would propose something along the lines of foods allowed in the WIC program. Nutritious, but not premium products.
So the rules change from $200 a month on any food, to $200 a month on nutritious food defined by you. Where does this affect your life?
In. Before this turns into a health insurance debate.3 -
As @Alatariel75 Pointed out, what I'm talking about here is emergency assistance, not a regular week after week handout. If someone is that hardup that they have no food for themselves or their children, i still 100% stand by my opinion that the limited funds they do receive should not be spent on frivolous "junk food" items.
The food pantries will probably throw in a pack of biscuits or chips, but it will be after the more nutritious stuff is given, it wont be the first option, but the last.. which i think is fair enough.
ETA: I've been on both sides of the fence poor and comfortable. When i did swallow my pride and ask for assistance, the absolute last thing i was going spend that precious money on was nutritionally void/not satisfying foods/drinks!4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »As @Alatariel75 Pointed out, what I'm talking about here is emergency assistance, not a regular week after week handout. If someone is that hardup that they have no food for themselves or their children, i still 100% stand by my opinion that the limited funds they do receive should not be spent on frivolous "junk food" items.
The food pantries will probably throw in a pack of biscuits or chips, but it will be after the more nutritious stuff is given, it wont be the first option, but the last.. which i think is fair enough.
ETA: I've been on both sides of the fence poor and comfortable. When i did swallow my pride and ask for assistance, the absolute last thing i was going spend that precious money on was nutritionally void/not satisfying foods/drinks!
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.15 -
Christine_72 wrote: »As @Alatariel75 Pointed out, what I'm talking about here is emergency assistance, not a regular week after week handout. If someone is that hardup that they have no food for themselves or their children, i still 100% stand by my opinion that the limited funds they do receive should not be spent on frivolous "junk food" items.
The food pantries will probably throw in a pack of biscuits or chips, but it will be after the more nutritious stuff is given, it wont be the first option, but the last.. which i think is fair enough.
ETA: I've been on both sides of the fence poor and comfortable. When i did swallow my pride and ask for assistance, the absolute last thing i was going spend that precious money on was nutritionally void/not satisfying foods/drinks!
Everyday there is someone buying a bag of chips using assistance. Do you shiver each time? Show me where it hurts you?25 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »As @Alatariel75 Pointed out, what I'm talking about here is emergency assistance, not a regular week after week handout. If someone is that hardup that they have no food for themselves or their children, i still 100% stand by my opinion that the limited funds they do receive should not be spent on frivolous "junk food" items.
The food pantries will probably throw in a pack of biscuits or chips, but it will be after the more nutritious stuff is given, it wont be the first option, but the last.. which i think is fair enough.
ETA: I've been on both sides of the fence poor and comfortable. When i did swallow my pride and ask for assistance, the absolute last thing i was going spend that precious money on was nutritionally void/not satisfying foods/drinks!
So why can't people decide for themselves (common sense) what's healthy and appropriate for their families?
It's not an all or nothing issue.
According to her, poor people don't have common sense, they all just buy junk food and leave their poor children starving!! They need to be controlled for their own good.17 -
zachbonner_ wrote: »Medicaid, the program for the poor in the United States, pays for 3 out of every 5 people in a nursing home. What about their food? Take away the chocolate cake and potato chips for grannies on Medicaid?
Nursing homes should be providing their residents proper nutrition before any of that. Given they reach the minimum at least, then the surplus money could be used. Otherwise, no.
I believe everybody in a nursing home gets the same food -- food is not divided up by who pays the bill (government assistance pays for 3 out of 5 Americans in a nursing home, then long term care insurance and personal savings).
I had asked if since Medicaid, the program for the poor, pays for 3 of every 5 Americans in a nursing home, if people here would restrict treats like cake and chips for the poor.4 -
So say someone, for whatever reason not related to their inability to just pull their socks up and get a job that pays enough, ends up receiving welfare in the longer term (happened to me, I applied for 100s of jobs, all checked by the Jobcentre who sanctioned my continued welfare payments at the time). Should they, for the entire duration, never indulge in a donut, a biscuit, a Coca Cola, a glass of wine, *kitten* even a McDonalds? Never? Tough luck love, welcome to poverty, you don't get to enjoy anything until you get yourself out of this mess, not on my tax dollar/pound.
I can't.30 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So say someone, for whatever reason not related to their inability to just pull their socks up and get a job that pays enough, ends up receiving welfare in the longer term (happened to me, I applied for 100s of jobs, all checked by the Jobcentre who sanctioned my continued welfare payments at the time). Should they, for the entire duration, never indulge in a donut, a biscuit, a Coca Cola, a glass of wine, *kitten* even a McDonalds? Never? Tough luck love, welcome to poverty, you don't get to enjoy anything until you get yourself out of this mess, not on my tax dollar/pound.
I can't.
Yup I was working full time and still needed assistance, so sometimes even though you're working hard in a non profit charity we can never indulge I guess.
People are ridiculous.15 -
VintageFeline wrote: »So say someone, for whatever reason not related to their inability to just pull their socks up and get a job that pays enough, ends up receiving welfare in the longer term (happened to me, I applied for 100s of jobs, all checked by the Jobcentre who sanctioned my continued welfare payments at the time). Should they, for the entire duration, never indulge in a donut, a biscuit, a Coca Cola, a glass of wine, *kitten* even a McDonalds? Never? Tough luck love, welcome to poverty, you don't get to enjoy anything until you get yourself out of this mess, not on my tax dollar/pound.
I can't.
For. Real. My mother used to be on assistance when I was a child. Every other weekend when she had custody, she used her benefits to buy us pizza. I guess she was doing it all wrong and we should have just had lean protein and vegetables.18 -
I believe that if you really want some treat, then you should be able to put a few dollars down for that donut, cookie, candy, mcDonalds, or glass of wine... if you are not able to afford it, then sorry. You should not feel so entitled that the government needs to pay for your indulgences that are not necessary for life.
While I do not believe in flat out prohibiting certain foods from food stamp purchases, I do think there should be a limit, such as only 10% allowed to be spent on so called
"Junk" (whatever the government deems is junk) , although this would be impossible to implement in real life.
9 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »We have food banks here, same thing, largely run by church groups and charities. Again you can't go every week and you have to be referred by another agency like a social worker etc. Even they try to throw in a "treat" like a packet of biscuits or some chocolate.
Same here.
A good majority on SNAP are elderly, disabled and children. Not these extreme cases that people seem to pull out their *kitten* whenever this debate comes up. They don't deserve treats or snacks?
They deserve and need their resources to be used for nutrient dense foods.
Only?
Need to prioritize. The government should provide assistance to ensure good nutrition so yes.
And if they already are providing good nutrition and have left over?
Then they are probably getting too much assistance.
Or they budget their assistance well.
Good for them. In that case they don't need as much.
To be honest, I would like to see restrictions on SNAP to allow payments for nutrient dense foods only. Along with that, I would be willing to increase the amount of payments.
So a grass fed ribeye would be ok?
Nope (although I did watch a guy in front of me buy one and a can of Pringles with a SNAP card and pulled out cash for a $11.99 6 pack of beer and 2 packs of cigs).
I would propose something along the lines of foods allowed in the WIC program. Nutritious, but not premium products.
Always a story of someone "cheating" the system. So no "premium" meat but nutritious things are allowed. Why not just line up the poor and feed them from the chow line?
I had relatives that did this during the depression. They went on to become part of The Greatest Generation.12 -
goodkoalie wrote: »I believe that if you really want some treat, then you should be able to put a few dollars down for that donut, mcDonalds, or glass of wine... if you are not able to afford it, then sorry. You should not feel so entitled that the government needs to pay for your indulgences that are not necessary for life.
While I do not believe in flat out prohibiting certain foods from food stamp purchases, I do think there should be a limit, such as only 10% allowed to be spent on so called
"Junk" (whatever the government deems is junk) , although this would be impossible to implement in real life.
You can't buy mcdonalds or wine on food stamps.
I've paid taxes for the last 10 years of my working life, I'm in a job that pays $900 a month in NYC so I need food stamps. I have paid into the system for 9 years prior, I'm entitled to buy any food that I would like with my allotted assistance. Did you know when I bought donuts and when I didn't? No you didn't because what I eat has no effect on you.26 -
I worked for the American Red Cross 40 hours a week in NYC and made $900 a month. I had food stamps. I bought vegetables and fruits, rice and beans mostly and once a week after a nice work out I'd buy a diet soda and some chips (all fit into my calories).
I was the healthiest ever while on food stamps, lost 120 lbs without having any crazy restrictions.
There is no reason to control what people buy on food stamps because it has no effect on your life, besides that why are you assuming poor people will make terrible food choices? Junk food is often more expensive and less stretchable than rice and beans anyway.
$900 / 160 hours (4 weeks @40 hrs a week) is $5.63 an hour, substantially below the minimum wage in recent years. Something doesn't add up.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions