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

145791033

Replies

  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    ritzvin wrote: »
    Not an answer to the question (and I've said this on other posts before), but I still don't comprehend why so many poor people buy soda. Hauling groceries without a car is enough of a P.I.T.A without hauling jugs of what is essentially water with a tiny amount of added ingredients. Kool-aid/Tang/etc at least comes in tiny portable packets or a small jar. And especially with the wider availability of on-tap and pitcher-type water filters to combat the rust-etc taste of the water in many old apartment buildings.

    Because they like it? Same as anyone else. Poor people are humans too.

    Poor or not, I'm just always surprised at the amount of effort people will put forth to get those bottles of soda home. Moreso the poor, only because it takes so much more effort without a car and leaving so many other things that one would not be able to get in the same trip for lack of backpack or bicycle crate space.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited August 2017

    Relser wrote: »
    There are already restrictions on food stamps- not hot deli food is the one that comes to mind. So why make a big deal over soda? Personally I love the WIC program- I was on it as kid, I've dealt with it as a cashier- it figures out how much a family of X needs, and then you get X amount of specific foods.

    WIC isn't for the whole family though. It's for pregnant/breastfeeding women, babies, and very young children.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    It would appear for many people that poor = incapable of making any good decisions ever, whether financial or dietary. Poor = lower moral, ethical and intelligence standards. Poor = must have their life controlled if they dare need financial assistance.

    Humans are great.

    Controlling what you can purchase with via assistance is hardly what you describe here.

    So thinking there is a need to "control" what people on assistance can buy doesn't smell of that in any way at all to you?

    Smell of thinking they have low morals, ethic and intelligence? No. He!! no.

    The rhetoric of them not feeding their kids properly and instead buying junk. That says they have poor morals because they care more about junk than the health of their family.

    Rhetoric and excluding a few items from being purchased with food stamps are not the same.

    What exactly is the benefit then of changing a program that already works? Of course if it's not because people can't make their own nutritional decisions?

    Because they don't always. Because it's tax dollars. Same reason we don't include alcohol.

    What are you talking about? How does alcohol even relate to this?
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    ritzvin wrote: »
    ritzvin wrote: »
    Not an answer to the question (and I've said this on other posts before), but I still don't comprehend why so many poor people buy soda. Hauling groceries without a car is enough of a P.I.T.A without hauling jugs of what is essentially water with a tiny amount of added ingredients. Kool-aid/Tang/etc at least comes in tiny portable packets or a small jar. And especially with the wider availability of on-tap and pitcher-type water filters to combat the rust-etc taste of the water in many old apartment buildings.

    Because they like it? Same as anyone else. Poor people are humans too.

    Poor or not, I'm just always surprised at the amount of effort people will put forth to get those bottles of soda home. Moreso the poor, only because it takes so much more effort without a car and leaving so many other things that one would not be able to get in the same trip for lack of backpack or bicycle crate space.

    ..but then again I'm also not willing to haul milk or juice or many other bulky/heavy items either.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.

    If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.

    It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.

    It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.

    It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.

    So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.

    If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.

    It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.

    It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.

    It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.

    So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?

    I do see a difference, yes.

    Would you care to explain exactly what it is? I'm not not trying to be difficult, I'm just not seeing the relevance.
  • OnAllFours
    OnAllFours Posts: 170 Member
    We need to do a better job in selecting who gets Food Stamps or EBT cards. Once we do that, we might have more money to those that get such help, allowing them to afford better choices. But like welfare, there is always those working the system based on entitlement.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.

    If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.

    It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.

    It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.

    It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.

    So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?

    I do see a difference, yes.

    Would you care to explain exactly what it is? I'm not not trying to be difficult, I'm just not seeing the relevance.

    The source of the money. Do you really not see a difference in money from charity and money that you earned yourself?

    If I give someone $5 for food, as a supplement to their grocery budget, and their total budget is $10, I don't consider it relevant whether or not they spend "my" $5 on soda or beans.

    It's not that if I don't see a difference in money from charity (or in this particular case, the government) and money that I have earned myself. I'm saying that if food stamps form a portion of someone's grocery budget and they're going to be buying soda anyway, I don't consider it relevant whether they're using money from one source available to them as opposed to another.

    I can see the logic in that but I don't see why it would affect the decision whether to exclude soda from being purchased with assistance money.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    sheldonz42 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.

    If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.

    It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.

    It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.

    It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.

    So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?

    I do see a difference, yes.

    Would you care to explain exactly what it is? I'm not not trying to be difficult, I'm just not seeing the relevance.

    The source of the money. Do you really not see a difference in money from charity and money that you earned yourself?

    If I give someone $5 for food, as a supplement to their grocery budget, and their total budget is $10, I don't consider it relevant whether or not they spend "my" $5 on soda or beans.

    It's not that if I don't see a difference in money from charity (or in this particular case, the government) and money that I have earned myself. I'm saying that if food stamps form a portion of someone's grocery budget and they're going to be buying soda anyway, I don't consider it relevant whether they're using money from one source available to them as opposed to another.

    I can see the logic in that but I don't see why it would affect the decision whether to exclude soda from being purchased with assistance money.

    So... now Mary buys $5 of soda and $5 of Twinkies with SNAP and pays $10 of her own money for veggies. This is bad.

    But after, Mary buys $10 of veggies with SNAP and $5 of soda and $5 of Twinkies with her own money, and this is good?

    The difference is that Mary had to actually earn the extra money to burn on soda and twinkies...

    She's earning the money either way -- in both examples she is spending $10 of her own money.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    sheldonz42 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.

    If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.

    It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.

    It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.

    It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.

    So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?

    I do see a difference, yes.

    Would you care to explain exactly what it is? I'm not not trying to be difficult, I'm just not seeing the relevance.

    The source of the money. Do you really not see a difference in money from charity and money that you earned yourself?

    If I give someone $5 for food, as a supplement to their grocery budget, and their total budget is $10, I don't consider it relevant whether or not they spend "my" $5 on soda or beans.

    It's not that if I don't see a difference in money from charity (or in this particular case, the government) and money that I have earned myself. I'm saying that if food stamps form a portion of someone's grocery budget and they're going to be buying soda anyway, I don't consider it relevant whether they're using money from one source available to them as opposed to another.

    I can see the logic in that but I don't see why it would affect the decision whether to exclude soda from being purchased with assistance money.

    So... now Mary buys $5 of soda and $5 of Twinkies with SNAP and pays $10 of her own money for veggies. This is bad.

    But after, Mary buys $10 of veggies with SNAP and $5 of soda and $5 of Twinkies with her own money, and this is good?

    The difference is that Mary had to actually earn the extra money to burn on soda and twinkies...

    She's earning the money either way -- in both examples she is spending $10 of her own money.

    Mary isn't the only recipient. We're talking general rules and regulations.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    sheldonz42 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    I'm in favor of what someone else suggested a few pages ago by making SNAP work more like WIC. Nutritious items like fruits, vegetables, meats, while grains, and dairy items would be approved for purchase by the program, and items that didn't have approval (like cookies, crackers, soda, etc.) Would be paid for by the buyer's money. SNAP is meant to help people afford to buy enough food to eat. It's not meant to cover 100% of a person's food budget. If someone in SNAP wants to buy soda, that's fine, but they should use their own money to pay for that and use their SNAP benefits to buy actual food.

    If my food budget is $20 and $10 of that is from SNAP, why does it matter I'm actually purchasing the soda with? If I use my SNAP to buy $2 worth of beans and then use my $2 that I didn't spend on beans to buy soda or vice versa, it's the exact same result.

    It's one thing to need help feeding your family and another to ask for help feeding your family and then use that help for luxuries.

    It's being used for "luxuries" (if soda can be considered such) anyway. Whether it is directly paying for them or people are using the money that is freed up to buy soda doesn't seem relevant to me.

    It's one thing to use your own money for luxuries, another to use other people's tax dollars.

    So you see a relevant difference between directly using the benefits to buy soda and using the money that has been freed up because SNAP covered pasta or beans or whatever to buy soda?

    I do see a difference, yes.

    Would you care to explain exactly what it is? I'm not not trying to be difficult, I'm just not seeing the relevance.

    The source of the money. Do you really not see a difference in money from charity and money that you earned yourself?

    If I give someone $5 for food, as a supplement to their grocery budget, and their total budget is $10, I don't consider it relevant whether or not they spend "my" $5 on soda or beans.

    It's not that if I don't see a difference in money from charity (or in this particular case, the government) and money that I have earned myself. I'm saying that if food stamps form a portion of someone's grocery budget and they're going to be buying soda anyway, I don't consider it relevant whether they're using money from one source available to them as opposed to another.

    I can see the logic in that but I don't see why it would affect the decision whether to exclude soda from being purchased with assistance money.

    So... now Mary buys $5 of soda and $5 of Twinkies with SNAP and pays $10 of her own money for veggies. This is bad.

    But after, Mary buys $10 of veggies with SNAP and $5 of soda and $5 of Twinkies with her own money, and this is good?

    The difference is that Mary had to actually earn the extra money to burn on soda and twinkies...

    She's earning the money either way -- in both examples she is spending $10 of her own money.

    Mary isn't the only recipient. We're talking general rules and regulations.

    I don't see what in my post made you conclude that I thought Mary was the only recipient.