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
1…6791112…49

Replies

  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,874 Member
    Options
    Chef_Barbell wrote: »
    TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »
    It is 100% the case where I live. In the south
    http://firstquarterfinance.com/what-fast-food-places-take-ebt-food-stamps-snap/

    Not for everyone and this makes sense... homeless people don't exactly have stoves and fridges.

    “In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.” Note that based on the published information, the Restaurant Meals Program (as this initiative is known) is available only for homeless, elderly, or disabled recipients of EBT."

    'And now, the rest of the story...'
  • RachelElser
    RachelElser Posts: 1,049 Member
    Options
    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.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,600 Member
    Options
    OliveGirl128 wrote: »
    LJGettinSexy wrote: »
    GlassAngyl wrote: »
    Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...

    Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed

    This is thrown out all the time, but many times it's just not true. I eat a very 'healthy' diet and I fit it in, along with the rest of my family's groceries, on a pretty small grocery budget. Beans, whole grains, frozen veggies, frozen chicken etc are all pretty inexpensive.

    I've often wondered this because I hear it so often - then I see blogs like budgetbytes where she shows how to provide for a family of 4 (I think) with limited means; last night the meal I made (barley and sweet potato) cost me approximately $5 to make and resulted in over 3lbs of food that will last me a week (and all I used to cook it was a skillet)
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    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.

    I'd be open to this kind of idea (make it more limited but increase the amount to help afford a greater variety of nutrient dense foods), and apparently surveys of those on SNAP indicate that they would too (see https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/should-food-stamps-buy-soda/281342/ and http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2013/08/food_stamp_choices_should_people_be_allowed_to_buy_junk_food_with_their.html).

    I don't feel strongly about it either way, and would note that for most on SNAP it's supplemental, so whether you directly buy soda with it or not doesn't really determine whether you are still buying soda (if it's prohibited) or also buying vegetables (if it is not), etc. But I am kind of sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't be in essence subsidizing the soda manufacturers, and this is arguably one way.

    What I see as the problem with the "only nutrient dense food" idea is how do you define it and enforce it in any kind of reasonable way. The simple idea would be that it can't be used on anything not taxed as food (vs. other types of purchases), but in IL that leaves out prepared food, candy, and soda only.

    So how would you work this proposal given realities?

    Also, I am wary of it being used punitively (if you are poor you shouldn't get a birthday cake!) or motivated by stigma (the poor are fat and stupid) or a desire for more stigma (the ugly idea that buying on SNAP should be more obvious and embarrassing than it is), which I think are attitudes that permeate a LOT of discussion of these kinds of issues in the US.

    I mentioned upstream in the thread that I would propose using the WIC guidelines to determine what items would qualify for SNAP benefits. The items that qualify for WIC are generally nutritious, but not premium products.

    This link has listing of eligible foods by state and a brief description of the program
    https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/links-state-agency-wic-approved-food-lists

    For our non-US friends and those not familiar with the program, here is a brief description of the program from the above site.

    The WIC target population are low-income, nutritionally at risk:

    Pregnant women (through pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after birth or after pregnancy ends).
    Breastfeeding women (up to infant’s 1st birthday)
    Nonbreastfeeding postpartum women (up to 6 months after the birth of an infant or after pregnancy ends)
    Infants (up to 1st birthday). WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States.
    Children up to their 5th birthday.
    Benefits

    The following benefits are provided to WIC participants:

    Supplemental nutritious foods
    Nutrition education and counseling at WIC clinics
    Screening and referrals to other health, welfare and social services

    I'm sure there would have to be some modifications to the items approved to meet the nutritional needs of other members of the population, but I feel this would be a good start. Plus qualifying items are already identified in the systems of retailers.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,860 Member
    Options
    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.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Options
    Chef_Barbell 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.

    I have a filter jug. The filters aren't cheap (could be different in the US). I happen to not buy soda, I use squash/concentrated juice you add water to but I'm not judging those who might buy the odd can/bottle or whatever.

Categories