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
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Chef_Barbell 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...
How does this make any sense?
@Chef_Barbell, most ppl on welfare make excuses for their weight citing that junk food cost less than healthy foods. They plug their ears and "lalalala" when you show them the cost between a bag of carrots and one candy bar. I'm not against people eating junk.. I am against pre-packaged junk and people spending all their stamps on that instead of feeding their families healthy options. Baking items cost less in the long run than buying packages of chocolate chip cookies. You get more for your dollar. I feed a family of 8 on a $500 budget. When it was just my family and NOT my bros family too, cost me 200-300$ a month to feed my family healthy home baked meals. My family complained I was starving my kids because my cupboards and freezer was filled only with items that had to be cooked.. nothing quick and simple. My kids are so use to eating this way, they don't "snack" .. they cook.
Why do you think people on assistance only buy junk?
And that they are proportionately fatter than the general population and ergo are making poorer food choices.
Poor decision making skills. Exactly.
Much the same as the reason most of them remain in generational poverty.16 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat 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.
5 -
Chef_Barbell 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.3 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.6 -
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.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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?3 -
Chef_Barbell 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.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat 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.6 -
Chef_Barbell 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.
You're surprised that people make an effort to carry things home from the store that they enjoy? OK.6 -
Just say no to the nanny state.8
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat 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?
4 -
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat 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.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat 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.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
Then you have not read this thread or the many others like it. I also take it you do not listen to talk radio or conservative news programs.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
Then you have not read this thread or the many others like it. I also take it you do not listen to talk radio or conservative news programs.
And it would seem you didn't read my posts.5 -
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.1
-
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 . . ..
@DamieBird, that may be the average, but that's like adding in a senators average wage to a fast food workers wage and announcing to the nation that the "average" working American makes $20 an hour so the government dont understand how Americans can possibly be struggling. In this case their are more single people or people who just needed a "little" help and averaging it with those who have larger families. My grandpa "qualifies" for $32 a month food stamps because of his disability check. After taking out his rent and bills, he can still afford to drink 2 beers a day and buy cartons of cigs. Then he complains that they aren't giving him enough food stamps to live on. Technically he doesn't need them at all!
Average that into a family of 4 getting $500 a month because neither parent works. It looks so much better saying that "On average they are ONLY getting $281.." Sounds ugly saying "Elderly man can't afford food but smokes and drinks and two parents can't find work conveniently in 10 years. My brother quits and finds new jobs often enough that I know that to be a lie!
There ARE hard cases out there! I don't believe that's the case for the majority of them on stamps. I learned that self-preservation can be a powerful motivator for people. I also learned that if you give then something for free everyday, then suddenly stop, they become enraged and demand to know why you are no longer giving it to them.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Strawblackcat 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?6 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »
This entire forum is filled with people that "need to be told what to eat". lol12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions