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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Food Stamps Restriction
Replies
-
VintageFeline wrote: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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 -
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: »
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 -
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: »
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: »
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: »
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: »
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 -
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: »
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: »
You need to be told how to eat?
This entire forum is filled with people that "need to be told what to eat". lol12 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.
17 -
So if someone on food stamps buys a steak people get all up in arms and if they buy pop that is unacceptable too?
So buy good nutritious food but not something that is considered fancy no steak or shrimp just bagged chicken and carrots?
When I was on SNAP I would buy steaks and 2 8oz steaks would feed us for 4 days.
9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
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.3 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »
Do you realize that a lot of people work and still need assistance? But yes in a perfect world everyone would have jobs and there would be no poor people.
The majority of food stamp recipients are working families. In this economy, I've seen people with Masters degrees having to work two jobs to get by. Other recipients include seniors and the disabled.
8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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?10 -
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?
Not sure what do you mean by "bad" and "good". My point is the government does not and shouldn't control what food someone buys with money not provided by the government, but does have a say in controlling how the government assistance money is spent.11 -
Deleted because what seemed an obvious point was missed.5
-
sheldonz42 wrote: »
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.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
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.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
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.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions