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

18911131449

Replies

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 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: 13,576 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.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,646 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    76Crane76 wrote: »
    I believe, and I was once a food stamp recipient, that had I been restricted more, I would have had to make better food choices. I only see this as positive.

    You need to be told how to eat?

    This entire forum is filled with people that "need to be told what to eat". lol

    And? :huh:
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 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.

    You keep giving individual examples as if general rules and regulations should be set for these specific examples. The rules re: food stamps should be set at a higher level and should consider only the money provided by food stamps.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    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.

    I posted earlier in detail. I believe the WIC model, nutritious food, most low nutrition food not eligible could be used with some modifications to develop eligible items for SNAP that would be applicable to the general population.
  • 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.

    You keep giving individual examples as if general rules and regulations should be set for these specific examples. The rules re: food stamps should be set at a higher level and should consider only the money provided by food stamps.

    That was actually someone else's example.

    But I don't see a problem with using individual examples to illustrate how a larger policy will impact people.

    The rules, of course, will be set at a higher level. The impact will be felt by individuals and using examples can help us explore how a policy would actually work when it was implemented.

  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,023 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.

    SNAP is by definition supplemental. It stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. People using it, not just Mary, are also spending their own money.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    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.

    SNAP is by definition supplemental. It stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. People using it, not just Mary, are also spending their own money.

    So?