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

17810121333

Replies

  • 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.

    So lets turn this around. Why does it matter if soda is excluded if recipients can still get soda with their own money? They don't need assistance to get the soda, right?

    If you're agreeing that it doesn't matter, then I consider the burden to be on those who want to change the current system to explain why they want it changed.

    Obviously I'm not.

    So we're right back where we started. If you think this would be a meaningful change, I'm asking why you think it's meaningful.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    What is the purpose of food stamps? Is this intended to be a short term aid with the end goal of having the individual no longer needing assistance? Is this intended to be a long term supplement for those who lack the ability to provide basic needs?

    This seems to be a devolving debate on preconceived thoughts and scenarios concocted to pass judgment on those holding an opposing view on the matter.

    In my mind, it's a mix of both. There are some people on food stamps as a temporary measure (my family was in this situation for a while) and there are people who do lack the ability to provide for their basic needs over a longer term (I'm thinking of people who are very ill or elderly, for example).
  • 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.

    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.

    So lets turn this around. Why does it matter if soda is excluded if recipients can still get soda with their own money? They don't need assistance to get the soda, right?

    If you're agreeing that it doesn't matter, then I consider the burden to be on those who want to change the current system to explain why they want it changed.

    Obviously I'm not.

    So we're right back where we started. If you think this would be a meaningful change, I'm asking why you think it's meaningful.

    Still the same as when we started. The source of the money. It's the difference in buying yourself a soda vs. asking me to buy you a soda because you are hungry. Honestly if you can't understand a difference then I don't see a point in continuing the debate. I see a difference.
  • 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.

    So lets turn this around. Why does it matter if soda is excluded if recipients can still get soda with their own money? They don't need assistance to get the soda, right?

    If you're agreeing that it doesn't matter, then I consider the burden to be on those who want to change the current system to explain why they want it changed.

    Obviously I'm not.

    So we're right back where we started. If you think this would be a meaningful change, I'm asking why you think it's meaningful.

    Still the same as when we started. The source of the money. It's the difference in buying yourself a soda vs. asking me to buy you a soda because you are hungry. Honestly if you can't understand a difference then I don't see a point in continuing the debate. I see a difference.

    I understand your point that there is a subjective difference to you. I was hoping to dig into a discussion of, objectively, what the difference is but I respect that you don't wish to continue.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    What is the purpose of food stamps? Is this intended to be a short term aid with the end goal of having the individual no longer needing assistance? Is this intended to be a long term supplement for those who lack the ability to provide basic needs?

    This seems to be a devolving debate on preconceived thoughts and scenarios concocted to pass judgment on those holding an opposing view on the matter.

    In my mind, it's a mix of both. There are some people on food stamps as a temporary measure (my family was in this situation for a while) and there are people who do lack the ability to provide for their basic needs over a longer term (I'm thinking of people who are very ill or elderly, for example).

    I think this is a key distinction to make and it makes little to no sense to treat this on anything other than a case by case basis. I think most will agree that the current system is not managed well and I doubt if those in administration are in alignment with the electorate over the purpose of the food stamp program is.

    I wonder do those in administration publish metrics on the success rate of people using this as a temporary measure and getting back on their feet?
  • Kullerva
    Kullerva Posts: 1,114 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    What is the purpose of food stamps? Is this intended to be a short term aid with the end goal of having the individual no longer needing assistance? Is this intended to be a long term supplement for those who lack the ability to provide basic needs?

    This seems to be a devolving debate on preconceived thoughts and scenarios concocted to pass judgment on those holding an opposing view on the matter.

    In my mind, it's a mix of both. There are some people on food stamps as a temporary measure (my family was in this situation for a while) and there are people who do lack the ability to provide for their basic needs over a longer term (I'm thinking of people who are very ill or elderly, for example).

    I think this is a key distinction to make and it makes little to no sense to treat this on anything other than a case by case basis. I think most will agree that the current system is not managed well and I doubt if those in administration are in alignment with the electorate over the purpose of the food stamp program is.

    I wonder do those in administration publish metrics on the success rate of people using this as a temporary measure and getting back on their feet?

    My state does publish those metrics.

    https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/rsdata.htm
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Kullerva wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    What is the purpose of food stamps? Is this intended to be a short term aid with the end goal of having the individual no longer needing assistance? Is this intended to be a long term supplement for those who lack the ability to provide basic needs?

    This seems to be a devolving debate on preconceived thoughts and scenarios concocted to pass judgment on those holding an opposing view on the matter.

    In my mind, it's a mix of both. There are some people on food stamps as a temporary measure (my family was in this situation for a while) and there are people who do lack the ability to provide for their basic needs over a longer term (I'm thinking of people who are very ill or elderly, for example).

    I think this is a key distinction to make and it makes little to no sense to treat this on anything other than a case by case basis. I think most will agree that the current system is not managed well and I doubt if those in administration are in alignment with the electorate over the purpose of the food stamp program is.

    I wonder do those in administration publish metrics on the success rate of people using this as a temporary measure and getting back on their feet?

    My state does publish those metrics.

    https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/rsdata.htm

    Your state is my state too! (sing-songy John Jacob Jinglehimerschmidt)

    I see the output, but don't see a specific metric for success rate. Not familiar with the specific terminology for this so possibly overlooking it.
  • Treece68
    Treece68 Posts: 780 Member
    Treece68 wrote: »
    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.

    I don't know what you were doing with the steaks for them to last so long but it's a choice you should have.

    I guess it is more 4 meals but over 4 days we make side items to fill it out.
    I eat 1/2 good part (all meat no fat) other 1/2 goes for a lunch SO eats the outside fatty parts so two lunches two dinners for me. All the meaty fat pars for SO.

    You should see how we stretch a whole chicken SO loves the innards.
  • 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.

    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.

    So lets turn this around. Why does it matter if soda is excluded if recipients can still get soda with their own money? They don't need assistance to get the soda, right?

    If you're agreeing that it doesn't matter, then I consider the burden to be on those who want to change the current system to explain why they want it changed.

    Obviously I'm not.

    So we're right back where we started. If you think this would be a meaningful change, I'm asking why you think it's meaningful.

    Still the same as when we started. The source of the money. It's the difference in buying yourself a soda vs. asking me to buy you a soda because you are hungry. Honestly if you can't understand a difference then I don't see a point in continuing the debate. I see a difference.

    I understand your point that there is a subjective difference to you. I was hoping to dig into a discussion of, objectively, what the difference is but I respect that you don't wish to continue.

    I don't mind continuing but I'm not sure what else I can say. The difference, the whole difference, to me is the source of the money. Asking others to buy you soda because you can't feed yourself vs. asking others to buy you food because you can't feed yourself and then spending your own money on a treat, which for you is soda.

    You don't need soda, you do need food. (not you personally)

    I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."

    While it's true that we don't "need" soda, I don't think there is any single food item that a human needs in order to be healthy. We can see people thriving without eating fruit, without eating meat, without eating grains. We don't require any of those things.

    If someone can buy a bag of granulated sugar with benefits, I don't understand why soda would be a problem (you may also support limits on sugar purchases, I'm not trying to attribute a position to you that you may not hold).

    Or is this more like supporting a ban on purchasing any liquid with benefits? Is the argument that you do need food, but liquids other than water are unnecessary?

    No, I think milk or milk substitutes should be covered. It's seeing soda as never being the better choice. If you have so little that you must ask others to buy your food, you don't need to consume a glass of sugar water. I doubt many people are eating a bag of sugar. They are using that as as ingredient. Sometimes soda may also be an ingredient but typically not.
  • Kullerva
    Kullerva Posts: 1,114 Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    Kullerva wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    What is the purpose of food stamps? Is this intended to be a short term aid with the end goal of having the individual no longer needing assistance? Is this intended to be a long term supplement for those who lack the ability to provide basic needs?

    This seems to be a devolving debate on preconceived thoughts and scenarios concocted to pass judgment on those holding an opposing view on the matter.

    In my mind, it's a mix of both. There are some people on food stamps as a temporary measure (my family was in this situation for a while) and there are people who do lack the ability to provide for their basic needs over a longer term (I'm thinking of people who are very ill or elderly, for example).

    I think this is a key distinction to make and it makes little to no sense to treat this on anything other than a case by case basis. I think most will agree that the current system is not managed well and I doubt if those in administration are in alignment with the electorate over the purpose of the food stamp program is.

    I wonder do those in administration publish metrics on the success rate of people using this as a temporary measure and getting back on their feet?

    My state does publish those metrics.

    https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/rsdata.htm

    Your state is my state too! (sing-songy John Jacob Jinglehimerschmidt)

    I see the output, but don't see a specific metric for success rate. Not familiar with the specific terminology for this so possibly overlooking it.

    You have to compare year-to-year to determine how many people go on and off the rolls. Comparing those data points to those in the work program can also reveal trends.

    As a food stamp beneficiary I also got an annual report with the work program that broke down statistics for how many of us were working, had children, etc. I haven't needed food stamps in years, so I don't get that anymore.
  • 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.

    So lets turn this around. Why does it matter if soda is excluded if recipients can still get soda with their own money? They don't need assistance to get the soda, right?

    If you're agreeing that it doesn't matter, then I consider the burden to be on those who want to change the current system to explain why they want it changed.

    Obviously I'm not.

    So we're right back where we started. If you think this would be a meaningful change, I'm asking why you think it's meaningful.

    Still the same as when we started. The source of the money. It's the difference in buying yourself a soda vs. asking me to buy you a soda because you are hungry. Honestly if you can't understand a difference then I don't see a point in continuing the debate. I see a difference.

    I understand your point that there is a subjective difference to you. I was hoping to dig into a discussion of, objectively, what the difference is but I respect that you don't wish to continue.

    I don't mind continuing but I'm not sure what else I can say. The difference, the whole difference, to me is the source of the money. Asking others to buy you soda because you can't feed yourself vs. asking others to buy you food because you can't feed yourself and then spending your own money on a treat, which for you is soda.

    You don't need soda, you do need food. (not you personally)

    I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."

    While it's true that we don't "need" soda, I don't think there is any single food item that a human needs in order to be healthy. We can see people thriving without eating fruit, without eating meat, without eating grains. We don't require any of those things.

    If someone can buy a bag of granulated sugar with benefits, I don't understand why soda would be a problem (you may also support limits on sugar purchases, I'm not trying to attribute a position to you that you may not hold).

    Or is this more like supporting a ban on purchasing any liquid with benefits? Is the argument that you do need food, but liquids other than water are unnecessary?

    No, I think milk or milk substitutes should be covered. It's seeing soda as never being the better choice. If you have so little that you must ask others to buy your food, you don't need to consume a glass of sugar water. I doubt many people are eating a bag of sugar. They are using that as as ingredient. Sometimes soda may also be an ingredient but typically not.

    Would I be correct in assuming you would also support restricting the purchase of juice, especially juices that are sweetened with additional sugar?

    What about candy?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    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.

    If you look at how WIC works, it seems logistically very difficult to expand that to SNAP unless there were a very limited list of accepted foods (as with WIC), and a reduction in the stores participating. I'm thinking about the burden on the stores.

    The second question is how would it be decided what is covered and what is not. If you are thinking of something as limited as WIC (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIC for covered items), then I don't think that would be a good idea, no.
  • Kullerva
    Kullerva Posts: 1,114 Member
    @CSARdiver, here are the readouts I got when I was on food stamps in WI: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/fsataglance.htm
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 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?

    Just for discussion, I do too. For the same reason that I would not agree that any money that goes to Planned Parenthood goes to fund abortions if they use it to fund an entirely different program (like say contraceptives or gyno exams for poor women).

    Not to go off on THAT particular tangent, I'm just talking about how to determine what is being funded/subsidized.
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    I guess I don't see such a pure distinction between "soda" and "food."

    I do. It's the way I was raised. If you were hungry you were allowed "food" but food was certainly not soda, candy, cookies or anything of sort.

    We've clearly moved away from that sort of thinking as a society but perhaps that's where part of the disconnect is coming from? Snack food deprivation and you-deserve-a-treat are a fairly recent concepts I think.