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
-
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Back when my kids were in the traditional school system we opted to not participate in bringing in food for classroom parties, nor did we bring in b-day treats for the classroom. If someone doesn't have the extra funds to provide a treat then they just don't bring in a treat-it's really not a big deal. My kids were never belittled/picked on for not bringing in anything, nor did the teacher pull me aside to talk about it. And actually the whole 'treats in the classroom' is a pretty controversial topic and some schools are getting away from it.
Wow, I really do feel like I'm on a parenting board right now... I need to find a apple cider vinegar thread to balance things out
9 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »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.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
People who need assistance aren't entitled to pride. Got it. Poor people should just be grateful for what they get and lost the right to maintain their dignity when they lost their job.
Seems awfully like kicking someone when they're down to me.
I find it inconsistent that you dismiss my individual examples, but don't seem dismissive of individual examples of people cheating the system.
Tying pride to what others can give you seems very problematic. You fell on hard times. Hold your head up and do what you need to do to improve your situation. Trying to hide your situation and pretend it didn't happen to you seems to imply you are better than others who in the same situation.
Effectively telling people that they have to sacrifice their dignity in order to get help seems more problematic IMO.
Begging is sacrificing their dignity.
It's called integrity.
It's also a useful motivator.12 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »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.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
People who need assistance aren't entitled to pride. Got it. Poor people should just be grateful for what they get and lost the right to maintain their dignity when they lost their job.
Seems awfully like kicking someone when they're down to me.
I find it inconsistent that you dismiss my individual examples, but don't seem dismissive of individual examples of people cheating the system.
Since when is a shopping cart filled with nutrient dense foods less of a source of pride than a cart full of chips, pop , cookies, etc?
I never said that it was. I said that vilifying people who buy chips, cookies and/or soda along with their otherwise nutritionally dense food just because they are receiving food benefits is wrong. When did this turn into another version of people only eat 100% "healthy" or 100% "junk"? I thought we corrected that assumption ages ago on these boards?12 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »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.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
People who need assistance aren't entitled to pride. Got it. Poor people should just be grateful for what they get and lost the right to maintain their dignity when they lost their job.
Seems awfully like kicking someone when they're down to me.
I find it inconsistent that you dismiss my individual examples, but don't seem dismissive of individual examples of people cheating the system.
Since when is a shopping cart filled with nutrient dense foods less of a source of pride than a cart full of chips, pop , cookies, etc?
I never said that it was. I said that vilifying people who buy chips, cookies and/or soda along with their otherwise nutritionally dense food just because they are receiving food benefits is wrong. When did this turn into another version of people only eat 100% "healthy" or 100% "junk"? I thought we corrected that assumption ages ago on these boards?
Probably about the time that eliminating soda from food stamps turned into vilifying people for receiving benefits.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »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.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
People who need assistance aren't entitled to pride. Got it. Poor people should just be grateful for what they get and lost the right to maintain their dignity when they lost their job.
Seems awfully like kicking someone when they're down to me.
I find it inconsistent that you dismiss my individual examples, but don't seem dismissive of individual examples of people cheating the system.
Tying pride to what others can give you seems very problematic. You fell on hard times. Hold your head up and do what you need to do to improve your situation. Trying to hide your situation and pretend it didn't happen to you seems to imply you are better than others who in the same situation.
Effectively telling people that they have to sacrifice their dignity in order to get help seems more problematic IMO.
Your opinion seems very strange to me. But I've never been one for "puttin' on airs' as my gram called it. I don't tie pride to my ability to buy (or have someone else buy for me) cookies and soda.
I can understand how it might seem strange, as it seems that we have different perspectives. I see nothing wrong with allowing people who are down on hard times to maintain whatever pride and/or dignity they are able to hold on to. What purpose does it serve to call attention to someone's plight in life just because they need a little help?
My own personal opinion is that quietly helping someone who needs it (if possible) is always better than publically helping someone. I've seen individuals, churches, and other groups do this effectively for many years. Around the holidays, it's common in the Army for some families to get extra assistance in the form of a commissary or PX gift card. It's always done very discretely, usually through the Chaplain's office. It would serve no purpose to highlight that one family over another may need some help from time to time.
I see no reason why we can't default to that for society at large. I imagine that it's bad enough to have to go into a government agency and admit that you need help; why make it harder when it comes to check out at the grocery store? Allowing someone to not feel more ashamed (which is different that "puttin' on airs") doesn't change your day one bit.12 -
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.
8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »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.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
People who need assistance aren't entitled to pride. Got it. Poor people should just be grateful for what they get and lost the right to maintain their dignity when they lost their job.
Seems awfully like kicking someone when they're down to me.
I find it inconsistent that you dismiss my individual examples, but don't seem dismissive of individual examples of people cheating the system.
Tying pride to what others can give you seems very problematic. You fell on hard times. Hold your head up and do what you need to do to improve your situation. Trying to hide your situation and pretend it didn't happen to you seems to imply you are better than others who in the same situation.
Effectively telling people that they have to sacrifice their dignity in order to get help seems more problematic IMO.
Your opinion seems very strange to me. But I've never been one for "puttin' on airs' as my gram called it. I don't tie pride to my ability to buy (or have someone else buy for me) cookies and soda.
I can understand how it might seem strange, as it seems that we have different perspectives. I see nothing wrong with allowing people who are down on hard times to maintain whatever pride and/or dignity they are able to hold on to. What purpose does it serve to call attention to someone's plight in life just because they need a little help?
My own personal opinion is that quietly helping someone who needs it (if possible) is always better than publically helping someone. I've seen individuals, churches, and other groups do this effectively for many years. Around the holidays, it's common in the Army for some families to get extra assistance in the form of a commissary or PX gift card. It's always done very discretely, usually through the Chaplain's office. It would serve no purpose to highlight that one family over another may need some help from time to time.
I see no reason why we can't default to that for society at large. I imagine that it's bad enough to have to go into a government agency and admit that you need help; why make it harder when it comes to check out at the grocery store? Allowing someone to not feel more ashamed (which is different that "puttin' on airs") doesn't change your day one bit.
And you seriously think removing soda from the list of items one can purchase with food stamps somehow equates to all that? I've taken away your free soda now you will be publicly shamed and stripped of all dignity?? You should be so ashamed you worthless sodaless excuse for a human.
Come on! Get serious.8 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »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.
Soooooo . . . I'm sensing that you have a passionate response to this issue because you have seen people near and dear to you who abuse the system and/or take advantage of a benefit that you're working very hard to keep yourself above. There's nothing wrong with that. As humans, it's natural that we will evaluate any given scenario with a perspective based on our own experiences.
The problem (for me) is when you (in the larger sense, not YOU specifically) see a few people here or there taking advantage of a system and assume that no one out there is truly in need of assistance. Further, placing a moral judgement on those who live in poverty is wrong and misguided. Most people who qualify for SNAP benefits are the working poor, and yet society likes to demonize them into being bad people because they don't have a better job. In this thread alone, I've seen criticism against 'treats' like soda and candy or chips in a moral sense. Please tell me why anyone is a better person than someone else based on their income? Why are poor people less deserving of a little compassion and perhaps a soda or bag of chips or candy bar, if that's what they need to get through the day?
Speaking from personal experience, I try to eat mostly nutritionally dense food, but even when my budget gets tight, I'm going to spare a few dollars if at all possible to buy the occasional candy bar. Something that small can really lift your mood if you're having a *kitten* year or a *kitten* life.
All of that is assuming that the average person even understands basic nutrition. If you've spend any time at all on these boards, you know that most people don't have a clue about how calories and nutrition work until they take the time and effort to learn and ask for advice from helpful and understanding internet strangers. And yet, you magically expect someone who needs food assistance to know all of this? I don't know your personal stats or reasons for why you're on MFP, but chances are it's because you want to lose some weight. You didn't get fat by only eating appropriate amounts of nutritionally dense food. None of us did. But, it comes across that you're blaming someone on SNAP by a totally different standard. How dare they be (potentially) overweight?!?! Don't they know that they're spending MY tax dollars?! I'M not paying for them to get a soda!!! What an utterly solipsistic viewpoint.
I sincerely hope that you never find yourself in need of food assistance, but if you ever do (because life can throw some freaking curveballs at anyone), I hoe that you're met with more compassion than it seems you give.
If I ever found myself in that situation, you could bet your bottom dollar I would be spending the assistance on the most nutrient dense, cost effective foods I could find for my family and myself. No soda, candy, chips.
Don't you think this makes sense?
I think it's unrealistic to think that you would NEVER buy something that doesn't make absolute 'sense'.
If you need a candy bar once a month it could be purchased from your other funds.
And if it's the end of the month and you're out of funds of anything other than SNAP and you have a sick kid who feels better sipping Sprite or Ginger Ale, I guess they're out of luck. Or, someone never learned about nutrition but they know that a candy bar and soda provide enough energy to get them through the day to lunch, it's suddenly a moral judgement when they buy the 6 pack of snickers for $3.50 and a six pack of off brand soda for $2. That's $5 for a week's worth of breakfasts. For shame (eye roll)
Yes, I know that first one is an example, not the norm, but the point is that regulations like this are needless and do nothing but make it more complicated for people to use and for stores to regulate. If someone needs or wants to buy a soda or candy bar, why does it matter?
So we are back to assuming people have zero nutritional sense and buy junk because they don't know better? If that were the case, and I don't think it is, then we need more restrictions not fewer.
I'm not assuming that people have ZERO nutritional sense and ONLY buy junk, but the reality is that many (if not most) people buy food that will get them through their day and it's often not what the average MFP user will choose. Whether it's because of a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, people make sub-optimal food choices all the time. Are two eggs and a piece of fruit a more filling and nutritional breakfast than a Little Debbie snack and a soda? Of course! When I was in high school, living on my own and working 40 hours a week while also going to school, I spent $1/day on a little Debbie (they were only a quarter back then) and a 20oz soda (my chosen store sold them for .69).
Could I have gotten more nutritional bang for my buck with eggs, fruit, maybe toast? Sure, but I was too busy and fruits and veggies were expensive and I hadn't yet learned how to make better nutritional and economical choices. Could I manage more effectively now? Of course - I've learned a lot. My point with this is to illustrate that we aren't all automatically nutritionally literate. People do the best they can with what they have, and some people are not as well armed with the knowledge about how to make better food purchasing choices as we all seem to be.
Instead of trying to teach people better habits (if they even need it) through category exclusion, why not offer classes? Instead of assuming that people will only buy junk, why not be generous of thought and compassionate enough to assume that we don't know the whole story. Maybe that lady buying a package of cookies with foodstamps has to provide something for their child's school classroom party and the school forbids home-made items because of allergy concerns? And, she doesn't want anyone to realize how hard up her family is right now, so she's doing the best she can to re-prioritize and maybe she's eating a few days of ramen for her own lunch in order to afford the cookies with her limited and supplemented food budget. Is it really that big of a deal if someone buys chips to include in their child's or partner's bagged lunch?
Some states do offer or even require nutrition classes, just as WIC does. But classes require more tax dollars and a simple exclusion does not.
Your very specific example, while heart string tugging, is again just a single instance and should not drive policy. The assistance is meant to feed people, not help them save face because they are in reduced circumstances. That might seem callous on the heart string tugging individual level, but as a policy that relies on taxes it could mean the difference between more people eating or one person being able to safe face.
People who need assistance aren't entitled to pride. Got it. Poor people should just be grateful for what they get and lost the right to maintain their dignity when they lost their job.
Seems awfully like kicking someone when they're down to me.
I find it inconsistent that you dismiss my individual examples, but don't seem dismissive of individual examples of people cheating the system.
Tying pride to what others can give you seems very problematic. You fell on hard times. Hold your head up and do what you need to do to improve your situation. Trying to hide your situation and pretend it didn't happen to you seems to imply you are better than others who in the same situation.
Effectively telling people that they have to sacrifice their dignity in order to get help seems more problematic IMO.
Your opinion seems very strange to me. But I've never been one for "puttin' on airs' as my gram called it. I don't tie pride to my ability to buy (or have someone else buy for me) cookies and soda.
I can understand how it might seem strange, as it seems that we have different perspectives. I see nothing wrong with allowing people who are down on hard times to maintain whatever pride and/or dignity they are able to hold on to. What purpose does it serve to call attention to someone's plight in life just because they need a little help?
My own personal opinion is that quietly helping someone who needs it (if possible) is always better than publically helping someone. I've seen individuals, churches, and other groups do this effectively for many years. Around the holidays, it's common in the Army for some families to get extra assistance in the form of a commissary or PX gift card. It's always done very discretely, usually through the Chaplain's office. It would serve no purpose to highlight that one family over another may need some help from time to time.
I see no reason why we can't default to that for society at large. I imagine that it's bad enough to have to go into a government agency and admit that you need help; why make it harder when it comes to check out at the grocery store? Allowing someone to not feel more ashamed (which is different that "puttin' on airs") doesn't change your day one bit.
Back when we used WIC I never felt bad or embarrassed about having to use it at the check out lane, (and it was paper vouchers back then instead of the debit type cards they use now). It really wasn't a big deal and I just added them to my coupon pile.
eta: I also never felt bad about going into the WIC office for our appointments. The staff was always professional and polite and the waiting room was full of moms and kids. It was very similar to going to a doctor or dentist appointment.5 -
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.
My opinion, it's functioning as both. Short term assistance is fine. The change needs to come with the long term recipients. Some obviously have physical or mental issues that preclude them from ever earning enough to properly feed themselves without help. IMO, generational recipients is where is the issue is and it's just not food stamps, it's breaking the whole cycle of poverty.
Regardless of the situation, again IMO, these resources should not be allowed to purchase low nutrient or luxury foods.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
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.4 -
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).0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
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.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
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.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
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)5 -
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.
I'm on cpp disability and social assistance in canada and get $750 a month (we don't have food stamps) and my bmi is low normal and i buy a variety of foods. Not all welfare recipients are fat and lazy. I don't buy a lot of junk brcause it's too expensive but i enjoy mu coke zero.12 -
I was on food stamps for a while. I was okay with the "no soda" thing (my state forbids soda from being bought with them, though, oddly, I could buy as much Halloween candy as I wanted on the state's dime). The killer was diapers, toilet paper and medicine. I don't have kids, but watching others in the EBT line (where poor people go to buy food) paying two or three times for different kinds of items while on the verge of a nervous breakdown was heartbreaking. Also, diapers, toilet paper and medicine are crazy expensive and far more necessary than candy, IMO. I didn't make the rules...if I had they'd make sense.
Edited to clarify: I really think food stamps should cover everything, or cover nothing. Presumably we can trust adults to make their own choices regarding food and basic needs? It's not like food stamp funds are unlimited.9 -
janejellyroll 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?0 -
janejellyroll 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.htm0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
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?7 -
janejellyroll 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?
I think this is often where conversations like this get messy and break down. When I'm talking about food stamp users, I'm thinking of a certain group of people (based on my background, experiences, and knowledge), you're thinking of a slightly different group (based on yours), and another person is thinking of . . . well, you get the idea.
And it's really hard -- sometimes -- to have these conversations without either thinking of times we had it tough and didn't get the help we felt other people got or times when we did get help from the government and felt it was a legitimate use of taxpayer funds or even (like someone shared in this thread) times they got help from the government but didn't think it was justified.
I agree -- you can really see the lack of alignment we have over the purposes of public benefits when we have conversations like this.6 -
janejellyroll 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.1 -
LJGettinSexy 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.
1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
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.4 -
janejellyroll 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.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »sheldonz42 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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?
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?4 -
Packerjohn wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »LJGettinSexy wrote: »GlassAngyl wrote: »Totally for it. And they should add all junk food items as well. Leave baking items and they can make junk from scratch...
Then you'd complain they were spending the money on steaks and shrimp, I here it all the time. Food is expensive for the working poor ( not making a living wage and not poor enough for aid) and soda is cheap. Natural and healthier choices are twice as much as junk food, or haven't you noticed
I have not noticed this. I have however checked out behind someone buying live lobsters with food stamps.
So do you have a problem with that? It's not junk food.
Do you have a problem with the government buying $5,000 toilets or whatever? If so, you should have a problem with a SNAP recipient buying live lobsters or other luxury food items with government money (SNAP funds).
In either case, the idea would be those spending government resources should be good stewards of those resources and get the most value for the $ spent. In the case of the food, buying items with SNAP that provide the most nutritional value for the money.
I can't afford lobster and I work everyday nor am I mad at the person that can. Why do you entitled people feel that they can tell poor people what to do? That's what's wrong with this country right now. Everyone has an opinion about what one SHOULD be doing. (Hiding behind the anonymity of the internet). Not everyone one on assistance is 'bad' or 'not worthy' of lobster. If you have the means to buy something you like to eat, then why not. I don't know where you live or shop but chicken wings is a luxury in my grocery store and for a few more dollars if you can get something else you like then you probably should, YOLO!12 -
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.2 -
@CSARdiver, here are the readouts I got when I was on food stamps in WI: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/foodshare/fsataglance.htm1
-
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?
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.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions