Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Food Stamps Restriction

1…2122242627…49

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    SSGKunze wrote: »
    Bigger fish to fry in MD these cats come in to 7/11 and fast food places and spend our tax money on that crap. Start with making them buy groceries from a food store for starters then we can look at fine tuning what they spend our tax dollars on. They don't have enough money since they buy inflated fast food instead of buying real food and packing it.

    Assuming this website is accurate, you cannot purchase fast food in Maryland with an EBT card.

    http://www.ebtcardbalance.com/maryland-ebt-food-list-ef18
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    edited August 2017
    kimny72 wrote: »
    So I've typed and retyped this reply and it comes down to this for me:

    This thread has been weird for me because I don't think anyone's life will be ruined or pride will be wounded if they can't buy soda with their SNAP card. But I think there is a danger to us accepting the moralizing of food choices for people using government benefits. Soda seems like an easy enough decision, but what exactly would it accomplish? This is just a knee-jerk reaction to the current villain-du-jour. How would the keto people feel if the govt decided meat was too expensive and a "luxury" so it was off the list? And why do we always have to fill the loopholes we suspect the lower class is taking advantage of while ignoring the giant gaping loopholes being openly used by those on the other end of the spectrum?

    I think it just sticks in my craw when politicians garner favor by convincing the middle class that all our budget woes would be alleviated if it wasn't for those fat, lazy, cheating poor people, buying all that soda with my tax dollars. Of course there are cheaters in the system, but the bulk of our wasted tax dollars are going to corporations and individuals living in huge houses, making payments to politicians to keep their tax breaks and buyouts coming, while spreading rumors about all those ill-behaved welfare recipients.

    And I'm sorry, I know this was now way upthread, but I don't believe for a second there are people all over this country buying cases of soda with SNAP money and reselling it on the black market to fund their extravagant or sinful lifestyle while there children subsist on nothing but free school breakfast. Pics or it didn't happen.

    I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but sadly, have to tell you that people suck far, far more than you can possibly imagine. My late FIL was a deputy prosecutor specializing in financial crimes, and prosecuted state-wide fraud rings involving SNAP and other assistance. Most notable was a woman who was fostering many children, buying copious and expensive cuts of meats with the assistance intended for them, selling them to a local restaurant, and feeding the kids mac and cheese.

    Here is an article that provides a good overview of 2016 shenanigans in PA and the many, many creative ways you can commit fraud, including exchanging your food stamps for heroin, always a fun time.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/06/14/franklin-county-7th-welfare-fraud-cases-last-year/398128001/

    ETA: here is another one detailing 8 instances of SNAP trafficking out of 35 welfare fraud cases in PA, but it doesn't get into what was being sold or the specific horrors that may or may not have been visited upon any children involved:

    http://fox43.com/2017/04/26/pa-inspector-general-files-welfare-fraud-charges-against-77-people-in-february/
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    dfnewcombe wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    So I've typed and retyped this reply and it comes down to this for me:

    This thread has been weird for me because I don't think anyone's life will be ruined or pride will be wounded if they can't buy soda with their SNAP card. But I think there is a danger to us accepting the moralizing of food choices for people using government benefits. Soda seems like an easy enough decision, but what exactly would it accomplish? This is just a knee-jerk reaction to the current villain-du-jour. How would the keto people feel if the govt decided meat was too expensive and a "luxury" so it was off the list? And why do we always have to fill the loopholes we suspect the lower class is taking advantage of while ignoring the giant gaping loopholes being openly used by those on the other end of the spectrum?

    I think it just sticks in my craw when politicians garner favor by convincing the middle class that all our budget woes would be alleviated if it wasn't for those fat, lazy, cheating poor people, buying all that soda with my tax dollars. Of course there are cheaters in the system, but the bulk of our wasted tax dollars are going to corporations and individuals living in huge houses, making payments to politicians to keep their tax breaks and buyouts coming, while spreading rumors about all those ill-behaved welfare recipients.

    And I'm sorry, I know this was now way upthread, but I don't believe for a second there are people all over this country buying cases of soda with SNAP money and reselling it on the black market to fund their extravagant or sinful lifestyle while there children subsist on nothing but free school breakfast. Pics or it didn't happen.

    I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but sadly, have to tell you that people suck far, far more than you can possibly imagine. My late FIL was a deputy prosecutor specializing in financial crimes, and prosecuted state-wide fraud rings involving SNAP and other assistance. Most notable was a woman who was fostering many children, buying copious and expensive cuts of meats with the assistance intended for them, selling them to a local restaurant, and feeding the kids mac and cheese.

    Here is an article that provides a good overview of 2016 shenanigans in PA and the many, many creative ways you can commit fraud, including exchanging your food stamps for heroin, always a fun time.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/06/14/franklin-county-7th-welfare-fraud-cases-last-year/398128001/

    While I have no inside knowledge of the amount of fraud that goes along with this program, and I am sure that there is, I don't believe you should punish the intended recipients of the assistance. Rather, go after those committing the fraud and deal with them appropriately. JMO

    They are two separate topics. My response is just aimed at the question about fraud.
  • SSGKunze
    SSGKunze Posts: 21 Member
    Unfortunately I see the signs in all those stores every day EBT accepted in everything from Fast Food to 7/11 when they should be at grocery stores buying affordable food.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited August 2017
    Ainadan wrote: »
    As someone who audited government programs for a few years, I wanted to add my piece to the discussion.

    We have a problem with foodstamps, and there is a LOT of fraud in that industry. A few of my auditor buddies discovered a foodstamp/WIC ring that was bringing in millions. This happened within my office while I was working there, so it wasn't a friend of a friend, I saw the numbers.

    And a lot of this money isn't taken from the feds, (where it would be a drop in the bucket) but rather from states who are struggling to get by. That is why these discussions are important and are taking place. States are struggling and having to decide where money goes. They don't have the budget the feds do. They aren't paying billions for new spy gear or corporate bailouts. Instead, they have to make hard choices. Should money be spent on soda when it could be spent on education? What about roads? Not to mention the part of medicaid/medicare they have to pay for, and general infrastructure concerns. They have problems. But will not allowing soda solve them? Probably not.

    I think the government should be able to tell people what to do with the government's money. However, TBH, auditing food choices is rather expensive. Auditors like to make money. If the state needs to save money, they are better off just cutting the food stamp benefits some, and hiring a nutritionist to write and send everyone a recipe book/meal planning book which would fit within their foodstamp allocation.

    Yes this is common. A community that writes a grant and gets funding for 20 new public transit buses can't change it's mind and use the money for repairs to public housing or a golf course.

    The WIC program that has been discussed has very specific items that can be obtained with those funds. Are people turning it away?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited August 2017
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Ainadan wrote: »
    As someone who audited government programs for a few years, I wanted to add my piece to the discussion.

    We have a problem with foodstamps, and there is a LOT of fraud in that industry. A few of my auditor buddies discovered a foodstamp/WIC ring that was bringing in millions. This happened within my office while I was working there, so it wasn't a friend of a friend, I saw the numbers.

    And a lot of this money isn't taken from the feds, (where it would be a drop in the bucket) but rather from states who are struggling to get by. That is why these discussions are important and are taking place. States are struggling and having to decide where money goes. They don't have the budget the feds do. They aren't paying billions for new spy gear or corporate bailouts. Instead, they have to make hard choices. Should money be spent on soda when it could be spent on education? What about roads? Not to mention the part of medicaid/medicare they have to pay for, and general infrastructure concerns. They have problems. But will not allowing soda solve them? Probably not.

    I think the government should be able to tell people what to do with the government's money. However, TBH, auditing food choices is rather expensive. Auditors like to make money. If the state needs to save money, they are better off just cutting the food stamp benefits some, and hiring a nutritionist to write and send everyone a recipe book/meal planning book which would fit within their foodstamp allocation.

    Yes this is common. A community that writes a grant and gets funding for 20 new public transit buses can't change it's mind and use the money for repairs to public housing or a golf course.

    The WIC program that has been discussed has very specific items that can be obtained with those funds. Are people turning it away?

    I asked this before and did not get a response, but I am genuinely interested. WIC is a long-established program and has specific types of foods that are permitted, and is rather under the radar in that what is permitted has not been a political issue.

    Let's say that SNAP was changed to permit only specific foods. Who decides, and what foods do you think they are. It's not like you can just decide on what YOU think is healthy, there will be a process, it may well be kind of political, likely it is by state. How do we all agree on what gets covered? How limited are you suggesting it should be?

    Before you suggested in return benefits would go up, but it seems you have dropped that part of it, or not? Currently you can often have the benefits go farther if they are used at an approved farmers market, for example -- that's one carrot, not stick, way of encouraging healthy spending.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Just because it's been brought up several times in this thread, I consulted Dr. Google and found this page about WIC. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it seems the allowed foods list varies by state:

    https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/links-state-agency-wic-approved-food-lists

    As I'm in Virginia, I clicked through to their site and found the list of covered items, which is 22 pages long (although it's very nicely decorated and does have pictures wasting space), so not quite as complicated as that sounds.

    http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/content/uploads/sites/43/2017/02/WICApprovedFoodBrochureEnglish.pdf

    Now that I think about it, I have seen WIC Approved labels on store shelves around here, though I don't remember seeing them in NY, perhaps I just didn't notice them.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Here is ours: http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=69545

    This is also helpful: https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4008/#wic13
  • dfnewcombe
    dfnewcombe Posts: 94 Member
    Here is an opinion article with thoughts regarding the pros and cons of restricting SNAP purchases- soda which accounts for $0.05 per dollar spent by SNAP recipeints. (Which happens to be consistent with the spending of families who do not participate in the SNAP program).

    https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/pros-and-cons-of-restricting-snap-purchases/

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited August 2017
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Ainadan wrote: »
    As someone who audited government programs for a few years, I wanted to add my piece to the discussion.

    We have a problem with foodstamps, and there is a LOT of fraud in that industry. A few of my auditor buddies discovered a foodstamp/WIC ring that was bringing in millions. This happened within my office while I was working there, so it wasn't a friend of a friend, I saw the numbers.

    And a lot of this money isn't taken from the feds, (where it would be a drop in the bucket) but rather from states who are struggling to get by. That is why these discussions are important and are taking place. States are struggling and having to decide where money goes. They don't have the budget the feds do. They aren't paying billions for new spy gear or corporate bailouts. Instead, they have to make hard choices. Should money be spent on soda when it could be spent on education? What about roads? Not to mention the part of medicaid/medicare they have to pay for, and general infrastructure concerns. They have problems. But will not allowing soda solve them? Probably not.

    I think the government should be able to tell people what to do with the government's money. However, TBH, auditing food choices is rather expensive. Auditors like to make money. If the state needs to save money, they are better off just cutting the food stamp benefits some, and hiring a nutritionist to write and send everyone a recipe book/meal planning book which would fit within their foodstamp allocation.

    Yes this is common. A community that writes a grant and gets funding for 20 new public transit buses can't change it's mind and use the money for repairs to public housing or a golf course.

    The WIC program that has been discussed has very specific items that can be obtained with those funds. Are people turning it away?

    I asked this before and did not get a response, but I am genuinely interested. WIC is a long-established program and has specific types of foods that are permitted, and is rather under the radar in that what is permitted has not been a political issue.

    Let's say that SNAP was changed to permit only specific foods. Who decides, and what foods do you think they are. It's not like you can just decide on what YOU think is healthy, there will be a process, it may well be kind of political, likely it is by state. How do we all agree on what gets covered? How limited are you suggesting it should be?

    Before you suggested in return benefits would go up, but it seems you have dropped that part of it, or not? Currently you can often have the benefits go farther if they are used at an approved farmers market, for example -- that's one carrot, not stick, way of encouraging healthy spending.

    I would assume the group that decides what items that would be eligible would be decided by the same organization that determined what is eligible under WIC. Looks like the USDA has primary responsibility with some state flexibility (link also includes basic list of WIC eligible items).

    https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods

    I'm sure there would be much conflict over any changes (most likely from lobbyists of the impacted industries). IMO, I would keep the basic WIC guidelines (some of the biggies, no soda, energy drinks, candy, chips, cookies, super sweetened cereals, etc), current items on the list are fine. I would expand to include leaner, lower cost cuts of meat, poultry and fish.

    Yes, if there were, IMO, sensible restrictions on SNAP eligible items like I mentioned, I would support an increase in benefits (just didn't keep mentioning it).
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited August 2017
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Here is ours: http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=69545

    This is also helpful: https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4008/#wic13

    There are some differences between states. This describes the process.

    The following list provides the Federal requirements for WIC-eligible foods. USDA requirements for WIC-eligible foods can be found in 7 CFR Part 246.10. To view the final rule Federal regulation on the WIC food requirements go to 'Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.' WIC State agencies must use these requirements when authorizing foods on the State WIC food list. However, State agencies do not have to authorize all foods that meet WIC-eligibility requirements.

    https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods
  • emariethomas83
    emariethomas83 Posts: 21 Member
    Soft drinks are not something you need to live. Plain and simple.

    Now beer on the other hand, maybe.

Categories