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
Replies
-
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?3 -
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.
An EBT card will also sometimes include cash benefits. If people are buying hot prepared food in Maryland with an EBT card, this is how they're doing it. They're using the cash portion of their benefits, not the food stamp portion.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
An EBT card will also sometimes include cash benefits. If people are buying hot prepared food in Maryland with an EBT card, this is how they're doing it. They're using the cash portion of their benefits, not the food stamp portion.
Wait. So, are you saying I can't peak over someone's shoulder at the checkout and accurately judge if they are frauds, cheaters, lazy benefits abusers, or just someone who needed a leg up for a couple of months and is behaving reasonably? Interesting15 -
Packerjohn 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.0 -
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.0 -
Here is ours: http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=69545
This is also helpful: https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4008/#wic130 -
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/
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn 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).1 -
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-foods0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
An EBT card will also sometimes include cash benefits. If people are buying hot prepared food in Maryland with an EBT card, this is how they're doing it. They're using the cash portion of their benefits, not the food stamp portion.
Wait. So, are you saying I can't peak over someone's shoulder at the checkout and accurately judge if they are frauds, cheaters, lazy benefits abusers, or just someone who needed a leg up for a couple of months and is behaving reasonably? Interesting
My family was on food stamps for a bit (my dad lost his job and had significant health problems and my mom had been out of the workforce for a while raising us so she wasn't able to get a job adequate to cover family expenses at first). She cooked virtually all our meals and was great at making the grocery budget stretch, but we had treats sometimes (on our birthday, we were allowed to pick out whatever kind of sugary cereal we wanted -- something we didn't have any other time).
We were all working hard at that point in our lives. I know people in this thread have shared their experiences of how easy it is to get public assistance, but it was actually relatively hard for my family -- maybe it was where we lived. We had to sell one of the two cars we had in order to qualify (meaning the whole family had to juggle different work and school schedules around one car while not living close to town). I was older, so I was able to get a job (and another of my siblings was too). It was one of the more challenging periods of my life. There were probably times when I was that person using an EBT card to purchase something that looked "unworthy," 2 liters of off-brand soda for somebody's birthday or a box of off-brand Frosted Flakes (my mom was working and going to school, so I did a lot of the grocery shopping). And since I often had one or two very young children with me, I imagine people often assumed that my poor life choices put me in the position that I was in. A sixteen-year-old with a toddler, buying sugary cereal, perpetuating a cycle of poor choices, malnourishment, and poverty . . .
So when it comes to looking at someone in the grocery store or 7/11 and assuming I know what led them there and the circumstances of their lives, I'm not a proponent. Sometimes our assumptions are right, but sometimes they're wrong.
There are cheats and lazy people. But if we have to err, I want to err on the side of kids having food.31 -
To me, this is always one of those issues that gets blown out of proportion and often reveals worst in people rather than their best.
According to this website
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2017USbn_18bs6n_203031_605#usgs302
Total spending on "food stamps" was less than 2% of the federal budget. The amount spent is less than 8% of the Pentagon budget.
Social security, defense, Medicare, and medicaid make up over 70% of the US budget. As is often stated, the US government is essentially "an insurance program with an army".
I seriously doubt that you would get 17 pages of debate over "restricting" defense spending, or corporate welfare, or even social security cuts.
Yet some people are obsessed with the idea that a poor person might buy a $1.49 bag of f---king potato chips.
The whole concept of "welfare cheats" is 95% a white, suburban, paranoid fantasy. The real welfare deadbeats in this country wear $2000 suits.35 -
Soft drinks are not something you need to live. Plain and simple.
Now beer on the other hand, maybe.3 -
emariethomas83 wrote: »Soft drinks are not something you need to live. Plain and simple.
Now beer on the other hand, maybe.
Omg it needed keep my wink. I was totally kidding about the beer. I now look like an alcoholic.
6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
An EBT card will also sometimes include cash benefits. If people are buying hot prepared food in Maryland with an EBT card, this is how they're doing it. They're using the cash portion of their benefits, not the food stamp portion.
Wait. So, are you saying I can't peak over someone's shoulder at the checkout and accurately judge if they are frauds, cheaters, lazy benefits abusers, or just someone who needed a leg up for a couple of months and is behaving reasonably? Interesting
My family was on food stamps for a bit (my dad lost his job and had significant health problems and my mom had been out of the workforce for a while raising us so she wasn't able to get a job adequate to cover family expenses at first). She cooked virtually all our meals and was great at making the grocery budget stretch, but we had treats sometimes (on our birthday, we were allowed to pick out whatever kind of sugary cereal we wanted -- something we didn't have any other time).
We were all working hard at that point in our lives. I know people in this thread have shared their experiences of how easy it is to get public assistance, but it was actually relatively hard for my family -- maybe it was where we lived. We had to sell one of the two cars we had in order to qualify (meaning the whole family had to juggle different work and school schedules around one car while not living close to town). I was older, so I was able to get a job (and another of my siblings was too). It was one of the more challenging periods of my life. There were probably times when I was that person using an EBT card to purchase something that looked "unworthy," 2 liters of off-brand soda for somebody's birthday or a box of off-brand Frosted Flakes (my mom was working and going to school, so I did a lot of the grocery shopping). And since I often had one or two very young children with me, I imagine people often assumed that my poor life choices put me in the position that I was in. A sixteen-year-old with a toddler, buying sugary cereal, perpetuating a cycle of poor choices, malnourishment, and poverty . . .
So when it comes to looking at someone in the grocery store or 7/11 and assuming I know what led them there and the circumstances of their lives, I'm not a proponent. Sometimes our assumptions are right, but sometimes they're wrong.
There are cheats and lazy people. But if we have to err, I want to err on the side of kids having food.
VERY well expressed!2 -
emariethomas83 wrote: »emariethomas83 wrote: »Soft drinks are not something you need to live. Plain and simple.
Now beer on the other hand, maybe.
Omg it needed keep my wink. I was totally kidding about the beer. I now look like an alcoholic.
Or coffee
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn 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).
My point is somewhat different, though. Do you think the food choices would not get highly politicized if the changes were made today? And were supposed to be the basis for a full diet and not just supplementing common nutrient lacks for expecting mothers, breastfeeding moms, and infants?
If you look at that list (granted, there are variations), it's extremely grain intensive, no meat (but for canned tuna for breatfeeding moms and in baby food), strict limits for everything. I find it hard to believe there'd not be a huge fight over what is healthy, much like on this forum, much like with the dietary guidelines.
And once the list is expanded, especially if the restrictions on amounts are kept, that adds to the difficulties for the vendor. (Although I defer to those who have been involved as checkout clerks or otherwise with vendors on this.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn 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).
My point is somewhat different, though. Do you think the food choices would not get highly politicized if the changes were made today? And were supposed to be the basis for a full diet and not just supplementing common nutrient lacks for expecting mothers, breastfeeding moms, and infants?
If you look at that list (granted, there are variations), it's extremely grain intensive, no meat (but for canned tuna for breatfeeding moms and in baby food), strict limits for everything. I find it hard to believe there'd not be a huge fight over what is healthy, much like on this forum, much like with the dietary guidelines.
And once the list is expanded, especially if the restrictions on amounts are kept, that adds to the difficulties for the vendor. (Although I defer to those who have been involved as checkout clerks or otherwise with vendors on this.)
I can picture this process being the focus of intense debate. Not only would lobbyists and trade organizations become involved, you'd also have people who are extremely convinced of the healthfulness (or harm) of certain macro- and micronutrients.
Would items high in saturated fat be considered acceptable? What about sweet beverages that aren't soda, like apple juice? Would refined grains be on the list or processed meats? Canned items that are high in sodium?
Even relatively non-controversial food items still have detractors claiming people shouldn't eat them (if you think sugar causes health problems, you aren't going to approve of tax dollars going towards bananas, if you think animal products cause illness, you won't approve of tax dollars going to fish or yogurt).
Maybe this is why letting people who are truly impacted by these decisions (those eating the food) make their own call is the best idea. They won't always get it right, but I'm not so sure we (as in the government) would get it better.8 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Chef_Barbell wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »We have food banks here, same thing, largely run by church groups and charities. Again you can't go every week and you have to be referred by another agency like a social worker etc. Even they try to throw in a "treat" like a packet of biscuits or some chocolate.
Same here.
A good majority on SNAP are elderly, disabled and children. Not these extreme cases that people seem to pull out their *kitten* whenever this debate comes up. They don't deserve treats or snacks?
They deserve and need their resources to be used for nutrient dense foods.
Only?
Need to prioritize. The government should provide assistance to ensure good nutrition so yes.
And if they already are providing good nutrition and have left over?
Then they are probably getting too much assistance.
Or they budget their assistance well.
Good for them. In that case they don't need as much.
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.
So a grass fed ribeye would be ok?
Nope (although I did watch a guy in front of me buy one and a can of Pringles with a SNAP card and pulled out cash for a $11.99 6 pack of beer and 2 packs of cigs).
I would propose something along the lines of foods allowed in the WIC program. Nutritious, but not premium products.
Always a story of someone "cheating" the system. So no "premium" meat but nutritious things are allowed. Why not just line up the poor and feed them from the chow line?
Seems apposite2 -
Since people have brought up WIC compared to SNAP and mentioned lining up the poor for a chow line I wanted to mention another existing form of government food assistance. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program. https://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/commodity-supplemental-food-program-csfp
My family has not received food stamps but did qualify for commodities and received that when we lived on a reservation some years ago. We were given a list of food each month that our family size would be allowed. We could choose so much in each category. We turned in our list by a certain date and then picked up boxes of food once a month. Most of the food was not fresh but shelf stable pantry basic food. It was not expensive food brands. Pasta, dry beans, flour, baking mix, canned fruit, prunes, raisins, cereal, canned vegetables, saltine crackers, canned milk, oatmeal, canned juice, peanut butter, powdered egg, canned beef stew for example. Fresh food on the list was pretty limited- some frozen chicken parts, giant block of American cheese, potatoes or onions sometimes. You could live off it decently. You didn't have to take everything offered. If you chose the maximum of everything offered it was a car load full of food. Our cupboards were always very full. We felt pretty good about the boxes of food not shamed. We were given a recipe book once using things from the commodities list.
How do people feel about that kind of program?
3 -
Since people have brought up WIC compared to SNAP and mentioned lining up the poor for a chow line I wanted to mention another existing form of government food assistance. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program. https://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/commodity-supplemental-food-program-csfp
My family has not received food stamps but did qualify for commodities and received that when we lived on a reservation some years ago. We were given a list of food each month that our family size would be allowed. We could choose so much in each category. We turned in our list by a certain date and then picked up boxes of food once a month. Most of the food was not fresh but shelf stable pantry basic food. It was not expensive food brands. Pasta, dry beans, flour, baking mix, canned fruit, prunes, raisins, cereal, canned vegetables, saltine crackers, canned milk, oatmeal, canned juice, peanut butter, powdered egg, canned beef stew for example. Fresh food on the list was pretty limited- some frozen chicken parts, giant block of American cheese, potatoes or onions sometimes. You could live off it decently. You didn't have to take everything offered. If you chose the maximum of everything offered it was a car load full of food. Our cupboards were always very full. We felt pretty good about the boxes of food not shamed. We were given a recipe book once using things from the commodities list.
How do people feel about that kind of program?
I remember my grandparents getting commodities (they also lived on the reservation). The cheese made fantastic grilled cheese sandwiches.3 -
This is exactly what I am thinking. If you need a candy bar, a pack of cookies, or a donut, it can come out of your other funds.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.
3 -
I would be for it, except I recently learned Sunny D has less sugar and fewer calories than most real orange juices (heck, even some apple juices) Soda is an easy one to prohibit because there is no nutritional value, but what happens with other foods and drinks? A single pack of instant oatmeal has more calories than a slice of bread; do we start banning oatmeal (even most cereals)? If so, do we give greater allowances for pricier healthy choices like produce to make up for what is lost on the cheaper options? I certainly think something could be planned to make such a bill practical, but the reality is that those responsible for developing such legislation are neither informed nor interested enough to do so.2
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
An EBT card will also sometimes include cash benefits. If people are buying hot prepared food in Maryland with an EBT card, this is how they're doing it. They're using the cash portion of their benefits, not the food stamp portion.
Wait. So, are you saying I can't peak over someone's shoulder at the checkout and accurately judge if they are frauds, cheaters, lazy benefits abusers, or just someone who needed a leg up for a couple of months and is behaving reasonably? Interesting
My family was on food stamps for a bit (my dad lost his job and had significant health problems and my mom had been out of the workforce for a while raising us so she wasn't able to get a job adequate to cover family expenses at first). She cooked virtually all our meals and was great at making the grocery budget stretch, but we had treats sometimes (on our birthday, we were allowed to pick out whatever kind of sugary cereal we wanted -- something we didn't have any other time).
We were all working hard at that point in our lives. I know people in this thread have shared their experiences of how easy it is to get public assistance, but it was actually relatively hard for my family -- maybe it was where we lived. We had to sell one of the two cars we had in order to qualify (meaning the whole family had to juggle different work and school schedules around one car while not living close to town). I was older, so I was able to get a job (and another of my siblings was too). It was one of the more challenging periods of my life. There were probably times when I was that person using an EBT card to purchase something that looked "unworthy," 2 liters of off-brand soda for somebody's birthday or a box of off-brand Frosted Flakes (my mom was working and going to school, so I did a lot of the grocery shopping). And since I often had one or two very young children with me, I imagine people often assumed that my poor life choices put me in the position that I was in. A sixteen-year-old with a toddler, buying sugary cereal, perpetuating a cycle of poor choices, malnourishment, and poverty . . .
So when it comes to looking at someone in the grocery store or 7/11 and assuming I know what led them there and the circumstances of their lives, I'm not a proponent. Sometimes our assumptions are right, but sometimes they're wrong.
There are cheats and lazy people. But if we have to err, I want to err on the side of kids having food.
This is my opinion also.
If someone wants to cheat the system or commit fraud they will do it and we should try to stop it but is that really worth children going hungry? I'm willing to pay for a few people to abuse the system if it means less hungry children. I grew up in poverty and most of the people I grew up with still live in poverty, I wouldn't want to do anything that causes a child to be hungry.8 -
Government money, government rules. Don't like it, get off government money. Problem solved.6
-
-
There is so much condescending bull**** in this comment thread. Here's my take on it. I've been on SNAP twice in my life. Once about 5 years ago, and recently went back on. The last time I was on it, I lost 70lbs. This time, I'm losing weight again. Healthy choices are absolutely doable on as Years ago, we were very nearly destitute. I mean rolling nickels to buy toilet paper broke. I don't think the $3-ish I spent once every week or two for my son to have some Pringles and me to have a diet soda was hurting anyone's precious tax dollars. In the years following my first stint on assistance, I made plenty enough money to put myself into a tax bracket that more than made up for my brief time on SNAP.20
-
stanmann571 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »I like the idea of ruling out complete crap from being purchased. It is not a right to buy junk food, it is a choice, and a luxury one at that, since soda and energy drinks have zero nutrition. The SNAP program was designed to help people in need eat healthier and to assist in food cost. If you don't want to be regulated, stay off goverment assistance programs. I was able to buy plenty of healthy foods the 9 months I was on SNAP.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 1. Soda...specifically Sprite....has saved my life on many occasions when my glucose level plummeted...I'd call that nutritious for the given situation 2. The program was NOT designed to help people in need eat healthier. It WAS designed, however, to help people "in need"...however you define that....gain assistance in food cost. The individuals who make the rules decided that a vast major of users of this program need to be educated on nutrition and thus came all the stipulations. A recent example...used to be able to get 2%,1% and skim milk. Now only 1% and skim is allowed.
Now the bolded comment you made above....RUDE RUDE RUDE and again RUDE! Your assumption is that everyone on the program wants to be on the program---classified ignorance. Oh, and kudos for your 9 month healthy shopping spree but for many people this assistance program is for a lifetime.
IF your "temporary need" is "for a lifetime"... it's not the program that has failed. it's you.
I see now why you only have 6 friends on here. Smh. You know, a closed mind gets you know where in life.7 -
SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »I like the idea of ruling out complete crap from being purchased. It is not a right to buy junk food, it is a choice, and a luxury one at that, since soda and energy drinks have zero nutrition. The SNAP program was designed to help people in need eat healthier and to assist in food cost. If you don't want to be regulated, stay off goverment assistance programs. I was able to buy plenty of healthy foods the 9 months I was on SNAP.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 1. Soda...specifically Sprite....has saved my life on many occasions when my glucose level plummeted...I'd call that nutritious for the given situation 2. The program was NOT designed to help people in need eat healthier. It WAS designed, however, to help people "in need"...however you define that....gain assistance in food cost. The individuals who make the rules decided that a vast major of users of this program need to be educated on nutrition and thus came all the stipulations. A recent example...used to be able to get 2%,1% and skim milk. Now only 1% and skim is allowed.
Now the bolded comment you made above....RUDE RUDE RUDE and again RUDE! Your assumption is that everyone on the program wants to be on the program---classified ignorance. Oh, and kudos for your 9 month healthy shopping spree but for many people this assistance program is for a lifetime.
IF your "temporary need" is "for a lifetime"... it's not the program that has failed. it's you.
I see now why you only have 6 friends on here. Smh. You know, a closed mind gets you know where in life.
I only have 6 friends, because I reject 90% of friend requests because they don't send any introduction.
Additionally, I know what poor looks like, I know what needy looks like and I know(from experience and observation) that a preponderance of those receiving assistance don't "need" it.7 -
SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »
It's exactly that simple for MOST people receiving assistance. Self inflicted problems.6 -
SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »SmithsonianEmpress wrote: »I like the idea of ruling out complete crap from being purchased. It is not a right to buy junk food, it is a choice, and a luxury one at that, since soda and energy drinks have zero nutrition. The SNAP program was designed to help people in need eat healthier and to assist in food cost. If you don't want to be regulated, stay off goverment assistance programs. I was able to buy plenty of healthy foods the 9 months I was on SNAP.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. 1. Soda...specifically Sprite....has saved my life on many occasions when my glucose level plummeted...I'd call that nutritious for the given situation 2. The program was NOT designed to help people in need eat healthier. It WAS designed, however, to help people "in need"...however you define that....gain assistance in food cost. The individuals who make the rules decided that a vast major of users of this program need to be educated on nutrition and thus came all the stipulations. A recent example...used to be able to get 2%,1% and skim milk. Now only 1% and skim is allowed.
Now the bolded comment you made above....RUDE RUDE RUDE and again RUDE! Your assumption is that everyone on the program wants to be on the program---classified ignorance. Oh, and kudos for your 9 month healthy shopping spree but for many people this assistance program is for a lifetime.
IF your "temporary need" is "for a lifetime"... it's not the program that has failed. it's you.
I see now why you only have 6 friends on here. Smh. You know, a closed mind gets you know where in life.
Members have the option to reject friends requests.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions