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

1363739414249

Replies

  • kkimpel
    kkimpel Posts: 303 Member
    as a principal at an elementary school, the safety team and I came up with no soda, no cupcakes, no sugary treats for birthdays. It had gotten where everyone had a half birthday .. cupcakes and sodas at least once a week. I was dubbed the Cupcake Nazi, but we stuck by our commitment to nutrition and every grade level committed to take time to discuss nutrition and an active lifestyle. They got used to it. Last I heard it is still a "healthy choice for snacks" school. (5 years gone)
  • RachelElser
    RachelElser Posts: 1,049 Member
    I think the SNAP system needs a huge overall and should be more like the WIC program.
  • RachelElser
    RachelElser Posts: 1,049 Member
    kshadows wrote: »
    The WIC program gives out checks that very specifically state what you are and aren't able to buy. It's a pain but it gets the job done and ensures people are buying things that are nutritional or necessary. Not saying you can't have a treat on occasion but the inequity of the system is disgusting.

    Since you had SNAP while raising children and you mention WIC i will assume you are or ar least were a participant. WIC sucks big time. At least out where i live. The size of the package is stated on the check not just quantities and the exact items arent always available nearby. Only certain brands of some product are ok and not because they're healthier. I wasnt able to use my WIC checks to buy my dairy allergic daughter unsweetened soy milk for the longest time and i expressed my concern to my WIC office and their on site nutrotionists but they had no answers as to why that was or how it made sense. When we were able to make the trip, a store nearly 40 minutes away from us carries the only unsweetened WIC approved soy milk. Inflicting this kind of torture on SNAP recipients is an awful idea - i get that it simplifies things for everyone else but it makes our lives hell. There does need to be a regulatory system but i dont believe it should be going back to old school food stamps where we are told what to buy

    The closer store refused to order you in some? What jerks! Our local store has little tags on the WIC approved items to make it easier for person who is shopping.
  • urloved33
    urloved33 Posts: 3,325 Member
    In some states drug testing laws are being passed for recipients of social services....
  • Sunshine_And_Sand
    Sunshine_And_Sand Posts: 1,320 Member
    If you make less than a certain income, you can get the child tax credit back as cash. Example you make 20K and have a kid and get all your taxes back plus extra. Because of the credit, someone with kids is no longer contributing to the government proportionately with others who choose not to have kids, and thus it is a form of charity. The government is subsidizing your choice to procreate. Why should someone with kids pay less taxes than someone without them, assuming income stays the same? Why should a two co-habiting people pay more than a couple who is married?

    So... what about people who make too much money to qualify for the child tax credit? They aren't getting that "charity", so do you feel they have the right to say food stamps should be restricted?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    sarjenki wrote: »
    If you make less than a certain income, you can get the child tax credit back as cash. Example you make 20K and have a kid and get all your taxes back plus extra. Because of the credit, someone with kids is no longer contributing to the government proportionately with others who choose not to have kids, and thus it is a form of charity. The government is subsidizing your choice to procreate. Why should someone with kids pay less taxes than someone without them, assuming income stays the same? Why should a two co-habiting people pay more than a couple who is married?

    So... what about people who make too much money to qualify for the child tax credit? They aren't getting that "charity", so do you feel they have the right to say food stamps should be restricted?

    I think the point is that there are all sorts of government benefits that come without restrictions on how they can be used. To focus specifically on food stamps is a choice.
  • amfmmama
    amfmmama Posts: 1,420 Member
    The government is trying to do what it can to control the child obesity epidemic. It is obvious that parents are failing to make smart decisions so micro management is the only way. Freedom is a fine thing, but without responsibility it is a detriment.

    I work in a high school in a poor urban district, and I assure the government is doing little, to nothing to control the child obesity issue in this country.
  • Sunshine_And_Sand
    Sunshine_And_Sand Posts: 1,320 Member
    sarjenki wrote: »
    If you make less than a certain income, you can get the child tax credit back as cash. Example you make 20K and have a kid and get all your taxes back plus extra. Because of the credit, someone with kids is no longer contributing to the government proportionately with others who choose not to have kids, and thus it is a form of charity. The government is subsidizing your choice to procreate. Why should someone with kids pay less taxes than someone without them, assuming income stays the same? Why should a two co-habiting people pay more than a couple who is married?

    So... what about people who make too much money to qualify for the child tax credit? They aren't getting that "charity", so do you feel they have the right to say food stamps should be restricted?

    I think the point is that there are all sorts of government benefits that come without restrictions on how they can be used. To focus specifically on food stamps is a choice.

    Not really arguing that point... My point is that from the perspective of tax payers who consistently fund the government programs for people who don't pay Into the system (and I'm not trying to make any comments about people who get the benefits, and I also understand that a lot of them get the benefits for perfectly legitimate reasons), it is a little bit off putting to have a tax credit on income you actually earned be compared to "charity" and placed on that same level as all the programs you have no choice but to fund.
    Also, while I'm on that topic, I don't really even consider tax funded benefits as "charity", as to me, "charity" implies that the people who funded it did so willingly, whereas taxes aren't really a choice.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    sarjenki wrote: »
    sarjenki wrote: »
    If you make less than a certain income, you can get the child tax credit back as cash. Example you make 20K and have a kid and get all your taxes back plus extra. Because of the credit, someone with kids is no longer contributing to the government proportionately with others who choose not to have kids, and thus it is a form of charity. The government is subsidizing your choice to procreate. Why should someone with kids pay less taxes than someone without them, assuming income stays the same? Why should a two co-habiting people pay more than a couple who is married?

    So... what about people who make too much money to qualify for the child tax credit? They aren't getting that "charity", so do you feel they have the right to say food stamps should be restricted?

    I think the point is that there are all sorts of government benefits that come without restrictions on how they can be used. To focus specifically on food stamps is a choice.

    Not really arguing that point... My point is that from the perspective of tax payers who consistently fund the government programs for people who don't pay Into the system (and I'm not trying to make any comments about people who get the benefits, and I also understand that a lot of them get the benefits for perfectly legitimate reasons), it is a little bit off putting to have a tax credit on income you actually earned be compared to "charity" and placed on that same level as all the programs you have no choice but to fund.
    Also, while I'm on that topic, I don't really even consider tax funded benefits as "charity", as to me, "charity" implies that the people who funded it did so willingly, whereas taxes aren't really a choice.

    Ah, I see your point.

    When the tax credit is given for specific purposes (like having children and being under a certain income level), I do consider it to be a government benefit of a type. I don't consider it to be "charity," but neither do I consider food stamps to be "charity" (for the same reasons that you don't).
  • lakinapook
    lakinapook Posts: 14 Member
    I don't have an opinion either way, but maybe they are thinking of doing that because buying soda then reselling it at a discount for the cash is a well known SNAP scam.
  • Mikkimeow
    Mikkimeow Posts: 139 Member
    Micro managing people already in poverty is a terrible idea.

    I lived off foodstamps as a single mother. Many times, I spent what I had on fruits, vegetables, and frozen/canned veggies and meat. When I ran out of stamps that was it. I was lucky that I had been educated on moderation and food intake, but many aren't. Most Americans need understanding of calorie intake and macro balance before resorting to restricting what they can and cannot eat. For many, that is all they have.