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
-
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
There are inherently limits on how it's used. It's used only for food (and non cooked food). While there could be a check that could be used for anything in theory, that's not what this is. I don't really have a strong feeling about this, but the idea that it is limited to certain kinds of food (or specifically not for beverages which have no nutrient benefit other than calories) need not be punitive, it can just be similar to how it can't be used for other things, such as non food treats, non food necessities, so on. The reasons not to limit it isn't that it's punitive to do so, IMO, it's that it might be more dignified not to have to make a big deal of it (and not having lots of detailed limits makes that more possible). With the simple "no soda," I don't think that's really an issue, but if we got into lots of other restrictions, I think it could be, and that it's not actually beneficial. What is beneficial is making it easier to use it on things like veg and fruit, and encouraging that, IMO.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
They aren't working for it. Therefore it's given for free.
You're not entitled to anything you don't work for.
This attitude that you're entitled to be fed from someone else's labor is absurd and obscene.
So what about those (like myself) who work, and have worked their entire lives, paying IN to these sort of benefits, and then claiming them when needed? I've worked from the time I was 15 years old. I received SNAP benefits for just under a year at age 26.
Personally, I'd say that's a safety net, and how it should work, and I am happy that my tax dollars go to our society having a safety net.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I don't know how it works where you live, but here in the U.S. the bottom 40% of earners (on average) pay less than $0.00 Federal income tax... Since SNAP is a Federally funded program, I think it's safe to that, by and large, it's "being given for free".
This is insane to think about. I've worked and paid federal (and state) income taxes for my entire life.
ETA - and I don't seem to be considered "the bottom 40%"
Review your "income tax returns". Compare the amount withheld to the amount owed. And yes, if you're earning more than about $30K annually as a single person you're above that bottom 40%.
Then I'm on the cusp (as a single person with 2 dependents)
It doesn't help me to look at a W-2 because I have my withholdings adjusted to give the government the bare minimum.
What confuses people about that stat is that it includes retired people among those who don't pay federal income tax, and also many, many people assume they pay federal income taxes (and apparently get upset at the thought of those who do not), not realizing that the stat does not count state taxes or federal taxes that go to Social Security and Medicare, which is the entirety or vast majority of many people's taxes, even people who would say that they do pay federal income tax. Not saying this is you, but I think the stat confuses people.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »bennettinfinity wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I don't know how it works where you live, but here in the U.S. the bottom 40% of earners (on average) pay less than $0.00 Federal income tax... Since SNAP is a Federally funded program, I think it's safe to that, by and large, it's "being given for free".
This is insane to think about. I've worked and paid federal (and state) income taxes for my entire life.
ETA - and I don't seem to be considered "the bottom 40%"
Review your "income tax returns". Compare the amount withheld to the amount owed. And yes, if you're earning more than about $30K annually as a single person you're above that bottom 40%.
This whole debate is always a fascinating insight into outlooks. In the UK we specifically identify two elements of tax; Income tax and national insurance. Different rates, and different abatements and legislation but it does help to identify that part that largely goes on benefits spending. There are also both local government taxes (community charge) and sales tax, but neither of them then contribute to social welfare spending.
Benefit spending is also both state pension, and any form of assistance, whether for unemployment or incomes that don't allow a basic level of existence.
I quite like the phrasing, it's insurance. We may succeed through an accident of birth, through access to good lawyers, access to education or access to healthcare that might allow one to continue earning despite our circumstances.
Yes, any system can be abused. Again in the UK abuse of the benefit system is dwarfed by abuse of complexity in the tax environment. The big multinationals have a part in that, but disproportionately it's small businesses. The self employed are recognised to be the largest leak of tax equity in the British economy. You wouldn't know that from our media though.
Of course the other side of the coin is the reason for the state spending money on those without the means. It's because it's cheaper than the alternative. We accept a degree of fraudulent usage, because without that support we'd have much more significant challenges, in the health service, in education and in burgeoning crime levels. Prevention certainly beats a problem for which there is no cure.
I alluded upthread to the market driven reasons that lead to systemic, and generational, unemployment. The market in both the US and the U has changed markedly, yet we still train people for jobs that no longer exist.
That's before we even highlight that it's the right thing to do in a liberal democracy (note I'm not using the US interpretation of liberal, but the classical one)1 -
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
5 -
spazztazztic 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
This sux... locally, the WIC center stocks all of the items that can be 'purchased', so all the participants have to do is pick the items off the shelves and have them checked off against their allowance. Makes it much easier and there is no stigma attached because the only people in there are WIC participants.2 -
To the OP topic-
I think SNAP recipients should be able to choose their own food and drinks just like anyone else. I think people who get huffy about poor people drinking soda on the tax payers dime are being petty and should think about ways to help people get out of poverty instead. If anything offering a free class on budgeting and nutrition would be more helpful.
Agreed 100%! On this note - I absolutely love my local food bank and food pantry. They allow customers to come every single day that they are open. They offer cooking classes, home improvements, budgeting, etc, all for free and open to anyone in the community. They also offer a "rewards" system: if you attend classes, sign up for snap, volunteer, etc you earn points which with you can "buy" items that the pantry isn't allowed to hand out (diapers, bus passes, pots/pans, and so much more!)
4 -
SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I disagree. It's government sponsored charity. And those that contribute to that charity with their tax dollars should have a say in what their tax dollars are paying for.11 -
Chef_Barbell wrote: »Nope.
Also, slippery slope.
This. Also, who is making these guidelines and based on what science?
1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SarahLascelles1 wrote: »Some of the arguments in this debate are appalling! The people arguing that food stamps should be restricted to certain foods are basically saying that the people receiving them don't deserve treats. That attitude is straight out of the 18th and 19th century.
No, that's not what they are saying at all. It's not about what someone deserves it's about what they expect for someone else to give them for free.
it's not "being given for free", it's being entitled to as a citizen of a supposedly civilised country. Is funded by taxes, which everyone pays.
The attitude that people receiving benefits should be subjected to arbitrary controls is appalling.
I disagree. It's government sponsored charity. And those that contribute to that charity with their tax dollars should have a say in what their tax dollars are paying for.
And where do you thing that the money comes from? To call a social service a charity is very insulting to people that need help, IMOP.5 -
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)4
-
I think the SNAP system needs a huge overall and should be more like the WIC program.4
-
spazztazztic 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.0 -
In some states drug testing laws are being passed for recipients of social services....4
-
One could also call the child tax credit government supported charity and I can’t imagine anyone presuming to tell people how to allocate those dollars.5
-
marissafit06 wrote: »One could also call the child tax credit government supported charity and I can’t imagine anyone presuming to tell people how to allocate those dollars.
So being able to keep money one has earned is charity now?
Well, I guess that proves that charity really does begin at home.5 -
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?6
-
marissafit06 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?0 -
marissafit06 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.3 -
jhildebrandt73 wrote: »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.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »marissafit06 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.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »marissafit06 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).1 -
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.2
-
lakinapook wrote: »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.
Some people do that not to cheat the system, but because they need other necessities like toilet paper that SNAP doesn't pay for.5 -
No! You have to realize this effects elderly, vets, those on disability ect... I'm not about to try and control what another person eats and as far as my tax dollars going to food stamps I'd rather pay to help people eat then pay for a ton of other things they go towards.6
-
I feel like so many people are taking the humanity/ culture out of eating.
Aside from that, don't forget the people who only have a microwave for cooking, limited to no refrigeration, and might not have the kitchen options you propose. There was a time my business plummeted, I struggled to get more clients to stay on my feet, I was homeless and had 4 kids to feed without a kitchen, I got divorced, I had been a work at home/self employed mom for 11 years and no one would hire me. We had to make a lot of choices that weren't good for us. We ate anything that didn't need cooking. We drank our calories on really bad days. I picked up two more jobs, but still wasn't back on my feet for another year. I was awake and working 18 to 20 hours a day. I ate more and drank things to keep me awake so that I could keep going. And it took even one more year to start REALLY feeling like I was getting somewhere. I still have food stamps, but I'm relying on them less and less. My food choices have always been the best choices I could think to make given my circumstances. I didn't have the time to sit in government classes to learn how to eat better. I couldn't have time to Google meal ideas. I was too busy working my a$& off to better myself and my situation. Not to mention, I have 4 kids to raise.
So next time you judge someone for buying a can of soda or bag of chips, just remember that you don't know their struggle or where their mind is. Lots of soda helped me drive uber and lyft all night while my kids slept and stay awake long enough to take them to school the next day. That soda was my future meal ticket.9 -
Food stamps should not be for soda. Bottled water, yes5
-
It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.9 -
nkovacs53804 wrote: »It’s a huge problem. We deliver “snack packs” to families with kids that have asked for help.
Not one of these families has ever said “thanks” but instead has requested specific free foods.
Soda and other snack food on EBT...no.
When all else fails one could actually join the workforce.
I agree - I realize there are "moments in time" that people may need help..ebt was not meant to be a career move.
7 -
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.
4
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
- 424 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