Food Stamps

[Ingledsva]

Yep, I've seen this too. I think there needs to be a limit on what you can buy with food stamps.

I also think there should be a child limit. The number of children you have when you first enter the Food stamp program - should be all they ever pay for from that point on. In other words - quite having babies you can't afford - forcing the rest of us to pay for them. They should also have to use a photo ID on the card to help prevent fraud.

With that said - I'm against the cuts, - but I am for a much needed work-over of the system.

There already are limits on what someone can buy with food stamps.

And as for the child limit-
Fractal wrongness - RationalWiki

OK! For all that have answered this.

Food stamp (SNAP) people can buy expensive steak, seafood, cakes, candy, chips, pop, energy drinks, and even gift baskets if they have food items in them, and the junk items don't exceed 50% of the purchase price.

We very obviously could trim our costs by a lot, - and save the program, - if we made people eat healthier - refusing to fund cake, cookies, pop, etc. - and banned high cost steaks and the like that the average person can't afford to buy. It is supposed to be food help for those that can't afford it, - NOT steak and gift baskets.

Eligible Food Items

As for the children - why should we fund people that can't even afford food - popping out baby after baby? It should read that the number of children you have when entering the Food stamp program - is the total number they will ever pay for, - thus discouraging the get more free stuff per child baby mill.

*

 

[Curious George]

OK! For all that have answered this.

Food stamp (SNAPS) people can buy expensive steak, seafood, cakes, candy, chips, pop, energy drinks, and even gift baskets if they have food items in them, and the junk items don't exceed 50% of the purchase price.

We very obviously could trim our costs by a lot, - and save the program, - if we made people eat healthier - refusing to fund cake, cookies, pop, etc. - and banned high cost steaks and the like that the average person can't afford to buy. It is supposed to be food help for those that can't afford it, - NOT steak and gift baskets.

Eligible Food Items

As for the children - why should we fund people that can't even afford food - popping out baby after baby? It should read that the number of children you have when entering the Food stamp program - is the total number they will ever pay for, - thus discouraging the get more free stuff per child baby mill.

*

Rather than preventing people from getting a good deal on "priced to sell" steaks, or making a choice to purchase a special treat, such as a steak dinner for a birthday or a Snickers for a good report card, I would support purchase tracking to sift through recipients who are potentially abusing the system.

As for the children- we should fund the children's food costs because small costs up front can outweigh much bigger costs down the road. But personally I prefer to look at it from a humanitarian perspective and, thus, assert that we should fund the children's food costs because not doing so is inhumane and contrary to principles which we hold dear- such as equality.

 

[Ingledsva]

Rather than preventing people from getting a good deal on "priced to sell" steaks, or making a choice to purchase a special treat, such as a steak dinner for a birthday or a Snickers for a good report card,

I don't agree. We can't stop the abuse unless we ban certain high cost items.

And giving children junk food for good grades is never a good idea.

I would support purchase tracking to sift through recipients who are potentially abusing the system.

This would help, but it is far more costly then just banning junk food from the list.

And think how much more healthy these families would be.

As for the children- we should fund the children's food costs because small costs up front can outweigh much bigger costs down the road. But personally I prefer to look at it from a humanitarian perspective and, thus, assert that we should fund the children's food costs because not doing so is inhumane and contrary to principles which we hold dear- such as equality.

I am not saying to not give food to children. Our system gives more food stamps and other assistance per each added child.

People who can't afford food - should not be abusing children by having them!

Thus - no more food stamps or assistance beyond the number of children you already had when you entered the assistance program.

People who already have children fall on hard times, and that is fine, assist them; but do not pay for the extra poor mouths they CHOOSE to produce beyond that point, while having no money to feed and house them.


*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You can't buy candy, snack cakes and the like already. I don't see what the problem is with buying soda. Processed meat? What should we buy, then? Organic? You know how much that stuff costs? If you're poor you pretty much have to buy less healthy things just to be able to eat.

Yes, you can buy them. I used to work with a girl who would buy bags and candy and cookies and cupcakes with her food stamps to share at work. You can even buy certain types of energy drinks, although what qualifies and what doesn't seems to be arbitrary and constantly changing. The problem with soda is it unhealthy junk, and is something the body does not need. And there are types of meat that aren't sausages, hot dogs, bologna, and not necessarily "organic" either. As for buying things labeled "organic," you are much better going to the local farmers market and not supporting the unethical farce that is "organic" foods.

 

[Curious George]

I don't agree. We can't stop the abuse unless we ban certain high cost items.

No, there is a level of abuse that you will never be able to stop, period. If we are trying to prevent abuse our solution should be narrowly tailored for that. Your solution is not.

And giving children junk food for good grades is never a good idea.

I agree - But bad ideas are not abuses of the system necessarily. If you are captain vegetable and it is your job to police the health habits of people, I could understand your concern. However, you are not.

This would help, but it is far more costly then just banning junk food from the list.

And think how much more healthy these families would be.

Part of the problem is that junk food is a very vague term. However, we could probably agree that Candy is "junk food." But is letting someone have a Kit-Kat really that bad? I understand alcohol, I understand cigarettes- but seriously, a friggin' kit-kat. I would hazard a guess you have not lived in extreme poverty. It sucks not having anything. It sucks going to bed hungry. It sucks when so many others around you or on TV seem to have things that you can never have. And we really need to be so stingy as to say "nope, you can't buy your kid a flippin' candy bar." Sorry, I am not on board. If you want to stop people from buying 300 candy bars a month, the same goal can be achieved through tracking food purchases.

I am not saying to not give food to children. Our system gives more food stamps and other assistance per each added child.

People who can't afford food - should not be abusing children by having them!

Thus - no more food stamps or assistance beyond the number of children you already had when you entered the assistance program.

People who already have children fall on hard times, and that is fine, assist them; but do not pay for the extra poor mouths they CHOOSE to produce beyond that point, while having no money to feed and house them.


*

So in other words- stop giving food to the children (at least the ones who come along afterwards).

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't agree. We can't stop the abuse unless we ban certain high cost items.

No, there is a level of abuse that you will never be able to stop, period. If we are trying to prevent abuse our solution should be narrowly tailored for that. Your solution is not.

Yes there will always be abuse, however we need to stem the tide.

And giving children junk food for good grades is never a good idea.

I agree - But bad ideas are not abuses of the system necessarily. If you are captain vegetable and it is your job to police the health habits of people, I could understand your concern. However, you are not.

Indeed it is not my job to police health habits, - however, - as a tax payer paying for their "assistance" then I have an absolute right to ask for changes to lower the costs, especially when such would actually make them healthier, - And also keep the programs funded.

This would help, but it is far more costly then just banning junk food from the list.

And think how much more healthy these families would be.

Part of the problem is that junk food is a very vague term. However, we could probably agree that Candy is "junk food." But is letting someone have a Kit-Kat really that bad? I understand alcohol, I understand cigarettes- but seriously, a friggin' kit-kat.

I don't have a problem with someone having a candy bar. I have a problem PAYING for someone else's candy bar.

I would hazard a guess you have not lived in extreme poverty. It sucks not having anything. It sucks going to bed hungry. It sucks when so many others around you or on TV seem to have things that you can never have. And we really need to be so stingy as to say "nope, you can't buy your kid a flippin' candy bar." Sorry, I am not on board. If you want to stop people from buying 300 candy bars a month, the same goal can be achieved through tracking food purchases.

You are bringing up stuff that has nothing to so with the subject. We are not denying anyone a candy bar. We just don't want to pay for it. They are on assistance that WE pay for. The Republican party wants to dump this because it is so expensive. I want it to remain in place - but with changes that will lower the cost substantially.

I am not saying to not give food to children. Our system gives more food stamps and other assistance per each added child.

People who can't afford food - should not be abusing children by having them!

Thus - no more food stamps or assistance beyond the number of children you already had when you entered the assistance program.

People who already have children fall on hard times, and that is fine, assist them; but do not pay for the extra poor mouths they CHOOSE to produce beyond that point, while having no money to feed and house them.

So in other words- stop giving food to the children (at least the ones who come along afterwards).

Putting the rule into effect would stop people from having the extra children that they cant feed and clothe.

The idea is not to hurt children, or their parents. It is to stop fraud and misuse of people's tax money. No children will be hurt, if parents with no means to support more children, don't have them.

To put it bluntly - why should I pay for idiots who already have children, are poor and on assistance/food stamps, etc, - and then decide to have even more children they can't afford to feed and clothe?

Just so we are clear here - I am not calling people on assistance - idiots.

I'm calling people on assistance - that continue to have children they can't support - idiots.

*

 

[no-body]

I don't agree. We can't stop the abuse unless we ban certain high cost items.
*

This argument doesn't make sense to me, once the money is gone it's gone. Doesn't matter what they spend it on. If they buy nothing but a couple of crates of marshmallows that's what they are stuck to eat with for the month. It doesn't cost you any more or less.

 

[Ingledsva]

I don't agree. We can't stop the abuse unless we ban certain high cost items.

This argument doesn't make sense to me, once the money is gone it's gone. Doesn't matter what they spend it on. If they buy nothing but a couple of crates of marshmallows that's what they are stuck to eat with for the month. It doesn't cost you any more or less.

This is only one of the problems. For instance someone earlier mentioned buying high priced steaks, etc, with food stamps, and then selling the food for cash, which can then be used for alcohol and drugs.

There is another problem with this one - if parents buy high priced one night foods - when they could have bought 6 pounds of hamburger for the same price, and fed their families for a week - doesn't that say there is a problem with how they are feeding their families? How much food are the children being denied, before the next batch of food stamps come in, just so the parents can eat high on the hog, or sell the expensive foods for drug or alcohol money?

There needs to be a total reform of the system.

*

 

[Curious George]

Yes there will always be abuse, however we need to stem the tide.

And I suppose that killing the poor would stem the tide as well, So would discontinuing social welfare programs all together, the point is that we should stem the tide in a way that is narrowly construed to affect the issue, not just jump on any idea that might help towards that means.

Indeed it is not my job to police health habits, - however, - as a tax payer paying for their "assistance" then I have an absolute right to ask for changes to lower the costs, especially when such would actually make them healthier, - And also keep the programs funded.

How would preventing someone from buying a candy bar really lower the costs?

I don't have a problem with someone having a candy bar. I have a problem PAYING for someone else's candy bar.

Really, I am sorry to hear that. But just think of it like this, rather than paying for someone else's candy bar, you are helping the economy.

You are bringing up stuff that has nothing to so with the subject. We are not denying anyone a candy bar. We just don't want to pay for it. They are on assistance that WE pay for. The Republican party wants to dump this because it is so expensive. I want it to remain in place - but with changes that will lower the cost substantially.

No, I believe that these ideas are pivotal to the subject. It is very easy to sit back and criticize something which is distant. But, what are we really talking about: Are there abuses-sure. But does a cake for a birthday really compromise the system, does a candy bar really represent a true tipping point for a viable system vs. a failing system? No, of course not. My experience with people is that they often tend to get upset with social welfare programs because they think that it is just unfair. The idea that someone else got a cake is upsetting. Because the minimal amount that you paid that actually went towards each cake or candy bar out there would somehow better fit in your pocket. The programs are necessary to save you money. And if someone buys a cake, a candy bar, or a steak- hell, even if some people cheat the system, then it is still better than if you had hoarded your pennies in the first place.

The poverty is an issue because people are getting up in arms about someone's choice to buy a candy bar with monies they did not earn. So, shat? Your reasoning: "it's junk food" but with the steak? your reasoning: "it's not cost effective." I think the real reasoning is you don't feel they deserve that. The recipients of these programs are not living it up. A candy bar once and a while will not hurt a kid, and a steak once and a while will not use up all of the funds needlessly. So, the only thing left is that you don't want them to have it. Thus, your suggestion is too broad. If you want to talk about better the system, I am all ears. But if your ideas are based on some self-entitled philosophy that is reminiscent of a kid throwing a tantrum because someone else got a bigger slice of the cupcake, while you sit with uncounted, and unexamined advantages- then I will object.

Putting the rule into effect would stop people from having the extra children that they cant feed and clothe.

Really, will it?

The idea is not to hurt children, or their parents. It is to stop fraud and misuse of people's tax money. No children will be hurt, if parents with no means to support more children, don't have them.

But more children will be had, so children will be hurt. And you are proposing that we further extend the hurt by limiting those children's access to resources.

To put it bluntly - why should I pay for idiots who already have children, are poor and on assistance/food stamps, etc, - and then decide to have even more children they can't afford to feed and clothe?

why should you pay for education of others children in the first place, why should you pay for anyone else? why should you pay for insurance?

When you pay for social welfare programs that is taking a proactive step to avoid future problems. You don't like paying for food stamps- then pay a higher cost for the increase in theft, pay a higher cost for the increase in prisons, pay a higher cost for the increase in health costs, pay a higher cost for the increase in police force, pay a higher cost for the increase in crime- A hungry people are an unhappy people and you will pay the cost.

Just so we are clear here - I am not calling people on assistance - idiots.

I wouldn't think that you were.

I'm calling people on assistance - that continue to have children they can't support - idiots.
*

We are all guilty of being idiots. And it is very sorrowful that parents make poor reproductive choices that disadvantage the children they already have and the they will birth. But, I have always felt compassion a better way to approach the subject. Approaching the subject with spite helps no one.

 

[Curious George]

This is only one of the problems. For instance someone earlier mentioned buying high priced steaks, etc, with food stamps, and then selling the food for cash, which can then be used for alcohol and drugs.

There is another problem with this one - if parents buy high priced one night foods - when they could have bought 6 pounds of hamburger for the same price, and fed their families for a week - doesn't that say there is a problem with how they are feeding their families? How much food are the children being denied, before the next batch of food stamps come in, just so the parents can eat high on the hog, or sell the expensive foods for drug or alcohol money?

There needs to be a total reform of the system.

*

I agree that children are being denied plenty, and their are plenty of people taking advantage of the system. However, I do not think that purchasing a candy bar once in a while, or a steak once in a while is an abuse of the system.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This argument doesn't make sense to me, once the money is gone it's gone. Doesn't matter what they spend it on. If they buy nothing but a couple of crates of marshmallows that's what they are stuck to eat with for the month. It doesn't cost you any more or less.

If they buy crates of marshmallows, we will be paying again probably when this person develops diabetes.

And I suppose that killing the poor would stem the tide as well, So would discontinuing social welfare programs all together, the point is that we should stem the tide in a way that is narrowly construed to affect the issue, not just jump on any idea that might help towards that means.

So saying that people who are on food stamps should not be able to buy junk with food stamps (if they want a candy bar, go for it. Just not at the tax payers expense), is supposed to be sorta on pay with saying you are fine with killing the poor and discontinuing welfare programs? If they are getting public assistance, why shouldn't there be limits on only buying healthy food? We aren't saying they should starve, we aren't even saying give them less money. We just saying make it so the tax payers are assisting them with buying healthy foods, not junk foods that are ultimately health hazards. In addition, it may potentially help to train people to buy healthy nutritious food over things that can make them sick once they are off public assistance.

 

[kjw47]

Rather than preventing people from getting a good deal on "priced to sell" steaks, or making a choice to purchase a special treat, such as a steak dinner for a birthday or a Snickers for a good report card, I would support purchase tracking to sift through recipients who are potentially abusing the system.

As for the children- we should fund the children's food costs because small costs up front can outweigh much bigger costs down the road. But personally I prefer to look at it from a humanitarian perspective and, thus, assert that we should fund the children's food costs because not doing so is inhumane and contrary to principles which we hold dear- such as equality.

What equality is that--no such thing in a capitalist society. The ultra rich place themselves on a pedastel when they are the cause for so many going without. How man y families have nothing because Gates is worth 72 billion? or Buffet who made 12.5 billion this year so far? thousands and thousands of families are going without because of the root of all evil--the love of money. greed runs a capitalistic society = antichrist society to pursue capitalism.

 

[Curious George]

If they buy crates of marshmallows, we will be paying again probably when this person develops diabetes.


So saying that people who are on food stamps should not be able to buy junk with food stamps (if they want a candy bar, go for it. Just not at the tax payers expense), is supposed to be sorta on pay with saying you are fine with killing the poor and discontinuing welfare programs? If they are getting public assistance, why shouldn't there be limits on only buying healthy food? We aren't saying they should starve, we aren't even saying give them less money. We just saying make it so the tax payers are assisting them with buying healthy foods, not junk foods that are ultimately health hazards. In addition, it may potentially help to train people to buy healthy nutritious food over things that can make them sick once they are off public assistance.

The point was that when you try to make broad rules, those rules serve purposes beyond the actual complaint. So, let us deal with the actual problem in a way which addresses that problem, rather than get all uppity because a family wants to buy their kid a candy bar every once in a while.

 

[Revoltingest]

I invented a "food depot" program for Revoltingistan many years ago.
- Anyone can go to the depot & take whatever food they want for free.
- Everyone is eligible, so there's minimal bureaucracy.
- The food is cheap for depots (gov contractors) to buy, but will require preparation (nothing
fast about it), eg, powdered eggs, flour, veggies which need damaged parts trimmed off.
Advantages over food stamps:
- You never run out at the end of the month.
- You have an incentive to earn money to buy junk food, fast food, or gourmet food.
- No one goes hungry.

There will certainly be details & problems to work out, but I'm up for trying it in Americastan.
Whaddaya think?

 

[Curious George]

I invented a "food depot" program for Revoltingistan many years ago.
- Anyone can go to the depot & take whatever food they want for free.
- Everyone is eligible, so there's minimal bureaucracy.
- The food is cheap for depots (gov contractors) to buy, but will require preparation (nothing
fast about it), eg, powdered eggs, flour, veggies which need damaged parts trimmed off.
Advantages over food stamps:
- You never run out at the end of the month.
- You have an incentive to earn money to buy junk food, fast food, or gourmet food.
- No one goes hungry.

There will certainly be details & problems to work out, but I'm up for trying it in Americastan.
Whaddaya think?

I do not know how much food you are planning on handing out, but I have personally, handed out truck-fulls to small communities. I think that you should open your warehouse and connect with some of the people in real need and perhaps you will gain insight.

Don't you realize that food stamps are just one of the ways in which the government subsidizes small businesses like local grocery stores?

 

[Revoltingest]

I do not know how much food you are planning on handing out, but I have personally, handed out truck-fulls to small communities. I think that you should open your warehouse and connect with some of the people in real need and perhaps you will gain insight.

I've no desire to gain insight into the miserable lives of the poor. But in my depots,
the clientele will be diverse, eg, poor, wealthy cheapskates, students.

Don't you realize that food stamps are just one of the ways in which the government subsidizes small businesses like local grocery stores?

I'm no fan of subsidies, which is why I want mine to be as cheap & effective as possible.

 

[Curious George]

I've no desire to gain insight into the miserable lives of the poor.


I'm no fan of subsidies, which is why I want mine to be as cheap & effective as possible.

I know, you are a fan of unions though- that is the libertarian stance after all.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Don't you realize that food stamps are just one of the ways in which the government subsidizes small businesses like local grocery stores?

Why hell yes, we should support establishment that collect government money for overpriced candy and sodas.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know, you are a fan of unions though- that is the libertarian stance after all.

I don't think there is a single libertarian stance on unions.
Personally, I don't like'm. But workers should be able to form them.

 

[Curious George]

I've no desire to gain insight into the miserable lives of the poor. But in my depots,
the clientele will be diverse, eg, poor, wealthy cheapskates, students.

I'm no fan of subsidies, which is why I want mine to be as cheap & effective as possible.

but the government giving money without limitations provides aid which helps the free market. Restricting what they can get for the money which the government gives will only further hinder free trade.