Food Stamps

[Revoltingest]

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

Don't forget pork rinds.
(Dang! I love those things.)

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

You don't address the cost of taking that money from taxpayers.
I prefer to take as little as possible from them. Markets can be
free without doling out my tax money.

 

[Curious George]

You don't address the cost of taking that money from taxpayers.
I prefer to take as little as possible from them. Markets can be
free without doling out my tax money.

not really, you are proposing that the government only subsidize the powdered egg and agriculture markets. I figured you would just want to reduce the limitations and allow for recipients of social welfare to buy booze and tobacco too.

 

[Curious George]

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

hey, if you don't want to support local small businesses that is your deal.

 

[Revoltingest]

not really, you are proposing that the government only subsidize the powdered egg and agriculture markets.

No. To purchase a product is not the same as a subsidy.

I figured you would just want to reduce the limitations and allow for recipients of social welfare to buy booze and tobacco too.

They could spend their own money as they please.
But they'd be guaranteed 3 squares a day...if they're willing to prepare the food.

 

[Curious George]

No. To purchase a product is not the same as a subsidy.

If the government says you produce this amount and we will guarantee the purchase, it works the same as a subsidy.

But if you want to look at it as an incentive or a contract- then fine, the current snaps program is simply the government supporting our economy by contracting with a hole lot of businesses across the states by putting the money back into the system, instead of selective choosing and directly contracting with one or several major companies. The translation, the current system supports Free market trade whereas your system would not. Your system is more like communism.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the government says you produce this amount and we will guarantee the purchase, it works the same as a subsidy.

No. If purchased at market prices, then gov is just another customer.
A subsidy would be a grant, a low interest loan, tax abatement, etc.
The mere fact of doing business with government does not create "subsidy".

But if you want to look at it as an incentive or a contract- then fine, the current snaps program is simply the government supporting our economy by contracting with a hole lot of businesses across the states by putting the money back into the system, instead of selective choosing and directly contracting with one or several major companies. The translation, the current system supports Free market trade whereas your system would not. Your system is more like communism.

My system certainly appears more communistic, but I'm not worried about appearances or labels.
My system is cheaper & better....there's incentive for the poor to work (without loss of benefits),
there's less bureaucracy, overall cost to taxpayers is lower, & no families suffer from lack of food.
That's what matters.

 

[Curious George]

My system certainly appears more communistic, but I'm not worried about appearances or labels.
My system is cheaper & better....there's incentive for the poor to work (without loss of benefits),
there's less bureaucracy, overall cost to taxpayers is lower, & no families suffer from lack of food.
That's what matters.

And the current system:
supports the free market
supports more jobs by providing funding to local businesses
provides an incentive for the poor to work (have you ever been on food stamps)
and would require less bureaucracy (in your system you would need government workers to move product, manage product, purchase product, oversee the program, provide maintenance to the facilities, etc...) So, I am not so sure your program would cost less- actually, I think it would cost more and provide lower quality food. The only benefit is that you are suggesting unlimited aid. The appeal to many though is to give poor people a crappier subsistence.

 

[Curious George]

No. If purchased at market prices, then gov is just another customer.
A subsidy would be a grant, a low interest loan, tax abatement, etc.
The mere fact of doing business with government does not create "subsidy".

Yes, and it would be a grant if the seller was an unlimited quantity seller.

 

[Revoltingest]

And the current system:
supports the free market
supports more jobs by providing funding to local businesses
provides an incentive for the poor to work (have you ever been on food stamps)
and would require less bureaucracy (in your system you would need government workers to move product, manage product, purchase product, oversee the program, provide maintenance to the facilities, etc...) So, I am not so sure your program would cost less- actually, I think it would cost more and provide lower quality food.

"Lower quality food" is debatable. That would depend upon how the recipient prepares it, & what
they do to supplement it. But at least a family wouldn't run out of food at the end of the month.
My safety net is better than your safety net. Hey...how does this happen,
when you're the caring "progressive", but I'm the insensitive miser?

The only benefit is that you are suggesting unlimited aid. The appeal to many though is to give poor people a crappier subsistence.

You see it as "crappier", but I see it as better than food stamps.
- It would encourage a culture of preparing food from basic ingredients, rather than dependence upon prepared food, eg, Cheetos, canned goods.
- It would avoid children going hungry because of poorly budgeted stamp spending or inadequate subsidy.
- Unlike food stamps, the benefit wouldn't be lost just because the recipient started working & earned too much to qualify.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, and it would be a grant if the seller was an unlimited quantity seller.

People can only eat so much.
I'm not worried about the need to enforce artificial limits.

 

[Curious George]

People can only eat so much.
I'm not worried about the need to enforce artificial limits.

Seller, we are not talking about the consumer (or recipient).

An unlimited quality seller would be like a wal-mart, or Apple, or some other major company. In other words, they can sell an unlimited quantity of a good. Therefore, if the government contracts with them, it is just more money in their pocket. They are not taking product away from other consumers.

So, I have a garden out back and I grow carrots and sell carrots, I can only sell the number of carrots which I can grow. If the government wants to buy 50 carrots and I can grow only 50 carrots, my product is exhausted. So, I cannot sell anyone else carrots. If however, I have an unlimited source of carrots, then the government paying me for 50 carrots does not impact me except for giving me a grant for the price of 50 carrots. I can still go about my regular carrot selling business.

 

[Curious George]

"Lower quality food" is debatable. That would depend upon how the recipient prepares it, & what
they do to supplement it. But at least a family wouldn't run out of food at the end of the month.
My safety net is better than your safety net. Hey...how does this happen,
when you're the caring "progressive", but I'm the insensitive miser?

Oh don't get me wrong, I would like your program in addition to already existing programs, I would also like to add nutritionists and counselors to the payroll to help people better understand food choices.

 

[Curious George]

You see it as "crappier", but I see it as better than food stamps.
- It would encourage a culture of preparing food from basic ingredients, rather than dependence upon prepared food, eg, Cheetos, canned goods.
- It would avoid children going hungry because of poorly budgeted stamp spending or inadequate subsidy.
- Unlike food stamps, the benefit wouldn't be lost just because the recipient started working & earned too much to qualify.

the first one is a valid point, the second two are products of the "unlimited aid" which I conceded was a benefit.

Yet, I would suggest your system would cost more, and do a less efficient job, unless you are planning on expanding to food mobiles as well.

 

[freethinker44]

No. To purchase a product is not the same as a subsidy.

It's better than a subsidy. Subsidies just go to businesses to help them pad their profits where they might invest it in something. Poor people invest nearly all of their income back into the community, so giving the money to the people to purchase goods from the business is better than just giving the money directly to the business. This way businesses get their subsidies and more importantly, the people get something in return.

It's a trickle up theory. We should apply this to all subsidies we give out. No more subsidies for oil companies, just mail checks to taxpayers that can only be exchanged for gas. I'd do the same with farm subsidies and bank subsidies. Why give money to the banks because people are defaulting on their mortgages? It seems to me it would be a better use of taxpayer dollars to pay off those underwater mortgages, so that way we get rid of the banks financial burden and fix the problem that caused their financial burden.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

I don't think you can use the EBT card to buy candy in my state. I don't think the soda thing is that big of a deal. You can buy processed frozen foods and that's not really healthy, either.

 

[no-body]

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.

*

You shouldn't punish all of the people on food stamps because of a few bad apples. It's unfeasible to keep of and track what so many people are doing.

It is already a crime to buy and sell food stamp money or food for cash or drugs and alcohol. It is already also a crime to starve your kids. It makes more sense to focus on that than being a control freak because you can't stand the thought of someone using your tax dollars to buy filet mignon and lobster.

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

The problem is that if you leave those items in - you WILL get the problems.

We need reform of the system.

*

 

[dawny0826]

And that illustrates the crux of the problem. We vote for the best choice offered, not the best choice. The best choice isn't even on the table. The best choice doesn't have a prayer in Hell of running, let alone winning. Because the best choice is an honest person who cares more about improving the nation than getting the votes. Which means they wouldn't get the votes.

Thank you. :clap

 

[Ingledsva]

You shouldn't punish all of the people on food stamps because of a few bad apples. It's unfeasible to keep of and track what so many people are doing.

It is already a crime to buy and sell food stamp money or food for cash or drugs and alcohol. It is already also a crime to starve your kids. It makes more sense to focus on that than being a control freak because you can't stand the thought of someone using your tax dollars to buy filet mignon and lobster.

How exactly is it punishing poor people to say sorry but you can't buy food - that the people who are supporting you - can't afford to buy?

Banning the expensive items, stems some of the abuses.

Banning junk food makes people more healthy. I am sure you have seen some of the multiple studies showing poor people in the USA being mostly obese. This is from buying and eating - fast - junk food. We need change. They need to buy better food and actually cook the family a good dinner. And YES, that means they should also look at frozen TV dinners and calorie and chemical laden frozen lasagna, etc.

I really don't understand the mentality that thinks we, the working middle class, owe the poor - better food then we can afford - and unlimited junk food - again - which the majority have to cut back on, to pay the monthly bills.

I'm on an Island in Southeast Alaska. Everything has to be brought from the mainland by barge or plane, which means it is very expensive. We still hunt for our meat (and BlueWolf shot a moose yesterday, so I'm stoked, LOL ,) and we fish for salmon and halibut, dig clams, dive for scallops, and set pots for shrimp, etc. We tend to buy basic supplies like flour, sugar, and butter, and make our own meals, including cakes, pies, cookies, and even pasta. My neighbor supplies the eggs and chickens.

So again, I don't understand this idea that we owe poor people high dollar food, or junk food, just because they are poor. Basic good food until they get back on their feet - absolutely.

*