Govt control? Food stamps for MT.Dew or Broccoli?

JonnyPistachio

Should the state be able to prevent people from using food stamps to buy junk food at the grocery store?

For Rep. Scott Plakon, R-Longwood, and Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Valrico, the answer is yes. The two lawmakers are sponsoring legislation — HB 1401 and SB 1658 — that would ban the use of food stamps to buy items such as soda and sweets like candy, cake or ice cream.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/fl-lawmaker ... 7869.story

inlet13

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/feds-%E2%80%98poor%E2%80%99-consume-rich/348206

Feds: ‘Poor’ Consume Like The Rich

As President Obama crafts a reelection income equality message aimed at punishing the rich and rewarding the poor, his own government finds that the 46 million living below the so-called “poverty line” live and spend pretty much like everyone else.

Forget the image of Appalachia or rundown ghettos: A collection of federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 63 percent have cable or satellite, 53 percent have a video game system, 50 percent have a computer, 30 percent have two or more cars and 23 percent use TiVo.

“What the government defines as poverty is vastly different from what most Americans envision,” he writes in his newly released book, “The People’s Money.” Consider other details from two recent Department of Agriculture surveys cited in the book:

--On an average day, just 1 percent of households have someone who is forced to miss a meal.

--On any day, children are hungry in .25 percent of U.S. homes.

--96 percent of poor parents say their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn’t afford food.

--83 percent of the poor said they have enough to eat.

Says Rasmussen, “About 40 million Americans are officially defined as living below the poverty line. Yet most of those have adequate levels of food, shelter, clothing and medical care. Sixty-three percent of American adults believe such a family is not living in poverty,” he writes. “Only 16 percent believe that a family is living in poverty if it has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR, but that’s what the average family living in poverty has as defined by the U.S. government,” he adds.

Rasmussen, who condemns Washington for ignoring the public’s will to run out sky-high deficits, doesn’t mean to criticize households with earnings of $22,314, the 2010 poverty level for a family of four, but finds that the nation believes too much is being spent on welfare.

According to his polling in the new book, 71 percent believe too many are receiving federal welfare benefits and would like to see official measures of poverty tightened to reduce the number of eligible participants.

The president, however, is going the other way and even reviving plans to help homeowners refinance their mortgages, an idea similar to a stimulus-era idea that in part led to the Tea Party movement. Plus, Rasmussen reveals, the administration’s spending on means-tested programs like food stamps, public housing assistance, weatherization spending and others “is slated to continue growing dramatically even after the recession comes to an end.”

MayDay Malone

Only in America, are the "poor" defined as still having cell phones, cable, internet, plumbing, and electricity.

First world problems...

Jason P

There are already restrictions in place so what's to stop from adding more. If you're not going to let them be used for beer and medicine, why not add junk food to the list?

Of course, 85% of the crap they sell in supermarkets could be considered junk food.

JonnyPistachio

I thought it was more a burden to own a VCR!
How old are those polls?

Anyways...did any of you read the OP? I think you missed the point.

JonnyPistachio

Jason P wrote:

There are already restrictions in place so what's to stop from adding more. If you're not going to let them be used for beer and medicine, why not add junk food to the list?

Of course, 85% of the crap they sell in supermarkets could be considered junk food.

oops, I didnt see your post Jason before my last post.
I think its a tough call on some foods, but they should be more selective about what you can buy with food stamps.

brianlux

Jason P wrote:

Of course, 85% of the crap they sell in supermarkets could be considered junk food.

...oh wait a minute, that is too true to be funny.

I think a big part of the problem is that too many poor people are poorly educated (to no fault of their own I might add.) I've seen kids brought up on junk food and they don't know any better. That's their reality. Maybe instead of bashing the poor for making bad choices we could be a little more compassionate and push for better education.

By the way, I think that people who bash others only do so to make themselves look better. It doesn't work.

BinauralJam

"You can't buy certain items in the grocery store right now with food stamps. We're just talking about how big that list is."


I love the wording, evil bastards.

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Of course, 85% of the crap they sell in supermarkets could be considered junk food.

...oh wait a minute, that is too true to be funny.

I think a big part of the problem is that too many poor people are poorly educated (to no fault of their own I might add.) I've seen kids brought up on junk food and they don't know any better. That's their reality. Maybe instead of bashing the poor for making bad choices we could be a little more compassionate and push for better education.

By the way, I think that people who bash others only do so to make themselves look better. It doesn't work.

I think I agree for the most part though it was disappointing working in a convenience store that took Food Stamp Cards...We sold fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, bread, fresh sandwiches, salads, and cheese.... Most of the people that used the cards would buy none of those opting for a nice bag of Doritos and a Red Bull or some sort of soft drink, combos of those, etc.

Maybe they just don't know? It was sad.

Jason P

brianlux wrote:

I think a big part of the problem is that too many poor people are poorly educated (to no fault of their own I might add.) I've seen kids brought up on junk food and they don't know any better. That's their reality. Maybe instead of bashing the poor for making bad choices we could be a little more compassionate and push for better education.

By the way, I think that people who bash others only do so to make themselves look better. It doesn't work.

The best way to educate a poorly educated person is to say "no, you cannot trade food stamps for this snickers bar and case of mountain dew because it's unhealthy". That is a clear direct message and I can't think of a more efficient method. I still think compassion and better education should be supported, but this nips it in the bud.

Before this thread breaks down into "The Man vs. The Poor" and shit gets ridiculous, I find it odd that "The Man" would be for restricting food stamp purchases. Pepsi Cola isn't exactly a ma and pa operation.

F5AgainstOne

Jason P wrote:

brianlux wrote:

I think a big part of the problem is that too many poor people are poorly educated (to no fault of their own I might add.) I've seen kids brought up on junk food and they don't know any better. That's their reality. Maybe instead of bashing the poor for making bad choices we could be a little more compassionate and push for better education.

By the way, I think that people who bash others only do so to make themselves look better. It doesn't work.

The best way to educate a poorly educated person is to say "no, you cannot trade food stamps for this snickers bar and case of mountain dew because it's unhealthy". That is a clear direct message and I can't think of a more efficient method. I still think compassion and better education should be supported, but this nips it in the bud.

Before this thread breaks down into "The Man vs. The Poor" and shit gets ridiculous, I find it odd that "The Man" would be for restricting food stamp purchases. Pepsi Cola isn't exactly a ma and pa operation.

Excellent point!

brianlux

Jason P wrote:

brianlux wrote:

I think a big part of the problem is that too many poor people are poorly educated (to no fault of their own I might add.) I've seen kids brought up on junk food and they don't know any better. That's their reality. Maybe instead of bashing the poor for making bad choices we could be a little more compassionate and push for better education.

By the way, I think that people who bash others only do so to make themselves look better. It doesn't work.

The best way to educate a poorly educated person is to say "no, you cannot trade food stamps for this snickers bar and case of mountain dew because it's unhealthy". That is a clear direct message and I can't think of a more efficient method. I still think compassion and better education should be supported, but this nips it in the bud.

Before this thread breaks down into "The Man vs. The Poor" and shit gets ridiculous, I find it odd that "The Man" would be for restricting food stamp purchases. Pepsi Cola isn't exactly a ma and pa operation.

Your idea would nip it in the bud and would enforce new regulations but does it educate? What about teaching proper nutrition- why some things are good for the body and some not? I don't mean to start a semantics argument but I don't see rule enforcement as being the same as education.

Jason P

brianlux wrote:

Your idea would nip it in the bud and would enforce new regulations but does it educate? What about teaching proper nutrition- why some things are good for the body and some not? I don't mean to start a semantics argument but I don't see rule enforcement as being the same as education.

What if someone is past high school or dropped out? PSA announcements are not going to even come close to beating a Frito Lay ad campaign. As Paul noted, if things like Doritos and Red Bull are taken off the menu, sooner or later the produce aisle will be found.

brianlux

Jason P wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Your idea would nip it in the bud and would enforce new regulations but does it educate? What about teaching proper nutrition- why some things are good for the body and some not? I don't mean to start a semantics argument but I don't see rule enforcement as being the same as education.

What if someone is past high school or dropped out? PSA announcements are not going to even come close to beating a Frito Lay ad campaign. As Paul noted, if things like Doritos and Red Bull are taken off the menu, sooner or later the produce aisle will be found.

One would hope so!

What about this: what if , before being issued food stamps the recipient be required to attend a hour seminar? If we teach people to be healthier we will also end up with more productive people living a better quality life.

F5AgainstOne

Here's one way to look at it (I'm not saying it's the right way OR the wrong way, but my opinion is represented here).

The food stamps are government aid. It is benefit in place for those who NEED assistance. Anyone could need assistance at any time for a multitude of reasons. (I've been there myself).

Using the aid for unnecessary things is at least morally wrong. Should this be prohibited somehow?
I think perhaps yes.
Lets say you take the maximum benefit amount for a single person, I think it is $200 per month (if I'm wrong don't bash me, I'm just using these numbers for an example)
Along with your necessities for 1 month, lets say you also get:

(1) pint Ben and Jerry's @ $4
(2) snickers bars totaling $2
(2) 2-liters of soda totaling $4
That is $10 of unnecessary aid.
No big deal right?

If 20 people do that, that is $200 of unnecessary aid in one month. Enough for 1 more person for the month.
That is money that is not helping someone else who needs it.

You can argue that the stamps would be spent on something anyway, so the money isn't really saved.
It is still morally wrong, and I think that if people shopped wiser, the aid would ultimately go further for them, and perhaps have the added side effect of helping them out of their financial situation a tiny bit faster

Look at this way...
If a you have 2 friends in dire financial stress, and you give friend #1 a handout in order to help feed his family (but you don't have enough to help friend #2)... then you found out about the keg party that you partially funded for friend #1. Would you think that is right?

unsung

The real problem with food stamps is not what is purchased, it's how long you get them for. Some people are on them their entire lives. Unless you are unable to work due to permanent medical disability there should be time limits.

Kel Varnsen

inlet13 wrote:

Forget the image of Appalachia or rundown ghettos: A collection of federal household consumption surveys collected by pollster Scott Rasmussen finds that 74 percent of the poor own a car or truck, 70 percent have a VCR, 64 percent have a DVD, 63 percent have cable or satellite, 53 percent have a video game system, 50 percent have a computer, 30 percent have two or more cars and 23 percent use TiVo.

I totally agree with others that education for people who receive funding (both in terms of money management and healthy food choice) is probably the best way to fix this problem, but at the same time is owning a DVD player really any kind of indication of poverty? I mean in most places you can buy a DVD player for under $20. Even poor people need a little bit of entertainment, and I doubt 20 bucks (less if you bought a used one) is going to break the bank of anyone who isn't homeless.

whygohome

To answer the OP's question, Yes. There should be strict regulation on what can be purchased using food stamps. Simple. As far as the posts on education, or how to solve the problem, the best approach would be a mandate regulating what is allowed to be purchased. Call me cynical, pessimistic, whatever, but education simply cannot solve the problem. We are not an intelligent society when it comes to food and health (see: 35% obesity rate).

That aside, i find it difficult to chastise those on food stamps. Are some on government assistance abusing the system? Of course. But, what percentage? Can we at least agree that there are those out there who need the assistance through no fault of their own? Do we eliminate the program? Or simply downsize it and tighten the regulations? I'm for the latter.

On a side note, it is very hard for me to criticize the individuals who are at a moment in their life where they need to rely on government assistance to pay the bills, put food on the table, etc. I consider myself a white, privileged, suburban punk who had everything in life handed to him by his parents until college graduation: you got your license, here's a car, you graduated high school, here's four years of college, (doesn't apply to me, but a lot of my friends) you graduated college, here's a job. The bottom line is that I, and 95% of my friends have had a very nice headstart in life HANDED to us. Did our parents "do the right thing?" Yes. But that doesn't mean that everyone has the same opportunities. Some good, honest, hard-working people struggle their whole lives. And, if there are times when these people need a helping hand, and if it is my tax dollars that help them, I have no problem with that.

brianlux

whygohome wrote:

The bottom line is that I, and 95% of my friends have had a very nice headstart in life HANDED to us. Did our parents "do the right thing?" Yes. But that doesn't mean that everyone has the same opportunities. Some good, honest, hard-working people struggle their whole lives. And, if there are times when these people need a helping hand, and if it is my tax dollars that help them, I have no problem with that.

Well said, total thumbs up. If we could all accept the fact that of course some people will take advantage of charity but take a more thoughtful approach to helping others who have had fewer opportunities or more bad breaks we would all be much better off. Helping people is not a bad thing. Why has it so often come to be looked at as such?

JonnyPistachio

brianlux wrote:

Jason P wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Your idea would nip it in the bud and would enforce new regulations but does it educate? What about teaching proper nutrition- why some things are good for the body and some not? I don't mean to start a semantics argument but I don't see rule enforcement as being the same as education.

What if someone is past high school or dropped out? PSA announcements are not going to even come close to beating a Frito Lay ad campaign. As Paul noted, if things like Doritos and Red Bull are taken off the menu, sooner or later the produce aisle will be found.

One would hope so!

What about this: what if , before being issued food stamps the recipient be required to attend a hour seminar? If we teach people to be healthier we will also end up with more productive people living a better quality life.

I was thinking the same thing Brian. Or if that got to be too much, at the very minimum, perhaps they could include a fact sheet when they receive their first set of stamps.

unsung wrote:

The real problem with food stamps is not what is purchased, it's how long you get them for. Some people are on them their entire lives. Unless you are unable to work due to permanent medical disability there should be time limits.

I believe this is the other main problem..I agree unsung.

Jason P

brianlux wrote:

One would hope so!

What about this: what if , before being issued food stamps the recipient be required to attend a hour seminar? If we teach people to be healthier we will also end up with more productive people living a better quality life.

Not a bad idea, but I don't think it would do much good. Once you are used to eating $0.99 1/2 pound burritos, that is what you crave. I know because I've been changing my nutrition plan lately and it is not easy at first, even when you are motivated and actively educating yourself. It was hard for me to only stock up on nutritional food and avoid the snack isle. It got easier after a few weeks, but man, was it tough at first.

Come to think of it, I wish I could set up my credit card so that I couldn't buy junk food. :think:

mikepegg44

what is the difference between someone on welfare or someone using their own money to buy mt dew?....it isn't an illegal product right? I mean, why not make purchasing high fructose corn syrup illegal first? then you could test the people applying for welfare for hfcs? think of the billions you would save as a state...why stop there? what about Velveeta or easy cheese or pretzels...It is well known that poor people cannot take care of themselves and need the government to tell them how to live, what to eat, and pretty soon how to breathe. Without the state telling these people how to tie their shoes, do you honestly think they could?

(it is sad I have to say this but most of this was clearly sarcasm)


Florida...come on...you are better than th....oh wait...maybe not...and from a "republican" no less

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

what is the difference between someone on welfare or someone using their own money to buy mt dew?....it isn't an illegal product right? I mean, why not make purchasing high fructose corn syrup illegal first? then you could test the people applying for welfare for hfcs? think of the billions you would save as a state...why stop there? what about Velveeta or easy cheese or pretzels...It is well known that poor people cannot take care of themselves and need the government to tell them how to live, what to eat, and pretty soon how to breathe. Without the state telling these people how to tie their shoes, do you honestly think they could?

(it is sad I have to say this but most of this was clearly sarcasm)


Florida...come on...you are better than th....oh wait...maybe not...and from a "republican" no less

They can always save money and buy those products if they want. This is a form of aid, provided by the government, therefore they can easily mandate how the aid is used. It's common practice. If someone applies for hurricane assistance and we find out they used the aid to buy a luxury car, everyone is outraged and the hammer comes down.

I'm all for the government staying out of our lives unless we as individuals actively go out and seek government assistance. If I buy an energy efficient furnace and apply for a environmental tax credit, I can't claim the government forced me to buy that certain model.

And the list of foods would be pretty easy to compile ... I call it the 7/11 test ... if it's pre-packaged and sold at a 7/11 store, it is no longer eligible.

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

what is the difference between someone on welfare or someone using their own money to buy mt dew?....it isn't an illegal product right? I mean, why not make purchasing high fructose corn syrup illegal first? then you could test the people applying for welfare for hfcs? think of the billions you would save as a state...why stop there? what about Velveeta or easy cheese or pretzels...It is well known that poor people cannot take care of themselves and need the government to tell them how to live, what to eat, and pretty soon how to breathe. Without the state telling these people how to tie their shoes, do you honestly think they could?

(it is sad I have to say this but most of this was clearly sarcasm)


Florida...come on...you are better than th....oh wait...maybe not...and from a "republican" no less

They can always save money and buy those products if they want. This is a form of aid, provided by the government, therefore they can easily mandate how the aid is used. It's common practice. If someone applies for hurricane assistance and we find out they used the aid to buy a luxury car, everyone is outraged and the hammer comes down.

I'm all for the government staying out of our lives unless we as individuals actively go out and seek government assistance. If I buy an energy efficient furnace and apply for a environmental tax credit, I can't claim the government forced me to buy that certain model.

And the list of foods would be pretty easy to compile ... I call it the 7/11 test ... if it's pre-packaged and sold at a 7/11 store, it is no longer eligible.

right on
I just don't understand the difference between mountain dew and most juice that is sold. We have a WIC program in MN that tells you what to buy and what is covered because it is specifically a nutrition program for needy mothers...I didn't think food stamps is the same type of program. I agree that if you go searching for assistance there may be parameters that you need to live by, I just didn't think buying a birthday cake would fall under those provisions. Maybe a birthday lettuce wrap?

JaneNY

Jason P wrote:

And the list of foods would be pretty easy to compile ... I call it the 7/11 test ... if it's pre-packaged and sold at a 7/11 store, it is no longer eligible.

Problem is, some poor folks don't live near a grocery store, and maybe a 7/11 is the only thing they can get to. Maybe they don't have a car, and 2 little kids, and they have to take the kids when they go to buy food, which means they can't carry much. Being poor isn't easy, and I don't think everyone thinks out all the practical realities.

Okay, so you ban Mountain Dew. Fine. Do you also ban tea? Or coffee? or sugar? Or white flour? White rice? white bread? pancake syrup (make people buy real maple because it is 'healthier' but more expensive). An argument can be made that each of the items I listed is 'not healthy'. Some people think cheese isn't healthy. Canned vegetables - full of sodium, no nutritional value. Where do you draw the line on what people are 'allowed' to buy?

iamica

I used to work at a grocery store. People used to use their Link cards for all sorts of crap - booze, junk food, you name it. I remember one lady using the entire balance to buy a ton of lobster. I really think there do need to be some restrictions. For instance, WIC doesn't allow you to buy anything you want - you can get milk or cereal or other food items for babies, but that's about it.
I don't know where the line should be drawn exactly, but I know this - they shouldn't be using their food stamps card to buy 10 tubs of ice cream and then pulling out a $50 bill to buy cigarettes and scratch tickets.

brianlux

mikepegg44 wrote:

what is the difference between someone on welfare or someone using their own money to buy mt dew?....it isn't an illegal product right? I mean, why not make purchasing high fructose corn syrup illegal first? then you could test the people applying for welfare for hfcs? think of the billions you would save as a state...why stop there? what about Velveeta or easy cheese or pretzels...It is well known that poor people cannot take care of themselves and need the government to tell them how to live, what to eat, and pretty soon how to breathe. Without the state telling these people how to tie their shoes, do you honestly think they could?

(it is sad I have to say this but most of this was clearly sarcasm)


Florida...come on...you are better than th....oh wait...maybe not...and from a "republican" no less

Now wait a dog gone minute-- cut out Velveeta? Sure it's empty calories, but hey, everybody loves a grilled Velveeta sandwich now and then-- even left-leaning, environmentalist, progressive, let's-stop-global-warming freaks!

peacefrompaul

brianlux wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

what is the difference between someone on welfare or someone using their own money to buy mt dew?....it isn't an illegal product right? I mean, why not make purchasing high fructose corn syrup illegal first? then you could test the people applying for welfare for hfcs? think of the billions you would save as a state...why stop there? what about Velveeta or easy cheese or pretzels...It is well known that poor people cannot take care of themselves and need the government to tell them how to live, what to eat, and pretty soon how to breathe. Without the state telling these people how to tie their shoes, do you honestly think they could?

(it is sad I have to say this but most of this was clearly sarcasm)


Florida...come on...you are better than th....oh wait...maybe not...and from a "republican" no less

Now wait a dog gone minute-- cut out Velveeta? Sure it's empty calories, but hey, everybody loves a grilled Velveeta sandwich now and then-- even left-leaning, environmentalist, progressive, let's-stop-global-warming freaks!

Velveeta Mac N' Cheese drizzled over a hot pepperoni pizza.... Yeah I was in another world that night..

Carry on

SweetChildofMine

Why are people squeezing the little guy? Let them eat whatever the hell they want. Did you know you can purchase seeds to actually grow your own food? You wouldnt put limits on educational grants on what people can do with the money. We dont put limits or restrictions $$ given to businesses. If someone wants to eat cheetoes or drink mountain dew, its not your problem. Who are you the food cops? Some foods which we consider junk is just that junk but its cheap, cheaper than buying the broccoli. So if you only have a few bucks what are you actually buying? 3 bucks for the broccoli or 3 dollar frozen pizza?

If you are so worried about peoples diets you should put more focus/restrictions on the food producers and the shit that goes into products than some redneck buying his mountain dew.

SweetChildofMine

BTW Velveeta is one molecule away from Nuclear Waste.

brianlux

SweetChildofMine wrote:

BTW Velveeta is one molecule away from Nuclear Waste.

_______________


"If you are so worried about peoples diets you should put more focus/restrictions on the food producers and the shit that goes into products than some redneck buying his mountain dew."

Good point!