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

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.”

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.

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.

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 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.

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.