Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
again, people who never been on food stamps or a food benefits program should not comment on something they are not aware of or as demonstrated are very ignorant of.
There is a list of approved foods ALREADY issued by these programs. the list has expanded over the years, to encompass cheaper and unhealthier foods. Before, you could ONLY buy fresh produce and vegetables.
and the program allows you to buy a certain percentage of "desert" type "goods" (candy, baked goods)
Toothpaste, aspirin and toilet paper are NOT part of the food stamp program.
Have you ever seen someone purchase things with a food stamp card in a poorer neighborhood? I have.
I've seen beer bought several times. It's really simple. "GM" buttons save the day for the clerks.
Believe me, changing the rules and prohibiting food will do nothing to prevent people getting what they want because Mr. Pakistani small corner store owner could care less about the rules.
It's time to stop letting people buy soda and other sugary garbage with food stamps, writes Mark Bittman in the New York Times. At the same time, the government can encourage healthier food choices by increasing the value of the stamps when used to buy fruits and veggies.
It is being a nanny state. Giving someone money for food and then telling them which food they can buy with it is being a nanny state. Mommy gives Junior a dollar and sends him off to school saying "now don't you buy a candy bar with that dollar, you buy an apple"
The fact that we already do that isn't an argument for doing more of it nor is it an argument for it not being a nanny state thing to do.
So you must think there should be no regulations to food stamps? Maybe we let them buy booze and cigarettes with food stamps. There is nothing wrong with having rules and regulations when giving someone federal money for food. I do agree with another comment made in here that fresh food is more expensive and the amount given to people in need should cover or help cover the cost of healthier foods therefore making it easier for them to buy that.
I'd buy into the retractions on soda,candy etc BUT would push for replacement with basic hygiene products like toothpaste,soap,toilet paper. How would anyone expect people to move off of assistance if their teeth are disgusting and they stink?
Do you need candy and soda? Nope. Do you need to brush and wash? YES PLEASE!
It is being a nanny state. Giving someone money for food and then telling them which food they can buy with it is being a nanny state. Mommy gives Junior a dollar and sends him off to school saying "now don't you buy a candy bar with that dollar, you buy an apple"
The fact that we already do that isn't an argument for doing more of it nor is it an argument for it not being a nanny state thing to do.
It's not being a nanny state because you aren't limiting their ability buy soda. They are still welcome to buy soda if they wish.
You CAN use your food stamps in McDonald's in Michigan for example, or Jack in the Box in California, or KFC in Florida or Golden Corral in Arizona. This is just a sample. Those 4 states allow it because the elderly and homeless and disabled don't have kitchens and can't cook themselves.
There are a number of states that do allow FF purchases with food stamps.
Just give them their monthly "allowance" and let them spend it however they want.
Trying to limit or restrict what they buy with a debit card doesn't seem to be working.
So why waste time trying ? Cheaper to just give them their money each month.
Food stamp purchases should be limited to a few basics like bread, cheese, eggs, beans.
We'd end up saving a lot on Medicaid also by bringing down the obesity rates of the government fed.
Pepsico and similar producers of soda and snacks pay for substantial lobbies to protect their interests.
It is rationalized because continued allowance of junk food employs a heck of a lot of people.
Everytime, something appears a tad off, there is likely a powerful lobby at work in DC, regardless of which side holds a majority.
Just give them their monthly "allowance" and let them spend it however they want.
Trying to limit or restrict what they buy with a debit card doesn't seem to be working.
So why waste time trying ? Cheaper to just give them their money each month.
We're getting to that point anyway.
Ah yes, get rid of restrictions because a few people abuse the program. That seems go be the suggestion from the right. But here is a fun fact for you, first we get rid of restrictions because a few people abuse the system and then you guys will say we should get rid of the program because they are spending the money on whatever they want instead of healthy food. It would be a win-win for people who would much rather wed fellow Americans starve than give a helping hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.