Texas bill to ban food stamps for junk food (Afghanistan, how much, high school)
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.
How about groceries paid for with social security money? There are a large number of people who receive more in Social Security than they paid in. What if you are on state disability or workers comp?
Maybe we should put pressure on the food industry to make all food healthier rather than sit here deciding who should and who shouldn't buy junk food.
Why is government the answer?
No better pressure to make all food healthier, than consumers not buying unhealthy products.
That 75% of us are overweight/ obese is proof consumers generally have no problem with unhealthy food.
Vegetables, fish, grains, etc. can be cooked in a microwave. Salads, fruits, ... don't need even that. Crock pots and single burners are available for under $25. .
You were talking about soup, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
The idea that SNAP household diets are only somewhat less nutritious than non-SNAP households is far from a convincing argument. The whole idea of Food Stamps is to provide decent food for those who can't afford it. That only 40% is spent on meat, vegetables, fruit, eggs, milk, and bread is a sad commentary on the program.But good grief, 40%?
Try reading the article again, what it said is that both SNAP and non-SNAP households spend 40% on those items: "For example, point-of-sale data suggest that there are few major differences in expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households, with about 40 cents of every food dollar spent on basic items (meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, and bread) and 20 cents spent on junk food and sugar-sweetened beverages"
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
In my experience, 40% was on the high end, and you would have to include pizzas, canned soup, and frozen entrees to get to there.
you said recipients spent NOTHING on nutritious food, now you are saying 40% is the high end?
Why is government the answer?
No better pressure to make all food healthier, than consumers not buying unhealthy products.
That 75% of us are overweight/ obese is proof consumers generally have no problem with unhealthy food.
Maybe we need warnings on unhealthy foods like they have on cigarettes but I bet the same people who are advocating to limit what food the poor should be able to eat would be screaming "nanny state" if food producers were required to advise people that their junk food is potentially deadly
Why is government the answer?
No better pressure to make all food healthier, than consumers not buying unhealthy products.
That 75% of us are overweight/ obese is proof consumers generally have no problem with unhealthy food.
Restricting the poor from buying certain food is NOT the answer I was just attempting to show how absurd that is given that so many people receive some form of government assistance, even if it's only an ACA subsidy.
Maybe we need warnings on unhealthy foods like they have on cigarettes but I bet the same people who are advocating to limit what food the poor should be able to eat would be screaming "nanny state" if food producers were required to advise people that their junk food is potentially deadly
No. Put labels on it. Don't care.
I am a conservative but I don't want anyone going hungry.
But given that these benefits are being used for the wholesale purchase of crap or sold/traded for cigs/booze (you ever work in a grocery store, sparky? Happens all the time. Daily. Effin daily), there does not seem like one single good reason NOT to restrict what you can buy to whole foods.
Btw, 80% of our fruit/veg consumption at our house is RAW, so folks can save me the "no time/place to cook" sob story. I have visited 3rd world countries where people who live in the street can muster up a way to cook their food.
No. Put labels on it. Don't care.
I am a conservative but I don't want anyone going hungry.
But given that these benefits are being used for the wholesale purchase of crap or sold/traded for cigs/booze (you ever work in a grocery store, sparky? Happens all the time. Daily. Effin daily), there does not seem like one single good reason NOT to restrict what you can buy to whole foods.
Btw, 80% of our fruit/veg consumption at our house is RAW, so folks can save me the "no time/place to cook" sob story. I have visited 3rd world countries where people who live in the street can muster up a way to cook their food.
I'm perfectly aware of people selling SNAP benefits, but they do that more often than not to pay for gas for their car or rent. I've never thought that micromanaging benefits was a good idea, give the poor a flat amount of cash and let them spend it how they see fit. I think if we treat people like children they are more apt to act like children. And the data shows that both SNAP and non-SNAP families both spend 40% of their food budget on basic foods so miss me with that, Sparky
I'm okay with this. On the other hand, I hate more regs. But, still, if one wants junk food tax payers shouldn't be on the hook for it.
When I was super poor, I bought chips three times a year as a treat for the kids. We still hardly eat that stuff.
I have watched countless times someone in front of me with kids in tow buy the absolute worst for you food. Tons of chips, frozen dinners, sugary foods of all types and not a vegetable to be found and then pay of it with their EBT card. Its obvious because they have to fork over cash for the booze and cigs they are also buying.
I agree that adding more regs bothers me but the reality is too many on welfare are just way too dumb to understand the connection between what you eat and your health. And or are too lazy to prepare healthy meals from scratch. Since I as a taxpayer will eventually foot the bill for their bad choices with endless medical care better to steer them in the right direction now.
I'm perfectly aware of people selling SNAP benefits, but they do that more often than not to pay for gas for their car or rent. I've never thought that micromanaging benefits was a good idea, give the poor a flat amount of cash and let them spend it how they see fit. I think if we treat people like children they are more apt to act like children. And the data shows that both SNAP and non-SNAP families both spend 40% of their food budget on basic foods so miss me with that, Sparky
They used to give cash to homeless in San Francisco that they were suppose to use to pay rent. However since a large percentage of homeless there have substance abuse issues more often than not they did not use the money for rent. So they had to treat them like children and give them paper vouchers.
When you have people who cannot take care of themselves like most adults can you need to treat them like children for their own good.
Giving cash to welfare recipients most of who have dependent children would be a disaster and put their children at risk. They prove they are worthy being treated like adults when the get off the public dole.
They used to give cash to homeless in San Francisco that they were suppose to use to pay rent. However since a large percentage of homeless there have substance abuse issues more often than not they did not use the money for rent. So they had to treat them like children and give them paper vouchers.
When you have people who cannot take care of themselves like most adults can you need to treat them like children.
Giving cash to welfare recipients most of who have dependent children would be almost like advocating child abuse since many would not use the money wisely.
They just convert whatever medium is given to them into cash, drugs, booze, cigs, etc. through exchanges on the black market.
End the practice, its immoral and you cant police it anyway
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.
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.
