• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Soda-buying with food stamps

Isn't there a nice correlation between teen pregnancy (or unexpected pregnancy for that matter) and welfare? It makes sense intuitively, and why I can't take anybody seriously who says that welfare is a good combatant of crime. That can't answer the fact that welfare creates more poverty so the fact that you have a lower crime rate when people are on welfare may be combatted by the fact that you just have more poor people who are willing to committ crimes.
 
ludahai said:
If they are buying soda on their own dime, fine with me. If they are buying it on the taxpayers dime, the taxpayers have the right to ensure the money is being used as efficiently as possible (ok, don't laugh -- I know it is government work). If you are taking charity, you do NOT have the absolute right to decide what you are going to spend it on. Those giving it have the right to impose restrictions.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that special: I will give you some help but you can only buy what I think you should buy. Give me a break.

I can understand WIC and that but with foodstamps? I feel you should pretty much be able to buy anything you want unless it is beer or ciggys.

Do you not understand that sometimes everybody needs a bit of a splurge? How do you think someone on welfare is gonna be able to buy that cake, soad, icecream, snacks, etc. for thier kids birthday? I would guess it is gonna be with Food Stamps. But if left up to you and other food police wannabes? That child would get water and veggies for their birthday bash. What fun.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Nah, certain elements in the democrat party, and certain liberals, don't want to control every aspect of ones life, nah not at all. :doh:
Click to expand...

Sadly? I am finding more and more of my fellow liberals wanting to do just that:(
 
Kali said:
Well isn't that special: I will give you some help but you can only buy what I think you should buy. Give me a break.

I can understand WIC and that but with foodstamps? I feel you should pretty much be able to buy anything you want unless it is beer or ciggys.

Do you not understand that sometimes everybody needs a bit of a splurge? How do you think someone on welfare is gonna be able to buy that cake, soad, icecream, snacks, etc. for thier kids birthday? I would guess it is gonna be with Food Stamps. But if left up to you and other food police wannabes? That child would get water and veggies for their birthday bash. What fun.
Click to expand...

Sorry, nope. No right to snacks, soda, ice cream. Everyone has a right to basic food so for that I support the food stamp program. However, there is no right to chocolate cake with vanilla ice cream. No right to Coca Cola. Heck, no right to Tropicana Orange Juice ... store/generic brand only... Get the basic foodstuffs with the foodstamps. If you want the extras, get it with your own dime...
 
Kali said:
Well isn't that special: I will give you some help but you can only buy what I think you should buy. Give me a break.

I can understand WIC and that but with foodstamps? I feel you should pretty much be able to buy anything you want unless it is beer or ciggys.

Do you not understand that sometimes everybody needs a bit of a splurge? How do you think someone on welfare is gonna be able to buy that cake, soad, icecream, snacks, etc. for thier kids birthday? I would guess it is gonna be with Food Stamps. But if left up to you and other food police wannabes? That child would get water and veggies for their birthday bash. What fun.
Click to expand...

Get a job then! Don't complain that your food stamps don't allow you to buy luxuries.
 
Lol conservatives whining about not enough gov't intrusion.

The cost of food stamps/welfare to the US government pales in comparison to the cost of many other, much more relevant things.

It's sort of like whining about a stubbed toe when you just got shot in the chest.

You should really get your priorities straight.
 
Last edited:
No, welfare is a pretty big expense actually.
 
Orion said:
Basically, soda (or pop, if you are Canadian) accounts for 4 BILLION dollars in subsidized nutrition spending (food stamps, now referred to as SNAP) per year. Being that obesity with all of its associated health risks is now considered an epidemic in North America, is it right for tax payers to contribute to the buying of this particular junk food - or any, for that matter? There are already bans on what the article refers to as "hot prepared foods" or fast foods. Should we stop there?

I really do feel people should have the right to choose which product they buy, but when they're products that just do harm, I have trouble justifying that. I'm not saying no one should ever drink soda pop again, but people in lower income brackets have much higher obesity rates and I feel like poor people are somehow targeted. If you're getting so much more quantity-wise for your money, it is hard to say no to things that are maybe a lot less nutritional, especially if you are supporting a family.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to have a tax on junk foods, for everybody. You have to pay high taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol. I don't see why things loaded with trans fats (which should already be banned IMO), high fructose corn syrup and any number of synthetic chemicals and dyes that cost people their health and take a toll on the health care system should be able to slip by.

Article here: Should Taxpayers Subsidize Soda? ~ Newsroom ~ News from CSPI ~ Center for Science in the Public Interest
Click to expand...

Well, if you're talking about the dangers of soda, it's because of High Fructose Corn Syrup. HFCS is what really causes the obesity.

About 6 months ago, Pepsi had "throwback" sodas that were made with real sugar. While still relatively unhealthy, it is healthier than soda made with HFCS.

Unfortunately, most soda companies don't produce soda made with real sugar. HFCS is much cheaper, so they can make a better profit on them and people will buy them.

However, I think the soda companies should produce soda made with real sugar and leave it as an alternative for consumers. Let the customers choose which soda to buy. After all, the only reason why people only drink HFCS soda is because nobody is mass distributing sugar soda any more. The companies have taken away our ability to make a choice. Give us a choice, and we'll be able to see how well sugar soda can compete against HFCS soda.

Because of this lack of choice, I've stopped drinking soda altogether. Instead, I get my caffeine in a large cup of coffee I drink every day. So I'm voting with my dollars, and voting on coffee until someone can give me sugar soda.
 
phattonez said:
Isn't there a nice correlation between teen pregnancy (or unexpected pregnancy for that matter) and welfare?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think both of those correlate more with a lack of education and demanded job skills than with each other. Teens aren't pregnant because they're on welfare - teens are pregnant and people are on welfare because they don't have a good education or job skills they can market.

Give them better education and training opportunities so they can earn a decent wage and they'll be able to take advantage of it.
 
samsmart said:
Actually, I think both of those correlate more with a lack of education and demanded job skills than with each other. Teens aren't pregnant because they're on welfare - teens are pregnant and people are on welfare because they don't have a good education or job skills they can market.

Give them better education and training opportunities so they can earn a decent wage and they'll be able to take advantage of it.
Click to expand...

They have nothing better to do so they just have unprotected sex? How about they know their bad actions will be taken care of by the government so they do it anyway irrespective of the consequences. That makes more sense intuitively.
 
Kali said:
Well isn't that special: I will give you some help but you can only buy what I think you should buy. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If I am going to give someone money, I'm going to make sure they're not wasting it or else I'm not going to give them any more. If I give someone money to SURVIVE, because they couldn't otherwise afford to eat, I would take it as a huge slap in the face if they went off using that substinance money for non-substinance items.

I can understand WIC and that but with foodstamps? I feel you should pretty much be able to buy anything you want unless it is beer or ciggys.
Click to expand...
Why not beer and cigs?

Do you not understand that sometimes everybody needs a bit of a splurge?
Click to expand...
Sure, with their own money.

How do you think someone on welfare is gonna be able to buy that cake, soad, icecream, snacks, etc. for thier kids birthday? I would guess it is gonna be with Food Stamps. But if left up to you and other food police wannabes? That child would get water and veggies for their birthday bash. What fun.
Click to expand...
If they want unnecessary food items, they can buy them themselves.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Nah, certain elements in the democrat party, and certain liberals, don't want to control every aspect of ones life, nah not at all. :doh:
Click to expand...

You don't think that if you give someone money you should be able to approve or disapprove of how they spend it? And refuse to give them more if they are using it in a manner you think is 'wrong'?

I mean seriously, if a friend came to you and said they needed money to eat and you give them $300/month to eat on, then find them out at a bar drinking, or buying themselves alcohol, or whatever... you wouldn't feel that maybe they didn't need that money so bad after all?
 
rivrrat said:
You don't think that if you give someone money you should be able to approve or disapprove of how they spend it? And refuse to give them more if they are using it in a manner you think is 'wrong'?

I mean seriously, if a friend came to you and said they needed money to eat and you give them $300/month to eat on, then find them out at a bar drinking, or buying themselves alcohol, or whatever... you wouldn't feel that maybe they didn't need that money so bad after all?
Click to expand...




I agree, we shouldn't give them money. Hand out food instead....


;)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I agree, we shouldn't give them money. Hand out food instead....


;)
Click to expand...

Well, I think by being very restrictive of what they can or cannot buy, we ARE essentially giviing them food. That's why they're called FOOD stamps. We're just giving them choices of food, which I think is necessary. No sense in giving people food that they cannot or will not ever eat. Or that their kids will never eat. But, you can give them choices in certain foods. I just don't think that soda or unhealthy snacks should be part of those choices. The point of food stamps is to give people enough to eat so they can survive. Soda isn't necessary for survival.
 
rivrrat said:
Well, I think by being very restrictive of what they can or cannot buy, we ARE essentially giviing them food. That's why they're called FOOD stamps. We're just giving them choices of food, which I think is necessary. No sense in giving people food that they cannot or will not ever eat. Or that their kids will never eat. But, you can give them choices in certain foods. I just don't think that soda or unhealthy snacks should be part of those choices. The point of food stamps is to give people enough to eat so they can survive. Soda isn't necessary for survival.
Click to expand...




It's mostly for trading in for cash for lottery tickets and booze.... ;)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Damn, and here I thought I had a backup plan if I lost all my money..... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I'm not saying there's not a way around it. ;) We all know that many on such programs are very good at abusing the system. But they have made efforts to make it more difficult.

I recall once upon a time when I was living in a slum under the overpass, strung out on drugs and alcohol and working at a bar just for food, that my friend and I came into possession of some food stamps somehow. (Someone gave them to us or something) Well, we wanted cigs. So, we would go to one store and buy a pack of .25 cent gum and get the .75 cents in change. Did that a couple of times and had enough change for a pack of cigs. I don't think you can do that **** any more though.
 
rivrrat said:
I'm not saying there's not a way around it. ;) We all know that many on such programs are very good at abusing the system. But they have made efforts to make it more difficult.

I recall once upon a time when I was living in a slum under the overpass, strung out on drugs and alcohol and working at a bar just for food, that my friend and I came into possession of some food stamps somehow. (Someone gave them to us or something) Well, we wanted cigs. So, we would go to one store and buy a pack of .25 cent gum and get the .75 cents in change. Did that a couple of times and had enough change for a pack of cigs. I don't think you can do that **** any more though.
Click to expand...

I think what is done nowdays, is someone will take a friend or relative not on foodstamps food shopping with their foodstamps, then the friend/relative will pay less money for the groceries in cash than they would have actually cost to the one with the foodstamps.
 
So people pay less for groceries if they pay with food stamps? Man, that sucks.

I'll be the first to admit - I know very little about the mechanics of it. I've never been on any sort of assistance. Nobody I know ever has either.
 
phattonez said:
They have nothing better to do so they just have unprotected sex? How about they know their bad actions will be taken care of by the government so they do it anyway irrespective of the consequences. That makes more sense intuitively.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. What I said was that they are uneducated and so don't know the full consequences of having sex as a teen. That makes even more sense intuitively.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not as hard as you think.
Click to expand...

Actually no, you can't do that sort of thing. Our food stamps come in a debit card, and can be only used on food, no cigarettes or alcohol.
 
The explanation has already been given. Someone who wants food goes with the person and buys what that person wants. Then they give fair value to the cardholder, in cash, to go buy smokes or booze.

As HG said, it's not hard. Hell, I've seen it done...multiple times. I used to live in MICHIGAN. You can't walk 10 feet down the street without bumping into some lazy piece of crap milking the system.
 
samsmart said:
That's not what I said. What I said was that they are uneducated and so don't know the full consequences of having sex as a teen. That makes even more sense intuitively.
Click to expand...

What teenager is so stupid that they don't know that unprotected sex = possible baby?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom