• 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!

Should we restrict food stamps to bulk staples and basic ingredients?

Should food stamps only be redeemable for bulk staples and basic ingredients?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 52.5%
  • No

    Votes: 28 47.5%

  • Total voters
    59
i'm all for more options, and i'm a bit of a fitness nut myself. i'm just not for being pissed off that lower socioeconomic consumers

I'm not pissed at them. Truthfully, I'm not. I genuinely think this would make them better off. The downside (admittedly) is the inconvenience of preparing one's own food, but I truly feel that downside is far outweighed by the upsides of this idea.
 
I say make the food as nutritious, inexpensive and boring as reasonably possible (in order of importance).

No foods containing added sugar/fructose or artificial sweeteners.
No foods with a ratio of more then 2mg of sodium per 1 calorie (no excessively salty foods).
Only allowed liquids are pure water and/or unsweetened fruit juices and/or white milk.
 
Last edited:
This is such a funny issue because so many so called "Conservatives" and "Libertarians" who claim to believe in the inherent virtue of personal liberty would like to restrict it for those who require food stamps. In my state of Florida they wanted to drug test every welfare recipient and found out that virtually nobody on welfare was abusing drugs. It seems like an inherent animosity for the poor where all principle goes out the window.
 
No foods containing sugar..

Please take a Nutrition class. Carbohydrates are a required macronutrient to maintain health. This is probably why laymen should not dictate dietary policies.

Apples and oranges contain sugar and fructose for crying out loud.
 
This is such a funny issue because so many so called "Conservatives" and "Libertarians" who claim to believe in the inherent virtue of personal liberty would like to restrict it for those who require food stamps.

They are getting a service at the behest of the government. The government can restrict what they provide them or eliminate it if they so desire.
 
They are getting a service at the behest of the government. The government can restrict what they provide them or eliminate it if they so desire.

Hm...using the power of the government to limit personal liberty. Interesting position for a "Libertarian".
 
Of course, this neatly overlooks the fact that obesity is caused more by poor quality food than by overeating, and the cheap foods you'd be forcing fat poor people to buy would only make them fatter.

Cheap food does not equate to fattening food. Basic Fresh vegetables for instance can be quite cheap and nourishing, especially beans.

An excess of fattening food causes obesity, whether it's cheap or not.

But if you like, we can just feed the butterballs vitamins and electrolytes until their arms at standing rest aren't deflected by their thighs and hips.
 
Hm...using the power of the government to limit personal liberty. Interesting position for a "Libertarian".

What are you talking about? It's a service by the state. They don't need to provide anything if they so desire. That isn't limiting personal liberty, just not granting them a service. Great understanding of liberty you have there for a libertarian.
 
Please take a Nutrition class. Carbohydrates are a required macronutrient to maintain health. This is probably why laymen should not dictate dietary policies.

Apples and oranges contain sugar and fructose for crying out loud.

I meant added sugar obviously...duh.

There is almost nothing you can eat that does not have some sugar in it.

Try using common sense next time and leave the extreme anal retentiveness at home.


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
If government had the capability of being efficient, then I'd be all for it. But over and over it has shown to be the least efficient at anything. I mean, how much did the Obamacare website cost? 200 Million? 300 Million? More? You think any other company would pay that .... for a site? In the private sector, you'd have mass firing over that crap. For the government, it's just another day. Actually, you got the guys responsible for accountability for this stuff living it up in Las Vegas.

so if i can point out multiple examples corporate waste, is that an indictment of capitalism? nope. i actually read an article today about how the government Vegas conference waste has been curbed this year.

Federal conference spending is leaving Las Vegas

good.

Again, it's about getting the most bang for your buck. It's one thing to rail against the private sector and talk about how it doesn't work, but look at the government's efforts. 47 million people are on food stamps. Half of this country doesn't pay any taxes, where as those who are successful, who are contributing to growing on the economy are being taxed.

the private sector works, but the public sector fills in the cracks that people fall through. also, the majority of the wealth is in very few hands, so it stands to reason that they would pay more. i pay my taxes happily, knowing that i benefit from a stable society. there are places out there with minimal taxes and societal structure, and most of them are hellholes.

The road runs both ways Helix. People who live off the government aren't exactly starving in the street either. Most people that are on these assistance programs, live like royalty to what people in poverty live in other countries. We as a government need to focus on not providing a happy life for those less fortunate, but providing emergency assistance. This way it doesn't encourage them to say on it. Look at programs like Medicaid, that has become so laughably broke that doctors are denying them coverage. Ultimately, there are just some things this country can't afford while attempting to remain competitive with the world markets. Lest we end up in the situation of Europe where they are suffering from a debt crisis because they tried to do to much. We're already racking up a trillion a year in debt, how much more do you want to add?

i want to optimize. we need to cut waste, like global police missions and the stupid drug war, and find new revenue streams. and once we've stopped globetrotting, it's time to fix the house.
 
The idea I proposed here would exclude any prepared/processed food, i.e. anything with multiple ingredients listed on the label, so that means Campbell's soup too. Sorry. The idea is not about picking and choosing what I subjectively consider "healthy." The idea is that the most efficient way of mitigating hunger is to provide the building blocks of a good diet to the people and allowing them to decide how they want to eat using those ingredients.

And when you wrap your mind around that, you realize that it's not a severe restriction. It actually sets people free to create anything they want from their ingredients on hand. From the things that would be redeemable with SNAP cards, one could make thousands and thousands of different food items and dishes.
My mind wraps around the health aspect just fine. I just see it as being unnecessarily controlling and petty.

I did have to chuckle at the "...sets people free..." rhetoric. It was reminiscent of Soviet communist propaganda from the 1920s & 1930s... people being "set free" through work on collective farms, and so on.
 
Obesity is a huge issue in this country. What's worse if you see that in those areas that are the poorest, are also the fattest? How does that even work anyways? I mean I thought poverty was about scratching for change for money to survive... instead everyone's having a big mac and laughing all the way.

i simply don't care what the poor choose to eat with aid money. there are a lot of federal policies i'm more pissed off about than poor people eating a big mac.
 
What are you talking about? It's a service by the state. They don't need to provide anything if they so desire. That isn't limiting personal liberty, just not granting them a service. Great understanding of liberty you have there for a libertarian.

The government is not giving them a "service" it is assistance. It is right there in the name, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)" Assistance is giving them money which they can exchange for food. What you folks are arguing is that you want to dictate how they can use that assistance because they require the help. So yes, that is a restriction of personal liberty.
 
The government is not giving them a "service" it is assistance. It is right there in the name, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)" Assistance is giving them money which they can exchange for food. What you folks are arguing is that you want to dictate how they can use that assistance because they require the help. So yes, that is a restriction of personal liberty.

The assistance is the service. How is that even hard to grasp? Restricting a service that is being provided is not restricting liberty. Hell, if you want to call it "assistance" restricting it is still not restricting liberty.
 
The assistance is the service. How is that even hard to grasp? Restricting a service that is being provided is not restricting liberty. Hell, if you want to call it "assistance" restricting it is still not restricting liberty.

I don't call it "assistance" that is the literal name of it! And how is it a service? It is a benefit. You either qualify for it or you do not. But I like this idea. We can restrict any personal liberty we want by first arguing that we are providing a "service". The government should be able to house soldiers in your home because it provides the "service" of military protection. Police should be able to search you on a whim because they provide the "service" of protecting the community. The government should be able to censor what is posted on the web because they provide many of the essential "services" that allow the web to run. Good precedent.
 
One of the basic tenets of libertarianism is that government be as unobtrusive in people's lives as possible. Providing a service or assistance shouldn't change that. Unless, of course, libertarians are in reality no better then anyone else, and cherry pick what they want to adhere to and what they don't.
 
I don't call it "assistance" that is the literal name of it! And how is it a service? It is a benefit. You either qualify for it or you do not. But I like this idea. We can restrict any personal liberty we want by first arguing that we are providing a "service". The government should be able to house soldiers in your home because it provides the "service" of military protection. Police should be able to search you on a whim because they provide the "service" of protecting the community. The government should be able to censor what is posted on the web because they provide many of the essential "services" that allow the web to run. Good precedent.

Oh for godsakes, you just jumped from restricting a service called assistance to violating the property rights and bodies of people. What the hell, dude.

Government assistance IS a service and it matters not if people must qualify for it. That is like saying that when you buy something at the store it's not a service because you had to have enough money.
 
One of the basic tenets of libertarianism is that government be as unobtrusive in people's lives as possible. Providing a service or assistance shouldn't change that. Unless, of course, libertarians are in reality no better then anyone else, and cherry pick what they want to adhere to and what they don't.

What does assistance have to do with protecting the rights of people? If nothing then the government has no business doing it.
 
Oh for godsakes, you just jumped from restricting a service called assistance to violating the property rights and bodies of people. What the hell, dude.

Government assistance IS a service and it matters not if people must qualify for it. That is like saying that when you buy something at the store it's not a service because you had to have enough money.

Okay, let's call it a "service". Why does the government need to dictate what people eat as a term of this "service"? Where do you draw the line once you start regulating people's personal lives when they require a service as essential as getting food?
 
Okay, let's call it a "service". Why does the government need to dictate what people eat as a
term of this "service"? Where do you draw the line once you start regulating people's personal lives when they require a service as essential as getting food?

Because the people that provide a service get to make the terms of how it will be provided. If you don't want the government dictating your life then perhaps you shouldn't give them the power to do so. :shrug: Maybe you guys should start listening to people like myself when we tell you it's a dumb idea.
 
Because the people that provide a service get to make the terms of how it will be provided. If you don't want the government dictating your life then perhaps you shouldn't give them the power to do so. :shrug:
Benevolent dictatorship. How noble.
 
Benevolent dictatorship. How noble.

You wanted them to provide people money for food. You get what you wish for. Watch your wishes in the future. :shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom