• 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 wonder how many people, if restricted to basic ingredients would need to go to cooking classes. If so, then we run into logistical issues, such as how to get to class, delivered in a classroom or by internet, do these people have time if working multiple jobs or have other legitimate obligations, etc?

We need a better solution.
 
radcen said:
WIC isn't as petty in it's restrictions.
Click to expand...

What label you want to toss at such restrictions is rather irrelevant. All that matters is that they exist and function

That's where your unnecessary complexity comes in.
Click to expand...

Right, you keep telling us you think they are unnecessary. I already responding by explaining why I think they are justified, make economic sense, and amount to good govt policy.

in stead of addressing those points though, you demand the process become needlessly complex so you can go "see, it doesn't work" ...
 
tacomancer said:
I wonder how many people, if restricted to basic ingredients would need to go to cooking classes.
Click to expand...

lol, so now we need to implement cooking classes with such policies? Do we currently make people get certified in the use of a can opener before they are issued snap benefits?


You people are hilarious
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
There is a very easy way to limit what can and can't be bought with assistance money.
Click to expand...

we already limit what can be purchased through snap. So your claim is clearly false
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, so now we need to implement cooking classes with such policies? Do we currently make people get certified in the use of a can opener before they are issued snap benefits?


You people are hilarious
Click to expand...

Giving someone beans does no good if they don't know what to do with the beans. Also, it does no good if they can only do a few things with the beans, quickly tiring of their options and trying to bypass the system.

Remember human nature :)
 
I have ate dried beans in the field, light, good for you and keeps you from starving.
tacomancer said:
Giving someone beans does no good if they don't know what to do with the beans. Also, it does no good if they can only do a few things with the beans, quickly tiring of their options and trying to bypass the system.

Remember human nature :)
Click to expand...
 
radcen said:
WIC isn't as petty in it's restrictions.
Click to expand...

Take the cereals approved for WIC recipients in New York State. The list has about 13 national-brand cereals but excludes sugary favorites such as Froot Loops and Cap’n Crunch. You can buy peanut butter but not “peanut butter mixed with jelly, marshmallow, chocolate or honey.” Frozen vegetables are fine, but forget ones that replicate the McDonald’s experience at home: “French fries, hash browns, tater tots,” and “other shaped potatoes” are all banned. Canned fruit with “any syrup (heavy, light, ‘naturally light,’ extra light, etc.)” or “added sugar (‘lightly sweetened in fruit juice,’ etc.)” is off limits. In other words, the strict parameters of the WIC program make it virtually impossible to spend the government-issued funds on junk food. - link
Click to expand...

That's where your unnecessary complexity comes in.
Click to expand...

Even presuming your opinion that something so simple and straightforward would actually be so mind-bogglingly complex, it's questionable as to why it is written off as "unnecessary" complexity. By what percentage do you predict the administrative costs of the SNAP program would increase if they could no longer be redeemed for processed foods?

When you look at the health state of America's poor (statistically significantly higher diabetes, heart attacks, obesity, etc.), I'd contend that not only is it unnecessary to continue the shopping spree model of food stamps, it's pretty much unethical. Relative to this proposal, continuing the current one basically does them harm in the long run. And then we have to pay for those medical bills too. I think any increase in the $3 billion administrative cost (if in fact it would even rise) would easily be offset by health and welfare gains over time.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
What label you want to toss at such restrictions is rather irrelevant. All that matters is that they exist and function



Right, you keep telling us you think they are unnecessary. I already responding by explaining why I think they are justified, make economic sense, and amount to good govt policy.

in stead of addressing those points though, you demand the process become needlessly complex so you can go "see, it doesn't work" ...
Click to expand...
I think the level that you and others want to go is unnecessarily petty and vindictive, yes. We disagree in that. But, beyond that, I don't trust that any government program that seeks to micromanage to the degree that you advocate will be efficient nor will it result in good government policy. The more control sought will result in more regulation and bureaucracy.
 
tacomancer said:
Giving someone beans does no good if they don't know what to do with the beans. Also, it does no good if they can only do a few things with the beans, quickly tiring of their options and trying to bypass the system.

Remember human nature :)
Click to expand...

If they can't cook beans, then maybe we can... decrease the surplus population.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
we already limit what can be purchased through snap. So your claim is clearly false
Click to expand...

I said "a very easy way". What I said was not false, especially not in light of other programs they restrict purchases. I don't know where you received your training in logic.
 
Actually, I would like to see the food welfare programs not be involved with grocery chains because it promotes corporate welfare. Instead I would think it advantageous for special box stores set up for people in need of food providing all the essentials. The person would have to show an ID proving they are entitled to the goods. I think it would cut out a lot of fraud while still providing for those who are truly in need. I'd like to see them bring back the unemployment office too where people had to prove they were really trying to get work instead of claiming to have filled out a few applications online without any personal contact.
 
Last edited:
Or resturants with limited menus etc, but it would cause transportation problems.
vesper said:
Actually, I would like to see the food welfare programs not be involved with grocery chains because it promotes corporate welfare. Instead I would think it advantageous for special box stores set up for people in need of food providing all the essentials. The person would have to show an ID proving they are entitled to the goods. I think it would cut out a lot of fraud while still providing for those who are truly in need. I'd like to see them bring back the unemployment office too where people had to prove they were really trying to get work instead of claiming to have filled out a few applications online without any personal contact.
Click to expand...
 
vesper said:
Actually, I would like to see the food welfare programs not be involved with grocery chains because it promotes corporate welfare. Instead I would think it advantageous for special box stores set up for people in need of food providing all the essentials. The person would have to show an ID proving they are entitled to the goods. I think it would cut out a lot of fraud while still providing for those who are truly in need. I'd like to see them bring back the unemployment office too where people had to prove they were really trying to get work instead of claiming to have filled out a few applications online without any personal contact.
Click to expand...

I thought about this, but predicted that it would likely be significantly more expensive to have to make separate space for these store locations and then operate them than it would to use existing grocery infrastructure but simplify the eligible items to raw/basic single ingredients. I think if we did this, we could cut total benefits by significantly more than the modest (if any) administrative cost increase while at the same time providing MORE food for the nation's poor (i.e. making it more of a foundation of nutrition rather than a supplement to it). I really believe that's what you'd get if you eliminate all the unnecessary costs of food processing, packaging, marketing, etc.

And that's not even considering the potential long-term health benefits. $2 BILLION of the program's $76 billion in benefits goes JUST to soda. In other words, more than half of the amount it costs to administer SNAP goes just to so the soda companies and makes the nation's poor less healthy when they consume it. Add in the food processors depicted in the OP, and those food processing and marketing corporations are raking in probably almost all of the SNAP outlays every year.
 
mak2 said:
Or resturants with limited menus etc, but it would cause transportation problems.
Click to expand...

Don't they have to travel to a major grocery chain for their EBT card to be accepted in most cases? And not every small town has a major chain store. I just don't see it that hard to plan the locations of the stores to be accessible. For special needs people other arrangements could be worked out.
 
Last edited:
Neomalthusian said:
I thought about this, but predicted that it would likely be significantly more expensive to have to make separate space for these store locations and then operate them than it would to use existing grocery infrastructure but simplify the eligible items to raw/basic single ingredients. I think if we did this, we could cut total benefits by significantly more than the modest (if any) administrative cost increase while at the same time providing MORE food for the nation's poor (i.e. making it more of a foundation of nutrition rather than a supplement to it). I really believe that's what you'd get if you eliminate all the unnecessary costs of food processing, packaging, marketing, etc.

And that's not even considering the potential long-term health benefits. $2 BILLION of the program's $76 billion in benefits goes JUST to soda. In other words, more than half of the amount it costs to administer SNAP goes just to so the soda companies and makes the nation's poor less healthy when they consume it. Add in the food processors depicted in the OP, and those food processing and marketing corporations are raking in probably almost all of the SNAP outlays every year.
Click to expand...

Maybe the cost of operating separate stores would end up costing more but sure would cut down on the cost of fraud.
 
vesper said:
Maybe the cost of operating separate stores would end up costing more but sure would cut down on the cost of fraud.
Click to expand...

I think the cases of actual fraud are probably ultimately small potatoes. The program is set up to be used this way. Sure there are examples of some ridiculous behavior, such as people buying cheap soda, dumping it out on the ground outside the store, returning the cans for deposit and taking the cash to go buy beer or drugs. But that's peripheral to the issue. The real problem is not that people are abusing the poor innocent SNAP program. The problem is that the SNAP program itself has ridiculously unnecessary allowances that make money for food processing corporations and make poor Americans less healthy.
 
Restricting SNAP to certain foods would do no real good. Culturally it would be a nightmare trying to determine what foods to ban from SNAP purchases. What it amounts to is people wanting to dictate to other people what they can and cannot eat. Once you open that Pandoras box the next thing you know certain foods will be black listed for all Americans. Dictating dietary demands on the public for any American is a affront on liberty and freedom.

If you want people to eat healthy give them the proper education then. Afte all its not hard to bake cookies using the basics..


The best solution for SNAP is to require universal achievement plans. Many states already have tough requirements for those on SNAP. But I think they are all lacking still, too many loop holes.
 
vesper said:
Actually, I would like to see the food welfare programs not be involved with grocery chains because it promotes corporate welfare. Instead I would think it advantageous for special box stores set up for people in need of food providing all the essentials. The person would have to show an ID proving they are entitled to the goods. I think it would cut out a lot of fraud while still providing for those who are truly in need. I'd like to see them bring back the unemployment office too where people had to prove they were really trying to get work instead of claiming to have filled out a few applications online without any personal contact.
Click to expand...
Might work ok in larger population centers, but rural areas would be too expensive.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I think the cases of actual fraud are probably ultimately small potatoes. The program is set up to be used this way. Sure there are examples of some ridiculous behavior, such as people buying cheap soda, dumping it out on the ground outside the store, returning the cans for deposit and taking the cash to go buy beer or drugs. But that's peripheral to the issue. The real problem is not that people are abusing the poor innocent SNAP program. The problem is that the SNAP program itself has ridiculously unnecessary allowances that make money for food processing corporations and make poor Americans less healthy.
Click to expand...

Gee I never heard of the one about buying cheap soda for the cans before. :( But I think the fraud business is much more than small potatoes. We've seen several retailers busted this year trading the food stamps for cash. For profits in the multimillions. And that's just the ones who got caught! We've also seen individuals selling them on places like Craig's List like $500 food stamps for $350. Obviously those are people who never needed them in the first place but were allowed to obtain them. If ya don't think the box store idea would work, before we do anything, we need tighter restrictions on who can apply for and stay on SNAP. And combined with limiting what they can purchase with their cards to only include wholesome staples/vegetables/fruits/meats would go a long way in saving the People money and may be a deterrent for abusers.
 
can i have some more.jpg
 
tacomancer said:
Giving someone beans does no good if they don't know what to do with the beans.
Click to expand...

Giving someone a can does them no good if they don't know what to do with it. Clearly we need to certify people in can opening as part of the snap program ...

Your argument is makes no sense, mate and is nothing more than an attempt to make an issue needlessly complex by placing unreasonable demands on it

Also, it does no good if they can only do a few things with the beans, quickly tiring of their options and trying to bypass the system.
Click to expand...

No one suggested people be limited to beans ....

Remember human nature :)
Click to expand...

Yes, that many people will ignore basic logic and common sense to push a political agenda. Don't worry, with the quality of your arguments, it will be hard to forget
 
radcen said:
I think the level that you and others want to go is unnecessarily petty and vindictive, yes.
Click to expand...

Again, your personal judgements against the suggested changes are irrelevant. I layed out why they are beneficial. If you can't address these points, besides going "you're a weenie-headed meanie" then that isn't my problem

But, beyond that, I don't trust that any government program that seeks to micromanage to the degree that you advocate will be efficient nor will it result in good government policy.
Click to expand...

Ok? So your argument essentially boils down to the govt can't efficiently manage govt programs. Well, given the absurdity of that argument, I'm sure you will forgive me if I feel no need to address it

The more control sought will result in more regulation and bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

the entire point is more regulation ... If you don't want bureaucracy and regulation in your govt programs fight to get rid of them or simply don't participate. But other than that, it's kind of the nature of the beast
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Once you open that Pandoras box the next thing you know certain foods will be black listed for all Americans. Dictating dietary demands on the public for any American is a affront on liberty and freedom.
Click to expand...

there is absolutely no basis for such a slippery slop argument
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom