• 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 in no way disagree with that, but it does nothing to change the fact that it's only in the states interest, and more than justified, to push diets towards moderately healthy alternatives that focus on delivering the most nutrition for dollar spent.


Not arguing with that. However some seem to be taking a positive delight in the notion of making a food stamps diet inconvenient and unappealing.

As for convenience foods, I'd also point out a lot of disabled and/or elderly people would have difficulty doing from-scratch food prep. I recall when my grandparents got really old, Granny started a couple of kitchen fires trying to cook, not to mention ruining several meals from difficulty concentrating.
 
Not arguing with that. However some seem to be taking a positive delight in the notion of making a food stamps diet inconvenient and unappealing.

As for convenience foods, I'd also point out a lot of disabled and/or elderly people would have difficulty doing from-scratch food prep. I recall when my grandparents got really old, Granny started a couple of kitchen fires trying to cook, not to mention ruining several meals from difficulty concentrating.


I'm not talking about people needing to cook everything from scratch, but more stuff like tv dinners, frozen potato skins, those flavored oatmeal packets, etc, that tend to be horribly unhealthy and have high mark-up. The one example I cited earlier with flavored oatmeal amounted to being three times the price with a huge increase in sugars and salts
 
Yes, if you adopt some extreme definition of "healthy where we are discussing free range bok choy and hand crafted Goji berries it's indeed more expensive, but if we want to be realistic and less self-serving to your agenda we can look at moderately processed foods (as opposed to heavily processed convenience foods) that are easily accessible (breads, pasta, frozen and canned vegetables, canned and dried beans, oatmeal, chicken, carrots, bananas, potatoes, etc) , commonly used, and quite cheap.


But like I said, that would require honesty and discussing the topic, as opposed to pushing your agenda. Which isn't likely to happen

Not sure what set you off, and I have no dig in this fight, but even by your definition of healthy, it would be "more" expensive than what we commonly call junk food. I see no agenda but just grocery reality.
 
Not sure what set you off

Nothing set me off. It's ust obvious the people arguing against such proposals are adopting some extreme definition of healthy that requires self serving metrics like wild caught salman and gourmet level foods. Which is rather laughable and predictable at this point,


and I have no dig in this fight, but even by your definition of healthy, it would be "more" expensive than what we commonly call junk food. I see no agenda but just grocery reality.

give us some examples. I already provided some that showed it was in fact not more expensive.

PS but again, this is assuming your definition of "junk food" was based on reality and not including things like tinned and frozen fruits and veggies.
 
Nothing set me off. It's ust obvious the people arguing against such proposals are adopting some extreme definition of healthy that requires self serving metrics like wild caught salman and gourmet level foods. Which is rather laughable and predictable at this point,




give us some examples. I already provided some that showed it was in fact not more expensive.

PS but again, this is assuming your definition of "junk food" was based on reality and not including things like tinned and frozen fruits and veggies.

Let me know what posts your example was. But I ate many years on white toast from breakfast, roman noodles for lunch, and hamburgers, chips, and can corn for dinner. It's a cheap day. I'm not sure you can do cheaper than that realistically.
 
I just want to point something out that some seem to be missing...

A lot of people getting food stamps are working as many hours as they are allowed by their employer. Some of them are people whose industry was outsourced; now they're working part time at Dollar General for about minimum wage because that is all they could find.

A lot of people getting foodstamps are elderly, in poor health and unable to work.

In brief, a lot of people on food stamps are NOT on there because they are lazy shiftless bums, but because their circumstances put them there against their will.

Can you cite any statistical support for these conclusions? What percentage are as you describe? How do you know?

Not arguing with that. However some seem to be taking a positive delight in the notion of making a food stamps diet inconvenient and unappealing.

Only if you suck at cooking, but good news is the internet has virtually infinite free recipes with instruction that virtually anyone can access from virtually anywhere.

As for convenience foods, I'd also point out a lot of disabled and/or elderly people would have difficulty doing from-scratch food prep.

"A lot?" How many, exactly? How do you know? How many of the 47 million beneficiaries are elderly and physically disabled from making food?

Even if that number happened to be significant, it would be a "how should our society care for the elderly" issue, not a "how should our society assure food security" issue.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. And I will go further and state that government money should always be attached to rules about what you can do with it.

I'm not arguing against rules in general. I'm arguing against these rules, because they are pointless and insulting.
And corrupt.
 
no vote
Where is other ?
Yes, I'd like to see nothing but "healthy foods" on the list, plus some paper goods.
A reasonable min-wage would be better.....and a good education....
The poor need our love, not our hatred.
 
I think SNAP benefits should include beer.

It has carbs.

It has calories.

It has protein.

It is food.
Having a few alcoholic beverages every day is actually good for your long term health, especially if it's beer or wine. Abstaining from alcohol puts you at a greater risk of developing heart disease. The key is moderation.

Just because some people cling to an irrational religious superstition that drinking any alcohol is bad for your health doesn't make it so.
 
You're trying to stretch and exaggerate my argument in any direction you can. First I want the poor to live as though they're in the 1800s, second I want to abolish food corporations.

If my proposal bothers you so much, I'm inclined to think you believe the SNAP program's underlying mission is something other than hunger/starvation mitigation, or otherwise you have some problem with an efficiently run program.

Again, if the mission is starvation prevention, then I believe my proposal is a much more efficient way to do it.

It would be like if we didn't have our current water infrastructure and instead gave people stamps to redeem branded bottled water from grocery stores, and then someone came in and said "hey I think there could be a cheaper and less wasteful way to deliver more water to more people." Why oppose that?

Right now all that you have is a notion, I dont buy into your notion. I think that there are a lot more dynamics that you havent thought of or are ignoring.
 
But what is "average"? Walmart vs Anthropolgie?

Whole foods stores sells mostly "organic" food.Organic food is code for overpriced food.
 
Whole foods stores sells mostly "organic" food.Organic food is code for overpriced food.

The whole point I was trying to get at was that a cheaper option at a more expensive store is still a more expensive option. The solution is to provide only enough money to afford the very basics at the cheapest store. If they don't stretch it out far enough to make it work, it's on them.
 
The whole point I was trying to get at was that a cheaper option at a more expensive store is still a more expensive option. The solution is to provide only enough money to afford the very basics at the cheapest store. If they don't stretch it out far enough to make it work, it's on them.

I think it would be easier just to say which stores can and can not do EBT and what goods you can and can not get with EBT.Because idiots will take the bare minimum and try to buy things like chips, tv dinners, and other expensive and junk food.
 
I think it would be easier just to say which stores can and can not do EBT and what goods you can and can not get with EBT.Because idiots will take the bare minimum and try to buy things like chips, tv dinners, and other expensive and junk food.

Let them buy inefficient goods with their little stipend. If it doesn't stretch enough because they bought the wrong things... well, that's natural selection.

Same with unhealthy food (like junk food) - if they didn't buy the proper nutrition with their small stipend, well, tough titties. Rice and beans are really, really cheap.
 
I have a hidden agenda, which is to see if people might begin asking themselves who really benefits most from this social welfare program, and see if they can identify for what real reasons they would oppose improving it.




Whatever.

As I said, this thread will accomplish nothing except wasting a little time.
 
Unfortunately many of the folks on food stamps are single parents already working two or more jobs lacking the time, and may not have the extra resources to pay for the energy to cook those meals. When I thought all on SNAP were just at home unemployed, I used to think as you do. But now with so many working poor, I don't think we can fairly force this issue.

You can make several large batches of food and eat from them throughout the week.

FACT-the purpose of this food is to prevent starvation in the severely needy-for a temporary period.
FACT-many of the poor suffer from obesity and other issues-and this is all on the taxpayers dime.
FACT-Whole, clean foods are often the cheapest.
 
Let them buy inefficient goods with their little stipend. If it doesn't stretch enough because they bought the wrong things... well, that's natural selection.

Same with unhealthy food (like junk food) - if they didn't buy the proper nutrition with their small stipend, well, tough titties. Rice and beans are really, really cheap.
If we go with your idea the amount will be increased. Because all it will take is a few morons still buying junk and expensive name brands whining and crying how they can't afford to feed themselves or their kids and MSNBC and other far left media outlets will paint politicians as anti-poor or claim that politician wants to see poor people starve and the amount will be raised
 
If we go with your idea the amount will be increased. Because all it will take is a few morons still buying junk and expensive name brands whining and crying how they can't afford to feed themselves or their kids and MSNBC and other far left media outlets will paint politicians as anti-poor or claim that politician wants to see poor people starve and the amount will be raised

Well, that's just the thing - pin the amount given to satisfy the bare minimum requirement. If there is only money for rice and beans, and not a red cent extra, then the person will either eat or starve. If they "need" more money, they are screwing up and the problem will take care of itself. Now, if only we could get pundits and networks to show just how much good food you can make with the current levels of assistance.
 
This is 'Merica dammit! I say plenty of bread crusts and watery gruel for all.

God bless Tiny Tim.
 
Let them buy inefficient goods with their little stipend. If it doesn't stretch enough because they bought the wrong things... well, that's natural selection.

Same with unhealthy food (like junk food) - if they didn't buy the proper nutrition with their small stipend, well, tough titties. Rice and beans are really, really cheap.

It isn't natural selection because we are handing them money... giving the access to free medical care... free education... etc.
 
Whatever.

As I said, this thread will accomplish nothing except wasting a little time.

Says the guy on an internet political forum to another guy on an internet political forum. :giggle:
 
Says the guy on an internet political forum to another guy on an internet political forum. :giggle:






"The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." ~ Tommy Smothers





"Republicans have been accused of abandoning the poor.It's the other way around.They never vote for us" ~ Dan Quayle
 
Last edited:
This is 'Merica dammit! I say plenty of bread crusts and watery gruel for all.

God bless Tiny Tim.

That's about on par with saying we currently give them feather beds and a Mercedes.
 
You can make several large batches of food and eat from them throughout the week.

FACT-the purpose of this food is to prevent starvation in the severely needy-for a temporary period.
FACT-many of the poor suffer from obesity and other issues-and this is all on the taxpayers dime.
FACT-Whole, clean foods are often the cheapest.

Not really true. Healthy food is typically expensive. I am trying to think of what food is both healthy and cheap. Oatmeal. Um what else? Even things that used to be inexpensive are not anymore. My mother used to buy, beef liver and kidneys by the 5 lb package. Half were fed to our dogs and the rest was for me and my siblings. If you can find them at all, these items are not cheap any longer. Fish used to be inexpensive. Now the fish stocks are decimated.

How about demanding that legislators stop subsidizing unwholesome agricultural products so that they are not a cheap alternative to healthy food. Use those savings to subsidize healthy eating programs.
 
Back
Top Bottom