• 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!

Time to Cut Food Stamp Spending

I grew up in a poor, SNAP home, so I'm a lil' bit sensitive to the issue. That said, so many of those on SNAP are such irresponsible shoppers and eaters. In some ways I do think it'd better to more limit what can be purchased with food stamps just to force these people into making smarter decisions.

I would not be opposed to sectional, apportioned food stamp allotments..

Example: family of four gets $400/month:

25% on grains
25% on dairy
25% on produce
20% on meats
5% on misc.

No chips, no candy. That would not upset me whatsoever.
 
phattonetz, always charming the audience,

Try cutting SNAP and see how swiftly Red states, who are high recipients of food stamps, see how swiftly they flip from a conservative position to a liberal one. It's asinine to suggest cutting a program that costs roughly $70-80B, in the context of a Defense Department running a $600 Billion dollar budget. And you want to tell me that poor people and seniors on food stamps, are spending too much of your money. The DoD is spending too much of my money. Trump's DoD hikes in the neighborhood of $60B, will show up as a nice chunk coming out of my paycheck, going towards an expense that I do not approve of.

Cutting food stamps is consequential to spending. Poor people that cannot even afford to buy groceries, aren't stimulating local economy much to begin with, but adding a monthly grocery expense, to an already stringent budget, is setting yourself up for economic failure. All grocery stores should lobby the federal government, against cutting SNAP, and arm themselves with a humanitarian argument, supplemented by an economic brazier. If you cut spending on SNAP.. You cut spending in the community. You damage local economy. you damage personal livelihood.

Anyone advocating for cutting spending on SNAP, is walking into dangerous territory, and making a move only a simpleton would advocate for.

Dont worry its just rightwing masturbatory talk. ANd I suspect that such issues will be on the back burner for a while.
 
Dont worry its just rightwing masturbatory talk. ANd I suspect that such issues will be on the back burner for a while.

You're right. I see FOX running food stamp smear pieces occasionally, but I've not heard any movers and shakers in DC bring it up in a long time.

And with shakiness looming for the '18 midterms, with the potentially seismic Trump activity.. they wouldn't get behind a "cut poor people's food" agenda, that would mean murder for the GOP house.
 
I grew up in a poor, SNAP home, so I'm a lil' bit sensitive to the issue. That said, so many of those on SNAP are such irresponsible shoppers and eaters. In some ways I do think it'd better to more limit what can be purchased with food stamps just to force these people into making smarter decisions.

I'm not sure why we haven't simply set up every household with a Door-To-Door Organics-type of account and pay to have X-amount of food shipped to their home each week, or every few days or whatever, based on the number of people in the household.

"Here's your food, there's enough to feed you for [however many] days. Take it or leave it". Instead of sending them what is essentially cash.
 
In 2015, the US federal government spent $75 billion on SNAP.

We're also facing an obesity epidemic in this country.
usobesity.gif


Given that obesity is concentrated mostly among the poor, it's time to cut SNAP benefits. There's clearly an overabundance of food well above basic dietary requirements, and excessive SNAP benefits are only enabling this gluttony.

Simply cutting SNAP benefits in half would put a decent debt in the federal deficit, and the benefits to health expenses a offer a nice multiplier.

Am I missing a link?

What even is this chart? Percent of what? The number of obese men and women in households of various incomes?
 
I'm not sure why we haven't simply set up every household with a Door-To-Door Organics-type of account and pay to have X-amount of food shipped to their home each week, or every few days or whatever, based on the number of people in the household.

"Here's your food, there's enough to feed you for [however many] days. Take it or leave it". Instead of sending them what is essentially cash.

You would have a liberal riot on your hands. Don't you understand, that would be discrimination? Rich people would be allowed to eat all the junk food they want but we would be forcing healthy food on the poor. Using your line of thinking, we could force the poor not to smoke cigarettes or to drink alcohol. The ACLU would be up in arms. But, I give you kudos for getting out of your liberal element, if only for a moment.
 
Rather than decreasing the budget I would prefer to narrow the list of things that can be purchased with "food stamps". I have no problem with poor people enjoying some junk food, but not with food stamps.
 
In 2015, the US federal government spent $75 billion on SNAP.

We're also facing an obesity epidemic in this country.
usobesity.gif


Given that obesity is concentrated mostly among the poor, it's time to cut SNAP benefits. There's clearly an overabundance of food well above basic dietary requirements, and excessive SNAP benefits are only enabling this gluttony.

Simply cutting SNAP benefits in half would put a decent debt in the federal deficit, and the benefits to health expenses a offer a nice multiplier.

Yeah, you do that, buddy. And don't forget to repeal Obamacare, with no replacement. Oh, and don't forget those trade wars with China, Mexico, and Canada too. Then sit back and enjoy the show. You will make America great again, you will see. ;)
 
Last edited:
You would have a liberal riot on your hands. Don't you understand, that would be discrimination? Rich people would be allowed to eat all the junk food they want but we would be forcing healthy food on the poor. Using your line of thinking, we could force the poor not to smoke cigarettes or to drink alcohol. The ACLU would be up in arms. But, I give you kudos for getting out of your liberal element, if only for a moment.

Sending them food to their home at regular intervals wouldn't interfere with their ability to smoke or drink. They already cannot buy either of those items with their Bridge Card.

And just for the record, sending people boxes of food at regular intervals is a pretty liberal thing to do. But it was nice to see you agree so strongly with such a liberal idea, even if only for once.
 
In 2015, the US federal government spent $75 billion on SNAP.

We're also facing an obesity epidemic in this country.
usobesity.gif


Given that obesity is concentrated mostly among the poor, it's time to cut SNAP benefits. There's clearly an overabundance of food well above basic dietary requirements, and excessive SNAP benefits are only enabling this gluttony.

Simply cutting SNAP benefits in half would put a decent debt in the federal deficit, and the benefits to health expenses a offer a nice multiplier.

Oh brilliant.

So your solution to stop obesity in the poor is to cut back on the amount of food both they - and healthy poor people - can eat on the government's dime?

Great.

So healthy, starving, poor children are a small price to pay for you just as long as fat, poor children stop eating candy?


That is a horrible idea. You do not starve innocent people to punish a few offenders.

I will NEVER agree to your ridiculous idea.

Find another way.
 
They tried a few years back to cut out Sodas from SNAP and WIC but they failed miserably, even thou sugary sodas is a big contribuator to diabeties and the poor have the highest rate of diabeties of any class plus since when is soda supposed to be given to the poor and funded my tax payers, shouldnt they get juices, milk, and water? Ya trying to take something away from the poor will just be turned into its discrimanation against blacks and the liberal judges eat that **** up.

Actually, you cannot buy soda with WIC. In the WIC program you get "checks" that show exactly what you can get and the dollar amount allocated. You also only get basic things like milk, beans, cheese, bread, etc... even the cereal you can get is very limited and cannot be full of sugar.

I would like to see the SNAP program remodeled more like WIC, in which you get a budget for different items and for the majority they are healthy choices. I also think there should still be a small amount towards sweets or whatever they want.
 
That's silly. I can do it, in fact over the last 12 months we've transformed our grocery buying and saved money. It's not that's expensive it's harder to make right choices. this meme about being "Expensive" is a cop out bs lie.

You are correct.

Fresh vegetables cost less than canned ones. And fresh is healthier, even when home prepared.
Pot roast costs less steak, is often tastier, and the health benefits are about equal.

The most expensive food is generally the least healthy.
 
I grew up in a poor, SNAP home, so I'm a lil' bit sensitive to the issue. That said, so many of those on SNAP are such irresponsible shoppers and eaters. In some ways I do think it'd better to more limit what can be purchased with food stamps just to force these people into making smarter decisions.

The thing that bugs me the most about SNAP, WIC, and any other welfare is standing in line while the card user separates out the beer and cheap wine then wait while the clerk calls the manager to open the cigarette case.

If you can afford cigs and beer, you don't need my help.
 
Last edited:

If they can make WIC efficient.

I work in a grocery store. So, I encounter WIC almost daily. The way it's set up..

The mother has to buy the correct brand and size, in order to get the benefit. And if there's one item that is not on WIC, in a giant order.. you have to void the entire order out and mix and match, and search for the problem item. Long story short, it regularly takes 10-15mins, to sort through the WIC madness. If they can create a program that automatically separates WIC items from non-WIC items, which I have not doubt, they are capable of doing, that would be workable. But, right now, if everyone on Food Stamps, was treated like a WIC customer, some orders in the 2-300 Dollar range, would be altogether impossible to troubleshoot if you encountered any problems.
 
If they can make WIC efficient.

I work in a grocery store. So, I encounter WIC almost daily. The way it's set up..

The mother has to buy the correct brand and size, in order to get the benefit. And if there's one item that is not on WIC, in a giant order.. you have to void the entire order out and mix and match, and search for the problem item. Long story short, it regularly takes 10-15mins, to sort through the WIC madness. If they can create a program that automatically separates WIC items from non-WIC items, which I have not doubt, they are capable of doing, that would be workable. But, right now, if everyone on Food Stamps, was treated like a WIC customer, some orders in the 2-300 Dollar range, would be altogether impossible to troubleshoot if you encountered any problems.

Which is why they probably say **** it with SNAP, costs don't outweigh the benefits. That and lobbying from the processed food industry.
 
Not at all... buy some broccoli, apples, plain rice, pasta, etc. Simple. Inexpensive.

I feed my family of one for a couple hundred bucks a month and I eat both healthy and well. No canned veggies (Except Bush beans, I love Bush beans). That includes beer and wine.
 
Sending them food to their home at regular intervals wouldn't interfere with their ability to smoke or drink. They already cannot buy either of those items with their Bridge Card.

And just for the record, sending people boxes of food at regular intervals is a pretty liberal thing to do. But it was nice to see you agree so strongly with such a liberal idea, even if only for once.

We're already giving liberals free food so your idea doesn't change that. I actually find your idea amusing but a true liberal would be upset at forcing the poor to eat healthy or starve. If a Republican suggested such a thing they would be tarred and feathered by the left . I'm going to go out on a limb here and I'm going to suggest that most of the kids in school getting free lunches from Michelle Obama are poor and yet that didn't stop them from throwing their healthy food in the garbage. I commend Michelle for giving it the old college try but her idea only worked in theory. The reality was that the food was thrown in the trash and not one dent was made in childhood obesity. And, her saying that Trump doesn't care about kids just shows the same liberal BS mentality that helped Trump get elected in the first place.
 
We're already giving liberals free food so your idea doesn't change that.

plenty of republicans getting free food, too. However, we don't send them food, we send them the means to go buy food. Im suggesting we just send them food.

I actually find your idea amusing but a true liberal would be upset at forcing the poor to eat healthy or starve.

I must not be a true liberal. But I already knew that.

If a Republican suggested such a thing they would be tarred and feathered by the left .

I doubt we need to worry about an R advocating for my idea.



Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
 
Which 1.8% of the US budget....an insignificant amount

Therefore what? We can continue to waste the money and watch while our poor die of obesity related diseases?

No correlation, but go on...
From your own source:

According to Max Schmeiser, Center for Financial Security at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "There is a preponderance of cheap, processed, calorically dense, fatty food in the United States. Therefore, for those with minimal financial resources, these unhealthy types of food are a primary source of their daily calories resulting in a caloric imbalance that leads to obesity." Combined with their palatability, energy-dense foods with higher levels of sugar and fat can be an attractive choice for those with lower incomes. Diets high in foods with lower energy density but higher nutrients, on the other hand, are linked to those with higher income levels.
For Women in the U.S., Obesity Links to Socioeconomic Status and Poor Diet

...in other words, cutting SNAP, lowering the income for low income citizens....would make the problem WORSE.

Which is why Ethiopia is so skinny, because they're so rich.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of abolishing our current welfare system and replacing it with a guaranteed minimum income sytem with work requirements

What about people who want to work but can't? Workhouses for them? I'm serious, I'd be fine with bringing them back.
 
I'm sure they are super healthy. Obesity by itself isn't the problem. It just happens to generally be associated with plenty of bad health conditions. There are plenty of thin people around the world with very poor health.

Ethiopians? Wow.
 
Back
Top Bottom