• 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
Going that route would certainly be healthier, however, not cheaper. Generally speaking processed foods are far cheaper than fresh foods. To me then this argument is really about what is more important, health of welfare recipients or keeping taxes lower. Many people bitch about what recipients can use food stamps for but would you be ok doubling or more the taxes that go into this program to ensure they can only get fresh, healthy foods?

Not if you go generic route, which most of the above would be applying to. I'm personally for generics and limit them it to healthy stuff. At least this is one way that we can start tackling the overweight issue in the country. If you want irony: Mississippi, the poorest state in the country, is also the fattest.

In fact, the five poorest states are also among the 10 fattest, and eight of the 10 poorest states are also among the 10 with the lowest life expectancy.
 
Last edited:
sorry, not onboard with this latest outrage. i don't care if those who didn't benefit from trickle down buy captain crunch, and i also don't mind paying for it. ****, a bunch of my tax dollars have been diverted to fund all kinds of things i don't support. get over it, and have a happy new year.

So just give food to everyone? Let's take more from those who do work and are successful? How is this good policy? Honestly there should conditions attached to this stuff to encourage those to not stay on this. There are many states in this country where you can live off the government, at better terms than you can with a minimum wage job. That only creates a class of people who are dependent on the government. How is this healthy for our republic?
 
So just give food to everyone? Let's take more from those who do work and are successful? How is this good policy?

because you're a member of a society, and sometimes that means dealing with stuff you don't approve of. i do it every day.


Honestly there should conditions attached to this stuff to encourage those to not stay on this.

nah, trickle down should actually work so that there are good jobs for the people currently on assistance. and when we figure out that it doesn't work as advertised, we should modify it slightly so that it works better.

There are many states in this country where you can live off the government, at better terms than you can with a minimum wage job. That only creates a class of people who are dependent on the government. How is this healthy for our republic?

reread what you just wrote, and figure it out.

there are a lot of machines i rage against. the evil, lazy poor is a myth i broke for myself when i was still a libertarian. can you do the same?
 
nah, trickle down should actually work so that there are good jobs for the people currently on assistance. and when we figure out that it doesn't work as advertised, we should modify it slightly so that it works better.

Trickle down is not an economic theory though, it is a made-up boogeyman.
 
Going that route would certainly be healthier, however, not cheaper. Generally speaking processed foods are far cheaper than fresh foods.

I'm talking primarily about raw ingredients. Rice per serving is much cheaper in bulk than a serving from a box of Rice a Roni®. Oats in bulk are much cheaper than Quaker Instant Oatmeal Cups®. And so on and so forth. Read the ingredients on the back of the cardboard boxes in your pantry, and you will note that getting those base ingredients in bulk will often save you money.

To me then this argument is really about what is more important, health of welfare recipients or keeping taxes lower.

To me, you're wrong about that.

Many people bitch about what recipients can use food stamps for but would you be ok doubling or more the taxes that go into this program to ensure they can only get fresh, healthy foods?

There is nothing to indicate my idea would double the cost of SNAP. SNAP spends $76 billion on food benefits and another $3-4 billion administering it. I really see no reason why either of those expenditures would increase if EBT cards could only redeem bulk staples and basic ingredients.
 
sorry, not onboard with this latest outrage.

What outrage?

i don't care if those who didn't benefit from trickle down buy captain crunch, and i also don't mind paying for it.

What is the purpose of food stamps? Like the most basic, core purpose?
 
Having rules attached to government money is supported by democrats and republicans.

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.
 
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.

Allowing comfort with welfare will always lead to these problems. Welfare is about survival, not comfort.
 
What outrage?

the OMG poor people are buying junk food on my nickel outrage.

What is the purpose of food stamps? Like the most basic, core purpose?

to help those who fell through the cracks buy some food. it's cool to live in a first world country. our health care system and energy model could definitely use some tweaking, but i'm ok with helping those who don't make a lot of money to buy food.

even TV dinners and candy bars.
 
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.

Which rules? This thread isn't about rules (like "no, you poor person, you can't drink soda"). No, this idea is about smart and effective policy. If food assistance is intended to prevent starvation and hunger in the US, then the cheapest, most effective, and healthiest way of mitigating any starvation/hunger risk is by doing what I'm suggesting. If an EBT card can only redeem basic single ingredients and bulk staples, the mission is accomplished -- starvation and hunger risks are very effectively mitigated.
 
the OMG poor people are buying junk food on my nickel outrage.

It's not so much that it's my nickel, it's that the shopping spree model of food stamps is utterly unnecessary. It's an inefficient way of accomplishing the mission of food stamps. There are much better ways to make sure our country is well nourished.

to help those who fell through the cracks buy some food. it's cool to live in a first world country. our health care system and energy model could definitely use some tweaking, but i'm ok with helping those who don't make a lot of money to buy food.

even TV dinners and candy bars.

Corporations make good money convincing the government to entitle people to its products. But it's wasteful and not necessary to use government benefits to enrich corporations under the guise of helping the needy.

Is the actual mission of food stamps in fact a corporate one?
 
There is nothing to indicate my idea would double the cost of SNAP. SNAP spends $76 billion on food benefits and another $3-4 billion administering it. I really see no reason why either of those expenditures would increase if EBT cards could only redeem bulk staples and basic ingredients.

I think you're getting into dangerous territory. As your graphic in the OP pointed out, food is already controlled by a few major companies. It wouldn't be long before you got a Congress or President who restricted what you could buy to foods supplied only by a few key campaign contributors.

Also, you're starting to go down the slope of how much food is really necessary. You won't die if you don't eat lunch tomorrow, so maybe we shouldn't pay for that (unless of course, you buy Oscar Meyer lunchmeat...keep those contributions rolling in!). If you don't see that happening, you really haven't thought it through.

The other problem is that grocery stores with bulk foods departments tend not to be located in lower income areas. So unless someone did something to address that, they wouldn't have access to these things.
 
Question for those who would severely restrict what can be bought:

Would you allow a can of Campbells soup to be purchased, or would you require that all the ingredients be bought separately?
 
Question for those who would severely restrict what can be bought:

Would you allow a can of Campbells soup to be purchased, or would you require that all the ingredients be bought separately?

Is there anyone actually wanting to ban soups as a legitimate item?
 
I think you're getting into dangerous territory. As your graphic in the OP pointed out, food is already controlled by a few major companies. It wouldn't be long before you got a Congress or President who restricted what you could buy to foods supplied only by a few key campaign contributors.

A law could be written that permits redemption of food stamps with a list of basic ingredients that we find in more than 99% of the processed and packaged corporation food. It doesn't mean dystopian food control. It just means food stamps meet their goal of preventing hunger and starvation by limitation to basic raw ingredients (like if you look one the ingredients, a single thing is listed).

Also, you're starting to go down the slope of how much food is really necessary.

No I'm really not.

The other problem is that grocery stores with bulk foods departments tend not to be located in lower income areas. So unless someone did something to address that, they wouldn't have access to these things.

Wherever stores are, they carry what people demand. If people have no money and only an EBT card, and the EBT card can only redeem those types of things, then it behooves said store to carry what its customers demand. It would go out of business if it didn't. And another would set up shop in its place offering what people are needing and willing to buy or redeem. So we could easily predict that what stores stocked would change if people with EBT cards started showing up and saying "hey, where the **** are the oats and rice and flour?"
 
The other problem is that grocery stores with bulk foods departments tend not to be located in lower income areas. So unless someone did something to address that, they wouldn't have access to these things.

And stores like Sam's Club and Costco that offer bulk foods don't accept SNAP.
 
It's not so much that it's my nickel, it's that the shopping spree model of food stamps is utterly unnecessary. It's an inefficient way of accomplishing the mission of food stamps. There are much better ways to make sure our country is well nourished.



Corporations make good money convincing the government to entitle people to its products. But it's wasteful and not necessary to use government benefits to enrich corporations under the guise of helping the needy.

Is the actual mission of food stamps in fact a corporate one?

well, since food stamp money goes to corporate food producers and then trickles down to the workers, i guess that is a side benefit.

in reality, the mission of food stamps is to help those people left behind by supply side to live a more normal life. there's always room to tweak the system, but most of the **** i read on message boards is closer to :

"these lazy poor people are stealing my money to buy twinkies."

i don't really believe or care about that particular oversimplification.
 
Question for those who would severely restrict what can be bought:

Would you allow a can of Campbells soup to be purchased, or would you require that all the ingredients be bought separately?

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.
 
The poll question is rather basic. Should we do this? Explain why or why not.

For context, this is what currently is redeemable:
  • breads and cereals;
  • fruits and vegetables;
  • meats, fish and poultry;
  • dairy products;
  • Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
  • Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
Source: Eligible Food Items | Food and Nutrition Service

A question you might think about that could affect your answer might be, "What is the real, core, basic purpose of food assistance programs?"

If the answer is to prevent hunger/starvation in the U.S., then I would propose that all packaged processed foods (foods with multiple ingredients listed) be excluded. That sweeps a lot of confusion off the table right there. Eligible items could include single ingredient bulk staples like rice, beans, lentils, flour, pasta, basic spices, cooking oil, even sugar, and produce, eggs, and, what the hell, even some types of meat.

That combination alone results in a panoply of food options, and minimal risk of starvation. It also mitigates starvation at the cheapest and maybe healthiest manner possible -- by putting control over the ingredients into the hands of the person receiving and preparing the food.

So my vote in this poll is Yes. We should do this.

Let's assume these folks would throw a conniption and vote No.

2013-02-26-WhoOwnsBrandsMed.jpg


What do you all say?

I'd also restrict by calories, based on the weight of the recipients. That is fat recipients would receive less food until they come down to a healthy weight.
 
well, since food stamp money goes to corporate food producers and then trickles down to the workers, i guess that is a side benefit.

in reality, the mission of food stamps is to help those people left behind by supply side to live a more normal life. there's always room to tweak the system, but most of the **** i read on message boards is closer to :

"these lazy poor people are stealing my money to buy twinkies."

i don't really believe or care about that particular oversimplification.

That's fine, I understand that you're unmoved by people's outrage over using social benefits for marginally nutritious or non-nutritive items. More than being outraged at food stamp fraud, I simply think that going back to basics might (just might) give people even more options, opportunity for creativity with their food choices and diets, quite probably healthier, and has the potential to provide more food to more people for cheaper. It might even result in such savings that people could basically sustain on the food from the program alone, rather than use it only as a supplement, which is what it is now.
 
That's fine, I understand that you're unmoved by people's outrage over using social benefits for marginally nutritious or non-nutritive items. More than being outraged at food stamp fraud, I simply think that going back to basics might (just might) give people even more options, opportunity for creativity with their food choices and diets, quite probably healthier, and has the potential to provide more food to more people for cheaper. It might even result in such savings that people could basically sustain on the food from the program alone, rather than use it only as a supplement, which is what it is now.

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 are using the benefits to buy the food that they want. there are more important things to be pissed off about.
 
I'd also restrict by calories, based on the weight of the recipients. That is fat recipients would receive less food until they come down to a healthy weight.

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.
 
because you're a member of a society, and sometimes that means dealing with stuff you don't approve of. i do it every day.

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.

nah, trickle down should actually work so that there are good jobs for the people currently on assistance. and when we figure out that it doesn't work as advertised, we should modify it slightly so that it works better.

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.

reread what you just wrote, and figure it out.

there are a lot of machines i rage against. the evil, lazy poor is a myth i broke for myself when i was still a libertarian. can you do the same?

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?
 
And stores like Sam's Club and Costco that offer bulk foods don't accept SNAP.

And you know, that really boggles my mind. I see people who operate restaurants buying huge sacks and buckets of ingredients from places like Costco and Sam's, which they do the work to prepare into food items at a markup, and whaddya know, SNAP will even pay for some restaurant food.

It would delight me if SNAP beneficiaries could be the ones buying these sacks and buckets full of ingredients and making their own food for much cheaper than what they have to fork over for grocery, restaurant and convenience store food. I mean I guess it wouldn't necessarily be great for the restaurants and grocers and food processors, but it would be great for the people themselves. They'd be the ones capitalizing on their own value-added efforts, cost-cutting for their own personal benefit, rather than purchasing subserviently from the others, who benefit from their ongoing dependence.
 
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 are using the benefits to buy the food that they want. there are more important things to be pissed off about.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom