• 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
FreedomFromAll said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not about a list of banned items so much as a simple delineating between single-ingredient items and processed/packaged items.

What it amounts to is people wanting to dictate to other people what they can and cannot eat.
Click to expand...

You can make virtually anything using ingredients listed in my proposal.

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

The likely health benefit is actually incidental. The point of a food assistance program is to mitigate any hunger or starvation risks. I think my proposal accomplishes it better than our current shopping spree model.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
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



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



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
Click to expand...

In the real world, different skills have different levels of expertise required to execute them. Opening a can and cooking require different levels of expertise. While I would trust a child to open a can, I would not trust them to cook without training, unless they were naturally talented in that area. The unfortunate reality is that a lot of people do not know how to cook even as adults. Sure you and I can probably cook a fine meal (you should have tasted my quiche last night, OMFG was it good).

The point being that simple ideas can have complex requirements to function in the real world. Welfare and capitalism are both good ideas and are very complex to make work in the real world as well.

I am not trying to limit the idea, in fact I am in favor of it, I believe that welfare should suck to motivate people to improve their lot. Making people cook their own meals is a good piece of that, however the reason a lot of people are on welfare in the first place is that they do not possess basic skills. If those skills are not acquired, they will not be able to improve their lot.

Call it a political agenda if you want, I call it reasonable and basic common sense.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It's not about a list of banned items so much as a simple delineating between single-ingredient items and processed/packaged items.
Click to expand...
That sounds political, or at least politically that is how will be how it will be viewed.



You can make virtually anything using ingredients listed in my proposal.
Click to expand...
Then there isnt any excuse for your plan, it will easily be refuted by pointing out that the same type of food can be ate using Snap.



The likely health benefit is actually incidental. The point of a food assistance program is to mitigate any hunger or starvation risks. I think my proposal accomplishes it better than our current shopping spree model.
Click to expand...
many will argue that you are just trying to make it harder for people using SNAP which will never fly as a policy.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
What about WholeFoods and other specialty stores?
Click to expand...

If they are more expensive than your average store then no.They they shouldn't be allowed to take EBT.
 
jamesrage said:
If they are more expensive than your average store then no.They they shouldn't be allowed to take EBT.
Click to expand...

But what is "average"? Walmart vs Anthropolgie?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Then there isnt any excuse for your plan, it will easily be refuted by pointing out that the same type of food can be ate using Snap.
Click to expand...

The point of my proposal isn't to control what people eat. It's to meet the goal of the program more efficiently and common sensibly.

FreedomFromAll said:
Really? ANd no dangers of a nanny state at all?
Click to expand...

It doesn't interfere with personal choice and it isn't overly protective. Nannies would prepare food for the wee ones, whereas adults would buy ingredients and make food for themselves and their families. If anything, our current system is more of a nanny, for viewing adult level responsibilities as way too much to expect from adults just because they don't happen to have a lot of money.
 
tacomancer said:
We need a better solution.
Click to expand...

The better solution is to tell these assholes to **** off every time they start up with this crap. It doesn't have anything to do with health or even saving money-- they just want to make poor people more miserable because it makes them feel better about their own lives.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The better solution is to tell these assholes to **** off every time they start up with this crap. It doesn't have anything to do with health or even saving money-- they just want to make poor people more miserable because it makes them feel better about their own lives.
Click to expand...

lol, the only response anyone can seemingly give here on why this is a bad idea is to attack the people proposing it. I imagine most people are seeing it the same way I am :that there is little justification for subsidizing people indulging in overly priced convenience foods that do little to nothing to address actual nutritional needs.

I'm sorry you guys feel entitled to cheezy poofs and kool-aid.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The better solution is to tell these assholes to **** off every time they start up with this crap. It doesn't have anything to do with health or even saving money-- they just want to make poor people more miserable because it makes them feel better about their own lives.
Click to expand...

1. I certainly wouldn't deny that some people definitely get a vindictive sense of self-righteousness messing with the lives of others. There is a strong swathe of people in our society who assume that they know better than others how those lives should be lived.

2. People on Public Assistance are there because for one reason or another they were unable to provide for or make excellent decisions for themselves. By taking provision they are admitting that they have not lived their lives in such a way as to provide for themselves (whether through lack of will or ability). If the the rest of the country are offering provision, those who receive it really don't have much of a leg to stand on to insist that others not make any of that receipt conditional upon the terms of its' use.



Full Disclosure: My own policy proposal would likely exacerbate, rather than reduce this problem.
 
Neomalthusian said:
The point of my proposal isn't to control what people eat. It's to meet the goal of the program more efficiently and common sensibly.
Click to expand...
But its subjective how much people eat and what they can eat, or want to eat. And people that use SNAP can chose to do what you are suggesting on their own. Hell even people without SNAP can chose do to what you are suggesting but they dont because there is nothing wrong with some prepared food. Most people dont but basic ingredients to make bread or even pancakes. There is nothing wrong with living in the modern age. This isnt little house on the prairie. And we are not all Quakers.


It doesn't interfere with personal choice and it isn't overly protective. Nannies would prepare food for the wee ones, whereas adults would buy ingredients and make food for themselves and their families. If anything, our current system is more of a nanny, for viewing adult level responsibilities as way too much to expect from adults just because they don't happen to have a lot of money.
Click to expand...
As a adult do you make all of your food by scratch with just the basic ingredients? Are you implying that its childish to use foods that have been combined together? Seriously think about what you are saying, because it appears that you expect people on SNAP to be treated as if they live in the 1800's.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
But its subjective how much people eat and what they can eat, or want to eat. And people that use SNAP can chose to do what you are suggesting on their own. Hell even people without SNAP can chose do to what you are suggesting but they dont because there is nothing wrong with some prepared food. Most people dont but basic ingredients to make bread or even pancakes. There is nothing wrong with living in the modern age. This isnt little house on the prairie. And we are not all Quakers.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting people need to raise their own livestock, just that it's completely unnecessary and wasteful to pay the corporate markup for food they prepare.

As a adult do you make all of your food by scratch with just the basic ingredients?
Click to expand...

Not all. More than the average person, but then again I also pay for 100% of mine.

Are you implying that its childish to use foods that have been combined together?
Click to expand...

It's childish to think an adult wouldn't be able to make food and thus can't be burdened to do so.

Seriously think about what you are saying, because it appears that you expect people on SNAP to be treated as if they live in the 1800's.
Click to expand...

Making meals does not equate to "living in the 1800s." If starvation prevention is the objective, then availing the basic staples and ingredients found in all the corporate processed and marketed food is more than enough. In fact it can reduce costs while increasing food security. The downsides (because let's admit every option has downsides) are that it's not as convenient as the corporate processed food, and it would end the corporate welfare aspects of SNAP.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I'm not suggesting people need to raise their own livestock, just that it's completely unnecessary and wasteful to pay the corporate markup for food they prepare.



Not all. More than the average person, but then again I also pay for 100% of mine.



It's childish to think an adult wouldn't be able to make food and thus can't be burdened to do so.



Making meals does not equate to "living in the 1800s." If starvation prevention is the objective, then availing the basic staples and ingredients found in all the corporate processed and marketed food is more than enough. In fact it can reduce costs while increasing food security. The downsides (because let's admit every option has downsides) are that it's not as convenient as the corporate processed food, and it would end the corporate welfare aspects of SNAP.
Click to expand...

So what you are really upset about is the food industry, by that I mean corporations. Its sounds like you just want to sget rid of corporations and their food products. Sorry SNAP isnt the place to play political games, awe the irony.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So what you are really upset about is the food industry, by that I mean corporations. Its sounds like you just want to sget rid of corporations and their food products. Sorry SNAP isnt the place to play political games, awe the irony.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Two words will solve this problem...Soylent Green.

Instead of stamps, just send packets of delicious(?) Soylent Green to all those that need it.
 
DA60 said:
Two words will solve this problem...Soylent Green.

Instead of stamps, just send packets of delicious(?) Soylent Green to all those that need it.
Click to expand...

My proposal is actually one of compromise. I think we could do without federal food stamps altogether. But that REALLY sends people into a full-blown conniption. So this is more of a happy middle.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
no it really doesn't and I already provided one example
Click to expand...

Didn't see your example, though one example probably wouldn't settle anything. Overall healthy food cost more. Looking at variety and volume, I'm fairly sure that would mean being more expensive.
 
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.
 
Boo Radley said:
Didn't see your example, though one example probably wouldn't settle anything. Overall healthy food cost more. Looking at variety and volume, I'm fairly sure that would mean being more expensive.
Click to expand...

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
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom