• 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

Neomalthusian

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,821
Reaction score
3,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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?
 
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.
 
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.

Thanks for your response. I have a number of thoughts about this but will respond in a bit when others have had a chance to contribute.
 
What about simply restricting food?
 
I have always thought they should be redeemable for only food at restaurants approved by the food stamps issuer. But just food and drink. Period.
 
At the very least healthy foods.
 
SNAP already does not cover the basic supplies.

it needs to be EXPANDED, to cover all needed items.

Including gas or bus pass to GET the stupid food in the first place.
 
I'd say get rid of the sodas, snacks and bakery items and we can leave it at that.


btw, I think I know where you are going with your graphic showing all the major food players. I don't know about the people who get the food stamps since I've never had them, but I think I would be buying a lot of generic food to make the money stretch further. Those major players would get a minimal amount from me.
 
Last edited:
We dont have this system here.

We have "special" supermarkets for the poor and only for them, since you can only enter with a note by the magistrate proving that you are poor.

In these supermarkets, all products are drasticaly cheaper and some basic things such as bread and milk are even for free.

I believe it is partialy financed through the government and the private sector.
 
What do you all say?
I think it should be similar to the way the wic voucher system is. I do not know about other states but in my state WIC vouchers say what you can get and when you can get it and last I checked you must sign your name on the voucher. Also people on food stamps should not be able to buy energy drinks, soda, koolaid,junk food,microwavable dinners, name brand food and luxery food like t-bone steaks,lobster, sushi, and etc.
 
Unfortunately many of the folks on food stamps are single parents already working two or more jobs lacking the time,

How many? There are 47 million Americans on food stamps, and 96.7% of Americans have a TV, and average 34 hours per week watching it. That doesn't even account for time online.

and may not have the extra resources to pay for the energy to cook those meals.

I highly doubt people can't pay for the electricity required to cook meals. At least not considering 47 million are receiving food stamps. There are not that many people who are truly that dirt poor.

It seems like you are trying to think of reasons why people couldn't possibly be inconvenienced to prepare food.

The food assistance program should be about there being enough food that people don't starve. It should not be about laying out a red carpet of accommodation to single parents, especially when huge corporations stand to profit from those policies.
 
How many? There are 47 million Americans on food stamps, and 96.7% of Americans have a TV, and average 34 hours per week watching it. That doesn't even account for time online.



I highly doubt people can't pay for the electricity required to cook meals. At least not considering 47 million are receiving food stamps. There are not that many people who are truly that dirt poor.

It seems like you are trying to think of reasons why people couldn't possibly be inconvenienced to prepare food.

The food assistance program should be about there being enough food that people don't starve. It should not be about laying out a red carpet of accommodation to single parents, especially when huge corporations stand to profit from those policies.

Are you willing to go through that list of 47 million people and judge each as individual cases and see if any of those 47 million people should get food stamps?
 
Are you willing to go through that list of 47 million people and judge each as individual cases and see if any of those 47 million people should get food stamps?

No. I'm talking about smart policy, not personal judgments.
 
Rice.

Beans.

Meats/tofu/protein-heavy grains and vegetables.

Iodized salt.

That's it.
 
[snip]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.

What do you all say?
I say God bless you. My thoughts exactly. I understand the less fortunate people with all my heart and want the best for them, and I understand that just as easily I could become one of them. But that does not excuse the logic - As a working man I have no television service, and it is in my understanding that many families on welfare have it. I drink no sodas, eat no potato chips. on my regular diet at the moment is sausage which contains road kill deer that I found a few months ago, not because I am poor, but because I value life and use common sense.
 
I say God bless you. My thoughts exactly. I understand the less fortunate people with all my heart and want the best for them, and I understand that just as easily I could become one of them. But that does not excuse the logic - As a working man I have no television service, and it is in my understanding that many families on welfare have it. I drink no sodas, eat no potato chips. on my regular diet at the moment is sausage which contains road kill deer that I found a few months ago, not because I am poor, but because I value life and use common sense.

I'm with you.

No TV, don't smoke, don't drink, no sodas, either. Heck, I even make my own pizza...dough and all.
 
I would be willing to pay even more taxes to allow them access to healthy ready made foods at places like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. That would be great. No alcohol. No soft drinks. No cigarettes. No nothin' that ain't healthy.
 
I am so grateful that all of you generous and morally superior people deign that I should be allowed to eat "some types of meat". Really, I'm touched.
 
I would be willing to pay even more taxes to allow them access to healthy ready made foods at places like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. That would be great. No alcohol. No soft drinks. No cigarettes. No nothin' that ain't healthy.

You can't buy alcohol or cigarettes with SNAP. The system doesn't allow it, and trading legal food for those items is illegal; it's benefits fraud, punishable not only by loss of benefits but jail time.

You really don't have anything better to do, with your full-time jobs and families and real geopolitical and humanitarian problems, that you want to go to all that effort just to keep me from drinking a soda?
 
You can't buy alcohol or cigarettes with SNAP. The system doesn't allow it, and trading legal food for those items is illegal; it's benefits fraud, punishable not only by loss of benefits but jail time.

You really don't have anything better to do, with your full-time jobs and families and real geopolitical and humanitarian problems, that you want to go to all that effort just to keep me from drinking a soda?

I know that that is illegal. People spend their food stamps on food and all the rest of their money on alcohol. I have seen it. They buy crap food... twinkies, sugar cereal, etc. with food stamps and alcohol and cigarettes with the rest of their money that should go for the kids, etc. Not everybody... but enough that it pisses people off.
 
Having rules attached to government money is supported by democrats and republicans.
 
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?

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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom