• 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
CriticalThought said:
Eat what we want you to eat or starve. That sounds noble.
Click to expand...

The system itself is not noble. There is also no logic in the argument that we can stop the government from controlling services it provides. They provide the service and thus control it. Get over it. I already told people like you to be careful, but you're all bunch of stubborn jackasses that won't listen to anyone.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
One of the basic tenets of libertarianism is that government be as unobtrusive in people's lives as possible. Providing a service or assistance shouldn't change that. Unless, of course, libertarians are in reality no better then anyone else, and cherry pick what they want to adhere to and what they don't.
Click to expand...

To be fair, limiting what government assistance can be used to pay for isn't obtrusive-- I've got a card, like a credit card, and I can use it to buy the things the government wants to provide for me. Nobody tells me what I can or can't buy, but I can only use the government assistance card to buy the specific things the government wants to buy for me.

This is a stupid idea and it won't help anything, but it's not like it's a violation of Libertarian political principles.

edit: Now, if you want an example of an assistance program that does violate your civil rights... I also live in public housing. And part of living in public housing is waiving your right to keep and bear arms-- I'm not allowed to keep a firearm in my apartment. Far as I know, a private landlord wouldn't be able to enforce a provision like that in their lease, but I can be evicted from my home and possibly face criminal charges for exercising one of my most basic Constitutional rights while receiving public assistance.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
Eat what we want you to eat or starve. That sounds noble.
Click to expand...

Sounds fine to me.

You don't want to starve?

Fine, we will give you enough nutritious food to live.

You want to eat doughnuts and chocolate...get a job.

You refuse to do both, then starve to death...your choice.

I imagine about a billion people (at least) in the world would love all the free food they need for them and their families.
 
Henrin said:
The system itself is not noble. There is also no logic in the argument that we can stop the government from controlling services it provides. They provide the service and thus control it. Get over it. I already told people like you to be careful, but you're all bunch of stubborn jackasses that won't listen to anyone.
Click to expand...

FYI, referring to people as "jackasses" is against the rules of the forum. But I am not going to report you. You are fun to mess with.
 
Neomalthusian said:
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?"
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't. Convenience stores don't have that kind of room. Big grocery stores that do are generally not located in low income areas.

You also need to realistically look at ingredients. Even a gallon of milk has multiple ingredients. A bag of noodles has many ingredients.
 
Helix said:
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.
Click to expand...

People should be upset about all of it... the problem is that there is nothing we can do about it.

I hate to parallel politics with conspiracy but it is just a huge machine used to take people's money and make some in power rich.
 
Bodhisattva said:
People should be upset about all of it... the problem is that there is nothing we can do about it.

I hate to parallel politics with conspiracy but it is just a huge machine used to take people's money and make some in power rich.
Click to expand...

i get what you're saying, but that's a bit of an oversimplification. after all, i could dismiss capitalism itself with those exact words.
 
Helix said:
i get what you're saying, but that's a bit of an oversimplification. after all, i could dismiss capitalism itself with those exact words.
Click to expand...

You mean you could dismiss mixed economy welfare states.
 
scatt said:
You mean you could dismiss mixed economy welfare states.
Click to expand...

his words :

it is just a huge machine used to take people's money and make some in power rich.
Click to expand...

that could be used to dismiss about anything, even society itself. reality is much more nuanced.
 
rocket88 said:
No, they wouldn't. Convenience stores don't have that kind of room. Big grocery stores that do are generally not located in low income areas.
Click to expand...

This idea isn't looking out for the financial welfare of convenience stores. It's about the health and welfare of the people the program is intended to help.

You also need to realistically look at ingredients. Even a gallon of milk has multiple ingredients. A bag of noodles has many ingredients.
Click to expand...

This would be discussed when the list of eligibles was devised.
 
Neomalthusian said:
This idea isn't looking out for the financial welfare of convenience stores. It's about the health and welfare of the people the program is intended to help.
Click to expand...

Of course not, but I think a little research into the concept of a food desert would enlighten the debate a bit. People in these neighborhoods don't have access to these "bulk ingredients."



This would be discussed when the list of eligibles was devised.
Click to expand...

Which really just puts us right back where we are. None of it is simple, and who's going to "devise" the list? Congress. There goes your idea.
 
rocket88 said:
Of course not, but I think a little research into the concept of a food desert would enlighten the debate a bit. People in these neighborhoods don't have access to these "bulk ingredients."

Which really just puts us right back where we are. None of it is simple, and who's going to "devise" the list? Congress. There goes your idea.
Click to expand...

Is obesity a big issue for the country? If so, shouldn't we at least be doing something to curb it... and not be making it worse? I mean eight of the top ten poorest states are also the fattest. I'm not even sure how that happened, since you should be scratching for food at that point... (not that I want that, but you know what I mean.)
 
rocket88 said:
Of course not, but I think a little research into the concept of a food desert would enlighten the debate a bit. People in these neighborhoods don't have access to these "bulk ingredients."
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg debate there. If suddenly the only way to redeem of a food stamp was to do it in exchange for those basics, would we expect consumer demand at these areas to shift?

Which really just puts us right back where we are. None of it is simple, and who's going to "devise" the list? Congress. There goes your idea.
Click to expand...

So we're at the mercy of Congress at all times, and there's no point in the people demanding change?

Let's just assume hypothetically that the issue went up for a nation-wide democratic vote. For what reason, really, would you vote no?
 
Although I am not opposed to restricting purchase of soda and/or candy with SNAP, that's pretty much it and only because there is basically very little to no nutritional value to these. Other than that, I don't think it would be right or cost saving or work.

Restricting food purchases to what is described in the OP is simply not a practical idea. Most of the reasons have already been mentioned. Not everyone has the time to make made from scratch meals for their household most days, let alone every day. And that would be time they could be spending working, going to school/working on schoolwork, or looking for work rather than preparing meals in order to get them off assistance. Plus, there is the fact that not all places sell bulk items or are very limited in what bulk items are sold and that these aren't always the cheapest purchases just because of them being in bulk. Plus, not everyone is able to store bulk items properly, which could easily cause more waste. Then there is food allergies and diseases that affect a person's dietary needs to take into account as well. Some people cannot eat certain foods that make up a large amount of most food items already due to either allergies or conditions. By limiting further what they can purchase, this could severely limit their ability to stay healthy in general, depending on availability within their area.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes because the more poor you are the less healthy or natural foods you can afford. Fresh foods cost more than processed foods.
 
rocket88 said:
No, they wouldn't. Convenience stores don't have that kind of room. Big grocery stores that do are generally not located in low income areas.

You also need to realistically look at ingredients. Even a gallon of milk has multiple ingredients. A bag of noodles has many ingredients.
Click to expand...
No, you don't understand. Each community would have a "community cow" for their pure unprocessed milk. They would also be expected to make their own noodles. If they cannot buy a can of soup they sure as hell cannot have the convenience of pre-made noodles. Get thy but into a kitchen and immerse thy arms in flour as they grind their whole grains into flour to make noodles.

Have you no heart? We're doing this for their own good.
 
People are forgetting one important thing. There is a business aspect to food stamps. Government subsidizes things like corn which makes the end junk food product a lot cheaper. Then government pays for food stamps to ensure that food corporations get fed. It's no accident that there are few restrictions on what food stamp users can buy. Most healthy, organic food is unaffordable.

Also, private businesses can individually decide to not accept food stamps, but it would be considered government endorsement of a business to do the same thing.

I think cigarettes, alcohol, and other luxury goods along those lines should definitely be no nos.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

I voted yes, but I am rethinking it based on some comments here.

I think nutrition of various foods could be scored based on whatever criteria is agreed upon. We might even be able to use price to score food value. Food ought to meet or exceed that score in order to be included in the program, and scoring food value should cause most restaurant foods to be excluded.

The criteria could evaluate calories, naturally occurring vitamins and minerals and other valuable nutritional components, and price. Such scores would be useful to everyone, so they could have the added benefit of helping non food stamp people in making better choices more easily.
 
Kreton said:
Yes because the more poor you are the less healthy or natural foods you can afford. Fresh foods cost more than processed foods.
Click to expand...

I got that, but their still able to get enough food to BE overweight is my point.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg debate there. If suddenly the only way to redeem of a food stamp was to do it in exchange for those basics, would we expect consumer demand at these areas to shift?
Click to expand...

The shopping habits in low income areas are more driven by what's available. Most people would love to have a produce section with fresh fruits and veggies at their disposal, but doing so means either changing buses with 5 bags of groceries or getting a cab. There's no way it's practical to expect them to do that.


So we're at the mercy of Congress at all times, and there's no point in the people demanding change?

Let's just assume hypothetically that the issue went up for a nation-wide democratic vote. For what reason, really, would you vote no?
Click to expand...

I would vote no for exactly the reasons I've stated. It's unrealistic, it's bigger government, and at what point is the line drawn? Almost everything is processed in some way or another.
 
Hamster Buddha said:
Is obesity a big issue for the country? If so, shouldn't we at least be doing something to curb it... and not be making it worse? I mean eight of the top ten poorest states are also the fattest. I'm not even sure how that happened, since you should be scratching for food at that point... (not that I want that, but you know what I mean.)
Click to expand...

And Michelle Obama talking about it has been soooooo popular on the right. For Christ's sake all she has to say is "Vegetables are healthy" and the noise machine goes into full attack mode about how "this is just like Communism!"

I'd agree that we should do something about food deserts, but there's no way the GOP goes for it.
 
jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with KoolAid? Or, is only unfiltered creek water brought up in buckets acceptable for those who are beneath us?
 
radcen said:
What's wrong with KoolAid? Or, is only unfiltered creek water brought up in buckets acceptable for those who are beneath us?
Click to expand...

KoolAid won't filter water.

But you know what is really good for you?

Water.
 
radcen said:
What's wrong with KoolAid? Or, is only unfiltered creek water brought up in buckets acceptable for those who are beneath us?
Click to expand...
Limiting what someone can and can't buy on food-stamps is not akin to thinking those on food-stamps are beneath us.The purpose of food stamps is to make sure people do not starve, not provide people with junk food, sodas and other ****.
 
jamesrage said:
Limiting what someone can and can't buy on food-stamps is not akin to thinking those on food-stamps are beneath us.The purpose of food stamps is to make sure people do not starve, not provide people with junk food, sodas and other ****.
Click to expand...
Ok, but what's wrong with KoolAid? If you buy the sugar free version it's pretty much just flavored water. I already think many of the views on this are unnecessary micromanaging, but bringing down to something like this is just absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom