Food stamps- should there be restrictions on what you can buy?

Great Debates
121

This is a fantastic idea, and has been discussed here before. I believe that Purina actually does have a “primate food” that comes very close to being the human kibble we all want. Heck, I’d buy it, lord knows I eat enough pasta as it is since it is cheap and easy to cook.

I’d also like to add my name to the list of people to be against the wall when nitroglycerine’s spawn (whose upbringing we’ve all subsideized, ironic no?) takes over. Your attitude makes me ill.

And, if you can’t afford to raise kids, don’t have sex. You will find it is a 100% effective means of birth control. I should not have to pay for your selfish desires and lack of self control.

122

Did you not read bdgr’s post, milroyj? He said he was paid by the HOUR.

123

FTR, I have no problem with people who try their best but are unable to work, or who are unable to find a job that pays enough to feed their families, or who had kids when they were able to afford them but whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own, receiving food stamps.

I just don’t understand how any person who fully understood the available alternatives would choose to eat (and especially to feed his/her kids) excess amounts of sugar, caffeine, fat, preservatives, and various overly processed foods if there is a more nutritious alternative. I feel the same way about people who eat crap that they pay for with their own salaries; the difference is that my tax dollars in that case are not subsidizing the crap, nor are they subsidizing taking care of the medical problems that go hand-in-hand with eating the crap. Believe me, I give just as much good-natured ribbing to my non-cooking friends who live on McDonald’s and frozen pizzas which they pay for out of their salaries.

I really think some of the people who buy crap on food stamps just aren’t as well-informed about the alternatives as they should be. I think it would be in the public interest to inform them. And throwing a nutrition pamphlet at someone will not accomplish anything. I don’t begrudge a poor person a steak here and there or a bag of cookies; it’s when the crap becomes a large part of that person’s diet that I become disapproving. If I can cook healthy food from scratch after working/commuting 60 hours/week, and if my single working mom could feed 2 kids healthy food every night on a miniscule budget, other people can make an effort, too.

124

I was not on salary(I know the differance). I was hourly. My employer was indeed a crook. It went like this:
I was responsible for all the computer repair in provo. The Owner of the company, that was headquartered in Salt Lake, sent out a memo that there would be no overtime. But he also said that if the repairs were not taken care of in provo, then he would start having all repair work shipped up to the main warehouse in salt lake city…efectivly eleminateing my position(only people of chinese decent were allowed to work in the main warehouse, the man was a bit of a racist and didn’t trust non-chinese). Most of our business was repair, so there was more work than could be done in 8 hour day. So I would open the store in the morning, and still be there hours after the store closed. Occasionally the store manager would take pity on me, and put in a few hours of overtime on my paycheck, never close to what I really worked. Eventually I got tired of this, about the time I was getting ready to move, and started working regular hours. They did away with my position and moved all the tech work up to SLC. The manager offered me a sales position, but the sales guy had quit because nobody had sold a computer in weeks and sales were straight comission(no pay for weeks). And they had the nerve to try and contest my unemployment insurance claim (I won).

I tell you what, the most beautiful thing I have ever seen is the sign at the Texas border. I loved the people I met in Utah(most of them), but i have this irrational hatred of the state to this day.

125

Heh, he even quoted the part where I said I was paid by the hour, but didn’t read it.

126

Do you think that all children born to those on welfare are because of failed birth control?

Sure, there is a slight chance to get pregnant while using birth control, but I don’t think it is all that high. And statistically speacking even if its ony 1 per 100 (1%) how many of the 1% would be people on welfare?

I don’t think he rolled his eyes at you to be mean but to let you know he didn’t accept your reasoning.

127

I agree, it is an interesting idea. The government can treat all the foods and other things that are not good for you like they do cigarettes and tax them until they cost 5 to 10 times more than they cost to make. After all, according to the AMA obesity is now the number one risk factor for heart disease.

OK, i’m done being sarcastic. I hate taxes being placed on things just because some people don’t like them, like tobacco and alcohol. And for those that think it’s for health related costs, just look at the costs of treating overweight people. There are many conditions that are caused or exaserbated by obesity. So where are the heavy taxes on the twinkies and such?

128

Haha…crafter_man…I don’t like your politics, but I won’t argue about your musical tastes…I came across this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/newreply.php?action=newreply&postid=3179053 when browsing through my old posts.

Those are three of my favorite bands! Did you know that MDC collected food stamps and ate ate soup kitchens while touring and putting out records? See “Soup Kitchen Celebrety” from Smoke Signals and “Welfare Line” from Shades Of Brown for reference. Jeez, Crucifux and MDC are pretty far to the left and as anti-capitalist pro-socialism as you can get. I really have no point, other than to point out the differences is your musical tastes and your politics. I’ll get back to ignoring this thread now :slight_smile:

Jon

129

Well actually, they ate AT soup kitchens.

Jon

130

Wow. I really didn’t intend to start a GD thread, but here it is…

For those of you who are opposed to the whole idea of people who have fallen on hard times getting a bit of help from the government, well, I’m not allowed to use those kinds of words in this forum.

Acutally, over the past several days, my mom and I have been talking about applying for food stamps ourselves. Why? Because she just lost her job, through no fault of her own, and between what her unemployment insurance will net her until she finds a job (she’s taking some computer classes and hopes when she’s finished she’ll be getting a good job) and what I’m making at Wal-Mart, sharing an apartment, we’re barely holding on by our fingernails.

I was fired from my last job, where I had no insurance, four days after an emergency room visit that I’m being billed $1700 for, plus another $400 for a doctor who spent all of five minutes talking to me. I also have close to $5000 in credit card debt that I racked up, about half of it in medical expenses and prescription medication costs incurred during periods of time when I was employed but had no insurance, the rest from having to pay the rent, utilities and other basic expenses during periods of time when I or my mother were unemployed. We live in Las Vegas, moved out here because we had heard that good paying jobs were easy to find, but it turned out not to be true. I made good money as a craps dealer for a while, but when I moved on in search of a better-paying job, I ran into trouble. In the casino business, it is the rule, rather than the exception, to hire people then let them go when they are near the end of their probationary period in order to avoid paying insurance expenses. About the only way to keep a job is to be in your early twenties, single with no kids who might become ill, and be in absolute perfect health.

I was recently forced to cut back on my hours at Wal-Mart (from 40 to 32) when I started school to become a massage therapist, and found that the schedule was more than my body could handle. I have chronic back problems, which were exacerbated by the 56 hour week I was putting in, was missing a lot of work due to back pain (which is much better, btw. One of the benefits of school is I get to be “practiced” on by some of the more advanced students, many of whom are already excellent therapists)

The Job itself is also taking a physical toll on me. Being a cashier at Wal-Mart when you already have back problems, standing in one spot, where the only movement you have an opportunity to do is twisting and stretching in ways the human body just wasn’t designed to (the cash register setup is an ergonomic nightmare, and many, if not most, cashiers have some back problems if they’ve been at it a while. I try to maintain good posture and be careful about how I move, but it just isn’t possible to do that and keep product moving across the scanner fast enough to keep management happy).

Doing massage is a lot easier on my body. We are trained in body mechanics as well as anatomy, physiology and basic techniques, and the movements involved in doing massage are actually very natural to the body, provided you observe correct posture and stance, use your body weight instead of hand, arm and shoulder muscles when you need to use deeper pressure…

But, once I graduate, there will be the matter of getting my license, which, due to the political environment in Clark County, is a lengthy and expensive process, and I will have to buy a massage table, which is also not cheap. Then I will have to actually find a job as a therapist, in a very competitive market, which will probably take at least a couple of months.

I have no savings- it was eaten up during my frequent periods of unemployment.

So, the only way I can see of getting myself out of debt and saving up the money for my licensing and massage supplies is to get a little government help. I’ve resisted the idea for a long time, because I really hated the idea of living off the taxpayers’ dime, but I figure it’s a trade-off. Once I’m working as a MT, I’ll be making a lot more money than I am now, and the tax revenues I will be contributing based on my higher income will, over time, far outweigh what I will be needing for, well, I hope not more than a year, and probably less.

But getting that government money will be helping to put me in an occupation where I will be contributing to the health and well-being of others, and where I will be a taxpaying citizen (not that I haven’t been all along).

Do I feel entitiled to this help? No. I’ve just gotten to the point where my needs outweigh my pride.

Will I feel bad about accepting aid if I do decide to apply? No. If a person who has worked hard all their adult life falls on hard times they shouldn’t feel bad about asking for and receiving help.

Will I be using that food-stamp money to buy chips, cookies and soda pop? Hell, no, and if I catch my mom doing it, I’ll give her a good talking to about it.

But really, the whole point of starting this thread was to feel y’all out about whether a government program that is designed to meet nutritional needs of people who use it should be restricted to buying nutritious foods, not to start a debate on the welfare state.

131

**

That’s probably a big part of it. I don’t see how any self-respecting human being could choose to go on welfare. I guess we were just raised according to a different set of values.

IMOHO you’re a poster child for what the food stamp program shouldn’t be for. Food stamps are suppose to help people who are in need of help. You’re not really in need of food stamps you just don’t feel like working.

Marc

132

Look, some taxpayer-funded government programs are grossly inefficient and exploited by a lot of people. These people learn to work the system, take advantage of it, and rip off us taxpayers. When we call them on it, they often flaunt it and even seem proud of themselves. It’s outrageous. But despite the profligate waste and exploitation, the programs still fulfill a vital need in our society. That’s why I am in favor of defense spending.

I just wish it could be more like food stamps.

133

MGibson, have you even been reading nitroglycerine’s posts? He is working, full-time, even, but for a low wage, at a job with a schedule that allows him to be at home to care for his child while his wife is at work and vice versa. Also, the cost of child care would be so great were he to find a different job that it would completely negate his increase in income, which is a very common problem.

IMHO, *nitro is the poster child for what food stamps should be for- a bit of help for hard-working people making low wages so they can make ends meet while caring for their children. And, hey, I’m only thirty-five and I don’t have the stamina I had when I was twenty-five. I don’t think it’s fair to expect a forty year old who has probably been working his body into the ground for most of his adult life to have the stamina of a twenty-year-old.

He did not choose to go on welfare. He chose to accept a little help from the government until his kid gets into school and frees up time that would make him more available to take a better paying job. It’s not like he’s sitting home receiving a check every month, living in Section 8 housing and getting utility assistance. He’s just fallen on hard times, and doing what he feels best for his son.

134

Wow, lots to respond to in this thread. First of all: beverages.

For reasons that are unclear to me, a lot of people are latching on to the idea of welfare recipients buying soda, tea, and coffee. Look, are you upset because people are being unhealthy, or that they’re wasting money? Because soda is cheaper than pretty much anything else short of tap water. Tea and coffee are pretty cheap too. Assuming you shop the sales, you can get a 12-pack of soda—that’s 144oz, or 4.26L—for about $3. A 2L bottle is $1 or less on sale—and those are for the name brands. And it doesn’t go bad. By comparison, milk is maybe $1.30 for a half gallon (~2L), and any real juice is more expensive, and goes bad in a week or so, so you can’t wait for them to go on sale (not that they ever do).

So I’m sort of baffled at all the complaints about soda in this thread. It’s not great for you, but it’s not that bad either, and it’s cheap, portable, and keeps indefinitely.

135

Second: charity.

Several people in this thread (notably Crafter_Man) have complained that charity is not the government’s job, that we shouldn’t be forced to pay for the welfare program, and that this should be the domain of churches and charities.

Wouldn’t that be nice?

The problem is, it doesn’t work. With some exceptions, people who have money don’t give it to charity. A study was done in, iirc, Boston, and discovered that the poorer half of the population was giving more to charity than the richer half. Not just more as a percentage of their income—more dollars. (And now I can’t find the cite. Argh. I’ll keep looking, or maybe someone else on the board has heard of it?)

Ultimately, I think it’s a basic human right to have food, shelter, and some level of medical attention. It’s not constitutionally guaranteed (and hence not a right in the legal sense), but I still think it’s a right. And it is a right that will not be provided if the government doesn’t provide it, end of story.

If you believe that some people don’t deserve these things, fine—we disagree. But I find the people-deserve-this-but-not-from-the-govt arguments to be entirely disingenuous.

136

The most niggling of point, but the shelf-life of Coca Cola seems to be about 10 weeks, double that with some goofy silica coating.

Kids should be drinking milk and juice, not pop. I’ll make an exception for the Elixir of Life, coffee, even though kids should really be drinking that either.

I am no huge fan of any sort of social welfare, but if kids are being fed, than enough aid should be given to ensure the kids are getting enough milk, juice, etc. No point in half-assing it. The trick is making sure it really goes to healthy essentials, not 2-litres of Coke and Doritos.

137

Third: attitude.

A lot of the other people on this thread seem to basically believe in some level of governmental welfare, but that recipients thereof should live their lives at the subsistence level, with no luxuries, no comforts; if they have anything more than the bare minimum required to survive, they must be wasting money.

It hasn’t been expressed that way, of course. The expression comes as a suggestion that welfare recipients have to sell all their belongings, or at least those that are worth anything; or that they should have to work in a high-stress job (or at least one with no less stress than a non-welfare recipient); or that they should have restrictions on what kind of food they can purchase. It’s as if it’s okay for them to be on welfare, but they still have to be punished for it.

I find this attitude bizarre, though very prevalent here in the US.

Since he’s already been brought out, I’ll use nitro as a case study of sorts. (I hope he doesn’t mind…) Here we have a married man who, upon having a child, could not quite make ends meet in his current situation. As I understand it, his choices were to A) take a different, more high-stress, more tiring job with a >40 hour workweek, and put the kid in daycare; or B) keep the standard job, take foodstamps and have the kid be at home with one or both parents at all times. Many people here are arguing that A is the only correct choice, despite all the associated negatives, because it saves money for the government. At least in the short term. And I have no doubt that if there were no foodstamp program, and A were the only option, nitro would take it. But not only do I think it reasonable that he chose option B, I think that that’s exactly what B is there for! It seems to me, if you believe that one of government’s jobs is as a safety net, then that encompasses more than just keeping folks alive. It means helping people live their lives: food, shelter, yes, but also with a reasonable quality of life, spending time with their families, getting the occasional treat now and then.

So no, I don’t begrudge nitro his food stamps, not a bit.

138

To capture more accurately the view of these people, you need to replace “government” with “taxpayers”. Or perhaps more accurately, “me” (i.e. the person making argument A). The question is how much one group of people should be forced to pay to another group i.e. when is income redistribution fair and reasonable.

139

Around here, milk is in the neighborhood of $2 a gallon (it seems to have been picked up as a loss leader at the local convenience stores), putting it in the same price league with soda. IME juice lasts longer than a week, and there’s usually some brand on sale at the supermarket. Plus there’salways the frozen concentrate option, which keeps much longer.

My mom never would have put up with having us drink soda regularly; why should she waste her hard-earned money on sugar? What’s wrong with water? It’s basically free, and good for you. Soda was for birthday parties only when I was a kid. And I never missed it. I still rarely have it in the house, and my sister never drinks it at all. Again, it’s all a matter of what you’re used to.

140

The milk situation is fine example of bureaucratic incompetence. US dairy farmers produce far more milk than the public consumes. In some sort of price fixing/farmer welfare scheme, their ‘excess’ milk is bought by the US gov’t, dehydrated (or whatever you do to get powdered milk.), and stored in warehouses, often until the powdered milk is spoiled. WTF? Just give the damned powdered milk to people on welfare. It’s already paid for! I am sure similiar situations exist in other parts of agribusiness.

If the US gov’t eliminated 10% of its own waste, we could easily fund even the programs that I hate, all without dinging me for yet more taxes.