And once again, most folks using EBT cards do have some money of their own to buy treats with.
It still would be easier to implement the OP plan with EBT cards.
In Illinois the Link card (Food stamps) will not allow you to purchase certain things with it. So at the end the person says “Debit-Link” or pesses it and the it automatically gives two totals, one for food stamp items and one for non-food stamp items like grocery bags or cleaning items.
You could simply require merchants who accept food stamps to not allow them to be used to purchase potato chips, and candy etc. Granted this would be harder for “Mom & Pop” type merchants who don’t use a scanner, but it still could be done. It’s just a matter of remembering what items qualify.
I sometimes wonder about food stamps too. I go to a health club in Lincoln Park and it’s a very upscale, Yuppie-type neighborhood and I pass a bakery and it says “We now accept the link card.”
Now this is a VERY expensive place. Granted the cakes are delicious but the cheapest item is like $5.00 and it’s the size of a half a twinkie.
There are some food benefits that do actually limit the type of food you can buy. The WIC (Women, Infants and Children) Program restricts the type and quantity of food bought with the program. Milk, cheese, peanut butter, infant formula and cereal, dried beans, eggs are covered under the program.
They list name brand cereals and juices, but only certain types qualify. No Lucky Charms, you have to get Cheerios or Kix. The juices listed are apple or grape juice made from real fruits, no Kool-Aid type stuff.
Take away the lobsters, and they’ll just find something slightly less convenient to sell out of their trunk for cash, cans of soup or other package goods. The lobsters aren’t the problem, the person is the problem.
I would support having some or all of food stamp money being restricted to healthy choices and food staples, good food, not trash food. If food stamps are a minor supplement to your food bill, it’s 100% healthy, you can buy fun stuff with your own money. If it’s the vast majority, allow for a percentage of “junk” food. People need their dignity, and stripping that away when they’re already down isn’t the way to go.
there are about a thousand different things wrong with this idea
1 - You’ll quadruple the government spending on food stamps to pay for “healthy alternatives”. Canola oil for crisco. Salmon for ground beef. Whole grain for processed wheat. Actual juice for sugar waters.
2 - How are you going to get the people their food without letting them go buy it?
3 - How much food is each family allowed if you can’t quantify it with food stamps?
4 - How is each family able to prove they deserve the food without food stamps?
5 - Is every family going to get exactly the same kind of food? What if they want chicken instead of salmon? What if one kid is allergic to peanuts? What if they can’t eat shellfish? What if they’re kosher? or Muslim? How are you going to get people a diet that’s tailor made for them without letting them choose?
"
Actually, I am more of a mindset to provide work for the people who need welfare/food stamps for over an extended period. My fairy tale time limit would be 6 months. If you require governmental assistance longer than 6 months. The government gets to put you to work. Whether they utilize the skills you have in some productive workplace or you pick up trash on the side of the road. Either way, it’s a win win. They get food, the government gets clean streets.
Food stamps are currently being sold for cash so that these free loaders can buy things they shouldn’t be buying…
I used to run a reading program for children living in a local homeless shelter. One night one of the Moms came in just sobbing, so I took a few minutes to listen to her. Her child had only one birthday request: a bag of Oreos. She broke down again when she said her child knew there was no way she could do a cake.
Anyway, she went on to describe the dirty looks she got from the checker and the lady behind her in line when she paid for it with food stamps. She kept saying “they don’t know me, they don’t know my pain, why they gotta make it worse? Why they gotta make it even harder?” then she’d say “I work, I do work. . . they don’t know . . .”
It was years ago, but I still dream about that conversation, and wake up crying.
Exactly. And the only way to solve this problem by making purchases more restrictive is to restrict food stamp purchases to a class of food that’s so bad that no one not on food stamps is willing to pay for it. I hope we can agree that that’s a pretty terrible idea.
This would suggest that a better plan would be to make food stamps less restrictive.
The restrictions we have right now don’t stop people from buying booze or cigarettes, they just force them to launder the food stamp money through inefficient trunk-lobster sales. We’d be better off just reducing the food stamp amounts a little bit, handing it out in cash, and letting them do what they will. The program would cost the government less, poor people would have more freedom to spend on what they want (yep, some people will buy booze. But they already do. Some people would also be able to buy toilet paper, or gas to get to an interview, or some other essential thing that we’d rather they have than not), and we’d have fewer people getting food poisoning from eating improperly stored lobster.
It’s funny. When the government proposes programs that will help middle-class people, people run into the streets screaming SOCIALISM!!! Corporate regulation? SOCIALISM! But no one seems to care about government intrusion when it comes to the lives of poor people. Apparently, they don’t even deserve the dignity of making their own meals, their own way.
Don’t get me wrong. I think local governments could do a lot to encourage healthy eating in both the poor and the not-poor. Like working with non-profits to establish community gardens and farmer’s markets in inner cities. Provide nutrition and cooking classes to welfare-to-work mothers. Make school lunches healthier. Price produce items cheaper than junk food when using an EBT card. Establish special programs for obese Medicaid patients. These programs would have much more of a lasting impact than simply limiting choices to people and telling them to shut up about it.
Why should merchants be forced to lose money on their valuable and expensive produce in this way?
Adding soda, chips and candy to the restricted list is not that hard, people. :rolleyes:
As someone already pointed out, paper coupon-type food stamps are pretty much a thing of the past:
One point of these cards is that you can’t just sell part of the card for cash (the way some people would sell off some of their coupon-style stamps), and there’s not much incentive to sell the whole card for cash (since you’ll then have to get a replacement card). Where, exactly, do you think food stamps are being sold for cash these days?
I doubt merchants would lose money - as it is, fresh produce, fruit, and meat generally come in less expensive per meal than prepared foods. But that’s not apparent if you don’t, won’t, or can’t do the math, hence the point of providing aid recipients basic instruction in nutrition and homemaking. Of course, the cost of fresh ingredients is irrelevant if you don’t have the time (say, because you spend much of your non-work time commuting) or place (because you live in a shelter or an apartment with and unreliable stove or fridge) to prepare meals from scratch.
Of course they would lose money. If the government forced merchants to price certain things lower for certain people, the loser here is obviously the merchant.
The government could pick up the slack?
I dunno, as I’m not an expert on this kind of stuff. But it seems to me they subsidize agribusiness up the wazoo. Is it too much to ask that the government recoup some of the investment by passing the savings on to (some of the) consumers?
I actually don’t have a problem with notoriously bad foods being restricted from EBT purchases. Like soda and anything that’s covered in bright orange cheese powder. But I think that’s vastly different than limiting EBT purchases to ONLY healthy foods, or taking away people’s choices all together. The latter is not only too intrusive and undignifying, but it would be rather expensive to pull off.
“The Government” already restricts food and choices with the school lunch program. And you can see how healthy school lunch food is. No lobbyists there to influence decisions on what veggies are best for kids.
You really think this is a good idea for WIC and Food Stamps?
Actually no I can’t see. I don’t have kids and have no idea what children eat at school…
I don’t get it. Okay, some of you are okay with restricting what people do under the guise that we all pay into health insurance and that the bad actions of a few cost the many a large sum of money.
But here we have a program where the tax payers pay directly for food. Directly. Of course it would be nice for people to have a choice in what food they eat, and I know that I am going to offend some people, but if you want choice, then pay for it your own goddamn self.
You not only want free food, but your choice of free food? I find that to be terribly ungrateful, selfish, and just what you would expect from an entitlement mindset.
Since we are picking up the tab, then no chips, candy, beef jerky, and the like. That’s a fair trade off in exchange for not starving to death.
They Do have a choice. There are literally thousands of healthy choices in American supermarkets and people on food stamps can have any of these that they want.
They should not, however, be allowed to bypass all this healthy food and instead use taxpayer money to buy cheetos, pepsi and Little Debbies.
I work in Finance for a major food retailer, but just outside my office are the cubes of the Loss Prevention department. One of the most common issues they have to deal with is the person who is using an EBT card to pay for groceries for multiple orders, and is collecting the cash right there in front of the cashiers.
The reason our “Loss Prevention” department gets called on these issues is that the people participating in this scheme get upset and threaten GBH to the cashiers if they are challenged. So we have to dispatch a guard to the store to escort the cashier and/or customer service manager out of the store at the end of their shift for a few weeks. Gets a bit expensive.
In some stores it is part of our cashier training to please, please, please, ignore this. The cashiers get all indignant because many of them are making $10-12 an hour in an area where you have to work two jobs at that rate to get by in this area, and nobody is trying to help them. The harder they work the less help they get.
…Unless they first sell canned goods out of their trunks? Or line people up and pay for their (healthy) groceries?
So far, I feel like you’re arguing for an ideal that’s not possible to implement. I agree with you that it’d be better for people to eat good food. I just don’t see how restricting the use of food stamps is going to get you much closer to that goal.
Restrictions against booze and cigarettes already don’t work. What makes you think further restrictions will accomplish your stated goal?