Replacing food stamps with real food for poor

I have an idiot/sociopath cousin who was a proud “steak and lobster with his foodstamps” kind of a guy…

Havent seen him for several years, but he was the poster child for why some are against programs like food stamps.

Myself, I have no problem with food stamps for the needy; but I would wonder if there could be a way to cut down on the abuses, like buying lobster (which my cousin actually did) with them.

So what if they buy some lobster? It is lean healthy protein. It’s the chips/cake/candy/poptarts/soda that are causing the obesity/diabetes problems in the poor. Not lobster. :rolleyes:

Oh and for the folks saying that the poor need an occasional treat now and then? There ya go. They can treat themselves to a steak dinner or a lobster anytime they want. It’s healthy food, I have no problem with that at all.

I should add (as if anyone cares) that my cousin, for better or worse, wasnt smart/motivated enough to sell his steak and lobster for $$$, he would eat it himself or host BBQ for his friends.
He also seemed to have plenty of cash for tobacco and beer (no Natural Light for him, he liked Belgian craft brews, at 5 or 6 bux per bottle…

Then you are in the extreme minority.

If you polled the country, I would bet that 90%+ of Americans would not be happy with someone who is on food stamps buying lobster, (or other gourmet ultra expensive foods) with them…

Yeah, right. Tell that to the people – and I know two of them personally – who would love to hold down a job, but can’t because of disabilities. Not obvious disabilities like blindness or missing limbs, but true medical disabilities regardless. For example, a chronic and intermittent illness that will limit a person to maybe 20 hours of useful activity a week on average. Why not get a part-time job, you say? Because you never know which 20 hours that will be. Nobody will hire someone who can’t be counted on to be able to work on any given day.

My mom’s cousin is poor as hell and uses the Link card. It has been awhile, but several years ago, when both her children were at home and she was a single mom, she used to buy our family groceries all the time. She got some ridiculous allotment on her Link card, $400 or so, and there was just no way her and her two children could eat that much food each month. She did, however, have bills that needed paying. So she would buy us $200 worth of groceries a month, and we would give her enough money to pay her power bill and buy gas. There was nothing stopping a less scrupulous person from spending that money of beer or crack.

I’m with the walrus on this one. Poor people need money. If you want to help them out, why not just give them some money? I’m as libertarian as the next guy, but I’d much prefer the government just hand out checks rather than set up another brand new immortal bureaucracy every time we want to provide food, healthcare, pensions, housing, etc to the needy.

Hmm… You know, I am both poor and have food allergies. Allergies serious enough to have landed me in an ER twice in my lifetime (had developed a new one and hadn’t determined what it was until after the second incident).

As it happens, earlier this year I came up short for food and visited a food pantry. Now, it’s damn hard to complain when someone is handing you free food, but instead of getting basics like flour I got 6 loaves of bread. None of which I could eat. They healthy, multigrain loaves (2 of the 6) all contained three items I was allergic to. The other four each contained one. I got very strange looks at handing back every loaf of bread given to me but eating them would have made me seriously ill and I couldn’t in good conscience take them when someone else might be able to use them.

Gee… was I being ungrateful… or responsible about my health? Was it an entitlement mindset or being mindful of a medical condition?

One of the most frustrating things about poverty is the one-size-fits-all straight jacket of many programs that completely ignore the fact that the poor are just as diverse as any other socio-economic group. Another frustrating thing about these threads are the number of people talking about the poor, but very little participation by people who are actually poor.

I honestly don’t care what someone does with their food stamps. I hope they buy some food with it and someone gets fed.

One thing to consider is that many people don’t necessarily have the tools, skillset, or desire to cook non-processed (i.e. sugary) foods.

All of you yammering on about “they need to cook food!” are aware that many affluent households (who probably have one household member who doesn’t work double shifts at a minimum wage job and thus have the time to actually cook) go out to eat like 4 times a week, right?

Inability or unwillingness to cook is not limited to the poor. It’s only fair that you should demand the same attitude change society-wide, no?

And where exactly do you stop? Do you prohibit just sugary candy? All snack foods? All processed foods? All pre-prepared food? I believe the PTB made the only decision that they could…They prohibited the program to include non-food stuffs.

You can have my ice cream when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I live mostly on cereal and diet Mountain Dew. Chocolate is a brief spot of happiness in the greyness that is my life. I don’t know how I’d afford it if it wasn’t covered by food stamps. Without chocolate, I have no doubt I’d spend much more time sobbing in the fetal position. I can’t fully explain the effect that the cacao bean has on me. If everybody reacted to chocolate the way I do, it would be illegal.

I do not buy lobster and sell it out of the trunk of my car. This is partly because I have no car and can’t possibly afford one. It is also because I haven’t worked out the particulars of such a scam. As the government disability payments do not even cover my rent and I sometimes have left over food stamps at the end of the month, it would be nice to be able to convert stamps to cash.

I think I am a fat pig. But, my therapist maintains that this is a false belief fraught with cognitive distortions. In any event, I feel guilty about spending tax payers money and can’t afford a copay so I don’t see a doctor often. The last time was several years ago when I had pink eye. I don’t have diabetes and am not wasting your tax dollars on healthcare.

Finally, before anybody asks- I am using an old pc I got for free when a friend upgraded. It works fine and I can’t complain but don’t get the idea I’m living in luxury. I am on dial up. My mother and I share an MSN account which she pays for. So, this computer and my internet access cost me nothing.

How about just restricting “expensive” or “junk” foods to something like 20% of the overall food stamp budget? This seems like a good compromise approach. It can help stem the tide of obesity without robbing the poor of the dignity of the occasional indulgence. It would also seem to line up with the food pyramid too (fats, oils and sweets are ok if used “sparingly”).

::Golf Clap::

It’s harder than you think. USDA officials have stated that if they keep “health bar” on some approved food list but ban “candy bars” than the people that make products that USDA deems as “candy” will lobby, sue, or whatever to get their product on the “healthy” list (or at least “not bad for you” list). Multiply that by thousands of products and now what?

Bottom line: as people have stated, it’s hard to implement preferred lists or lists of “basic foods” for all circumstances. Given that food stamps (recently renamed by the way) is less than household food budgets banning certain items just pushed those over to the cash part of the budget. So, even if you could implement this, it would not change diets dramatically.

In any case, the evidence on this is that people participating in food stamps do eat a bit better than those that do not in the same circumstances. Thus, some educational aspects of the program must help. Those could be improved instead of additional regulation.

Regarding your last question: People want to regulate the poor’s behavior, not end poverty. :stuck_out_tongue:

Regarding your Link card story: unless there was some serious error or some natural disaster that led the state to add value to people’s cards as an emergency measure, there’s no way a three person household got $400 a month of “food stamps.”

I’m not sure how I ended up deleting the rest of my post, but here it goes.

It’s so sad, the blatant hatred and stereotyping of the poor. The poor are all kinds of people, not just ungrateful crack addicted gang members. I will never understand the impulse to look at someone who has to be on food stamps, and as such, is probably at one of the lowest points in their lives, and then proceed to angrily strip them of their dignity. If we do this enough, is it any wonder that there then emerges a subset of the poor, who refuse to accept our values? Of course, this is a small subset, but some people’s confirmation bias will allow them to only see that subset.

That having been said, i think Blalron’s solution is a good one. It balances looking out for the government’s bottom line while still allowing the poor to feel like everyone else for a change. That’s a precious thing to a poor family.

Um, no golf clap here.

Can you even begin to imagine the nightmare situation this puts store clerks into? Many of the poor have limited education/math skills. Why should it be up to the store clerk to try to explain “20%” to people. Just think of the confusion, anger, confrontations, etc in checkout lines.

Much easier to just have a law that you cannot buy chips, soda or candy. Period. Just as easy to understand as no alcohol, tobacco or pet food.

Actually, why not just restrict any foods that contain high fructose corn syrup? That would knock out a huge percentage of junk food, and would force manufacturers to quickly ditch the stuff so that their products were acceptable…

Or, if we’re going to be in the business of handing out free food, we just let people pick out the food they want, and if they make poor choices at least they were the ones who made the choices?

Just hand out the money, and then shut up. If you don’t want to hand out money for food, fine, but I guess it’s too much to expect you to give a poor person both food and allow them to keep their dignity at the same time.

That’s a hell of a lot of food and a massive amount of political clout (but then I’ve been reading Michael Pollan, so maybe I’m just cynical). I can’t remember the last time I could find deli meat that wasn’t full of it. Or bread. Or ketchup. I know products free from it exist – I buy them all – but they’re often found in the organic aisle.

It’s a good sight easier than forcing the entire food industry to restructure itself. I remember reading somewhere that for every dollar in food stamps, 1.50 or something like that is put back into the economy. A plan like yours would effect many more than just poor people.

cite