Well, actually I don’t think it’s about abuses per se. My complaint is that you shouldn’t be able to by junk food and candy with food stamps. Simply making some foods off-limits for food stamps wouldn’t cost much at all, and certainly wouldn’t require any more abuse detection/enforcement effort.
I will certainly work on that.
Cheez Doodle guy, I never knew thee.
I think it would cost very little to disallow some very limited, specific categories (carbonated drinks containing sugar, for example) and that it also would save very little, in terms of both food stamp allotments and related health care costs (and whatever other social costs one might want to attribute to food stamp recipients).
I mean, I get the idea to a point. The more you restrict something, the more it will become the norm not to buy it. But most people aren’t on food stamps anyway (yet still buy plenty of junk), and I think most people on food stamps use some of their own money to buy food as well. I think the biggest effect would be increasing the stigma on food stamp recipients. Plus it would make the whole thing more confusing. I guess they could have signs next to products that were allowed, like WIC does in some stores, but no doubt you’d sometimes find disallowed products that were cheaper than their allowed counterparts, as well as stores that didn’t bother with the signs.
To use my example above, you’d also have plenty of recipients choosing Hi-C in place of soda, which I would argue is exactly the same nutritionally. I mean, sure, we could limit the foods allowed more and more specifically, but that would require a lot of resources, and a hardship for some recipients.
What makes you think it would be worth it?
Here’s a good one for y’all to chew on. My unemployment just ran out so I reported the loss of income to DCF (dept. of children and families) and they raised my EBT benefits significantly. 
EBT is a Federal program - those dollars are separate from the welfare dollars coming from the state of California. So EBT expenses really aren’t breaking California’s fiscal back, although other expenses certainly might be.
I’ve been on the “status quo” side of the argument throughout this debate, but I really don’t see why it would be so difficult for governments to restrict junk food. Not snack food, but junk food. They make such distinctions for WIC and it’s a good program that works. I’m not saying food stamps should be restricted the same way, but I think the “IT WOULD BE TOO HARD!” argument is a red herring.
Allow everything except the following items:
All sodas.
Fruit-flavored drinks and drink mixes, such as Koolaide, which provide absolutely no nutritional benefit but have tons of sugar. Tea, coffee, 100% fruit juices (calorie-wise they’re as bad as soda but at least they provide vitamin C), and bottled water (good if you’re homeless) would be allowed.
Potato chips and similar products. Pretzels, crackers, and popcorn would be allowed, but not pork rinds and cheese doodles.
Items like Twinkies and other Hostess products, Drake cakes, Little Debbies, and packaged cookies. These are cheap enough for people to buy them on their own if they really desire them. But the government should not be encouraging the consumption of junk. However, I would make allowances for bakery-made items. They have fewer preservatives and tend to be more expensive (so people might not be tempted to fill their baskets with them so quickly). Also, I would allow cookie, cake, and bread mixes. So sweets would be allowed, but certain items wouldn’t be.
Everything else would be allowed, even frozen dinners, expensive steaks, and Pop Tarts.
Really, I don’t see poor people crumbling from hunger with these restrictions.
I can see your point to an extent, but it’s not always even that clear to determine was is “soda”. My daughter loves this one drink that is blackberry soda, and it’s 100% juice mixed with carbonated water. I buy it for her for a treat occasionally, and obviously we could both live without it, but I don’t see what purpose it would serve.
If I wanted to buy her a treat and couldn’t get that, I’d just her some other treat that was allowed.
Now, if we want to argue that nothing that could ever be considered a treat should EVER be allowed, well I don’t even know what to say to that…but I doubt many here would take that position.
If you’d accept any treats, then how do you decide on a fair, consistent, cost-effective, and rational basis? If you have some great method for this, you need to run for some type of office, because so far I don’t think anyone else has figured it out.
i soooo understand where your coming from, im a cashier and i see it all the time. now i did not read every post, but you have to really think that some people might not know how to cook, or they are homeless so they cant cook, or dont have the needed items to cook, (pots and pans, or even a kitchen)
Am I the only one here who finds it ironic that the conservatives seem to be in favor of more regulation and the implementation of the nanny state? I guess it really comes down to you can’t tell me what to do but you you damn well better tell other people what they can do.
It’s an irony I’ve grown rather inured to through constant repetition.
Reducing waste does not equal a nanny state. A nanny state would involve telling people how to live their lives and spend their money, not how to spend other people’s money. That direction should remain with the people from whom the money was taken. If you think it’s OK for people to buy steak and lobster as part of a program to feed people in need then you approve of feeding fewer people per tax dollar spent.
I would like to see fruits and vegetables subsidized and the subsidies on HFCS taken away. I would like to see farmer’s markets and co-ops subsidized so that more food deserts can be… irrigated. I would like to see more support of food banks and pantries by governments, corporations, and individuals. I would like to see free or sliding-scale cooking and nutrition classes offered to all.
I find it amusing when conservatives acted like the government being at all involved with health care meant death panels, but the government deciding what people can eat is somehow just financially prudent. You spend way more money on health care, dudes. So much more that it’s ludicrous to demand fiscal responsibility in food stamps while throwing colossal shit-fits about health care.
The poor should be allowed to keep their dignity. They should be treated like valued members of society at all times. I am not superior just because I pay more taxes. If I’m a better person than a poor person it’s not because of our relative financial situations, and vice versa.
Suffering isn’t ennobling.
Isolating and dehumanizing the poor will eventually destroy all of us.
Good point, monstro, and the reference to WIC is quite apt. This is an area where I can least abide a libertarian “anti-intrusive-big-government” argument. We have an FDA–they already go to the effort to have these extensive “nutritional information” labels on everything. How much more would it take to employ qualified nutritionists to categorize things into two categories: 1) “unmitigated junk food”; and, 2) “conceivably part of a nutritious diet”–or something like that. Then the stores just have to include one more binary field in their scanner database, and the cashier says, “Sorry, no EBT for that,” when the Cheez Doodles come by on the conveyor belt.
Is steak and lobster necessary for dignity? Why can’t the people paying for this be treated with the respect associated with spending their money wisely?
So it’s not just junk food, it’s also food that’s too good?
I’d REALLY like to see the rules (and bureaucracy) that would let you distinguish “steak and lobster” from “meat and potatoes” for purposes of food stamp eligibility.
Just out of curiosity, is there any point after paying your taxes at which you stop considering it “your” money? Do you, for instance, see some roadwork going on near your house and honestly believe it requires your personal authorization?
At best, it’s OUR money, and I’m okay with poor kids occasionally getting a candy bar. Hell, I consider it one of the very least objectionable things the government does with OUR money.
It isn’t your money. If you write a check to me for mowing your lawn, that money isn’t yours any longer. There’s no difference between that and writing a check to the government.
Sorry. Sucks to be you, but it’s not yours.
What is yours is your reactions to people. You can choose to be kind, or you can choose to be spiteful. You can choose to be emotionally generous, or you can choose to withhold generous thoughts. You can say, “This person is spending their money or allowances differently than I would, but I’m not living their life,” or you can spit and fume and drive yourself crazy and still not have changed a thing.
Your choice.
Are you really suggesting that the public has no voice in how taxes are spent. REALLY?
Your road construction question is a perfect example of this discussion. The “stimulus” bill included signs describing the expenditure of money on road construction. $5 million dollars wasted. Actually, since it’s borrowed the $5 million dollars of additional debt will be higher. This is nothing but a future landfill project. Maybe we can locate the forest where the trees came from to make the signs and bury them there.
ETA, never mind, I’m just going to say what I actually mean.
All this moaning about “Some kid is buying cheetos with MY MONEY!!!” is about the most saddest display of pettiness I’ve ever seen in my life.
Well, here you’re getting into really ambiguous territory. Most crackers have about the same fat content as potato chips. Pretzels are white flour. Popcorn is not low-fat. Potato chips - are you going to make an exception for baked potato chips? Why are chips any worse than crackers made from white flour and shortening? I’d rather eat the potato-based product, myself. And since nowadays it’s appearing that fats aren’t the enemy, but carbs, how do you make the distinction between good and bad crackers/chips?