- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Unfortunately many of the folks on food stamps are single parents already working two or more jobs lacking the time, and may not have the extra resources to pay for the energy to cook those meals. When I thought all on SNAP were just at home unemployed, I used to think as you do. But now with so many working poor, I don't think we can fairly force this issue.
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.What do you all say?
This is pretty much my view.I'd say get rid of the sodas, snacks and bakery items and we can leave it at that.
Unfortunately many of the folks on food stamps are single parents already working two or more jobs lacking the time,
and may not have the extra resources to pay for the energy to cook those meals.
How many? There are 47 million Americans on food stamps, and 96.7% of Americans have a TV, and average 34 hours per week watching it. That doesn't even account for time online.
I highly doubt people can't pay for the electricity required to cook meals. At least not considering 47 million are receiving food stamps. There are not that many people who are truly that dirt poor.
It seems like you are trying to think of reasons why people couldn't possibly be inconvenienced to prepare food.
The food assistance program should be about there being enough food that people don't starve. It should not be about laying out a red carpet of accommodation to single parents, especially when huge corporations stand to profit from those policies.
Are you willing to go through that list of 47 million people and judge each as individual cases and see if any of those 47 million people should get food stamps?
I say God bless you. My thoughts exactly. I understand the less fortunate people with all my heart and want the best for them, and I understand that just as easily I could become one of them. But that does not excuse the logic - As a working man I have no television service, and it is in my understanding that many families on welfare have it. I drink no sodas, eat no potato chips. on my regular diet at the moment is sausage which contains road kill deer that I found a few months ago, not because I am poor, but because I value life and use common sense.[snip]Eligible items could include single ingredient bulk staples like rice, beans, lentils, flour, pasta, basic spices, cooking oil, even sugar, and produce, eggs, and, what the hell, even some types of meat.
What do you all say?
I say God bless you. My thoughts exactly. I understand the less fortunate people with all my heart and want the best for them, and I understand that just as easily I could become one of them. But that does not excuse the logic - As a working man I have no television service, and it is in my understanding that many families on welfare have it. I drink no sodas, eat no potato chips. on my regular diet at the moment is sausage which contains road kill deer that I found a few months ago, not because I am poor, but because I value life and use common sense.
I would be willing to pay even more taxes to allow them access to healthy ready made foods at places like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. That would be great. No alcohol. No soft drinks. No cigarettes. No nothin' that ain't healthy.
You can't buy alcohol or cigarettes with SNAP. The system doesn't allow it, and trading legal food for those items is illegal; it's benefits fraud, punishable not only by loss of benefits but jail time.
You really don't have anything better to do, with your full-time jobs and families and real geopolitical and humanitarian problems, that you want to go to all that effort just to keep me from drinking a soda?
The poll question is rather basic. Should we do this? Explain why or why not.
For context, this is what currently is redeemable:
Source: Eligible Food Items | Food and Nutrition Service
- breads and cereals;
- fruits and vegetables;
- meats, fish and poultry;
- dairy products;
- Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
- Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
A question you might think about that could affect your answer might be, "What is the real, core, basic purpose of food assistance programs?"
If the answer is to prevent hunger/starvation in the U.S., then I would propose that all packaged processed foods (foods with multiple ingredients listed) be excluded. That sweeps a lot of confusion off the table right there. Eligible items could include single ingredient bulk staples like rice, beans, lentils, flour, pasta, basic spices, cooking oil, even sugar, and produce, eggs, and, what the hell, even some types of meat.
That combination alone results in a panoply of food options, and minimal risk of starvation. It also mitigates starvation at the cheapest and maybe healthiest manner possible -- by putting control over the ingredients into the hands of the person receiving and preparing the food.
So my vote in this poll is Yes. We should do this.
Let's assume these folks would throw a conniption and vote No.
What do you all say?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?