Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Consider This: (The SNAP/"Food Stamp" Program)

Posted by   + Show Post

 It seems you can't log on to a news or social networking site these days without seeing a post about obesity, the healthcare crisis, welfare spending or complaints about schools' food restrictions (as they relate to obesity).

If the food stamp program operates through the Department of Agriculture, why aren't we giving food stamp recipients farm foods? Cartons of eggs, baskets of fruits and vegetables, fresh cuts of meat, blocks of cheese, gallons of milk, beans and nuts, jars of honey, etc? I realize some states have programs that allow food stamp recipients to use local farmers markets, but I think it would help the American people---the food stamp recipient, the taxpayer and the American farmer---much more if food stamps became food stamps again, something people use to buy healthy, American farm-raised food.

I don't think people would complain about food stamps if they could see the program's benefits. Instead, we're reminded that over 40 million Americans use food stamps while our farms are dwindling and obesity rates are rising, and meanwhile many food stamp recipients load up their carts with processed junk. When people are made to use their own money to buy junk food, they buy less of it. Nobody wll be telling people what they can and cannot eat, only that a program funded by the American taxpayer should be one that benefits all of American society. With the money a person earns, said person should be able to spend at his or her discretion.

Thoughts?


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

by on Oct. 9, 2012 at 10:15 AM
Replies (301-310):
Claire-Huxtable
by on Oct. 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM
No, I would have because I have. I am slightly OCD about prescription mistakes and have to see the actual medicine.


Quoting futureshock:

lol

NO, you would not have checked.  No one would have in her situation because there would be no reason to ever think a different form of the medication would be individually wrapped in the exact same way.  That would be like a regular medication (unwrapped and in a bottle) where you would have to break a pill open to ensure that the inside was the correct form of the medicine, which is absurd and no one would do it.

Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

I read very well. I would still open one and check. But I do believe that you will now say that isn't possible. So I guess this is complete.





Quoting hismommy2010:

 I did check.... So clearly you have a problem with being able to understand... They are NOT in  a bottle. They are each in their own seperate package, that is sealed. They are labled the SAME. Only difference is one is a pill that you swallow and the other melts on your tounge.....



Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

You told me I assumed something when I didn't. You didn't check your prescription.




Quoting hismommy2010:



 WOW! Who pissed in your coffee? Are you generally this cranky and uptight? Let me guess, you are single right?  lol!




Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

So you didn't actually check, you just assumed. Like I said, look at them before you leave.





Quoting hismommy2010:




 I did check. But thanks for assuming other wise...





One of the prescriptions i get, is for migraines. I get maxalt melting tabs. I get 9 of them a month. They are in individual tiny packages. Much like when you purchase headache pills from a gas station...





I checked the lable, on the walgreens bag and I looked at the individual package for the pill. ( they are identical, and I wasn't aware of that).





When i got home, and went to open one of them, that's when I noticed. They had given me the pill form and not the melting tab form. I can't take the pill form, because I puke with my migraines, so any pills or fluids that I take, I puke right back up.





I made sure to check everything with this prescription because of their errors in the past. But I've never gotten the pill form of this med, so I wasn't aware that they came packaged the same.....





try not to assume , it's really un-healthy ;)





Quoting Claire-Huxtable:





Every pharmacy I have used said you need to check your prescriptions before you leave.   If I couldn't pay for a replacement, I would certainly check.   Why didn't you?





Quoting hismommy2010:





 The government doesn't want to correct anything, this is their plan... To keep digging our debt hole deeper and deeper...





Perfect example. I have health insurance, that isn't cheap at all. I need this health insurance due to medical issues that I have...





I take 3 prescriptions each month. One of my prescriptions cost A little over $500.00 for one month. My co-pay for that prescription is $40, insurance covers the rest... Walgreens filled my script this month, with the wrong form of the medicine. I'm supposed to get the tabs that melt on your tounge, NOT the pill form, because I will puke other wise... I didn't notice the mistake until I got home..





So  I called walgreens wanting to return the wrong meds THEY made the mistake of giving to me, for my correct meds... They said by law, they can't take back the pills, ( ok, I kinda get that for health reasons) but they also said I would have to pay for the prescription all over again. I called my insurance company to inform them. Because if you think about it, my insurance is paying the biggest part of these pills. So walgreens just made $1,000.00 off of THEIR mistake! And billed me and my insurance again...





I asked the insurance company how is this right? How is this legal? She agreed that it's messed up, but told me it's just one of those loops holes that there is no fix for....





mean while health care and insurance fee's continue to go up, and shit like this isn't making it any better!










 





 




 





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
KYLIEAARONMOMMY
by Member on Oct. 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM
SMDH you just don't get it do you? I'm sorry, that you're to stupid to understand. Thanks for the laugh though. Have fun arguing with yourself now.

Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

No civil right is being violated if the government simply limits what it offers as food. I can't help that your understanding of things like that is so poor.




Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Ok, you obviously have a problem, and I'm not the only one in this thread that has noticed your attitude and stupidity. I'm done trying to explain basic civil rights to you. Of you need help, go read the food stamp act. Perhaps that might educate you a little bit. Have a nice day.





Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

The government moving to a more WIC type program like the OP suggested isn't telling people what to eat. It would be telling people what the government is willing to provide. Your food choices and likes and dislikes can be satisfied by purchasing those items the government no longer will provide.








Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

That's why they allow everyone to choose their own food. Not everyone eats the same foods. People are individuals and there's no way you can lump everyone together and say well you're only allowed to eat this. There's to many things to account for, so it's easier and more cost effective to let people choose their own. (Not talking about junk food, so don't get confused) They could however choose to regulate junk food and soda, but they don't.









Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

I have a complete understamding. The government gives food stamps. It doesn't have to provide a specific diet because you chose a religion.












Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Lmao and how you have no clue what this whole conversation has been about. Run along now newbie.













Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

You are the one talking about religion in a thread on limiting junk food, not me. People can receive what the government allows and buy everything else themselves regardless of their religion.
















Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Where are you getting junk food from? I never said anything about junk food. Don't try and reply unless you read the entire conversation. Other wise you look stupid.

















Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

What religion requires junk food?




















Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. There are laws that have to be followed and you can not discriminate just because of religion. Do you know how many lawsuits would be filed if they tried to implement what you are saying? Go read the constitution. It's right there. Regardless of someone's finanical status or need, you can't discriminate against their religion.





















Quoting moneysaver6:

No.  Someone who is receiving charity doesn't get to dictate what that charity is.  It would be impossible for the government to be able to work around everyone's personal lifestyle choices...and it's not realistic to expect them to do so.

It would be reasonable to expect them to work around and provide alternate vouchers for allergies. 

Anything beyond that is the beggar (so to speak, of course) being a chooser.  If someone would like to adhere to specific dietary choices that have to do with their religion, culture, &/or personal lifestyle choices then they would have to go to their church, cultural center, or other private charities where they can request a different menu or alternate accomodations. 

Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

No, they would have to respect people's religion, and culture as well. Vegetarians, vegans, and people who only eat kosher.












Quoting moneysaver6:

Allergies are the only work-around necessary for someone who is so destitute that they cannot even provide their own food. Beyond that, they'll just need to adjust until they are able to feed themselves again.











Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

The United States is a very diverse country. Different cultures eat different types of food. Some don't eat meat, some only eat seafood. Some don't eat dairy. There are also millions of different types of allergies and medical conditions. That's a ton of special circumstances to adjust your food plan to account for. It costs money to create a computerized system that will know to give certain vouchers to certain families to account for their individual needs. People are individuals, not everyone can fit into a food plan like that. It is more cost effective to allow each family to chose their own food, then to try and keep track of it. Another problem, is the economy. Those food stamps provide revenue for the stores they buy them in. That revenue goes down, and they start laying people off. More lay offs, more people on fs. It makes more sense to just put restrictions on what they can buy. It will never happen, but it makes more sense.





Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Claire-Huxtable
by on Oct. 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I don't understand it. No civil right is violated by limiting what people can receive.


Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

SMDH you just don't get it do you? I'm sorry, that you're to stupid to understand. Thanks for the laugh though. Have fun arguing with yourself now.



Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

No civil right is being violated if the government simply limits what it offers as food. I can't help that your understanding of things like that is so poor.






Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Ok, you obviously have a problem, and I'm not the only one in this thread that has noticed your attitude and stupidity. I'm done trying to explain basic civil rights to you. Of you need help, go read the food stamp act. Perhaps that might educate you a little bit. Have a nice day.







Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

The government moving to a more WIC type program like the OP suggested isn't telling people what to eat. It would be telling people what the government is willing to provide. Your food choices and likes and dislikes can be satisfied by purchasing those items the government no longer will provide.










Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

That's why they allow everyone to choose their own food. Not everyone eats the same foods. People are individuals and there's no way you can lump everyone together and say well you're only allowed to eat this. There's to many things to account for, so it's easier and more cost effective to let people choose their own. (Not talking about junk food, so don't get confused) They could however choose to regulate junk food and soda, but they don't.











Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

I have a complete understamding. The government gives food stamps. It doesn't have to provide a specific diet because you chose a religion.














Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Lmao and how you have no clue what this whole conversation has been about. Run along now newbie.















Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

You are the one talking about religion in a thread on limiting junk food, not me. People can receive what the government allows and buy everything else themselves regardless of their religion.


















Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Where are you getting junk food from? I never said anything about junk food. Don't try and reply unless you read the entire conversation. Other wise you look stupid.



















Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

What religion requires junk food?






















Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. There are laws that have to be followed and you can not discriminate just because of religion. Do you know how many lawsuits would be filed if they tried to implement what you are saying? Go read the constitution. It's right there. Regardless of someone's finanical status or need, you can't discriminate against their religion.























Quoting moneysaver6:

No.  Someone who is receiving charity doesn't get to dictate what that charity is.  It would be impossible for the government to be able to work around everyone's personal lifestyle choices...and it's not realistic to expect them to do so.

It would be reasonable to expect them to work around and provide alternate vouchers for allergies. 

Anything beyond that is the beggar (so to speak, of course) being a chooser.  If someone would like to adhere to specific dietary choices that have to do with their religion, culture, &/or personal lifestyle choices then they would have to go to their church, cultural center, or other private charities where they can request a different menu or alternate accomodations. 

Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

No, they would have to respect people's religion, and culture as well. Vegetarians, vegans, and people who only eat kosher.













Quoting moneysaver6:

Allergies are the only work-around necessary for someone who is so destitute that they cannot even provide their own food. Beyond that, they'll just need to adjust until they are able to feed themselves again.












Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

The United States is a very diverse country. Different cultures eat different types of food. Some don't eat meat, some only eat seafood. Some don't eat dairy. There are also millions of different types of allergies and medical conditions. That's a ton of special circumstances to adjust your food plan to account for. It costs money to create a computerized system that will know to give certain vouchers to certain families to account for their individual needs. People are individuals, not everyone can fit into a food plan like that. It is more cost effective to allow each family to chose their own food, then to try and keep track of it. Another problem, is the economy. Those food stamps provide revenue for the stores they buy them in. That revenue goes down, and they start laying people off. More lay offs, more people on fs. It makes more sense to just put restrictions on what they can buy. It will never happen, but it makes more sense.






Posted on CafeMom Mobile
moneysaver6
by Gold Member on Oct. 10, 2012 at 3:31 PM
LOL

Trust me, based on the quote thread below there is NOTHING that you need to educate me about.

I fully "got" everything you were attempting to say. I just disagree with you...and don't believe that limiting what someone can purchase with their food stamps in any way violates anyone's religious freedom.
Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

I'm not going to explain it anymore. You obviously just don't get it. Go ahead and be ignorant, because I'm tired of trying to educate you.

Quoting moneysaver6:

What on EARTH are you talking about?  Religious discrimination?  Did you pull that one out of your butt?  Are you really bringing that into this discussion?  Seriously?

I am very well-versed in the Constitution, I don't need to go read it again.  Thank you so much for the offer to do so, though.

I think you have some things very mixed up regarding food stamps in order to have said the things you said (below). 

Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. There are laws that have to be followed and you can not discriminate just because of religion. Do you know how many lawsuits would be filed if they tried to implement what you are saying? Go read the constitution. It's right there. Regardless of someone's finanical status or need, you can't discriminate against their religion.



Quoting moneysaver6:

No.  Someone who is receiving charity doesn't get to dictate what that charity is.  It would be impossible for the government to be able to work around everyone's personal lifestyle choices...and it's not realistic to expect them to do so.

It would be reasonable to expect them to work around and provide alternate vouchers for allergies. 

Anything beyond that is the beggar (so to speak, of course) being a chooser.  If someone would like to adhere to specific dietary choices that have to do with their religion, culture, &/or personal lifestyle choices then they would have to go to their church, cultural center, or other private charities where they can request a different menu or alternate accomodations. 

Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

No, they would have to respect people's religion, and culture as well. Vegetarians, vegans, and people who only eat kosher.



Quoting moneysaver6:

Allergies are the only work-around necessary for someone who is so destitute that they cannot even provide their own food. Beyond that, they'll just need to adjust until they are able to feed themselves again.




Quoting KYLIEAARONMOMMY:

The United States is a very diverse country. Different cultures eat different types of food. Some don't eat meat, some only eat seafood. Some don't eat dairy. There are also millions of different types of allergies and medical conditions. That's a ton of special circumstances to adjust your food plan to account for. It costs money to create a computerized system that will know to give certain vouchers to certain families to account for their individual needs. People are individuals, not everyone can fit into a food plan like that. It is more cost effective to allow each family to chose their own food, then to try and keep track of it. Another problem, is the economy. Those food stamps provide revenue for the stores they buy them in. That revenue goes down, and they start laying people off. More lay offs, more people on fs. It makes more sense to just put restrictions on what they can buy. It will never happen, but it makes more sense.


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Redwall
by Silver Member on Oct. 10, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Food stamps is one of the first government things I'd cancel.

 

moneysaver6
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 1:20 AM

Sure it's reality.  It's reality for a LOT of people!

Quoting ReginaStar:

LOL yeah your right if we NEVER allowed ourself are our children to have the stuff that taste good they would have a taste for the yucky stuff. But that is not reality. 

Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

If your child would starve if this child couldn't have sugary cereal, the problem is you. The child never had to be introduced to such stuff and it certainly is not the responsibility of others to provide cereals with poor nutrition for these spoiled whiny kids.


NewMama28
by on Oct. 11, 2012 at 1:54 AM
Some snatch o rific women in this thread!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
moneysaver6
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:34 AM

No "at this time of year" is a reality for many who must buy their own groceries.  The best way to eat healthy while on a budget is to shop sales and eat seasonally.  There is just no way around that.

She didn't say that those $3 potatoes would be ONE dinner.  I'm surprised that can feed your family of 7 a healthy, well-rounded, adequate meal with $3 worth of processed food.

You don't have to have meat at every meal (or even every dinner).  You need protein...which doesn't have to be meat.

Non-poor people have used appliances too.  If those in your home are opening the fridge too much, then tell them they need to stop opening the fridge.  It's about self-control and discipline.  My children don't open the fridge if they aren't getting a snack or a meal item.  They have been taught to know what they're getting before they open the fridge and to get it closed quickly; especially in the summer.  Regardless, many produce items don't need refrigeration; especially not if they're quickly eaten or preserved.

Quoting ReginaStar:

The first problem with what you said is (At this time of year) you think people don't need to eat all times of year?

Look I can feed my family of 7 dinner with $3 of processed food. So that's not cheap for me. Besides shoot I can't even have potatoes b/c they are way to high in carbs. Again very expensive when you can by just as many of another snack item for under a $1. In my house a 10lb back of potatoes would only be good for 1 side dish 4 times. Once you add another side and a meat. Well that's far more than the cheap ground beef and cheap box of hamburger helper. 

A reminder poor people tend to have USED appliances. Meaning they don't keep as cold as YOURS probably do. Not to mention if you have a large number of people in your home the fridge is open very frequently. That makes those products spoil quicker. For three 3 years prior to this year I couldn't even by produce that I didn't intend to eat immediately during summer b/c the fridge was hardly cold at all with it being extremely hot in house and fridge just not in good condition. 

Quoting eema.gray:

At this time of year, a 10 lb bag of potatoes costs $3 and change at my Wal Mart.  A 10 lb bag of potatoes can add potassium, iron, folic acid, a vitamin C dose higher than that of an off-season orange, as well as fiber and a hefty calorie load AND it can be the basis of one meal a day for that entire week for a family of 4.  Or, I can go wander back through the aisles and buy one box of hamburger helper and a pound of ground beef for about $5 but the hamburger meal will only last one meal.  Think I'll keep the potatoes. 

Then there's the 5 lb bag of apples that costs about 3 dollars and change this time of year at the same Wal Mart.  If you assume each piece of fruit is 2 servings (a serving of fruit is 1/2 cup and most apples are about 2 servings by that standard) and that there are 2 apples to the pound, that's a week of mid morning snacks for the entire family for the same week.  I've spent about 7 dollars here and have a solid nutritional basis for a week of food.  

Both potatoes and apples store well.  Apples will keep about 2 weeks if kept in the fridge and potatoes will easily last 2 to 4 weeks if kept in a dry dark place (like a cupboard or closet).  Same with the hard squashes in season right now.  If those are kept dry and dark, they will last 2 to 4 weeks before use and again provide a wealth of nutritional benefits.  Even dark green leafy veggies will last a week or more if stored properly (don't wash them, bag in a zip lock with 1 or 2 sheets of paper towel or a dry clean t shirt rag to absorb moisture).  If you turn parsley and cilantro into chimichuri sauce, you have a yummy nutrient dense sauce that complements all vegetables, eggs, and meat and will keep those green herbs fresh for 5 to 7 days rather than the 2 day shelf life if they're just sitting in the fridge.

So really, this comes down to nutrition, what to purchase during each season, and preparation information, NOT "but produce is so expensive."

Quoting ReginaStar:

No that's a matter of it don't last long enough to get through a week. That's a matter of I planned on cooking that but things have been coming up to where I didn't get a chance. I couldn't imagine be so limited without transportation. Lets also not forget produce is the most expensive food in the store. Don't have a farmers market to judge that. 

Quoting moneysaver6:

That's just a matter of learning how to properly preserve those foods & learning what to eat first & what can wait a bit.


moneysaver6
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:35 AM

Exactly!  My kids have been raised on fresh, raw fruits & veggies.  Those ARE good to them.

Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

Your attitude right there is the problem. Junk food tastes good and healthy food tastes yucky. You created this issue with your lack of control and discipline.
Quoting ReginaStar:

LOL yeah your right if we NEVER allowed ourself are our children to have the stuff that taste good they would have a taste for the yucky stuff. But that is not reality. 

Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

If your child would starve if this child couldn't have sugary cereal, the problem is you. The child never had to be introduced to such stuff and it certainly is not the responsibility of others to provide cereals with poor nutrition for these spoiled whiny kids.


moneysaver6
by Gold Member on Oct. 11, 2012 at 2:43 AM

That may be your truth, but it is not THE truth.  My family loves and eats fruits, veggies, and other whole foods on a regular basis.  We like those foods.  We think they are good.  If we have treats, they are usually made from these whole foods.  On the occasions when they have store-bought treats or treats someone made from a box, they are usually shocked at the saltiness of the product.

Plenty of Southerners enjoy fruits, veggies, & other whole foods that aren't smothered in cheese or other sauces.

Quoting ReginaStar:

Truth is truth. I eat healthy as can be right now but at the end of the day the taste of the food doesn't even compare. As a southerner the way to make even veggies GOOD is to add stuff that makes it unhealthy. I'd say my discipline is very well if I'm refusing myself what I find taste good for the stuff that don't.

Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

Your attitude right there is the problem. Junk food tastes good and healthy food tastes yucky. You created this issue with your lack of control and discipline.
Quoting ReginaStar:

LOL yeah your right if we NEVER allowed ourself are our children to have the stuff that taste good they would have a taste for the yucky stuff. But that is not reality. 

Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

If your child would starve if this child couldn't have sugary cereal, the problem is you. The child never had to be introduced to such stuff and it certainly is not the responsibility of others to provide cereals with poor nutrition for these spoiled whiny kids.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN