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 (41-50):
Lizardannie1966
by on Oct. 9, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I agree completely that it's not a right. It is a need, for many and for many of those, a legitimate one.

However, many of today's SNAP recipients--and because of our country's lousy economy and still sagging job market in many areas--are working and thus, tax payers themselves. They are the working poor by definition.

And then there is the fact that while these recipients are on welfare and the tax payers are funding their grocery bill, they're still U.S. citizens. We still need their votes at the polls. We still look to them to support or oppose a given cause. But they're being told that we the people have a right to tell them what they can and cannot buy when grocery shopping. Yet, they're also part of that "people."

Ideally, I'd prefer to see happen exactly what you've described--that win-win combination with recipients and farmers. And I feel if it's there for the taking, more will start taking.

But are we telling them they shouldn't be buying the junk food because it's "our money," forgetting the fact that they can go out and buy the junk food by other means? or are we wanting to incorporate this type of reformation because we truly care what they feed themselves and their families?

Quoting radioheid:

 Yes, I hold *mostly* Libertarian views.

I don't consider food stamps to be a right. If they were a right, everyone would receive them, and we'd call the system "socialism". We do not. They are a "safety net program" intended to ensure poor people are getting adequate nutrition. 

People are free to do whatever they want with their own money. I don't care if they gamble half away and use the rest on hookers. If they earned it, it is theirs. That is Libertarianism in government. Handing people part of someone else's paycheck, which was taken without their consent, and telling them they can eat themselves into a Hov-a-Round with it is NOT Libertarianism, it is a sick, lazy, bastardized form of Socialism, and one I do not and never will support. It is wasteful because we pay for it twice---once when we pay for the Ho-Hos and Doritos, and a second time when those people end up needing medical care for their diabetes, heart disease and other health issues associated with eating processed shit completely unchecked for years.

If we must have these social welfare programs, they must be helpful and efficient. As it is now and has been for the last 40 years, they are NOT. They are a waste of tax dollars, and they keep people in poor health and poverty, and I think we should fix that. If we're going to spend the money on them, we'd might as well make sure they truly benefit their recipients AND the economy.

Quoting Lizardannie1966:

Aren't you Libertarian which, correct me if I am wrong, prefers limited government dictating on the private lives of citizens? or something to that effect?

I don't believe that all SNAP recipients set out when they go grocery shopping, believing that they're getting the "free money" to buy boxes of Hamburger Helper and Yodels and aren't they lucky that they can still fill-up on crappy foods? IE...there are many on SNAP who want nutritional foods, too and many DO shop that way.

It's that the government would be telling the recipients *what* they can buy that is perhaps her point and what she doesn't agree with?

Quoting radioheid:

 And yet you can't explain *why* its "BS".

Don't worry, I know why you and others think its BS. You think its BS because people wouldn't be able to waste taxpayer money on garbage with no nutritional value anymore. It would mean people would have to use their own money to buy Cheetos and Debbie cakes. lol There is no other argument against reforming and *improving* the food stamp program to aid the economy and improve nutrition.

Quoting ReginaStar:



I don't think Foods stamps recipients food should be controlled but I do think they should have the option of buying from farmers. 

 

Is your question is to why I don't think the recipients should be forced to buy certain products? B/c I think that is BS that is why. Different people have different diets and taste and should be able to choose what they want to eat even if it's food provided for by the government. Forcing certain foods only leads to a major waste in food. You also have to consider produce has a very short life span and people on assistance are the least likely to be able to get to the store often. 

 


 


krysstizzle
by on Oct. 9, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I also have to admit, my thoughts on this have changed over time, to where I'm now leaning towards agreeing with the OP. 

I do have reservations, though. To do so without working to change the very nature of our food system at the same time wouldn't be a good idea, imo. Although, certain changes to the FS program might force a change in the food system. But there are deeper issues at play, power issues, greed issues, etc. 

survivorinohio
by René on Oct. 9, 2012 at 12:02 PM
2 moms liked this

*puts on foil hat*

I think its completely possible the gov wants this countrys poor to eat poorly

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong.  Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.  GeorgeWashingtonCarver


radioheid
by Libertarian on Oct. 9, 2012 at 12:07 PM
2 moms liked this

 I'd like to reiterate that I don't favor banning food or drink in general. I don't like the government having that kind of control over what people do with their own money.

However, if the government is going to subsidize food, it should be paying for food that is healthy, and in a manner that benefits as much of society as possible. I absolutely do not see the harm or foul in helping both the needy and the American farmer, while possibly lowering long-term healthcare costs.


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

Claire-Huxtable
by on Oct. 9, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Couldn't people want to do it for both reasons?

Quoting Lizardannie1966:

I agree completely that it's not a right. It is a need, for many and for many of those, a legitimate one.

However, many of today's SNAP recipients--and because of our country's lousy economy and still sagging job market in many areas--are working and thus, tax payers themselves. They are the working poor by definition.

And then there is the fact that while these recipients are on welfare and the tax payers are funding their grocery bill, they're still U.S. citizens. We still need their votes at the polls. We still look to them to support or oppose a given cause. But they're being told that we the people have a right to tell them what they can and cannot buy when grocery shopping. Yet, they're also part of that "people."

Ideally, I'd prefer to see happen exactly what you've described--that win-win combination with recipients and farmers. And I feel if it's there for the taking, more will start taking.

But are we telling them they shouldn't be buying the junk food because it's "our money," forgetting the fact that they can go out and buy the junk food by other means? or are we wanting to incorporate this type of reformation because we truly care what they feed themselves and their families?

Quoting radioheid:

 Yes, I hold *mostly* Libertarian views.

I don't consider food stamps to be a right. If they were a right, everyone would receive them, and we'd call the system "socialism". We do not. They are a "safety net program" intended to ensure poor people are getting adequate nutrition. 

People are free to do whatever they want with their own money. I don't care if they gamble half away and use the rest on hookers. If they earned it, it is theirs. That is Libertarianism in government. Handing people part of someone else's paycheck, which was taken without their consent, and telling them they can eat themselves into a Hov-a-Round with it is NOT Libertarianism, it is a sick, lazy, bastardized form of Socialism, and one I do not and never will support. It is wasteful because we pay for it twice---once when we pay for the Ho-Hos and Doritos, and a second time when those people end up needing medical care for their diabetes, heart disease and other health issues associated with eating processed shit completely unchecked for years.

If we must have these social welfare programs, they must be helpful and efficient. As it is now and has been for the last 40 years, they are NOT. They are a waste of tax dollars, and they keep people in poor health and poverty, and I think we should fix that. If we're going to spend the money on them, we'd might as well make sure they truly benefit their recipients AND the economy.

Quoting Lizardannie1966:

Aren't you Libertarian which, correct me if I am wrong, prefers limited government dictating on the private lives of citizens? or something to that effect?

I don't believe that all SNAP recipients set out when they go grocery shopping, believing that they're getting the "free money" to buy boxes of Hamburger Helper and Yodels and aren't they lucky that they can still fill-up on crappy foods? IE...there are many on SNAP who want nutritional foods, too and many DO shop that way.

It's that the government would be telling the recipients *what* they can buy that is perhaps her point and what she doesn't agree with?

Quoting radioheid:

 And yet you can't explain *why* its "BS".

Don't worry, I know why you and others think its BS. You think its BS because people wouldn't be able to waste taxpayer money on garbage with no nutritional value anymore. It would mean people would have to use their own money to buy Cheetos and Debbie cakes. lol There is no other argument against reforming and *improving* the food stamp program to aid the economy and improve nutrition.

Quoting ReginaStar:



I don't think Foods stamps recipients food should be controlled but I do think they should have the option of buying from farmers. 

 

Is your question is to why I don't think the recipients should be forced to buy certain products? B/c I think that is BS that is why. Different people have different diets and taste and should be able to choose what they want to eat even if it's food provided for by the government. Forcing certain foods only leads to a major waste in food. You also have to consider produce has a very short life span and people on assistance are the least likely to be able to get to the store often. 

 


 



radioheid
by Libertarian on Oct. 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM
2 moms liked this

 Nobody would be telling them what they could and could not buy, they would be telling them what they will and will not *give* them. Therein lies the difference. Food stamps are something that is being *given* to them to prevent malnutrition and poor health. Yet the current system seems to foster poor eating habits and lousy nutrition.  

Quoting Lizardannie1966:

I agree completely that it's not a right. It is a need, for many and for many of those, a legitimate one.

However, many of today's SNAP recipients--and because of our country's lousy economy and still sagging job market in many areas--are working and thus, tax payers themselves. They are the working poor by definition.

And then there is the fact that while these recipients are on welfare and the tax payers are funding their grocery bill, they're still U.S. citizens. We still need their votes at the polls. We still look to them to support or oppose a given cause. But they're being told that we the people have a right to tell them what they can and cannot buy when grocery shopping. Yet, they're also part of that "people."

Ideally, I'd prefer to see happen exactly what you've described--that win-win combination with recipients and farmers. And I feel if it's there for the taking, more will start taking.

But are we telling them they shouldn't be buying the junk food because it's "our money," forgetting the fact that they can go out and buy the junk food by other means? or are we wanting to incorporate this type of reformation because we truly care what they feed themselves and their families?

Quoting radioheid:

 Yes, I hold *mostly* Libertarian views.

I don't consider food stamps to be a right. If they were a right, everyone would receive them, and we'd call the system "socialism". We do not. They are a "safety net program" intended to ensure poor people are getting adequate nutrition. 

People are free to do whatever they want with their own money. I don't care if they gamble half away and use the rest on hookers. If they earned it, it is theirs. That is Libertarianism in government. Handing people part of someone else's paycheck, which was taken without their consent, and telling them they can eat themselves into a Hov-a-Round with it is NOT Libertarianism, it is a sick, lazy, bastardized form of Socialism, and one I do not and never will support. It is wasteful because we pay for it twice---once when we pay for the Ho-Hos and Doritos, and a second time when those people end up needing medical care for their diabetes, heart disease and other health issues associated with eating processed shit completely unchecked for years.

If we must have these social welfare programs, they must be helpful and efficient. As it is now and has been for the last 40 years, they are NOT. They are a waste of tax dollars, and they keep people in poor health and poverty, and I think we should fix that. If we're going to spend the money on them, we'd might as well make sure they truly benefit their recipients AND the economy.

Quoting Lizardannie1966:

Aren't you Libertarian which, correct me if I am wrong, prefers limited government dictating on the private lives of citizens? or something to that effect?

I don't believe that all SNAP recipients set out when they go grocery shopping, believing that they're getting the "free money" to buy boxes of Hamburger Helper and Yodels and aren't they lucky that they can still fill-up on crappy foods? IE...there are many on SNAP who want nutritional foods, too and many DO shop that way.

It's that the government would be telling the recipients *what* they can buy that is perhaps her point and what she doesn't agree with?

Quoting radioheid:

 And yet you can't explain *why* its "BS".

Don't worry, I know why you and others think its BS. You think its BS because people wouldn't be able to waste taxpayer money on garbage with no nutritional value anymore. It would mean people would have to use their own money to buy Cheetos and Debbie cakes. lol There is no other argument against reforming and *improving* the food stamp program to aid the economy and improve nutrition.

Quoting ReginaStar:



I don't think Foods stamps recipients food should be controlled but I do think they should have the option of buying from farmers. 

 

Is your question is to why I don't think the recipients should be forced to buy certain products? B/c I think that is BS that is why. Different people have different diets and taste and should be able to choose what they want to eat even if it's food provided for by the government. Forcing certain foods only leads to a major waste in food. You also have to consider produce has a very short life span and people on assistance are the least likely to be able to get to the store often. 

 


 


 


"Roger that. Over."

R   A   D    I    O    H    E    I    D

KenneMaw
by Bronze Member on Oct. 9, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Like that idea!!

JakeandEmmasMom
by Platinum Member on Oct. 9, 2012 at 12:42 PM

 That's how it used to be.  It was called "commodities" back then.  It isn't still that way because food companies and grocery stores make a lot of money off of food stamps.

jhslove
by Bronze Member on Oct. 9, 2012 at 12:43 PM

This is an excellent point.

fullxbusymom
by Bronze Member on Oct. 9, 2012 at 12:45 PM
this

Quoting ReginaStar:

I don't think Foods stamps recipients food should be controlled but I do think they should have the option of buying from farmers. 

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
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