Should there be tighter restrictions on what can be purchased using food stamps?
 

I heard a story on the radio today that was talking about what people can buy with food stamps, and a proposal to restrict what can be bought. The idea is that people should not be buying soda pop, cookies and twinkies, but you can buy the ingredients to make cookies. Steak and lobster would be off the list too. I guess you buy the pizza you buy that is made, but not cooked, raw dough, with food stamps, which I did not know.

So should food stamp purchases be limited to staples, what do y'all think?


I have an idea where this might end up, but I don't think it is a political subject per se.

The way the US food supply is structured, the crap is a lot cheaper than fresh vegetables, and that's one of the reasons they say the people on SNAP are gobbling up the crap.

Plus, it's hard to figure out what to do with fresh vegetables if you're lazy. ($.02)


Like . . . at my Kroger, you can buy a Red bell pepper, or 2 Totinos pizzas. That's a lotta bang for someone else's buck.

Yes, there should be restrictions and I would restrict what most of us would agree is "junk food".

Steak and lobster I would allow.

Steak is not that much more per pound as ground beef or pork and if you shop smart and buy meat that is close to the sell by date is on par if not cheaper.

Lobster is demand priced. A few years back it was as cheap per pound as bologna.

I think one way to do it is a threshold based on nutritional value per dollar.

Who would we expect to enforce it?

The retailer? That can get messy as they won't know it's a food stamp purchase until everything is rung up.

What then? Will they have to go back and review the purchases and void certain items?

Messy.

While I agree in principal the logistics smacks of more government infrastructure to deal with it which likely costs more than allowing Twinkie purchases.

It's a slippery slope but I agree certain seemingly 'luxury' items like steak should be allowed - it can be a reasonably-priced and healthy source of protein - but total crap like twinkies and doritos should not be.

While this is not PARF, I would however prefer to tighten-up who gets aid in the first place, and how much and for how long...

When I was just out of high school, I worked at Krogers bagging groceries and stocking shelves, and occasionally wheeling groceries out to load thier car for them. We always dreaded the first monday of the month, because all the government food program people had thier check in hand and would buy 2 carts worth of food. Not very often was it good wholesome staples that would be healthy for thier family, it was usually frozen meals, chips, cookies, and pop.

The beer and cigarettes were bought with a roll of $20 bills they whipped out, and usually constituted another cart full. Most of these customers smelled so bad, you couldn't be near them for any length of time, but always seemed to have a nice newer vehicle to load it all into.

I have to agree with "campbellcj" that we need to limit who actually gets these benefits to those truly in need.

I agree that food stamps should be only used for food, and also that sodas and snacks should be off the list. It would be helpful to see the food and beverage industry/manufacturers behind this thinking, but I won't hold my breath.

I don't think the exact choices of food should be mandated.

Restricting a class of foods, processed "junk food" is a good idea. Steak and lobster not so much. I've bought lobster for $3.99/lb, similarly with ribeyes at $5.99/lb that are 1 day past the sale date but are obviously perfectly fine, and super tasty. There is something to be said for now and again aspirational purchases and ones for special occasions. Yes, poor people have special occasions too.

I think a better exercise is to look at why poor people buy junk food especially when fresh food is net cheaper than processed junk. We are talking about cycles here and when doing so, the first thing to remember is that people are in cycles because they don't know how to get out.

Poor people:
1. Are lazy bums
2. Working 2-3 low paying jobs and have little time or energy when they are home
3. Don't have pots, pans, utensils, knives for making good/complex meals
4. Don't know how to cook, no one taught them and they either have no desire, too lazy or have no time to learn
5. Generally have low self esteem which decreases creativity, drive, experimentation
6. Are either too lazy or work too much to clean up after a well-prepared meal
7. Don't have easy access to good quality, fresh food. Fact is quality supermarkets don't like to set up shop in poor neighborhoods

I am constantly amazed at how cheap food is. But you have to want to make good food, be able to buy good food, know how to make good food, and have time to make good food.

Shaun makes good points. I think that at the end of the day (!), low-income people are working a couple jobs and just don't have the time or energy to make a meal using fresh ingredients. Its very time consuming and makes a huge mess to cleanup. Its much easier to just swing by KFC for a Jumbo Bucket or order Dominos.

Agreed, it should cover bare essentials. When I see a the "WIC Approved" sticker on a $10 platter of seven layer dip, I think we've gotten a bit carried away.

I know that all you have to do is show up in California and you can get $200 a month in food stamps. Move to Hawaii and it is $300. This is a person who has a PA driver's license. Amazing. Those who need it should get assistance within reason. But it has gotten out of hand.

See my post on perfect chicken breasts. I make them ahead of time for the week.

I paid $12 for six chicken breasts. Add a can of no salt added veggies and I have a BIG lunch for $2.79 that is loaded with protein and fiber, has virtually no fat and is absolutely delicious.

I'm working 70hr weeks since January and keeping up with 2-3 days/wk baseball practice with my son and STILL find the time to get a meal put together. Literally 60 seconds in the microwave.

This thread reminds me of what my father had said in the past: 1)"Anything you (the govmnt) subsidize, you will get more of - not solve or get less" 2) "There will always be 'holes' in the subsidy structure. There is no way to manage that completely at the recipient level, therefor there always will be elements that people will exploit."

FWIW: In Va. - roadside seafood sellers are advertising with huge signs that they accept food stamps!!

The government is as much in the pockets of the agribusiness / processed-crap-masquerading-as-food industry as it is beholden to the ever-growing dependent class it has created so I wouldn't hold my breath for any real positive change.

It's sad that we identify the crap put on store shelves today as "food".

people love to worry that poor people might be getting something we don't think they deserve.

We were real poor when I was in elementary school. I remember being with my mom getting groceries, and her cashing her assistance cheque at the checkout. The lady made a snide comment about the cake and chips and pop... "must be nice" or something like that. My mom cried on the way home, then I had my birthday party.

People need to get a life. Way easier to judge and criticize than it is to help or even show empathy.

Thanks for sharing.

Perspective is important.

I would cut it out entirely. If that is not politically acceptable, I would limit it to staples...bulk dried beans, bulk rice, flour, shortening, milk, generic block cheese, peanut butter, potatoes and eggs. The same food my family ate when we were poor (we bought them ourselves). Funny how frugal folks are when they had to work hard to earn what they spend. Food stamps or other "assistance" should be temporary aid to keep people from starving, not to feed them for life or supplement their income so they can have a fancy cell phone and gaming system or buy cigarettes, beer and drugs. In this country, we always make our "safety nets" so comfortable that people prefer them to hard work. Getting sick of eating generic, boring food is a good incentive for lazy people to get off their fat posterior and better themselves. Steak and Lobster are too expensive for most folks who have good jobs to feed their family.

Perspective is important. Perhaps the other lady was my mother who did not get assistance, did not buy chips or pop and did not have a birthday party for her child because she did not earn enough money...and certainly would not have be able to justify using other people's money to have one.

Meh, I don't begrudge a kid a birthday party.

We were not always comfortable but my parents did what they could to not punish us for it.

Almost feels like you are a bit bitter that maybe your parents didn't work hard enough so you could have had a birthday party.

I agree 100% with having compassion and that there needs to be assistance programs.

But I also think the government employees who run EBT are pushing too far.

Really, you are going to insult him and his family like that? Classy, no wonder people think everyone commenting in PARF is an a-hole, thank you for illustrating it so nicely. I guess we put you down for a "no"

You would be able to buy all the ingredients to bake a cake or cookies. Lets see, bake a cake for $3, or buy one for $10. Yeah, I can see how that is a reasonable thing to do when someone else is paying My mother worked 70 hours a week and still managed to make dinner, except maybe once a month she would get KFC or McDonalds because she likes french fries. I have a very nice cast iron skillet that I got at a thrift store for $2.99. I am dubious about buying pots and pans being a roadblock.

This would be very easy to put into effect. Just put chips and junk food in the same category as booze and cigarettes on the SKU list. I wonder what percentage of people getting food stamps are working two jobs.

According to media matters, looks like about 40% of them were working in 2010. Do you suppose that number has gone up or down in the last 5 years, with the massive expansion of these programs? Media matters, is that a right wing website?

Hannity Omits The "Food Stamp" Facts: Most Recipients Have Jobs, Or Are Seniors Or Children | Research | Media Matters for America

Wow, 100% yes. This may be the first time everyone here agreed on something. It must be snowing in Hell right now

Huh, I would have thought it was in Texas, not Michiganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,_Michigan

If we are trying to break the cycle of poverty (and I think we should be) we need to qualify fewer prepared foods and spend the money saved on education. Shaun had some good points. Some people - both poor and better off - don't know squat about nutrition and how to cook. That's one reason we have so many overweight people in the US. Nutrition education should go hand in hand with nutritional assistance.
Unfortunately POP had a great point too, "The government is as much in the pockets of the agribusiness / processed-crap-masquerading-as-food industry as it is beholden to the ever-growing dependent class." Taxpayers are getting squeezed from both the consumers and producers of junk food, and between them I don't see legislators changing things much.

Excellent point, ought to be a mandatory requirement to qualify.

No doubt. So why then does the first lady catch unending **** when she tries to move on the disgusting crap we serve our kids in schools?

Food stamps, as well as other types of welfare, should be considered TEMPORARY assistance to provide only the ESSENTIALS to maintain a minimal and frugal lifestyle.

I consider anything beyond those definitions to be excessive.

We'll forget for a minute that she should be more concerned that SHE has enough junk in the trunk to fill three cabooooses.

As soon as they get the power to decide what kids can eat, they start deciding what kids CAN'T eat.
It stops being up the parents and the nanny state takes over. And that is always bad.

The idea of free school lunches is total commie BS but beside that fact, Who TF thought it would be a good idea to give these food nazis any power?

You've read the stories, mental "little people" administrators who went into education out of necessity, punishing kids because the big powerful grown-ups don't APPROVE of what a kid has in his or her sack lunch.

They wouldn't last long in the real world.

The whole food stamps/EBT thing is a big can o' worms.

Personally, I think it should be temporary, with restrictions on what you can buy, and not with a card so you can pretend you're not on the dole.

Interesting what you can buy with them: 11 Things You Didn

People like to think it's a liberal program, but it's not

Farm Bill Still Hanging: More Than 70 Groups Lobby on Food Stamps | OpenSecrets Blog

Food Stamps: More Benefit to Big Food Than to the Poor? | TIME.com

9 Big Companies That Benefit From Food Stamps

FYI, I voted.

Pretty sure I was the first vote because after the page reloaded it was Yes 1, No 0.

Fint was the one who passed judgment on notfarnows mothers decision to forego some other staple in order to give him at least one good day.

It's not the same as buying cakes, cookies, chips, smokes, and booze every trip.

Knowing how selfless moms tend to be she very likely gave up something she needed in order to give him a party.

Unenforceable... What you rich folk don't know is the low income crowd sell their food stamps for cash so they can but what the heck they want.

So... poor people are lazy AND working 2-3 jobs?

The problem with the first Lady's program is that it didn't distiguish between a 90 lb seventh grade girl, and a starting senior lineman on the football team, they both got the same amount of food on the plate, and then it was probably good for them, but not necesarily good to eat.

I can't survive on tuna pitas, carrott sticks, and a 1/2 pint of milk like the designers of the school program (thin, health conscous, women), and I don't expect poor/underpriveleged people to have to eat that stuff in small quantities either.

There is plenty of good food to fix in a grocery store without allowing them to buy chips, cookies, and other sugary, fattening things on the government's (our) dollars.

Making more rules solves nothing, they will buy beer with cash and use food stamps for what they can. Food stamps allows them to use their money on other things.

It's a checkbox list of factors that effect food purchase and preparation by the poor. Each person/family will be able to check off 1 or more boxes.

Some people are lazy. Some people work 2-3 jobs. They would not check both boxes.

It's a knee-jerk reaction from the right. Like Pavlov's dogs, they don't think when they see the name "Obama" they just start to slobber.

Almost anyone that has bought groceries has at some point been in line behind someone using a EBT or food stamps card. On one of my recent visits I was behind a well dressed lady that had a cart full of stuff and the checker rang it all up and THEN the customer whips out her EBT card. Of course the teller had to void the sale and start over because so much was not eligible for food stamps. She re-rang it and the lady pulled out a wad of cash to pay for the stuff that she could not get on the card. Of course the other lines were moving right along and the line I was in came to a stop.

She was finally done and I paid for my few items and was out the door right behind the lady. She was loading everything into a brand new car with temporary tags.

My tax dollars at waste.

It is possible she was buying food for her elderly mother, or that she had just replaced her old car after the old one was totaled in a wreck. There are many possibilities, but I suspect it was a low-life living large on the dole.

unfortunately you are correct.

We were on food stamps for a period of time when I was around 11 y.o. It was a booklet with $1-5 coupons that you tore out and used as cash, I think there was around $50 in coupons that you purchased for a lesser fee out of your assistance money. You had to try and get as close to the total amount when purchasing so that they weren't giving you a bunch of change in actual money that you would be able to spend on soda, cigs, etc. Man, I hated going to the store and using those.

I definetly don't think EBT should be used for Jack in the Box, McD's and other fast foods. I can go to the store and buy a whole roasted chicken, veggies and broth and make a big ass pot of soup in 20 min that will last 2-3 days. Total cost around $12. Nothing wrong with that.

As I drive by multiple commercial retail centers that sit empty I've always wondered about the feasibility of a Gov't run or contracted "EBT Store" that stocks Vegetables and ingredients that are nutritious and simple to prepare. No soda, no junk food. When you buy a can of soup, it may not be Campbell's Chunky, just a generic, no frills brand.

The reason you see EBT Accepted Here signs in front of fast food restaurants and liquor stores is exactly because it IS a liberal program. It is a huge government pork program that is lobbied by big business such as the food packaging companies, grocery and retail giants, and the government mandated organizations that are supposed to regulate Ag production. Make no mistake, all of this is orchestrated quite purposefully by your elected representatives. You don't see farmers driving their pickups to the Capitol to testify. You see lawyers and lobbyists who were put there by government to do the bidding of government.

I lived for a time in Frazier Park, a mountain community in North L.A. County. Lots of welfare people up there. I'd be in line buying beer at the small liquor store after a hard day of work and there would always be a small group of 20-25 y.o., pierced and tatted up (usually a few fresh tats in the group), toting some snotty kids (must have had them at 16). They'd cash their welfare check, buy junk food, root beer and ice cream with EBT, and pay cash out of the welfare for beer and cigs. They were usually jacked up on meth or weed. These aren't assumptions, these people were trash.

She clearly didn't understand the system, so she was either new to it or shopping for someone else.

So the bleeding heart liberals secretly own the big corporations that lobbied for universal EBT acceptance?