Spinoff: Should food stamps be used for junk food?

amother

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 1:22 am

MaBelleVie wrote:

I don't understand how it hurts *you* when someone on food stamps uses it for a ready made sandwich or a candy bar. Either way your tax money will be put towards it, what difference does it make to you whether they buy dried beans or chocolate chips?

Because then they complain they don't have enough money to cover the month. And the government considers spending more tax money.

It also makes one wonder if they *really* need it. (If they are buying steaks as the one poster said they might just have enough to get through the month). More people on SNAP= more money...
Again, we are not just talking about the occasional candy bar or bag of chocolate chips.

amother

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 1:32 am

MaBelleVie wrote:

Someone can use it for an occasional indulgence, knowing they will be giving up something else for it. Maybe it's worth it to that person to buy that candy bar for their child as special reward, and walk a mile to work instead of taking the bus one day, and use the money saved to cover food. Or people can make poor choices, which is just going to be a fact of life.

But when we pay for it, we might just want to make sure kids are getting an apple instead of a snickers for lunch. And maybe we may come up with a solution.
I don't think anyone on here said that they should not be buying a single lollipop for their kids. We are talking about real extras. Several bottles of soda. Or steak for dinner. Or buying pre made foods. Stuff that many of us who pay for our own groceries don't buy on a regular basis.

amother

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 9:26 am

amother wrote:

They are not paying for their own food. They may be paying taxes Now but they will get a nice refund come April. May not be all but quite a huge chunk. Plus they statistically "take" more than they "pay" in taxes. People on food stamps get a lot more in benefits on the EBT card (let alone if they get other government programs like HEAP, WIC, TANF...) then they pay into the system.

I know someone who is on food stamps--she works and pays more taxes each month than the Food stamps she gets. If she wouldnt have to pay taxes then she wouldnt have to get food stamps.

Most people get a nice refund check so I guess by your logic, none of them are actually paying into the Food stamps program?

While we are on the subject of our taxes paying for things let's look at what else we are funding with our taxes:

1-public school-unfortunately, American public kids are not getting a good education, perhaps we should stop using taxes to fund schools.

2-college-lots of college student get financial aid (or our taxes to fund their schooling) which means that our taxes are paying professors to teach. Some of these professors are extremely incompetent leaving college students with a horrible education that our taxes are paying for. Where is the outrage about that?

3-Ph.D. program- CUNY graduate center offers a fully funded Ph.D. program for qualified students which is primarily covered by taxes. CUNY accepts foreign students as well as out of town students and uses NYC taxes to fund their education while there are actual New York students who can't get accepted to CUNY. Where is the outrage about that? Why are our tax dollars funding foreign/out of state students instead of New Yorkers?

These are just a few examples of how our taxes are being misused, but somehow there is only outrage at how poor people spend their food stamps. How come we get upset at poor people instead of holding our own govt accountable in how they (the govt) are misusing and abusing our taxes?

MaBelleVie

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 9:38 am

amother wrote:

First your concern is for their kids, then you complain that they get to buy things you can't normally afford. Hey, you can also choose how to allocate your finances. If you wanted to buy soda regularly I'm sure you could, you'd just have to give up something else. Same as them.

amother

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 2:27 pm

MaBelleVie wrote:

I can't be upset about both? Wow, never knew that was a rule. Thanks for clueing me in on that one!

southernbubby

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 3:16 pm

A relative of mine owns a grocery store in an inner city neighborhood. High end items like steak are bought with food stamps and then sold for cash. What usually happens is that someone in the parking lot approached a food stamp recipient with an offer for cash for half the value of the food stamps. Then they buy steaks, particularly if they are on sale, and then sell them for cash for 25% less than the store would normally. Everybody, except maybe the taxpayer wins. The food stamp recipient now has cash, the steak buyer how has something to sell for cash and the steak buyer gets a discount on steak. The cashier rarely asks for ID on the food stamp cards so anyone with the password can use it.

amother

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 3:54 pm

Here's my story as a FS recipient:

We're a family of 7, I work full time but don't make enough to cover my monthly bills. For various reasons, my DH is not really a income provider.
I get just over $500 a month on FS, I don't have any extra money at all to spend on food at this time. I stretch that money somehow. It's really really hard and I have to be creative. I can't afford luxuries at all, I'm so grateful for the $500 that I do get and if I didn't it would be a very bad situation.
There are times that I will buy a treat for a kid that's really needed.

I make everything from scratch and pretty much buy on sale, I make my own bread, snacks, dips,etc. and make a lot of soups that are filling, We eat beans and rice and all sorts of legumes and pasta. We eat less fruits and veggies than I like, but I can't afford more.
We don't have any juices in the house, or sodas or chips etc.

If I can't afford it, it's my problem, the neccessities are one thing, I get very irritated seeing people buying nice, luxurious, fancy, junky food on FS. I know someone who always sponsors chicken and meat for sheva brochos as she uses FS as she has extra, she has extra because she's on FS as her income is cash and she can afford food, it's the extras that are paid for on FS.
Just my rant as a full time working mom who would nor have food if not for FS. BY the time we pay rent, electric and gas, we're pretty much broke, don't even start me on tuition....

southernbubby

Sun, Dec 07 2014, 4:11 pm

amother wrote:

The real problem is that WIC ends at age 5 but I don't know why it can't be extended because some people do my lots of sugary beverages with food stamps and give it to the kids in place of milk because it is cheaper than milk. On WIC, presumably the child is fed milk until age 5. Our government is cheap with people who really need the help but I think that more people would be supportive of others getting food stamps if it only paid for nutritious foods.

amother

Mon, Dec 08 2014, 1:23 am

southernbubby wrote:

So it seems that you are advocating that SNAP be more discriminatory about what kinds of food you can buy. WIC doesn't need to be extended but SNAP should imitate WIC. I would love it to be more like WIC with specified dollar amounts towards different parts of a healthy diet. (Where I live WIC gives a specific amount for fruit and veggies). WIC actually states amounts and what type (plain Cheerios in 12 oz containers but not honey nut etc). But even then, the fact that WIC is specific in amounts but not price is good- people can make healthy choices (whole wheat pasta if they want) without looking at the fact that it costs a lot more. But overall I don't mind it not being that specific so long as things in the soda/snack aisle and other extras or "specialty" items are excluded. I know many people who would feel better about it as they know it is going for real food that is needed.

Think1st

Mon, Dec 08 2014, 8:05 pm

amother wrote:

WIC in NY?/NJ does NOT allow organic milk or peanut butter, only the trans-fat & high fructose corn syrup loaded one. Unsweetened peanut butter was not allowed until the company labeled it as old fashioned

Cheerios recently announced they will exclude GMO , but still include other unsafe ingredients http://www.cheerios.com/Products/Cheerios

http://www.onlineholistichealt.....food/

The addition of fruit & veg was a good move, maybe a short list of excluded products such anything with added sugar or other sweetener content over a certain % should be excluded from SNAP

That would exclude most soda, candy & many other junk-food

allthingsblue

Mon, Dec 08 2014, 8:12 pm

Think1st wrote:

what are the other unsafe ingredients in cheerios?

Barbara

Mon, Dec 08 2014, 8:12 pm

Think1st wrote:

There's high fructose corn syrup in milk?

youngishbear

Mon, Dec 08 2014, 8:19 pm

Ok.. we are onto high fructose corn syrup and GMOs.

Someowhere above in his thread I posted, that if we start placing restrictions on SNAP to encourage healthy eating, just get ready to sponsor the organic stuff... and someone replied we are not talking about organic, just not junk...

So as you see, it gets very complicated and technical when you need to start deciding what is junk, exactly. So subjective.

According to some right here on imamother, vaccines, of all things are junk, or worse.

Go figure.

And wait till the corn industry lobbies to consider high fructose corn syrup a vegetable.

amother

Mon, Dec 08 2014, 11:14 pm

Think1st wrote:

Not from NJ here. Cheerios I have been buying have said no GMOs for a while now. Organic is not necessary for a healthy diet. May not be ideal but you can be ideal on your dime. Less junk food is a must.
About the PB it is based on size- they had to be an exact amount but in my stores they mark which jars/boxes are WIC compliant and most PB is (if within the size). Don't recall what types were because I am not on WIC.
Guess NJ isn't great for WIC.

Raisin

Tue, Dec 09 2014, 8:17 am

I think people should be incentivised to buy healthy foods. For example, a food stamp dollar will buy one dollar worth of regular food/junk food but $2 worth of healthy food (fruit, veggies, maybe certain other things like milk and so on but I can see that getting controversial) Fruit and vegetables in particular are quite expensive so people really do need a financial incentive to be able to afford it.

My mother grew up in England in the 40s when rationing was in place. No one went hungry but everyone ate very very healthily. Sugar, butter meat etc was all rationed.

Ruchel

Tue, Dec 09 2014, 8:27 am

I wouldn't call rationing any type of healthy, unless you mean no nosh- then yeah, very few things (?) were processed then.

The French situation was more about kids being sick in drove, anemic (all kinds of heterim sprouted, that people on Imamother like to deny Smile

), even simple diseases got complicated... adults, people traded like crazy, and if you had some money and/or black market, you could eat much better than your starving neighbour who would beg for milk for his kids. People filled up on potatos, grease, cheap alcohol. Many were very skinny (refused at army skinny) or very bloated. If you wanted to trade your ridiculous, pitiful red meat ration for more potatoes or for oil or alcohol or sugar, no one stopped ya. BH I can get my food and my junk food.