Should the food stamp program be amended to exclude junk food?

[BushArizona]

No.  Limited, yes, but if you want to buy a candy bar, go ahead.  Now, I'd love to see food stamps eliminated altogether, but that's a different issue.

stupid fake christians.

[Mint]

I don't.  I hate them all!    I don't hate the needy.  I feel that charities should be doing this, not the gov't.

They can't handle the burden all by themselves. Unless you think there's some constitutional issue involved.

And that's because people just don't give as much to charities anymore.  It's a huge flaw, especially in the Christian community.

Actually americans have a very high rate of giving to charities still. We contribute far more on average than Europe, for example. The problem is when you leave things to charity, the level of services is going to vary based on location, the economy, etc. You just can't rely on it entirely anymore than you can expect to get rid of poverty (however that's defined) by just throwing money at it.

[BushArizona]

I don't.  I hate them all!    I don't hate the needy.  I feel that charities should be doing this, not the gov't.

They can't handle the burden all by themselves. Unless you think there's some constitutional issue involved.

And that's because people just don't give as much to charities anymore.  It's a huge flaw, especially in the Christian community.

Actually americans have a very high rate of giving to charities still. We contribute far more on average than Europe, for example. The problem is when you leave things to charity, the level of services is going to vary based on location, the economy, etc. You just can't rely on it entirely anymore than you can expect to get rid of poverty (however that's defined) by just throwing money at it.

Mint, do not try to reason with these so-called Christians. They believe Jesus was a capitalist (when he was clearly not).

Capitalists are stupid.

[President Marokai]

I don't.  I hate them all!    I don't hate the needy.  I feel that charities should be doing this, not the gov't.

They can't handle the burden all by themselves. Unless you think there's some constitutional issue involved.

And that's because people just don't give as much to charities anymore.  It's a huge flaw, especially in the Christian community.

Actually americans have a very high rate of giving to charities still. We contribute far more on average than Europe, for example. The problem is when you leave things to charity, the level of services is going to vary based on location, the economy, etc. You just can't rely on it entirely anymore than you can expect to get rid of poverty (however that's defined) by just throwing money at it.

Mint, do not try to reason with these so-called Christians. They believe Jesus was a capitalist (when he was clearly not).

Capitalists are stupid.

He's basically a hop, skip, and a jump from libertarianism, so careful with phrases like that

[frenger]

It should exclude all foods, but it's a good start.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

I don't.  I hate them all!    I don't hate the needy.  I feel that charities should be doing this, not the gov't.

They can't handle the burden all by themselves. Unless you think there's some constitutional issue involved.

And that's because people just don't give as much to charities anymore.  It's a huge flaw, especially in the Christian community.

Actually americans have a very high rate of giving to charities still. We contribute far more on average than Europe, for example. The problem is when you leave things to charity, the level of services is going to vary based on location, the economy, etc. You just can't rely on it entirely anymore than you can expect to get rid of poverty (however that's defined) by just throwing money at it.

Correct.

[Mint]

It should exclude all foods, but it's a good start.

Because a hungry under class never led to unrest or anything like that...

[Earth]

Seems to me this is a no brainer. If you want to buy Twinkies and candy bars, use your own money. The government should only help you get actual food.

The government should have no say in telling people what they or can't buy with food stamps, particularly, if it's food. Junk is junk, but it's still food.

[BushArizona]

bono= lol fake christian. Probably bases his beliefs on that bible thingy.

Of course food stamps should not be used for junk food.

But remember the other side, in many poor areas the only stores with food may be convience stores, and many poor people may not have their own transportation. So, in effect, it is their only option.

In St Louis, there are grocery stores everywhere so it isn't a big problem here, but it can be a problem in California quite a bit.

[Matt Damon™]

California has grocery stores everywhere. Try again.

[BushArizona]

California has grocery stores everywhere. Try again.

Go to Oakland, South Central LA...

[Snowguy716]

No.  I do not.

I think we should stop subsidizing the ingredients that make junk food so cheap, and instead work on subsidizing healthier foods like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

Then, if people want to buy themselves a treat every now and then, yes... even with public money, they can.. but they will realize taht their dollar goes further with healthier food.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Unfortunately I doubt it's practical to do so, at least in some areas. There's also the matter of what we can legitimately define as junk food.

It might be better to give a list of healthy and affordable options for one's local area to those dependent on the food stamps instead. Another alternative might be to provide them with actual food instead of food stamps, which might be cheaper since it would allow the government to buy in bulk at wholesale prices rather than paying for the retail price for every individual.

[Mint]

...Another alternative might be to provide them with actual food instead of food stamps, which might be cheaper since it would allow the government to buy in bulk at wholesale prices rather than paying for the retail price for every individual.

I could support that.

[Matt Damon™]

Provide them actual food, buy the food directly from farmers as an alternative to farm subsidies, also provide them cookbooks and lastly provide free cooking classes. Aw hell, while we're at it reinstate home ec classes in middle/high schools.

[President Marokai]

"Reforming" the food stamp program to exclude certain foods would be a nightmare on a variety of levels.

First of all, if you exclude certain foods, you're not only singling out specific products and specific companies on a random basis, but you're also being incredibly inconsistent with the whole idea. Prohibiting certain brands of food would not only write a list a mile long that under penalty of law people cannot buy, it would require people to carry this list around constantly, and would require cashiers and other store employees to double check, out of safety. Also, this assumes that people just won't be able to bypass the list altogether by buying other unhealthy products. It's not as simple as just banning a few little things.

It's not about banning "twinkies and mountain dew" anyway, as some conservatives have repeated, its about banning all unhealthy products, which would require banning certain unhealthy (totally subjective) nutritional facts, creating a far more confusing situation than previously. Because instead of being able to just dodge items, you'd have to check the nutritional facts on virtually every single item an individual wants to purchase.

You would create a disastrous situation either way, where the program would become inefficient, confusing, and economically detrimental. Each dollar of spending that goes into food stamps generates nearly double that amount in economic activity. People will eventually bail on the program which would lead to weaker local economies, increased poverty, crime, starvation, homelessness eventually, etc. that there would be no point. You'd be taking a successful and cost-efficient program that 1/10 Americans rely on and turning it into a nightmare.

If you want to hurt the lower class, this is certainly the way to do it. It isn't broken, don't fix it.

[Mint]

Provide them actual food, buy the food directly from farmers as an alternative to farm subsidies, also provide them cookbooks and lastly provide free cooking classes. Aw hell, while we're at it reinstate home ec classes in middle/high schools.

Agreed. Also ban certain food production practices such as excessive use of growth hormones and misleading labels. For example, companies should not be allowed to sell Juice 'Cocktail' that's 15% juice without putting it on the label in HUGE bold print. Oh and can we start inspecting foreign food products?

Honestly, I'm generally really anti regulation but our food safety and standards are pathetic.

[Matt Damon™]

Yes, yes we can.

[Matt Damon™]

If you don't know how to cook given recipies/the ingrediants+tools needed before you go off to college/enter the workforce.. well yeah you've failed an important part of life.

[Lunar]

Unfortunately I doubt it's practical to do so, at least in some areas. There's also the matter of what we can legitimately define as junk food.

It might be better to give a list of healthy and affordable options for one's local area to those dependent on the food stamps instead. Another alternative might be to provide them with actual food instead of food stamps, which might be cheaper since it would allow the government to buy in bulk at wholesale prices rather than paying for the retail price for every individual.

Having Safeway/Walmart/whatever buy in bulk and sell it is probably more efficient than an identical nation-wide government bureaucracy to do the same.

There must be some way, like grams-of-fat-per-ounce, that most junk food could be systemically eliminated without letting Haliburton lobby Kelloggs products or whatever.

[Mint]

Unfortunately I doubt it's practical to do so, at least in some areas. There's also the matter of what we can legitimately define as junk food.

It might be better to give a list of healthy and affordable options for one's local area to those dependent on the food stamps instead. Another alternative might be to provide them with actual food instead of food stamps, which might be cheaper since it would allow the government to buy in bulk at wholesale prices rather than paying for the retail price for every individual.

Having Safeway buy in bulk and sell it is probably more efficient than an identical nation-wide government bureaucracy to do the same.

There must be some way, like grams-of-fat-per-ounce, that most junk food could be systemically eliminated without letting Haliburton lobby Kelloggs products or whatever.

Agreed. However, this alternative intrigues me. As free market as I generally am people's health is extremely important. Especially with healthcare costs skyrocketing these days.

[Sibboleth]

I don't like the idea of food stamps at all. Reeks of the truck. Reeks of charity. Give them money to buy their own food instead.

[I left.]

I don't like the idea of food stamps at all. Reeks of the truck. Reeks of charity. Give them money to buy their own food instead.

And if you do that, there is the possibility that they spend that money on things that the state shouldn't really be funding. That's my problem with that.

And then, when they (definitely not all, or even many people on welfare, but still a certain share) buy alcohol and tobacco with it....and drugs....and whatever...and land on the street, the left-wingers complain that we need to invest even more money.

[President Marokai]

I really don't understand the fuss over the food stamp program. It's a fairly effective program that does it's job very well.

[Sibboleth]

And if you do that, there is the possibility that they spend that money on things that the state shouldn't really be funding. That's my problem with that.

If they want alcohol or tobacco they'll buy it anyway with whatever money they have from other sources. It's actually possible that some people would buy less of both if they were given cash instead of tokens as they'd have to budget for things more.