I was streaming the Roe Conn show out of Chicago, and I heard something that was quite interesting.

It seems that the state of Minnesota is considering further limitations on the types of food that poor people are allowed purchase with the money we give them.

Here's an article for reference (CBS News): Minn.: Stamp Out Junk Food Buys

From the article:





Question to debate:

Is the State of Minnesota within their rights to restrict the types of food that are purchased with taxpayer-funded food stamp program?

If this program were implemented, would it increase a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, decrease a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, or make no significant change in a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps?

Similar questions and points to ponder along the same lines that may deserve their own topics:

Would you be in favor of requiring all food stamp purchases to be made using freely available instore discount cards?

Would replacing the food stamp program nationwide with taxpayer-provided MRE (Meals Ready to Eat) act as a disincentive for individuals to continue receiving food stamps? Would you be in favor of this?

Mike

I Absolutely support such a move. The purpose of food stamps are to sustain life and health in the hopes that the recipient will return to the work force as soon as possible. Why should a taxpayer be expected to subsidize foods that serve no benefit to the consumer, that are in essence luxury items and taxed as such.

If they are truly poor and hungry why would it? I would be happy to be eating if I were destitute.


I use to live in a urban community and I was infuriated when I stood behind a food stamps shopper, organizing my coupons, searching my purse for those savings cards, and the food stamps recipient whom was not at all concerned about the prices and savings and happily checking out. The real kicker was they would pay the balance due after food stamps from a wad of cash. This happened 40 % of the time.

I believe the whole welfare system needs an overhaul!

I agree with the changes, as long as we don't go overboard. I can certainly agree to discontinue covering junk food, candy and soda which are completely devoid of nutrients and cause health problems that the system will probably have to end up paying as well. If food stamps are truly there to help people then allowing junk food is an oxymoron.

I would think that after the program was implemented the enrollment would stay roughly the same. You may have the occasional individual who takes advantage of the program to buy junk food and may not have any interest in healthy food, but I would think it's rare.



It would definitely be in a person's best interest to use any discount method available, as that would allow that person to spread their food stamp dollars further. The problem I see with requiring all food stamp purchases to be made with the discount card is that would severely limit what they could buy of even the healthy food. The way that the discount cards work here is that a certain number of items can be purchased at a discount every week. Sometimes there are themes for the sale items, such as "frozen foods month" where the majority of items offered for discount might be frozen items, or maybe some kind of sale on meat, which would limit how many items a vegetarian could buy.



I can understand your frustration on this issue -- perhaps they are either not really in need of food stamps or are unaware how much money they could save by strategic shopping. I don't see why a simple class on saving money at the store couldn't be offered before receiving the food stamps.



The point is feeding people who are in financial straights, so I would not have a problem with this in theory. As long as the meals were balanced, nutritious, and allowed for certain dietary restrictions such as diabetics, vegetarians/vegans, heart disease, etc. it sounds like it could be beneficial. I'd have to do a bit of research to see what potential problems could arise, but it sounds okay at first glance.

I would have no objection to having some reasonable restrictions placed on the foods which could be purchased with food stamps. I tend to think this would have very little impact on the number of individuals who would apply for this program.

I don't like store discount cards. I don't have any and refuse all offers to sign up for them. Call me paranoid, but I don't like the idea of having the store keep records of what I buy. Sometimes when I tell them I don't have a card they take a card and sweep it through the machine, so I get the discount anyway. Don't ask me why they do this sometimes and sometimes they don't. It would seem to me that it would make more sense to require grocery stores to offer the same discount to food stamp customers that they do to customers that have the discount card, rather than requiring the person using the food stamps to sign up for a card.

I don't see a problem with the government offering food instead of food stamps. There would have to be a reasonable number of choices, of course.

This question was truly food for thought for me, I needed to sleep on it.... The premise of the idea seems great as I believe this would actually deter the rampant abuse of the food stamps program. By abuse I speak of the situations where a welfare recipient shacks up with a local drug dealer for the purpose of mutual sharing. It happens all the time and if children are involved it is most deplorable. Lets say the Mom has a drug problem obviously she can't afford drugs on public assistance so she offers her home and some food to a Dealer in trade for access to drugs. It is quite cozy, he gets a roof and some food with no documentation of his existence and she gets high. This sort of arrangement perpetuates the social ills and the children are all the more apt to become what the adults in their lives are. The whole purpose of public assistance is to lend a hand, support those in need and help them to lift themselves out of poverty. If Mom is high all of the time and her main concern is the next fix, I doubt this will ever happen. The reason I believe MRE's would discourage because to receive MRE's the recipient would be required to attend a food bank or a feeding program on a regular basis. I doubt a stoned Mom is going to appreciate having to meet with state employee's (pantry workers, State Kitchen staff) regularly to receive her benefits. I am not quite sure of the long term effects...especially to the children. It could help, it could hurt.

I was a neighbor to two families.

Family A was exactly as I described above, when the two woman in the home had exhausted all the local lone drug dealers they then began housing Latin Kings, ohh goody haven't they moved up in the world. I stayed away from them for obvious reasons so my details are few. My heart breaks for the kids in that house.

Family B had two parents (Heroine addicts) very dysfunctional though intact family unit. They were the actual parents to the child though never married as he dealt drugs and she was on assistance. He died of an OD on the couch and she actually quite using. She still drank too much though that was a step in the right direction. I actually started talking to her when the kids were out playing. The Clinton welfare reforms began then. God would she moan and groan. I just kept encouraging her to take advantage of the training programs offered through public assistance. Thank God she did. I am happy to say she is now gainfully employed, no longer drinking and completely off public assistance. She and her son have hope and dignity it is priceless. I have long since moved, we still talk once and awhile.

Like I said before, we need further reforms, we must protect the children in the process too.

I think so. People that receive food stamps do so because either their income from a job is below a certain level or they are also receiving subsistence from other government programs.

Nothing is stopping such people from buying candy bars or soda (Liquor or Tobacco for that matter) with money they have from other sources. This idea is just ensuring that the amount given to feed those in need feeds them well.



I don't think it would change the number of applicants at all. People are still free to buy junk food with money from other sources.



From my own personal experience I don't know that this requirement is needed. Everyone I have ever known who receives food stamps uses coupons and discount cards to stretch their buying power as far as they can. As I understand it, those discount cards only make using store coupons easier because it automatically applies them when applicable. I don't know any families on food stamps, or any families at my economic level for that matter that does not use them now.

Also, to get those cards requires you fill out a form at the store. Requiring that you use them would also require you give your personal information to the stores you shop at. I think privacy advocates would take issue with this.



NO. As someone who has lived on these meals I can say that though some of them are horrible, the bulk of the meals are OK and a few are actually good. It's not a food quality issue.

However, the public's perception of these meals is bad, and anyone proposing such a policy would be attacked for de-humanizing the poor by forcing them to eat such things (though none stands up for the military that eat them daily).

More importantly, moving food stamps to MREs would be bad for the economy. The program as it is now, pours money into local stores through food stamps. If we went to the MRE concept, that money would disappear and it would flood into the few manufacturers of MREs and the transportation companies that would deliver them.

Worse yet, the government would likely create a whole new bureaucracy to distribute these meals, costing the taxpayers far more then the current system does.

Lastly, it would not be a disincentive. Many people buy these things over the internet to store them in case of an emergency. I think this would just create an MRE black market. If that happened, you might even see an increase in participation.

I think this is a bit of a tricky subject. On the one hand, it seems to make sense to impose restrictions like this - these people are, after all, receiving a government handout, so we (the taxpayers providing this money) should perhaps have some say in what is done with that money.

However, there is something which troubles me deeply about this.

Why do we seem to think it is fair to place restrictions on money or benefits handed out to our poorest citizens, while not placing restrictions on benefits and handouts to our wealthier citizens? The tax cuts, aimed at the wealthier people, were based on the theory of stimulating the economy. Since the biggest tax cuts were to the wealthiest earners, why don't we think it is right to place restrictions on how they use that money?

People who apply for the EIC are many times more likely to be audited than those who don't. Why?

It's made to seem like "common sense" when we see tracts about "welfare abuse," yet those of us who are more upset by the abuses of the very wealthy and giant corporations, whose malfeasance concerns far larger amounts of money, are often considered extremists or radicals.

All systems will be abused. That seems to me a self evident truth. I can't see spending time and energy worrying about food stamp recipients buying candy - at least not until we address abusers who cost the taxpayers far more. I guess there really are two Americas. Malfeasance at the checkout counter, spending taxpayer dollars on candy and soda, is an issue. Malfeasance in the Savings and Loan industry means a multi-billion dollar bailout. Wealthy folks like Ken Lay, who enjoy bird hunting, can pay someone to plant a rice field on one of his large retreats, and then legally apply for and recieve millions of dollars in farm subsidies (the birds like the rice fields).

If we are to address abuses of government benefits and handouts, doesn't it make sense to start from the top and work our way down? But, the poor are easy political targets; the rich are not. When one in every eight federal benefit dollars goes to the poor (Crittenden; Killing the Sacred Cows), isn't our focus here a bit misplaced?

I agree that handouts and bailouts in general are bad, and there should be a disincentive to be a recipient of them.

There is barely any stigma in being on welfare, almost none in the communities in which it is prevalent. Other than that, there is no disincentive. I disagree with the "fact" that 1 in 8, or 12.5% of my taxes go to the poor...I believe it to be closer to 1 in 3, a significant chunk of my money, and several thousand more of MY MONEY, i'd keep every year.

I disagree with farm subsidies as well, but the Dept of Agriculture has a much smaller budget than the total sum of all social programs.

I disagree with the bailouts, in theory, however the industries in question are generally regulated, in some cases backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. of A., whereby a major failure requires federal bailout. Likewise, widespread faith in institutional banking keeps cash in service (the bank loans out your deposited cash) rather than buried in the basement.

Ever check on the relative rates of obesity among welfare recipients? Alchoholism? Smoking? I've never been into a "poor" house that didn't have a color TV and a game console.

You want to affect government outlays? There are two big ripe fruits on that tree: Military, and Social Welfare. Everything else is just peanuts.

EDITED TO ADD: I think it would be great for MN to try this. It may or no be the right thing to do, and it may or may not reduce the number of recipients. But it's great that we have 51 chances to get it right, and hopefully, each state learns from the others, until we have a succsessful system.

Your misunderstanding this figure. Not all your taxes go to benefits. 12.5% of the amount of taxes that do go to benefits, go to the poor. Conversely, this means 87.5% of our tax dollars that go to benefits, go to people who are not poor.



The USDA spends over 100 million dollars per year paying for large corporations to advertise overseas.



I have. I've been in homes where there was no phone, no electricity, and no running water. I've seen homes that consist of cardboard boxes.



My solution: cut military spending in half, and stop giving medicare and social security payments to the top 3% (in wealth) of recipients. Even just the latter would save billions of dollars.

Look, I'm not opposed to fighting corruption. I'm not opposed to making it harder for people to abuse systems. I just think there's this ugly mood of late in this country, in which we pick on the poorest, merely because they are easy targets. There are far bigger fish to fry. Mike, I'd say this idea has some merit, but I'd just rather see the people of this country focusing on the big theives rather than the little ones.

During the period when AFDC was operating, there was a concurrent rise in the incomes of the rich and the poor. Ever since Reagan started attacking social welfare programs while cutting taxes for the very rich, the poor, in general, have stagnated while the wealthiest have exponentially accelerated their accumulation of wealth.

With obesity reaching epidemic proportions in the United States, particularly in children, it is in the interest of the federal and state government to encourage healthy eating. As long as the limitations on what food stamps can be used for are realistic and not punative, I can understand the desire to place limitations on what foods they can be used for. Nobody needs a Twinkie to survive.

But where does this stop? There's another part of me that says this is just another way to punish people for being in poverty. Shall we say next that food stamps can't be used to buy steak or better cuts of beef and pork? Shall we say that food stamps can't be used to buy the name brand can of corn, but only the store brand that is cheaper?

There's a mean streak to our charity at times. If a person on welfare and receiving food stamps isn't dirt poor, with patches on their pants and holes in their shoes living in a total hovel, they don't fit our image of what a poor person's life should be. It's not enough to have fallen on hard times. You have to suffer a bit too for our sympathy. But God knows WE wouldn't want to live that way .

I don't believe placing limitations on what food stamps will buy would diminsh the need for them. Nor do I believe that replacing food stamps with MRE's is a viable (or humane) alternative. Just because you are poor doesn't mean you prefer fake food to real food. The disincentive to food stamps isn't MRE's, but jobs and wages that a family can survive on.

Or is that too radical of an idea for Americans who are more interested in punishing the poor than helping them out of poverty?

From someone who has lived off of these meals before they are NOT inhumane. They are real food, well balanced, nutritional meals that cook themselves and they frequently taste OK, occasionally they even taste good. I would not want to live off them for life, but there are not the horror some think they are.

However, they do include candy, gum, cake, coffee, etc. Not really in keeping with the idea of banning using food stamps on junk food.

I agree the disincentive to food stamps are jobs and wages (excellent point Nighttimer ). However, the disincentive to food stamp fraud is investigation and enforcement, not changing the food.

In Missouri we have moved to cards, similar to credit cards for food stamps. This eliminates fraud in regard to people who would sell the "stamps" for cash to use the cash on things they can't use food stamps for, including drugs. Of course all recipients of food stamps are not criminals or drug addicts, but the fraud is very real and those that commit it need to be prosecuted.

Piper Plexed on Mar 12 2004, 04:10 PM


SWM28WDC on Mar 14 2004, 11:53 AM

on SWM's second quote Any less is to trap those who want out.


I don't know about the wads of cash or the lack of stigma. My family got onto the WIC program when my son was born. I had been laid off for the second time since june 2001. WIC allows you so much of certain approved items a month. baby food and formula and milk etc. Huge lifesaver. I had always been able to pay for anything but the 1st lay off wiped me out, the second put an end to what was left months to find the job and was let go after 2 months . I went from a nice quiet and CLEAN neighborhood in Scottsdale to having meth addict neighbors and a newborn. It is unbeleivably embarrasing to hold out those coupons. Everyone LOOKS at you. At least that is how it feels. I can understand your frustration though. In the office where we went to have our child examined each time we needed to renew our WIC some of the people there were, uhm disgusting. Sick looking dirty children with WELL FED mothers and pot bellied wife beater wearin creatures posing as "Men". Think I'm kiddin? Sadly no. To see those who were obviously there trying to keep their heads above water amid a veritable sea of lifers with no intention of trying is infuriating. (On a side note, I don't agree with the Sex is Evil crowd on sex education, but to see some of those very little girls with children makes you think that forcefeeding abstinence aint such a bad idea. They got no hope in their eyes you know)

Point is go ahead ban candy. ban soda. Allow only the food necessary to a healthy diet. The ONLY ones who will complain are the slackers. The rest are just grateful to feed their kids.


Is the State of Minnesota within their rights to restrict the types of food that are purchased with taxpayer-funded food stamp program?
See above. The ones truly trying to get by and move back up won't care. You always have some money for the occasional candy bar. Hell the grocery stores usually have a very tasty instore version of any soda really cheap. Alberstons has 'em for .25 .
I beleive the only ones who will complain are the ones with the entitlement mentality, so really who cares!


If this program were implemented, would it increase a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, decrease a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, or make no significant change in a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps?
Depends on their work ethic.


Similar questions and points to ponder along the same lines that may deserve their own topics:

Would you be in favor of requiring all food stamp purchases to be made using freely available instore discount cards?

Would replacing the food stamp program nationwide with taxpayer-provided MRE (Meals Ready to Eat) act as a disincentive for individuals to continue receiving food stamps? Would you be in favor of this?

Generally the allowable foods are worked out in deals with those foods manufacturers. Kraft, Welchs, local dairies(milk cheese) so I don't know that the cards will work. You are often allowed foods in weight increments. So many oz and lbs. It would probably just add to the mess.
As for the MRE's. I would have been grateful for anything to keep my head above water when it started getting scary. I have always been slighty Liberal when it comes to the safety net type programs, and I do agree they really need a serious overhaul, very serious, but let me tell you the whole year I needed them I was damn grateful. If it had been just me i wouldn't have bothered and just gotten by. But I had a baby and a very tired newborn's mommy.As for the incentive it depends. I was raised to care for myself. I learned the hard way to be frugal and I plan on living like a Mormon in that I will always from now on have a years supply of food and money socked away for hard times like layoffs. Well the money part when I can once again get a job that leaves me something left after bills,,Mr Kerry? Mr Bush?. So I got off support as soon as possible. Those not raised that way know no different and probably never will.

Oh boy, it's been so long since I've actually debated. Pardon me if I'm a bit rusty.

I will warn you-- for some reason I have this knack for killing a debate. I post, and the topic dies. So, someone please tell me I'm wrong in the next post. I'll do my best to make sure this comes true, and I'm placing my money on Quarkhead.

It's been mentioned that requiring savings cards would be a potential privacy issue. I can see what you mean, but doesn't privacy end when you ask the government for money? Obviously, we know who gets food stamps and who doesn't (at least I'd like to think we do). We know their names, we know their birthdays, we know where they live, we know their marital status, their employment status, the number of children that they have, and their income. In some cases where we provide homes, we likely know what is in their urine. I hardly think the government would be overstepping the rights of poor people any more than they already do (which I'm sure is up for debate as well ).

It has also been said that MRE would be bad because they taste bad, they include junk food, it could create some sort of an underground market for them, and we would have to setup a whole new government bureaucracy to distribute them.

I personally wouldn't know if they taste bad-- I've never had one. I do know that they are good enough as last meals for our soldiers on the battlefield. As they are right now, they are probably too high in calories for the average food stamp recipient. They would certainly have to be reworked.

I would be 100% in favor of military MRE, and would also be equally in favor of community-based MRE as well. I never specified military MRE, but I guess it was to be assumed . Community-based MRE could easily be the solution for the increased government bureaucracy.

Believe me when I say it-- I am not in favor of bigger government. I'm fairly extreme, and would want to eliminate quite a few public entitlements that most people consider...well... entitlements. Luckily, I am not in Congress. But if we are going to spend the money, I don't see why we can't get the most bang for our buck. There has to be a better way.

I don't see why it would be unreasonable to shift the current bureaucracy to a community-based system. We wouldn't have to buy the cards or print the stamps, wouldn't have to mail them out, wouldn't have to do accounting for every single person who receives food stamps. A lot of the current bureaucracy could be cut and replaced with something that provides a better return on our investment.

We could instead reinvest that money in the kitchens of our public schools, which is where the food stamp recipients would prepare their meals. They could prepare several days worth of large meals and volunteers could distribute them for those who can't get to the distribution point. This would be a win-win-win situation. Schools get better equipment and could offer better meals to our always-important children. Children have the opportunity to take cooking classes, and learn an important step toward being an adult. Former food stamp recipients get their meals, learn a skill, and further learn to take pride in their work and in providing for their families. Taxpayers pay the same amount of taxes, if not less. And isn't food cheaper when you buy in bulk? Win-win-win, all around.

It all seems quite idealistic, but isn't our current system pretty idealistic right now? We expect those who earn more to voluntarily give more for the privilege of receiving less. We collect money from millions of hard-working Americans and pass it out to people the government deems needy. It certainly is idealistic.

...and on to the rich. Always an easy target, it seems. Yeah, I know that we usually hear that the poor are the easy target.

It was posted above that we should place restrictions on how the evil rich can spend the money that the government gave them through tax cuts. Let me just clear this up right now. In the case of food stamps, the government is actually giving money they collect from us to other people. In the case of tax cuts, the government is not giving money to anyone-- they are merely collecting less. Novel concept, I know, but it's the way it is. The government has no authority to dictate how an individual spends their own money, unless you consider making us pay into an unfair tax system.

As it is right now, the rich already feed the poor. What's wrong with asking for a better return on a cheaper investment?

When a simple swipe of my instore discount card saves the guy ahead of me $6 worth of foodstamps on his Hotpockets, I know something is wrong.

Mike

You're wrong. THere someone did it

Seriously, the privacy issue we are referring to is giving this information to the stores to add to their advertising database. not the government.



The problem with using MREs is that the money that now flows into the local economies through the purchases at stores would stop. This money is good for the economy and the community.

Creating a new agency to administer the community MRE program would cost the tax payer more, while also taking money out of the economy. I don't see how this could be productive.

I think that restrictions on certain foods are a good thing. There are two big reasons I can see for this:

1. Certain foods are cheaper, and would be easier to provide

2. If a person is destitute and generally deprived of food, they wouldn't want to finally get crap-foods like candy bars that are just going to worsen their condition in the long run

And as for MRE's, last time I checked at least, those were expensive as hell to buy.

MREs are expensive because of features it has that are absolutely necessary for the battlefield, but unneccessary for feeding poor people. It'd be a large waste of effort and money.

The food people need to eat to get by doesn't have to have a huge shelf life, or be conveniently packed, or incldude little trinkets and tidbits of Americana to raise the morale of young men faced with death in a foreign land.

I do believe there could be a better use of my tax dollars than buying hot pockets...likely the best deal at any time is going to depend on what the local store has overstocked, what's getting ready to expire, and what's a little stale. If there were some way for grocery stores to put together weekly "care packages" boxes of nutritious meals for 1, 2, 3, or 4 people, we could stop paying for hot pockets.

Likewise, to prevent the fat welfare mommas from eating kiddie's food, schools should include breakfast, a.m. snack, lunch, and p.m snack at school. I know in DC the lunch programs are carried over the summer.

However, there seems to be a mindset that its somehow 'cruel' or 'inhumane' to provide people with stale, but unspoilt, bread.

Whatever gives the most bang for your buck.

I may be a little jaded on the subject, as most of the people I run into don't have a good work ethic (which is usually directly related to why I'm running into them).

As a person whose family receives food stamps, let me weigh in here.

I have a disabled husband and he had two children that are now my responsibility because their mother is "lost". The children should be receiving child support but they aren't because the court ruled that she didn't have to pay because she was destitute. Then she disappeared. That was six years ago and I have been the mother of these two for six years. My husband has a progressive disease and will never work again. He doesn't look like he has a disease. He looks normal. You can't judge a book by its cover.

I have a B.Sc. degree and I am working on my MBA because since 9/11, I have been unable to find a job other than delivering pizza for a few months. My husband and the two kids receive $325 a month in food stamps. I do not qualify for food stamps because I receive stafford loans, and if you can borrow money, then you aren't qualified.

We also live in a trailer park . I certainly never thought that this would happen, but we cannot afford the high rents in Atlanta and had to move out of the city to escape the slums (the only place we could afford to live). The people that live around me work at fast food places and other retail stores. I don't know how many of them receive food stamps but I would venture that they would all qualify even though they work full time. The only person that doesn't work full time here is a women who has an ambulance come to get her every few months so I assume she has something medically wrong with her.

Anyway, we occasionally make bad food choices. I know that when a nine year old begs for a candy bar it is awfully hard to resist since he has so few other wants met in his life. I know a candy bar or a soda pop doesn't seem like much, at the best it's not healthy, but when it is the only discretion you have, it IS a big deal. Most of the time we have to buy really crappy food, instead of healthy food, because that is what is cheap. You can buy a lot of ramen noodles, and fake macoroni and cheese mixes for very little. If you want people on food stamps to eat healthy then you would have to give them more money, not less. Is it really fair to say you can eat sugar coated cereal, but not a candy bar? Show me the nutritional difference?

It sounds like a way to punish people for being poor more than anything else. I know how humiliating it is to go to the food stamp office every three months with my husband who cannot drive. I know how humiliating it is to tell the cashier you will be paying with a food card. I hope that one day, soon, I will have a job that will allow me to hand the cashier real hard earned money.

MRE's, well, we are talking about children here aren't we? When we have gotten so poor that we had nothing to eat but beans and rice for a month (before I got into school), the youngest lost 5 pounds. No one could get him to eat what he didn't want to eat. He would just gag and say he wasn't hungry, even when we knew he was. And this is not a bratty kid either, he is very well behaved in all other cases, but not when it comes to food.

Also, are you going to tell poor seniors that they have to eat these MRE's too? Do you know how many seniors receive food stamps because a medical condition wiped them out? What about allergies? The military weeds out people who are allergic to ingredients in their MRE"s like chicken and peanut oils, but many people are allergic to them.

While it may sometimes seem like my husband has a wad of cash on him when he goes to the check out counter, that may be his whole month's income. He doesn't use a bank account because he can't afford the checking charge. Also, sometimes that money he has is mine. Sometimes I even have him buy me a bottle of wine. Not with the food stamps, but with my borrowed funds or money I get for my birthday. Why? Because every once in a while I want a candy bar, some cheese and a bottle of wine like everyone else. The same way a college kid wants to order a pizza but really shouldn't!

I suppose that there are people out there who fit the stereotypes that I have heard from just about everyplace. I am sure that somewhere there is a bum who begs for money but really drives a Hummer and lives in a mansion:). I also assume that many people on food stamps are also ugly/dumb/dirty/toothless/fat or whatever you want to call them. I guess that may be why they are so poor. If you are good looking/smart/clean/fit and have all of your teeth it might not be so hard to get a good job huh? I mean, do you really expect people on food stamps to look like Donald Trump? If they did, wouldn't you be more perplexed? Besides, we tend to notice and remember what fits are preconceived notions anyway don't we? Especially when it come to drug addicts on welfare. You probably don't see or record the ones that are like my family, or we are so embarrassed that we had the cashier our food stamp card with a great deal of discretion:)

This is getting long, and I'm not sure if any of you are still with me here, but if you are, thanks for listening. Oh, and yes I have a computer. Its from 1997, and I must have it for school along with an internet connection. Just in case anyone wants to complain that I have money for that

I understand that occassionally people want to splurge. I understand that someone down on there luck want a beer or glass of wine occassionally. I understand that people would want to get their kid a candy bar or soda on occassion. However, as people are able to use money from other sources to get a beer or wine they are also able to use the same money to get candy or soda.

Food stamps are there to help people down on there luck to provide for themselves and their family. By restricting access to more substantial and nutritional foods the program better serves it's purpose.

As for your question about sugar coated cereal. Those cereals are frequently sprayed with vitamins and of course there is the nutritional benifits of the milk.



I understand the embarassment. I lost my job right before we found out my wife was pregnant. If not for Medicaid and WIC we would have been in real trouble as we had sunk all of our savings into a run down house that we purchased to fix up (saving money on the morgage) right before I lost my job.

However, suggesting that food stamps be limited to nutritional (even marginally) foods is not punishing the poor, but leading them. Suggesting that this program be restricted to nurishing and healthier foods does not seem like a bad idea to me.

I am happy for you that you have the opportunity to improve your education and make yourself more marketable to the work force, thus improving your chances of getting the American Dream in the future. I was lucky, I found a good job and we have slowly gotten our heads above water, though we still struggle to stay that way.

Dear Heart, Sounds to me that you need the food stamps and use the program to it's intended purpose. It is for families like yours that the program exists. Just to clarify when I say wad of cash I am talking about a 2 inch wad of cash, more money than I have ever held in my hand. I doubt very much you or your husband carry that much cash around. I only know one occupation that puts that much cash in a persons pocket, also one occupation that a person would be reluctant to deposit that much cash in a bank. I don't speak from lack of experience with this problem, If the Latin Kings shacked up near my home, I was not in a very good neighborhood. I really don't want to get into my personal trials though I will say they were not unlike Christophers experiences. Unfortunately there are enough people that abuse the welfare system that it does not go unnoticed. It also sounds to me like you are in a nice neighborhood, and there is nothing wrong with a trailer, at different points my Hubby and I considered getting out of the NYC area and buying a trailer in a better area. I seemed like the only way we could raise our kids outside a war zone. I wish you all the luck in the world I am sure things will improve for you.

"However, suggesting that food stamps be limited to nutritional (even marginally) foods is not punishing the poor, but leading them. Suggesting that this program be restricted to nurishing and healthier foods does not seem like a bad idea to me."

Healthy food is great for those who can afford it. Dirty little secret: I have a love of this product that is called "food juice" It contains all of the fruits and vegetable servings I need for a whole day in one small bottle. It's delicious! I love it! Every month when we get our... umm... "allotment" I actually buy myself 2 bottles and save them for when I need energy for school! Problem: it costs 2.50 cents because it's really good for you and it isn't homogenized or anything like that.

It would be great if we could have one of those for lunch every day and then no one would ever have to feel like they were giving us money so we could eat unhealthy food. But you know that's not what would happen. Maybe SOME cereals are "imbued" with vitamins But the last I checked grocery store brand Fruit Loops are just plain sugar, and I don't even WANT to know what's in the macoroni & cheese or the cheap hot dogs or the grease content of corned beef hash, or any of the things that we end up eating a lot of the time. How much pasta is just too much? How many burritos are just too many? If the object is to make my family eat healthy foods...unlike everyone else...that's great...but that's not what will happen. What WILL happen is that that one candy bar for the kids will be off limits because someone has a secret need to make poor people behave, and that package of ramen noodles will be ok, even though it has to be worse for our health than a almond joy

And there isn't always enough cash to even buy toilet paper, so how can you say that you can find the money for soda or a candy bar anywhere? I'm telling you the truth...before I was in school and able to receive loans I did the laundry with bar soap in the bathtub. I had to hang it out at night and bring it in before the landlord came on duty in the morning because it's against the rules to hang out laundry. I had to ask my family for feminine napkins (I have no idea how one would buy diapers...if you don't have a washer/dryer you're out of luck there). When we all came down with a bad cold, we couldn't buy any cold medicine or aspirin or nausea medicine. The kids had to start school with no paper or school supplies. It was a nightmare. I don't know how much worse people want to make it.

I see the misery in the food stamp office. I walk out in the parking lot searching for those cadillacs. I can't find them. I do find disabled people. A lot of elderly people. A lot of people who don't speak english. A lot of military families whose guard/reserve unit was called up (I don't understand that one). A lot of really scared looking people who have two children with them and don't really look like they have anyplace to go. There is always ONE...yes always...she always has her nails done, she's always chewing gum and talking on her cell phone. But how many people have to suffer FOR HER?

heart

I'm sorry for you. However, the argument seems to be whether or not it's O.K. for people who vote to determine what type food that people who recieve state assistance courtesy those of us who pay taxes. Perhaps, in your case, the amount is not enough. The question isn't of 'enough' but of 'which'. Assume for a moment, that the assistant amount is EXACTLY the amount you needed per month for your family to buy healthy, nutritious food, and the other necessities of good hygeine. Would it then be OK to dictate to you how to spend it? I think so.

EDITED to change 'weather' to 'whether'

Sorry to go off topic a bit, but eating healthy does not have to cost more. As a matter of fact you can eat healthier and pay LESS if you're willing to be more working cooking the food, and spend a little more time shopping.

Heres a few tips from Dr. Phils web site. The internet is FULL of information of nutrition and ways to eat healthy for less. Here are just a few examples

From: Dr. Phil's Site, JJs Nutrition tips.




Then there is: USDA Nutrition Resource site
THey have TONS of links to information and tips concerning healthy eating on the cheap.

On great source of Ideas is: The Thrifty Meal Plan (PDF)

There are many resources out there to help people plan a nutritional diet without starving their wallets.

Hope this helps. Sorry for the deviation from the topic.

Well, now Ive seen the day that americans would deny a child a candy bar because they're poor.
Um , I could say what I think about this but its less than complimentary. How much is a latte'?

When you are poor, small things count. Even poor people should have some things to enjoy, although it sounds like you would ingraciously bleed them of any minor happiness, since you pay the bills. Appalling and cruel. Candy bars are often 3 for $1, now thats really something to worry about!

Legislating candy bars and soda is not going to reform welfare, and its petty. Teaching good nutrition and smart buying would do alot more and not marginalize people. Theyre not criminals, they are just poor, and sometimes only for a short time. Cant we come up with REAL answers to these problems? (rhetorical, I know we are answering a thread question)

Mike, thats the craziest idea Ive ever heard of on this subject. I dont see how anyone could possibly have the time and the program would be enormous, and hateful.

Personally, I would welcome any one of my fellow American citizens (except Ebenezear Scrooge clones), into my tin-tent to review my "books", review my husbands disablitity status, check my children's head for lice, make sure I keep my house neat, check my urine for drugs, search the house for porn or whatever, and try to uncover any thing worth selling besides my wedding band if any of you want. Why not? The inspection at the food stamp office isn't much nicer.

Then I would welcome you to show me at the store how to buy healthy food to feed the family for the month on the $325 (I add money to that from my loans every month so that we can buy any of 40 items that every single one of you uses in a typical month like toothpaste, shampoo, deoderant, razor blades, motrin...etc.)

My splurges are never on candy bars, that is what the kids want me to spurge on, I splurge on "food juice"!!! Oh how I would love to eat fresh salads with feta cheese and olive oil...eat real cheese and crackers with a fresh apple...drink real juice and have a yogurt and granola for breakfast. I would invite any of you to come show me how that is done. I will make a bet with you though, when you were done looking into us, and trying to do the impossible, you would probably stop at the check out counter and buy both kids TWO candy bars.

Then we could come home to the tin tent in June or July and we could turn on the oven to bake that eggplant parmesean or something, and you and I could sit and play cards while we put ice on our heads because the temperature, which before we turned on the oven was 90, but now that we have something baking is now approaching about 96, requires ice or you may faint. We would do all that instead of microwaving those dreaded "hot pockets".

Then we could talk about the budget and how (without my school loans) I was supposed to figure out how to buy all of the non-food items and go do the laundry for my husband, myself and our two adolecent/teen age boys when there was nothing left over for that...food stamps only pay for food. The food stamp office makes sure you don't have any money left over in cash. Every three months they adding up all of our bills and then add up my husbands disability and social security checks to make sure we aren't one penny over.

There used to be a saying that people learned in church, it was "there but by the grace of God go I" and it was meant to say that we should count our blessings because we are all one disaster away from the caprice of fortune. The American Indians also said "Do not judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes". I think the intent of both sayings was the same. Maybe no one really realizes how close we all are to the brink until it happens. I certainly didn't. I had three months of savings, though I should have had six. Ask yourselves this question, "if this were me, or my mother or my child, how would I want the "system" to treat them. I truly believe that if you had to do this, through no fault of your own, you would be outraged at the "system".

But you know that isn't really the point. Somebody in MN was behind a person in line who used food stamps to buy her kids candy bars and soda. The person had some clout and went to the government. The government said "oh, we must stop that. We must make them eat nutritional meals and forbid them from eating junk food. This will show the people that we are serious about nutrition in this state!" There was political hay to be made, at the expense of a vulnerable group that can't fight back. How many people go on food stamps so they can buy soda, candy and chips? How many candy bars do you all think they are buying anyway?

I repeat, I would welcome any decent citizen into my home and my life and throw my privacy out of the window if I had to in order to show you what it is like to live this way. But I would not be willing to allow General Mills, Stoffers, Armour, Nabisco, and Hormmel to determine what constitutes a nutritional diet.

Now all I need is this thing called a job If I can make more than 20K a year, I plan to BURN my food stamp card!! But did you know that if I found a 40 hour per week job at minimum wage I would still only make a little over 10k a year? The lowest rent I can find is $620, so do the math, even with a full time job, I would have to work 2 jobs = 80 hours a week to put my family above the "food stamp" level, and then I would have to find time to cook all of the nutritional food that requires extensive preparation. The mistake that most people make about food stamps is in assuming that the people who receive them are healthy and unemployed. What facts do you have to support that assumption?

And about those taxes. I am 41 and my husband is 57. I paid taxes for 15 years and my husband paid for 20 too. My extended family pays taxes as well. So perhaps it would be fair to say that it isn't YOU who are paying for our food, it's actually my extended family. It could even be argued that for the combined 35 years that my husband and I worked, and earned a decent living, that we were paying for other people to eat, and now someone else is paying for us to eat. And if I had have known then what I know now, I would have paid more, or at least donated more. As soon as possible, I intend to do just that.

Sorry this is so long, but it is a serious subject and it may also be the only time anyone on this forum, or people who read this forum, ever actually hear from a food stamp recipient. Most people just go on the stereotypes that exist in their heads.

Sorry, heart, but you'll get no sympathy from me.
We are all responsible for our lots in life. Period.
You can moan about how Minnesota is discriminating
against the "poor" food stamp recipients by actually
trying to improve the quality of the foods they are
allowed to purchase with food stamps. I think it's
a good move. A lot of people are misinformed
about nutrition. This is Minnesota's way of helping
better the nutrition and overall health of those
requiring government assistance.

It is always a source of dismay and disgust to me how so many Americans who pride themselves on their Christian charity and love for motherhood and children can look for new ways to make being poor even more shameful and degrading than it already is. I'm astonished by the petty meaness I see in this thread.

I wonder if those same folks who are hot and bothered about the food going in the mouths of impoverished and hungry people feel the same way when it's major corporations piggishly feeding at the government troth. I'd like to invest in more school lunch programs and a helluva lot less Stealth bombers.

There should be a check-off box on our tax forms so those who want to feed the bloated Pentagon budget can do so, while others opt to fund programs that feed people. Billions for guns and nickles and dimes for butter. In this the most wealthy and affluent country on the planet, hunger should be non-existent.

The hungry child you feed today may not grow up to be the angry teenager that mugs you tomorrow. Maybe people resent the poor because they serve as nagging reminders as to what may befall us should hard times come.

Really? Hmmn. Many of us are one paycheck away from disaster and quite a few even on this board, unemployed with families to feed. I guess you do not fit into this category and therefore have a soapbox to stand on.



How? Are they educating the uneducated? Teaching nutrition? Or just making sure there are no sodas and candy in poor homes? Ridiculous. Why not legislate all purchases, from clothing to furniture and appliances, only the cheapest and most practical of everything, after all poor people should be made to resemble poverty and not have a single good thing in their lives, and those poor kids are also responsible for their lot in life! Make it obvious that their parents are less than, never give them a candy bar, or let them have any reasonable semblance of dignity while growing up, that makes for a cycle we can live with! I say they should SUFFER until they just STOP being POOR for gods sake! Lets start with candy bars because thats just wrong!


My parents divorced with 2 kids, my mother had custody and no job training since she was a housewife and had not worked in years. We initially went on food stamps and it was Embarrasing. Not a single economically hurting but dignified, family likes this predicament. We had the worst clothes and the cheapest shoes, and were made fun of by all the other kids. My mother worked until late at night as an accountant and I took care of my brother after school and cleaned the house and did all the shopping and cooking from age 10. We ate mostly from cans, I didnt know how to cook a thing really. I was an athlete, I could swim, run and played center at basketball, soccer and excelled in track and field, but I could not play in after school sports because of my family situation, to the disappointment of my PE coach and possibly a loss of scholarship.
My brother, without adequate supervision, grew up to become a car thief and eventually have a heroin problem, he stole from his employers and friends, went into state care as an adolescent, and eventually as an addict. He is now reformed at 38 yrs old. How much did this cost the state?
I did not fair so badly, and have NEVER asked the government for ANY assistance. When I first left my home I ran away. I was a 15 year old, prey to anyone (dirty old men and drug addicts) who would promise me the world for a bit of you-know-what. I had the luck, to have been educated well, boomer era of new schools, and pulled myself out of the gutter by the belief that I deserved a better life. This was instilled in me by my teachers in my schools, a solid mind, good genetics, being healthy and strong, and having athletics behind me to build that base.

I have a few points to make, the first being that education is everything! The second is that marginalizing people when they are down does not promote a cycle that is positive down the line and ends up costing society much more in the long run. The third is that not everyone is responsible for their lot in life, mostly kids. The fourth is that candy bars and sodas have no bearing on this situation what-so ever. Get real. If you can spend 100 billion on a war for 'poor' Iraqis, we do not need to be so cruelly harsh to our own people over such banalities.

The most important thing is education, we need to understand this at the deepest level and spend, spend, spend on that, as well as not letting athletics, arts and music programs die in schools for lack of funding. This can save our childrens and our future, no matter what their economic standing, which can be temporary in their youth, but EASILY not in adulthood.

Ok here is an idea. As opposed to all or nothing approach, how about budgeting the food stamps dollars. A portion of the monies allocated to free choice purchases and the remainder for approved healthy foods. At the very least it would encourage a dialogue between the recipient and his/her case worker. Money saving tips i.e. coupons, price reduction cards can be discussed. I have fed my family on very limited budgets using these tools. It is great deal of work, though worth it. I also pondered a PX like system where food can be purchased in bulk, remove the middle man (local Grocer) how much would be saved? What would be the impact to the local economy? These are question for greater minds then mine. My gut says the recipient might be able to save a great deal this way and actually feed their family on the program.

edited to clearify

This is the most interesting debate I've read in a long time.

My two cents: In an indigent school district I taught in years ago, two children out of every three in my classroom were very overweight. We were required to document these students so that they received the proper instruction in nutrition, and counseling...it was literally almost my entire class. They ate candy and drank soda pop constantly. So, we have a skyrocketing rate of obesity, especially among the indigent. This is a fact. Now, those who want to curb that are 'denying a child a candybar'? Food stamps should go towards food. I don't think that's too much to expect.

When I met my wife, she was on Tennessee's food stamp program called WIC.
This was a system in which certain types of food purchases were allowed on a regular basis. Cheese, milk, juice etc. It was definitely limited in scope and there were no actual food stamps.

I thought it was an effective and efficient way to get families some basic necessities as a food supplement. She was a single mother with a child and they put her in the system for food assistance essentially without her asking to be on it, so the process was fairly simple. To stay on it she needed to keep a regular semi-annual (appointment).

The grocery stores clearly marked what food items were WIC acceptable. This is something I never noticed while shopping until I met her.

I think it is fair for states to control allocation of food aid to better use limited funds. I also tend to believe that welfare abuse stories like Reagan's welfare queen who lived a life of luxury dy defrauding the system are generally urban legends. There should be checks in the system and abuse should be punished. But I think rumors are greater than reality in this area.

I like Mrs. P's nutrition point because it is an important one. This should be yet another area where we get some leadership on nutrition.

First of all, Artemise, don't presume to know who or what I am.
You do not know the childhood I had, but since you were so kind
to share yours with A.D, I'll give you a brief glimpse into the the childhood
of Doomed_Planet:

My mom and dad divorced when I was a baby. Why? My dad cheated.
Does this make me a male-hater? No.

My mom was 19 when I was born. She moved my brother and I around
to 5 different states. My brother went to 14 different schools in his life.
There was a time when we required public assistance, so my mom received
food stamps for a period of time.

Society and the evil government were not responsible for the choices that
were made. It was my mother and father who opted to become parents
at a very young age, and thus setting themselves up for the problems
that did inevitably ensue. We are all responsible for the choices we make
in life. We are likewise responsible for the results of those choices.

You have turned this debate about food stamps, and what can be bought
with them, into a "Let's blame the big bad world for poverty, hunger
and everything else."

Just for the record, my mom got her act together, and became a very
successful individual by hard work and perseverence. She did not blame
society for her stupid and immature life-choices.

So, you go ahead and stand on your soap box. I'm busy working hard
to build a life for myself and my family, because I am very much aware that
the big bad world owes me NOTHING!

To keep this post on topic: food stamp recipients will be in better physical
and mental shape if the foods they are allowed to buy and consume are healthier.

I suspect that you have never worked in a grocery store? I have worked at numerous over the course of 3 years and trust me they do exist. I admit though I am ignorant of this "Reagan's welfare queen" but here are some of the things I have seen.
- A extended family opens up a convenience store, and one of the families goes onto food stamps while the other hides their expenses. They buy a lot of their products on food stamps, especially sale items, and then proceed to sell them at their store. While helping these people to their car, you can't help to notice that the majority of them are driving luxury vehicles.
- A drug addict will come in with their dealer, as a former drug user I could identify a few of them, they would proceed to buy them groceries and exchange them for drugs. The Texas food stamp program "Lone Star card" was supposed to stop this problem but I have even seen drug dealers accept these cards with the pin.


These problems are rampant today, and it's not just Texas because I've seen it in Springfield, Seattle, and Sacramento. We need to reform the food assistance program, but constantly depriving people of every last minimal desire is going to breed hate. Sure, I think a few people will be disgusted enough for them to leave the program, but I think your just going to have more kids being beat up for their lunch money at school to support their desires. When I was homeless I used to work for a moving company, along with my other homeless friends. It's was one of the most physically intensive jobs I have ever had. Long hours, over 100 degree temperatures in the warehouse, extremely fast paced, and just enough pay to support life. Everyday we came back smiling though, fresh from the memories we had made the night before with our $2 Mickey's forty ounce and $2.75 pack of Newport cigarettes.

I spent about three months needing food assistance at one point in my life. At the time I remember being frustrated that I could by nutrition-less food like candy if I wanted, but that the food stamps didn't pay for non-food necessities. At the time I remember thinking that I'd gladly give up the option to buy junk food if I could trade it for such basics as toilet paper, soap, and detergent -- things I needed in addition to healthy food.

But after thinking about this topic for a while, I think if I'd had to worry about being on assistance for an extended period of time, there might have come a time when I'd have really wanted a soda or some chips -- not all the time, but occasionally, which softens my original stance that I made in my first post on this topic.

I know there is some abuse of the system, but I do want to comment that here in Utah when I was on assistance (this was 1996) it was not easy to get food stamps. I had frequent interviews with social workers, tons of paperwork, and had to show continual verification that I was job searching -- not to mention the humiliation and degradation I felt needing that kind of assistance in the first place. My experience is it is hardly a free ride that some people make it out to be.

Edited to add:

There are ways to eat cheaply and healthy. The key is to stick to foods closest to their natural state, eat produce in season, and buy bulk items whenever possible.

When it was just me and my first daughter I could get away with spending about $150 a month on groceries by buying bulk grains, legumes, and fresh fruits and veggies in season (and on sale) and occasional higher protein items like cheese and veggie burgers (also on sale). The problem, as mentioned above, is finding the time to prepare stuff from scratch.

Is the State of Minnesota within their rights to restrict the types of food that are purchased with taxpayer-funded food stamp program?

Yes! I heard about this and thought it was a GREAT idea! I think the ONLY food that should be allowed to purchase with food stamps should be that of a HEALTHY nutritional value. There are so many problems associated with obesity and heart disease in America and why should those with the least, that are on welfare, paid for by our tax dollars, be encouraged or allowed to further perpetuate this crisis. Obesity is rapidly becoming the number one killer in America.


If this program were implemented, would it increase a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, decrease a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps, or make no significant change in a poor individual's likelihood of applying for food stamps?

I think for those without children it might decrease their likelihood of applying for food stamps. But hopefully those that are the "providers" would understand or appreciate the motivation behind certain food restrictions.

There are quite a few culture who believe that obesity equates to happiness. I don't think that it's necessarily obesity, but the pleasure of really satifying food. When we invite someone into our homes it's polite to offer them food, because dining together is an activity that brings joy. Who are we to limit the joy of indulging in an occasional dessert. Since obesity is a problem why not teach moderation and encourage activity for the entire population not just the poor, rather then steal the enjoyment of tasy food from children who have very few other luxuries.

Well for one, cake isn't a necessity. Two, there are many "parents" and I use that term loosely, who abuse food stamps and who don't make sure that their children aren't getting a well balanced meal. If my tax dollars are going to help these people, I want to make sure that the children are getting nutritional foods. Cake and sweets aren't a priority. My family wasn't on welfare, but we weren't rich either and sweets and cakes weren't in my house everyday. It was a TREAT and a privilege. If parents on welfare can't teach moderation and I'm paying for their food, I want the government to make sure that those children are getting what they NEED and not what they want.

Cake is just as necessary as water, its all food. (You can OD on water and die a lot easier then years of eating cake.) Do you honestly believe that since a family receives aide they should give up the right to choose how that family operates? If they decide that homosexuality is a harmful environment for kids should they be required to change it? (If this is a little personal I apologize, but whatever is good for the goose....) I agree there is a place to reform obesity in this country, but depriving the poor of the small luxuries in life isn't the place to begin. Especially when there are other problems in the program which are far more worse then giving a poor kid candy.

There are also just as many parents who don't make sure that their children aren't getting a well balanced meal that are not receiving aide from the government. Why are we going to just target the poor ones which already have enough things to worry about.

Ok, we have a misunderstanding here. I don't have a problem with buying cake mixes and baking a cake or making a pie. I'm not saying we should deny a poor kid a birthday cake , but I definitely think there aught to be limitations of certain products that people on welfare can buy. Sorry, but I don't want to support what's not necessary. If they want cakes and candies and junk food, THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT. It's called not wanting my tax dollars to be taken advantage of. I don't have a cold heart and I think welfare serves a purpose and I'm MORE THAN WILLING to help those in need, infact it's MANDATED in my faith. But I'm not a dupe and I'm not going to be taken advantage of. Too many people already take advantage and abuse the system and that's why you see such a stigma on the welfare system and why charities have seen a reduction in contributions. Don't try to label me as some cold hearted person who's wanting to see little poor children go without the occasional sweet. But honestly, it's not my concern. If the kid is healthy and fed then sweets are secondary, end of story.



Oh please don't make me laugh! What a weak excuse to take a pot shot at the gay community.

[quote=doomed_planet,Mar 16 2004, 07:02 AM]
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, heart, but you'll get no sympathy from me.
We are all responsible for our lots in life. Period.

Why did you find it neccessary to bold my name?

Carried out to its logical extension the assertion that we are all responsible for our "lot" in life would mean that people who made all of the "right" decisions would be rich and all of the others would be poor.

I think they call this idea social darwinism, and it has been used to justify to people who are serfs or who are poor exactly why they are deserving of their position. That is what keeps the caste system going in India. I believe Marie Antoinette was a proponent of this philosophy.

You didn't have anything to do with the fact that you were born in the U.S. and not in Uganda, that one stroke of luck assured your "lot" in life more than any other single factor and you can't take credit for that one. The fact that you went to school, wasn't in your pervue either.

I agree wholeheartedly that we all must strive to better ourselves and that our choices make a world of differences. But there is a place where ability, talent, disposition, looks, and education intersect LUCK and to disregard that fact is one of the most arrogant impoverishments of personality I have ever encountered!

Just in case you didn't read my post I DID NOT give birth to my children. My husband became disabled years after he had the children with another women who didn't want her "lot" in life to be dragged down by him and the kids. I will go to meet my maker with the knowledge that I made a choice to stick by someone when he becoame ill, and to give my love to two orphaned children even though it meant that I would sufffer.

[quote]You can moan about how Minnesota is discriminating
against the "poor" food stamp recipients by actually
trying to improve the quality of the foods they are
allowed to purchase with food stamps.  I think it's
a good move.  A lot of people are misinformed
about nutrition. This is Minnesota's way of helping
better the nutrition and overall health of those
requiring government assistance.  [/quote]

No it isn't MN way of doing anything but making political points. let me be totally clear: DONT TELL ME ITS OK TO BUY RAMEN NOODLES BUT NOT OK TO BUY A BAG OF DORRITOS!!! If you want to help food stamp recipients eat healthy foods then increase the amount of money, and let them by fresh vegetables and fruit, real cheese and real juice. I would be happy with that. An apple cost almost a dollar. I can buy three boxes of macoroni and cheese for that money. That's the problem! I have to choose between the cantaloupe we crave and the burritos that will ensure we are full.

I totally agree with you. I think they aught to increase the amount of money for welfare for those with children BUT still put limitations on "junk food". I have no problem with an increase in funding if they're going to buy the right foods with it. You're right, fresh foods are more expensive and it's alot harder to eat healthier on a tight budget.

If you're so intent on treating obesity in children why do you single out the poor. Just because you are footing the bill? Do you take your friends out for dinner and then order for them? Doesn't something in your faith also say something like " if your going to give a gift, then give it with no strings attached?" How is a poor fat kid duping you? The government is giving them this money for food, they can only buy food. I don't see the trick to this "abuse of the system." If you don't want to pay for the fat kids fine, how about this: You pitch in for all the kids who are mad that they have to eat nothing but rabbit food, and I'll pitch in for all the happy fat kids with a blow pop.

Obesity and the poor: Ok, can someone please tell me what is cause and what is effect here. I know that fat people have a much harder time getting a job. I was skinny until I became poor and now I'm slightly overweight.

My undergraduate degree is in psychology and management. I took two courses on health psychology where we studied weight. The funny thing about fat is that stress causes fat to accumulate around the waistline. Perhaps poverty is stressful and it might help to explain weight gain. People who are stressed also eat to feel better, and when it is the only thing you can buy to give you a "lift" maybe that is part of the problem.

I don't eat for that reason because I was never poor before 9/11, so I never developed the habit. Sometimes I do catch myself when my son is in a bad mood and seems to have had a bad day, I'll say "You want me to make pink pancakes for you?" That's a treat around here, and food coloring is fun. But I know I have to watch that, because then the message I am sending him is to eat when he feels bad. Many people don't know any better so I can imagine that a poor mom probably does that to her kids, since she can't take them to a movie or anything else.

There are other factors of course, like I don't know a single Mexican mother who is skinny, and it seems like a hereditary factor to me. To be honest, I know more rich kids that are fat than poor ones. When I go to my sisters house (she is able to afford almost any food she wants), I look in her cabinet and there are bags of chips galore, ice cream in the freezer etc... and she, her husband, and her three kids are fat.

At any rate, I seriously doubt that the occasional candy bar is going to make a difference. In fact, it might have the opposite effect. If you are denyed sweets as a child you tend to pig out on them when you have any extra money. As for my kids, one wants ice cream "please, please, please" and the other wants apples ("and not the mushy ones mom" ) "please, please please". I usually have to say no to both requests and buy three boxes of spaghetti, which will end up as fat I suppose.

No, because as Heart has said and as I have said, it's easier and cheaper to buy the crap food when you're poor. It's a vicious cycle. You aren't listening to a word I'm saying and I think it's funny. I'm for welfare, I'm for chocolate cake, I'm for candy, I'm for junk food. But I'm not for it being a LARGE PERCENTAGE of the grocery list when the tax payers are flipping the bill. Sorry, call me cold hearted and a meanie. I DON'T CARE. You're not going to put a guilt trip on me or make me look bad. Because I know as long as those children have GOOD food in their bellies, are getting an education and have shoes on their feet and are safe, them not having candy and junk food will be of little consequence.

A extended family opens up a convenience store, and one of the families goes onto food stamps while the other hides their expenses. They buy a lot of their products on food stamps, especially sale items, and then proceed to sell them at their store. While helping these people to their car, you can't help to notice that the majority of them are driving luxury vehicles.
- A drug addict will come in with their dealer, as a former drug user I could identify a few of them, they would proceed to buy them groceries and exchange them for drugs. The Texas food stamp program "Lone Star card" was supposed to stop this problem but I have even seen drug dealers accept these cards with the pin. [/QUOTE]


OOOOHHHH! Holy bananas batman! So that's how they do it! I knew I must have been missing something. I KNEW there was NO WAY that someone could survive on public assistance:) So what you're telling me is that I am just not pulling the right scam. Well, keep telling me about them, maybe I'll learn something useful:) Didn't they used to call this the "lumpin proletariate" way of doing things? So I can become a criminal like everyone else on public assistance, or I can do my laundry in the bathtub and not have enough fuel in my car to go to church or buy resume paper? Hmmm. Nice choices huh?

I tend to agree with the Rev. The abusers of the system need to be stopped first and then we can evaluate the effectiveness of the system. Those that abuse breed frustration and anger in those that pay the tax dollars into the program. The abusers also substantially decrease the available funds and and in turn hurt those who are truly in need. Thanks for enlightening me Rev, it never occurred to me that the people with the wads of cash were actually the Drug Dealers with someones elses food card! I assumed they were like my neighbors, happen to live with a Drug Dealer. Boy this is an Ugly state of affairs. OK back to the treats. There was a time in my life that my kids did go without treats. I would clip anywhere from 5 to 10 newspapers for coupons, file and organize. Then I would comb through the circulars, identify sale items that correlated with filed coupons, determine the amount of savings, decide if it was a worthy investment. I would then develop my shopping list within my budget. Because stores limit coupons used per item I would make up to 4 trips a week to purchase large quantities of very cheap and yes FREE items and stock pile them in my 1 bedroom apt. It was funny, there was food everywhere. Cereals under the bed, LOL canned goods in this corner etc. Dreampiper can vouch and my family would visit and shake their heads. I would show them the receipts and they understood. Did you folks know that with multiple coupons and a price card you can purchase $100 worth of food for $20. I have done it many times. Total investment of my time 10 hrs. I was embarrassed doing this too but my family was fed. Imagine my anger as I watched so many around me abuse the system as I struggled to stay out of the system. These types of skills can be taught and may save the day for a food stamps recipient, you can really stretch a dollar if you are willing to put the time in.

I'm sorry you think a well ballance meal is rabbit food. I kind like hamburgers and fries. Vegetables are a good thing. Sloppy Joes are awesome and kids love that. Mac and cheese is great. I don't get what you are so adamant about. So they can't have chips. There's always homemade pop corn, which I think is the best. There are lots of foods out there that are a happy medium and even healthy that are good for you. Cutting out junk food isn't the end of the world.

How about a compromise here. A box of cake mix is about 90 cents. Throw in an egg and a tablespoon of oil, that's about a dollar. Frosting, around fifty cents. This makes one large cake for about a dollar fifty. By contrast, a large package of dingdongs is about twice that. I think that food stamps should go towards the package of mix and eggs (a child can have a birthday cake), but not the twinkies, dingdongs, or candy bars. I think it's interesting that suggesting someone make their own cookies and cake, with money given to them, is the equivalent of punishment.

Well I not for telling people what they should eat. I don't think we can come to an agreement on this one, because your a democrat and I have libertarian tendancies and we are both showing it right now. I guess what I'm saying is live and let live. I do agree though that obesity is a war the we must wage, but I think it would be better handled by offering people the knowledge to deal with it rather then restricting their choices. If we tell people what to eat then we have lost our freedom of choice, and impede the persuit of happiness. (Warning: There's no point in trying to argue with me that full feeling after some good food isn't happiness. )

But if you're on welfare, you don't have a choice. I'm not saying their second hand citizens, by no means!! But their are limitations and restrictions on everything and regulating what can and cannot be bought with a federal program is not hindering their freedoms. How is making sure that those that cannot make decisions (children) are guaranteed a good meal imposing on someones freedoms? Once they get off welfare and are not needing tax payers assistance, they can buy what ever they want. If they could buy what they wanted on welfare they should be able to go buy a 40 oz. And that's not going to happen. So right there their are already limitations in place.

Mrs. Pigpen said:


I totally agree with you. It's more about how the money is spent rather than on if it's junk food or not. I have no problem with buying the ingredients and making yourself. It's just running down and buying a $15 triple layer chocolate cake that irks me when you can make it for next to nothing.

The food program is for food, Alcohol is a drug used for entertainment. They have limitations to only cover food because that is what is needed to sustain life. As much as I disagree, we exclude non groceries because they will not die without TP, deodorant, and toothpaste. Why can't we let the parents define a "good meal?" Only rich people have good judgement for meals?

I agree with you too. I would do this too if I was on a budget, but I'm not going to tell the food stamp recipient who works two jobs that she needs to find the time to make everything from scratch. Each food stamp recipient is given a set amount each month for food, how they spend it on food is their choice. If they opt for the more expensive pre-made cake they are going to lack in other area which is bad, but maybe a brochure explaining how to save their money will be less condescending then telling them what they are only allowed to buy. If they choose the more expensive items then it's their own fault that their kids are fat and their own problem.