Some people use food as a drug. There are eating disorders I hope you're aware of that.

I'm not talking about "rich people food". GOOD food is: a well ballanced meal. You know: vegetable, breads, meats, dairy, and fruit.

Then cure the disorder, why must we single out the poor to submit to treatment while the rest of the nation plagued by it. How is being a hungry food stamp reciepient tied to have eating disorders? You can't say people on food stamps are overweight when so many not on food stamps are overweight themselves. Just because they are rich, it makes it right?

Neither was I. I was refering to your statement:

Obesity is a problem in itself and needs to be dealt with, if we treat it you will not see it happen in the food programs and the rest of society either. These limitations on what they can buy will just make it harder for them.

Having the government contribute or assist those that have eating disorders, ie obesity by supplying them with junk food and food stuffs that aren't nutritionally beneficial isn't the role of welfare. The role of welfare is to supplement and to assist those who are without. THE BARE NECESSITIES for a LIMITED TIME. We're discussing this as if these kids are going to me marred for life because they went without junk food for a while... OH WAIT. Some people DO stay on welfare for years!! Oh, I forgot! That's why they and people like you are screaming "WHAT ABOUT THE POOR LITTLE KID NOT GETTING ANY CAKE!?"

Welfare has turned into a lifestyle and people have become dependent on it. and THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

So we should deny them food because they are obese. The problem isn't them buying and having food it's them eating it all. If you deny them from buying and having food they still are going to eat just as much of the food that you prescribe for them. Your treating the symptoms not the problem.

Then what, do we cut them off, send them to prison when they inevitably start to steal. Either way we are going to pay for their meals.

They will be if they have a life without some of these luxuries. It's not like they are going out there and buying $350 dollars worth of Little Debbie and Hostess products, but if you deny everyone the choice, for the abuse of some, it'll be depressing for them.

There is always going to be a problem, I would rather just give them the money then be forced to give it at gunpoint or watch them starve. Especially after being poor myself, I know it's not hard to become a welfare recipient.

People on welfare aren't going to starve without Dorritos and premade cakes and dong dongs! You're making me out to be some monster and I'm not. Providing them with healthy, nutritional food is not abusing them but rather helping them. Having work programs and getting them educated and with good job skills and educating them is the solution. I'm all for the government doing that. I'm all for welfare when it's not being abused.

Yes, vegetable are a good thing, but I would hardly classify french fries as a "vegetable". Unless of course you subscribe to the Reagan doctrine the ketchup is also a "vegetable".



These are also considered "junk food". They greatly increase the likelihood of obesity, because of the levels of fat and carbs. Are you saying we should force restrictions on these items as well? How about if we make sure that they can only buy whole wheat or rye bread, instead of white?

What about condiments like salt, sugar, mustard? Should we eliminate those as well? After all, they're only "poor people", God forbid they should have any enjoyment in their lives, or taste in their food.

You may think these are ridiculous examples, and maybe they are. But if we start restricting one kind of food because it's "not necessary", where do we draw the line? And who gets to decide?

From the USDA website:

Characteristics of Food Stamp Households in Fiscal Year 2001
Household Income and Resources
27% of households have earnings ($753 on average)
23% have TANF income ($375 on average)
32% have SSI income ($422 on average)
25% have Social Security income ($528 on average)
9% have no gross income
34% have income at 50% or less of the poverty guideline
11% have income above the poverty guideline
Average monthly gross income was $624
Average countable resources was $148
68% of households have no countable resources

Average Monthly Benefits
$163 for all households
$242 for households with children
$58 for households with elderly
$101 for households with disabled
$182 for households with noncitizens
11% of households received the minimum benefit
22% received the maximum benefit

Age and Disability Status
51% of recipients are children
10% are elderly
13% are disabled
5% are non-elderly, non-disabled, childless adults

Citizenship
93% of recipients are U.S.-born citizens
3% are naturalized citizens
3% are legal permanent resident aliens
1% are refugees
6% are citizen children living with noncitizens

I post this here because I want everyone to be informed about how much, and to whom we are providing benefits. Obviously, this is not a transition program for the elderly and disabled 23% of the recipients.

So the original question was if MN had the RIGHT to prevent food stamp recipients from purchasing candy, soda and "junk food". The answer is yes they MAY do that.

What we are really discussing is SHOULD they do that given that food stamp recipients may be using public funds to purchase items of no nutritional value?

The issue centers around several points
1. Are food stamp recipients purchasing soda, candy and junk food items in significant quantities that should cause us concern?
There is no evidence presented to show that this is the case.
2. Will this prohibition reduce obesity?
There is no evidence presented to show that this is the case, given that we
cannot ascertain the extent of, or the reduction of, the consumption of
these items as it currently stands or what difference would result.
3. Whose definition of "junk food" shall we accept?
As I understand it, the state taxes certain items and this is THEIR definition,
however, it is not clear that this is a correct definition. Given the exeptions
for doughnuts, cake, macoroni & cheese, ramen and other "filling" foods that
(OOPS I hit the wrong key) have no significant nutritional value.
4. Can we alter the system such that food stamp recipients may only purchase items that are nutritionally sound?
Yes. But it would cost a lot more than we are currently paying. It would
also make many struggling families that are not recieving food stamps feel
that they are not able to eat as well as those who are receiving assistance.
5. Is the food stamp program designed to be temporary and therefore subject to disincentives?
No. The program has two missions. One is clearly to help families eat in
times of need, but the other is to help the elderly and disabled. Those
people are not going to transistion out due to circumstances beyond their
control.
6. Will the prohibition cause anyone to stop applying for foodstamps?
No. The requirements for obtaining the food stamps are sufficiently
stringent to make applying for them and continuing to keep the three
month visits much more work than candy, soda or "junk food" would
ever warrant
7. Should the recipients attend a class on nutrition in order to recieve benefits?
Yes. That would be a great idea. Especially if you showed them how to
eat healthy on and "average monthly benefit of $242.

Have I covered everything? Probably not. Let me know. I just got back from my Business Law class so I'm practicing

Good point. If the food stamp recipient was spending their food stamps on Grey Poupon instead of generic yellow mustard, caviar instead of generic tuna fish, wouldn't we simply say it was a rather stupid choice, instead of forcing recipients to buy generic items?

If everyone is responsible for their own actions, then they make the choices - and suffer the consequences. It doesn't matter to me whose money it is. My mother taught me that charity and compassion, like love, should be given without conditions. I don't give to charity with some list of conditions - "I'll give you money for magazines, but only if you buy The Nation!" Seems to me a pretty groovy book most of us may have glanced at teaches the same thing.

Food stamps already have a set of restrictions - they are food stamps, after all. You can't save them up and buy a boat. And if anyone wants to seriously use "abuses" as a reasoning for attacking (you're supposed to read "changing") the food stamp program, PLEASE provide some factual data showing that abuse of this program is widespread. All human systems are abused. People often look at a stance like mine and try to insult me with the term "idealistic." I'd say, the real idealism is thinking you can get rid of system abuse through legislating behaviour. Sure hasn't worked out that way in history!

What is wrong with applying for and using food stamps if a family qualifies?

I have to agree with Nighttimer and Quarkhead that there are some pretty callous posts in this thread.

Not all drug users are on welfare or using foodstamps. Some higher-end income earners snort or use other methods to use illegal drugs as well. Just because their dietary intake includes more salads and they don't appear obese (most folks on cocaine aren't fat anyway), doesn't mean that they possess a better character than the obese mom who buys potato chips for herself and her children. It means that their circumstances are different, that it appears that the more affluent are somehow not robbing the taxpayers the way the poor are. That may or may not be true--a white collar criminal who embezzles from a company is as much a thief as the robber of a liquor store, the difference being that the robber of the liquor store usually has a weapon because his actions cannot be hidden or be as gradual as the embezzler's actions can.

Yes, there are people whose actions determine that they do not deserve the good things in life, but should all the poor go without assistance because of them? What about the children? It's not their fault.

Some people stay on the public rolls because they have given up. Apparently the stigma of being on welfare or having to use foodstamps is not as strong an incentive as hope that they can get out of their situation. Encouragement, which is what one poster did for a destitute mom, is far better than contempt.

OK here are some stats;
This is from Los Angeles Dept of Public Service
http://www.ladpss.org/dpss/fraud/fraud_brochure.cfm




I really don't have any sympathy for those who abuse system. This is just LA Now if we could get this under control across the board, imagine how much money would be available to those who really need help? And dare I say... money for education and Job training? Lets really go for broke and add tax reductions to the wish list. Now I am an Idealist!

edited-typo Queen

Thanks for the stats, piper plexed!

From what I can see, enrollment in food stamps was almost 700,000 in 2002 (for LA county). CalWORKS had nearly 500,000. Assuming a fairly high amount of crossover, let's say that we are talking about 850,000 people. Of course, the stats you cited are not very specific - they might also include SSI recipients (just over 1 million). So, we might be talking about 1000 cases brought out of over a million and a half people.

I'm not saying that fraud is ok. Your link shows an appropriate reaction. My problem with this whole idea is trying to use the fraud argument to justify dictating what food people will be allowed to eat.

Rights and responsibility are related. If you must rely on government for your food, government has a right to regulate your purchases. This is already being done. In the grocery store I shop at I will see items marked "OK for WIC" program. I doubt if these people on these food stamp programs have zero cash income. They can buy their children an occassional treat.

After reading the many responses here I think that Minnesota is not right (to some extent) to restrict the types of food people purchase under taxpayer-funded food stamp program. I think there must be better ways to encourage a healthier eating habits. So to punish, even if not meant that way, the poor would only serve as a belittling the needy. I also don't believe this would decrease application for food stamps. The needy will still need to eat. Obesity in the USA is a national problem not just a needy problem.

If private companies offer incentives that make certain products cheaper for food stamp recipients, I could see encouraging recipients to purchase these products over higher priced items. I am not sure if this happens or not, but I think cooperation between the food industries and the government could give some very nice win win scenarios. The government could target "healthy" food sources and if the recipient purchases these items they could, lets say, offer 2 for 1 types of things. The recipient gets more bang for the buck and they are receiving the healthy food at a lower cost.

I don't think the fraudulent claims will decrease due to being mandated to eat only certain foods.

As I believe welfare should only be a temporary safety net more vigilance should be applied to rooting out fraudulent claims, preparing those (who are out of work) to be reintroduced into the workforce, and training those that require certain skills needed for higher paying jobs.

You mean the system worked at detecting fraud!!!!!!!!! OMG the earth is going to shatter:) Maybe the system works. Maybe those who get the money need it, and the ones that don't, they get caught!! YEEEEAAH. I'm all for that.

Now if we could get those people in my school to stop cheating on tests I would stand a chance and be able to maintain my integrity(oops, off topic).

I have another idea, instead of outsourcing the food stamp office processing work to India (40 states & DC) we could bring all of those jobs back here and I could have a job. You never saw a person hunt down and prosecute food stamp fraud offenders like a person who has had to pay for their lies...not just with tax dollars...but with hate. I'de do it for free if I could! As long as it's fair and stuff, I'm not going to go stomping in to arrest 96 year old women in wheelchairs for selling crack:) Did anyone here about that case? (Hey, if she lived to be 96 I don't personally care what she does). But if anyone was serious about uncovering fraud then why don't they ever advertise those jobs? What... do they just employ one person or something? Or maybe the fraud is easy to detect because everything is hooked up electronically. They tell ME how much I made at my part-time job about 10 seconds after I tell them! They just ask me to see if I'm going to tell the truth I guess.

What's with all the "pipers" anyway:)

Oh, and please say 2 for 1 cantaloupes...please, please, please! Please tell them to let me buy real juice and real apples and real cheese.

And could someone tell me why there aren't community gardens? My son is 14 and he (I) is just dying to spend the summer on a farm doing farm work . I can't find anyplace for him to go learn what it means to work instead of complain, but a community garden would be great start. He could work there and I could too. That would still leave time to look for a job and time go to school. We could have meals on wheels deliver fresh produce to those who are disabled or seniors. It wouldn't give me my apples, but I could have some cantaloupes I think I better go find some vitamin C, this type of craving for fruit is just not normal

Ok allow me to break it down the differences between WIC and Food assistance programs. Food assistance programs provide money for general food, just enough to keep the needy alive. Depending on income and the amount of mouths to feed they get anywhere from $50-$300. WIC is a nutritional plan to make sure that the kids get all the vitamins and minerals that they need, which only can be received by pregnant Women, and guardians of Infants & Children. There is no leeway, the cheapest dozen eggs, 1.5 gallons milk, 1.5 gallons of juice, two packages of cereal, and two loaves of bread that the store offers, I think it's twice a month. Thats it, no meat, no vegetables, and certainly no junk food. From my experience as a grocer I can tell you 95% of those who receive WIC also receive food stamps. This was the case the last time I checked in 1998. It by itself cannot support a family.

Why is it that we can all agree on what healthy food is, but the government can't? The thing is that the government will get Kraft to sell us crap, but won't get the fresh fruit and vegatable people to lower their prices. Otherwise, I think your idea is great!!



Is isn't a temporary safety net for the close to 30% of the people who are disabled and/or senior citizens.



Well, that would be great if any one of us, or the government could tell us what high paying jobs there will be. Oh, and if they can somehow teach us old folks how to do calculus because 75% of all high paying jobs require it and I swear, for the life of me, I can't pass it, and I just don't know why? But it looks like I'm going to have to keep on trying!

Yes, of course I agree with you on those circumstances(for those that are unable to work due to disability and age). For those that are able to work then this should only be a temporary safety net. I would not support "lifer's" who have the ability to work.

Why should the government be responsible for that? Assistance as a means of preparing one to trained for jobs and life sustaining is as far of an involvement I believe they should ever have. If we lived in a true Marxist State, well than that demand would have more weight.

Also I wonder why it has to be a high paying job? Of course if one comes my way I wouldn't decline but the goal to remove oneself from public assistance is to earn enough to support myself and family. Before I emerged myself into pursuing my "dream" career my income was nice. I did this without calculus (which I barely passed in college).

The Piper's are sister's!

Me either! I have the ability to work and I want to work too!



Well, because they keep these statistics and pay those statisticians and labor people to determine what kind of labor we are going to need in the future. So, I just want them to do their job, because they have one, and I don't, so it kind of irks me when people shirk...kinda the same way it irks me and others when people take advantage of food stamps.



Oh, sorry, I used subjective terminology and I have to stop doing that. I will be quite specific...I mean 22k a year. Oh, and I have bone spurs in my feet, it's ok, it's just that the floors that are in grocery stores, hospitals etc...the hard, hard floors, well, I can only walk on them for about an hour without it really hurting. But I can do just about anything else. I just want to rise above the food stamp level and be able to fix my car if/when it brakes, so I can continue to work. Is that a lot? I don't really know anymore. I would like to make more, but I would grab the 22k.



The calculus isn't a requirement for the job. It's a requirement for the degree or the vocational training. Like if you want to be a rad tech...you have to pass calc I and II to take physics I and II. An auto-mechanic has to take Calc I. If you want to be an Industrial Engineer you only need
Calc I. If you want a degree in Business Administration you have to take Calc I.

oh ok, I've got it now

This is a true story. It happened to a guy I know.
He was walking down the street one night, and he saw a
homeless guy standing on the corner. The homeless guy
gave his spiel, he's so hungry, blah blah blah.

So, this guy handed the homeless guy a five dollar bill.
And, as he continued walking, he turned back and said,
"Now spend that on food." The Homeless man
snarled, "Don't tell me how to spend my money!"

It's so typical for ungrateful recipients to complain and
act as though they deserve more than what they are
graciously being given. If you don't like the rules that
govern food stamp spending then find a way to become
a self-sufficient human being.

Yeah, I know. That story, or some variant of it, has been making the aol rounds for quite some time now. We really need to arrest that guy don't we. After all, his self sufficiency is against the law. Your not allowed to beg Somehow the guy "you know" giving out five dollars to a homeless guy is very conveniently timed to our discussion. It is so conincidental. I guess things happen for a reason.



About the gracious part. Tomorrow, when I buy my two kids a candy bar...I'll tell them it came from a lady named "doomed_planet", and I'll tell them you are so kind, and that they should be grateful. I'll have them draw you a picture or something, just so you know how grateful they are.

Perhaps MN and other states would have a much better case if they used the same standards for school breakfast and lunch as they want to do for food stamps.

The stuff they feed the kids at school doesn't look at all wholesome to me. They serve muffins or sugar coated cereal for breakfast. They serve pizza, chicken nuggets, french fries, cheeseburgers, and nachos for lunch. They almost always accompany this with a canned vegetable, but rarely a fresh vegetable. These foods are not healthy.

The chicken is processed. It's not like they slice it and make their own nuggets. They buy them in big bags already breaded.

Most schools also have Coke and snack machines filled with junk food.

If we really want to make sure kids are getting healthy meals then we need a new definition of healthy food. And we should start with schools where all children eat lunch.

It's hypocritical to say you can't buy a bag of dorritos because that isn't healthy and then send kids to school to eat nachos, which is nothing more than dorrito chips with fake cheese sauce on top. With a brownie for dessert and a soda from the machine to go along with it.

Let's get consistent if we are going to start worrying about kids and health. They are using public "assistance" to make those meals too. The charge for lunch is heavily subsidized by the public, why isn't anyone outraged about that?

I think the question about the rights of the state in this situation should be in response to the question that follows: what kind of government do we ideally want?

I think that a government that restricts things because they don't think they are necessary is very 1984 and dangerous, perhaps even facist. I do not think that this is the type of gorverment we would choose in an ideal situation, thus I think we must say that Minnesota is not with the state rights because that dictation is a facist imposition.

Just curious about this. Do you also oppose smoking restrictions? Or, more on topic, do you also oppose not allowing people to by liquor with food stamps?

Food stamps are there to help people survive in bad times. Since the amount is limited does it not make sense to restrict purchase to only things that will nourish the family?

Anyone that knows me can tell you I am pretty much the anti-christ of the health nazis, but I don't think it's wrong to try focus the food stamp program more on it's goal which is to keep a family nourished while they are having financial troubles.

I want a government which doesn't support the idea that free candy is an entitlement to every indigent American.

You want a government that doesn't think that free candy (aka food) is the rights of every person within the country? Well Nazi Germany would be very proud.....

Now seriously. If we have a government that is constantly stopping personal citizens from doing what they choose how are we any better than Nazi Germany, Socialist Russia, and Orwellian governments?

Do I think that people should be allowed to buy liqour or cigs with food stamps. Yes. I do think they should be able to. Sometimes survival depends more on the ability to get a substance you are addicted to than on food. People are down sometimes. That doesn't mean we shouldn't lift them up.

I think the ideal government is one that will be sucessful in lifting us up when we are down while not being facist towards our lives.

Yes, the Nazis are renowned for failing to hand out free candy. Free candy for all! Where's mine? Oh, yes! Sorry..I forgot I'm the one paying for that.
I'll also pay for the healthcare for the growing indigent obese in America. Liquor and cigarettes too, YES! More healthcare bills. Only a fascist would object.

Citizens should be free to indulge in any pleasureable, addictive, and potentially harmful substance they wish, but the taxpayers shouldn't be expected to fund it.

In America you are free to buy all the candy, liquor, smokes, etc you want with YOUR money.

However, if you accept assistance from the government, or more accurately from the CITIZENS of that government then I see no reason why that government, due to the will of the citizens funding it, should not regulate what you do with that money.



Then I guess we should call them "anything stamps". I completely oppose that. FOOD stamps are for the nourishment of those who are struggling. I would think those who consider themselves the champions of the down trodden would seek to ensure that the money created the best possible benefit, the better health and wellbeing of the poor through nutrition.

So, it is OK for those receiving food stamps to buy booze and smokes. Would you suggest that is what they feed to their children?

You accept goverment money, then you accept the restrictions that go with it- this even goes for private lending institutions- if you want to borrow money from me, I expect you to have insurance of "X" value.

I frequently get goverment grants/loans etc, and every single one of them has pages of restrictions and things I need to do to obtain the money. When it is your money, you do with it what you will, if it is not, too bad, so sad, beggars shouldn't even try to be choosers!

This would be laughable if it werent so pathetic. I mean, take the statement as real and project it upon a screen, and it appears to be some relic throwback from 1950.
Right on! Poor people should NOT be allowed to have candy, its extremist lawless consumption! The poor are raping our system by buying the stuff, and living off of it and getting fat! It creates hallucinations and obesity, its the scourge of our time!
Taxpayers WILL NOT EVER PAY FOR CANDY to the poor, under any circumnstances!

Give me a freaking break!

Interestingly, american soldiers in any nation we have ever been at war with have given candy to children and orphans as a sign of good will, a point of engaging trust, when there was no other bridge to understanding, a small thing that made a moment and made a little person stop crying over their loss and desperation to believe WE WERE A GENEROUS AND GOOD PEOPLE, and gave some smidgen of hope, that it wasnt SO BAD, it might turn out better, although momentary.

However, we hardly ever extend the same generosity to our own. Its sort of an american pathology. We despise our own poor, yet we can go to war and defend other nations poor and disenfranchised, to the tune of hundreds of Billions, and pass out candy too.

Iraq Constitution:

Article 14.

The individual has the right to security, education, health care, and social security.

Really? Thats just peachy. Here the impoverished are denied candy, yet we have guaranteed education, health care and social security to Iraqis, things we dont have here by a long shot to viable citizens who are paying through the teeth to keep their families afloat. Maybe I can move to Iraq and get myself some health care and social security?

WHY is anyone concerning themselves with candy to the american impoverished?
Alchohol and cigarettes are drugs. There is good reason to ban them. Noone is living off candy, get over it! Its a non and absolutely ridiculous issue!

How about getting ourselves some real benefits instead of looking to the poor and their candy issues to solve our bigger problems.

Yep, it's rhetoric in response to this ridiculous rhetoric: There is a vast difference between not funding candy and soda, and not permitting people to eat it.

Why is it the job of government to fund candy? Many here are mixing charity with tax money. Charity is the job of private organizations. Food stamps are not a gift, they should suit the purpose of nourishing indigent citizens. Candy, toys, bicycles, ect...are gifts. I would be very surprised if those candy bars to German children, after the war, came out of the defense budget. I expect they came out of a privately funded budget as well. The military frequently does that sort of thing, such as Operation Santa.

I give away a LOT to charity every year. I have known many people on food stamps and government assistance, and I've given them clothes, toys, bicycles. I don't believe that the public at large should fund toys and bicycles through their tax dollars. That doesn't indicate (following the candy logic and rhetoric presented on this thread), that I wish to take toys from children, or not allow them to have a bicycle.

This thread is interesting. We had a topic a while back on a 'junk food tax', which I was more against, but basically lukewarm. The rationale for the tax was to distribute the burden of health costs towards the people who create those costs. In a nutshell, obesity and bad eating habits are among the biggest killers in America. We absorb those costs and pay for indigent healthcare. If we allow funds which should go towards actual food to go towards candy and pop, we are essentially actively creating future healthcare costs. Some people do, in fact, practically live off of candy and soda...and they feed it to their children teaching them to do the same. Sugar is not vastly different from any other pleasurable and addictive substance. That's exactly why I don't want soda machines in my child's school, and it's exactly why I don't want to see taxpayer dollars funding it.

I agree that food stamps should be for food and stuff people need...like soap and stuff. I even agree that MN is within its "rights". I just disagree with the assertion that this is anything more than political grandstanding because it won't do anything to help.

Then their is the issue about 'beggars can't be choosers". Well I wish that begging was legal. I think that forces the citizens to realize how many people MUST beg for their food. Beggars are at least self-sufficient. By making it illegal to beg, and when you try and try but can't find a job, then you are saying that people HAVE to depend on the government (if they have no other means). This is fundamentally unfair.

I paid my taxes and so does my family. I pay those taxes because I care about the well being of my fellow patriots. I care that they live lives with as much dignity as possible. I don't pass judgement because there but by the grace of god go...YOU. You all act as those these "programs" are for somone else...those "OTHER" people. They aren't and you may find yourself in need one day. If you want a candybar on a day when you find out you didn't get that job you wanted or your two kids have been patient with you while you shpped and you want to reward them with a candy bar, how are you really hurting the system.

I would love to know what system MN uses to decide what is and what is not, junk food. I would also love to know who lobbied whom to keep their product from falling under the junkfood tax. Are chocolate chips for baking included? How about milk chocolate in bars used for cooking? These products are the same thing as "candy bars" but they are much more expensive just because they are for baking. Also, I would really like to know how much of the proposed banned items are currently being paid for by food stamp recipients? How about vs. low income people who are not receiving food stamps?

Begging is not a self-sufficient act. Beggars are
people who are NOTself-sufficient. That is WHY they
beg.

It all boils down to individual responsibility. Some
people have it, and they find ways to survive. Some people
choose not to take responsibility for their lives, and they
expect others to carry them.

is it orwellian to insist that people buy healthy food with money they receive for free from the taxpayers? and if you think buying liquor and cigs helps "lift them up" you can go ahead and buy that stuff for them with your money and leave my tax money alone. i understand that people can get into situations where they need a little assistance. i'm open to helping them "temporarily" with food and shelter. and that is FOOD,,,, not candy soda liquor and cigs. i don't smoke,, but i enjoy some candy and beer on occasion. however, i totally support myself through hard work and personal fiscal responsibility. so, i treat myself to a reward when i'm in the mood. when they get off public assistance, they can begin to enjoy life too by eating all the candy and drinking all the soda they want.

To the contrary, begging (without being aggressive) is a self-sufficient act. The person begging has a fundamental value proposition: "Give directly to me and cut out the middle man." In return you will get the same feeling of having done a good deed that comes whenever we give to charity. It is an exchange, and it is an exchange that the giver freely engages in, as opposed to being forced to give. A person who is begging must invest time and energy and convince you of their need by the manner in which they represent themselves. The giver makes the judgement call.

With food stamp money, you are forced to give, the government is left to check out the person's story, and then the government tells the recipient how they can, and cannot spend the money.

The problem is that the government is bought and paid for by companies that can make a case that their food isn't "junk-food". So the ultimate goal of making food stamp recipients buy healthier foods is a load of bull meant to make people THINK they have accoplished something they haven't.

So now food stamp recipients (I repeat that 28% are disabled or elderly and are never going to stop recieving food stamps) will buy a box of tacos and some cheese wiz (not junk food right?), and go home and break up the taco chips and spread on the cheese wiz, because they wanted something snacky. Or they will buy a bar of "cooking" chocolate, for more money, just to give the kids a treat. Add in some kool-aid and sugar too. MN will declare a great hollow victory, and it will not accomplish any goal at all, but making the poor the target of their own grandstanding.

edited post: I went and did some research. This is what I found out off the wire:
It proves my point. You tell me what MN's real intentions are here:

"As for the tricky task of deciding which foods are healthy and which aren't, Minnesota would simply apply the definitions already in the state's tax code. Minnesota taxes candy and soda but exempts most other store-bought foods.

However, the tax code is full of inconsistencies. The state, for example, taxes Hershey's bars but not Kit Kat bars, because anything made with flour is not considered a candy. It taxes gum but not licorice. It taxes marshmallows but not ice cream bars. Also, potato chips would not be banned. "

quoting HEART,"To the contrary, begging (without being aggressive) is a self-sufficient act."


this statement couldnt be more incorrect. assuming the definition of "self suffient" as in who supports themselves through their own work and effort. begging for change on the corner is fundamentally no different from collecting a welfare check. it all comes down to someone receiving money for nothing.


as doomed planet states, "it boils down to individual responsibility." this is a concept that is hard for many in this world to understand.

You make some very good points. In my opinion, though, it's better to eliminate even a small portion of the junk than do nothing at all. I would be against Draconian measures anyway. Just a few small steps might have a positive impact on the eating habits of those families, and if companies start adding vitamins and minerals to their sugary soda water to bring back the business they lose through such a measure, so much the better.

This issue, as with all governmental social programs, for me boils down to what is the best solution to the problem. I am not really sure how the government subsidizing someone's addiction (which is likely a large part of what got them where they are in the first place) does anyone any good--least of all the recipient.

I take issue to the portrayal of those against measures such as these as uncaring. It's not a matter of caring, it's a question of determining a good solution. A very good argument could be made that not applying such measures is the more uncaring act--similar to a parent who consistently gives in to their crying child rather than working on a longer term solution to the core issue. It's not that the parent doesn't care about the child--it's just that they are sacrificing long-term benefits to achieve short-term solutions.

In my view, welfare is not supposed to satisfy whims--it is there purely as a form of life-support. If you don't need it to survive, it shouldn't be in the program. I'm not against things such as candy bars--but if you start allowing such things, exactly where do you draw the line? How do you know when someone is simply buying a snack vs. engaging in wanton glutony? Is two candy bars OK, but 10 too many? I'm not sure how you determine this in a bureacratic system in which clear cut rules need to be defined.

Part of this debate is the classis capitalism vs. socialism issue. Capitalists would maintain that, by gosh, if you want that candy bar get out there and take steps to put your self in a position to get it. Socialists would take pity on the pour soul who can't even get a simple candy bar when they want it. I think some middle ground here would be the ideal solution--but how to achieve that without allowing for abuse of the system?

Hobbes: You're right about the temporary need part. If people want to do something to make sure that their tax dollars are spent on food that is needed for survival only that's fine. (If the recipient is disabled or elderly and can't work then I see that restriction as punitive.)

You can give the recipient so little that they can't buy anything but food needed to survive, which is pretty much what they do now. This leads to unhealthy eating because the foods that fill the stomach and are inexpensive tend to be high in saturated fats, and filled with preservatives. Or, you can give the person enough money to fill their stomach with healthy foods and then restrict the food that they can buy to fruits, veggies, cheese, nuts, real juice, milk, whole grains etc...

But the answer that MN proposes doesn't address anything. No one has presented evidence that recipients are using their food stamps to buy a bunch of their definition of junk food.

MN also fails if the goal is to prevent recipients from buying candy or potato chips. If you are going to act like you accomplished something, it can't be that now food stamp recipients have to put the hershey bar back in favor of a kit-kat bar because that has "flour" in it. This is a "feel good" proposal that accomplishes nothing but making recipients feel worse about their situation.

This is a good debate because it does outline the capitalism vs. socialism theory. It gives me a greater appreciation for how little IMHO people actually understand poverty, and it illuminates the lengths that people will go in their belief that their success is 'deserved' and other peoples failure is their 'responsibility'. No one seems to believe that all of the smarts, talent, and ability in the world will do you no good until those attributes intersect luck. We are all fragile and we are all one or two tragedies away from the food stamp lines.


It is clear that we do indeed have class warfare in this country, and I have finally realized this and I know what side I am on. I am on the side of the single mother who works full time but still doesn't rise above the poverty line, I'm with the reservists family who must collect food stamps because their soldier is at war, I'm with the senior citizen and the disabled person. I'm with the religious people who tell me that the messiah will return as a beggar, and how we treat him will determine our place in heaven.

This is a nice way of generalizing and mischaracterizing anyone who disagrees with your opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth, as referenced by the reservists on this very thread who disagree with you. If I disagree, I must be against that single mother or impoverished reservist because I would not offer them a candybar through my tax money....irrelevant to the fact that I give away much, both personally and through charitable organizations. Anyone who disagrees must be either heartless, or a fascist, or both. I too am beginning to see the clarity.

I think "self-sufficiency" and "personal responsibility" are broad generalizations too. Just look at all of the times that I have brought up the fact that 28% of all people on food stamps are disabled or elderly? How many people went to college, majored in IT, had a great job and lost it and then lost everything else so they have to go on food stamps. But according to the "personal repsonsibiltiy" generalization that's just the way the cookie crumbles (or doesn't because those people can't by a cookie).

The question is what is MN trying to do? Is it within their rights? Is it right? Does it accomplish anything?

The answer is pretty clear. They are grandstanding. They are within their rights to do that. What they are doing is wrong because it is simply grandstanding. And, it doesn't accomplish anything.

I can't give money to charity, so I give my time instead. I commend you and others for giving to charity. That is not really at issue. Over the past year I have become intimately familiar with poverty and the people who are currently experiencing it. Where I live the people who are recieving "charity", government or otherwise" are mostly shell shocked. They never thought this could happen to them. That's the way I felt too. No one needs to add to the tragedy by passing a bill that does nothing to solve the problem but allows the pols to crow about their accomplishment.

I am not calling you a fascist. I am saying that if I personally have to err on one side or another, I will err on the side of the poor. It is clear to me that some people really believe that everything in their lives was earned by them! This means that if you don't have, then you didn't work hard enough or smart enough to earn it. That is simply not true. When people make those kinds of broad assertions it illustrates the deep resentment people have toward the 'forced' donation they give through their taxes to the poor. When those resentments reach the level of telling someone "you're not going to buy a hershey bar with this, you can't have that, because this is my money", then we have indeed reached a level of class warfare that is very disturbing.

Well what are you trying to accomplish by passing this law? Trying to combat obesity in the poor or making sure the poor spends the money you give them in a way that you deem appropriate?
If your trying to combat obesity then why focus on the poor when it affects the rest of society. Even if you want to specifically target the poor, you are also punishing those that are in shape and would like the occasional candy bar. I have yet to see a massive abuse of the system to get obese. Furthermore Heart has showed you that this measure won't even stop people from getting most of the stuff people consider junk food anyways.
If you are trying to control what these people spend their welfare dollars on, why? No matter what, you will be spending the same amount no matter if they buy $300 dollars of candy bars or $300 dollars of vegetables. People like the ones listed by heart will be hurt by these measures. Dave Ramsey said that 80% of people who retire live on only the money that SS gives them. Don't they deserve a candy bar? They have paid their taxes and now are left to "just survive."
Heart is right about this cultural warfare. People use money to determine the quality of a person far too much. Especially when something instant, like, god forbid, a serious airplane accident in a experimental airplane, can be a determining factor between wealth and the poor house. Some things in life are unpreventable and could happen to any person on this Earth, but we have the audacity to say these people should "just survive." If you want the to reform the system to get the welfare queens off public assistance, then reform the system, but don't collectively punish everyone on the system just because you think you have the right to tell those who you perceive to be beneath you what to eat. Most of the welfare queen won't even be phased by these restrictions as long as they don't need to work, what do they care. It's just another rule for them to follow like no non-groceries. If keeping them from buying TP wasn't enough, can you honestly say that restricting candy bars will make them quit?

Heart, I recognize that much of everyone’s economic circumstance has a bit of luck to do with it. I can’t imagine what things would be like if I could not provide adequately for my family. I have had a wonderful life, so I can only empathize with you. I cannot TRULY understand, so I won’t pretend to. I can offer you only my personal perspective. A poster (a while back on this thread) suggested that anyone who believes that food stamps should be exclusionary in any way is a fascist. I reject that premise absolutely.

I agree with you to a certain extent on principle. MN is “grandstanding” to a degree with this measure. However, what is the alternative? Are you in favor of Draconian policies to ensure that those who need the food stamps receive proper nutrition? That could be accomplished easily enough. WIC, for example, allots certain specific types of food, which offer direct nutritional benefits to those pregnant, nursing mothers, and their babies. The cost advantage (by saving the public healthcare funding) is very great. Obviously, a baby with neurological defects from a vitamin B deficiency will cost the public more than one who was properly nourished and born normal. The same can be said of sick, undernourished children as they progress from infancy. I would prefer a much more moderate approach to food stamps.

The alternative, presented by you and other posters, seems to be only one of ‘shut up and pay, but don’t ask questions’. Hobbes was right…should the state only allow a certain number of candy bars? That would be diminishing returns, because the cost of ensuring compliance through a huge bureaucratic agency would be greater than the savings. I think MN has the right idea. Just a small measure to make people think when they shop. A small amount of awareness might help a bit longterm. I’m certainly open to suggestions. However, telling the taxpayers who cannot themselves afford a $2.50 juice for every family member everyday (I can’t), that they should pay this isn’t productive. I’ve personally known families of four who are not on foodstamps to live off of much less than the price of just that juice (which would be $70 for a family of four) per week, and they had babies in diapers.
Actually, a small combination of both, God FORBID

Why should they have to answer questions? If we are trying to combat obesity then why not subsidize gyms so that more people can afford the $50 a month to get into shape. Or how about building more exercise facilities in communities. As a jogger, I have to drive 10 miles to to the nearest "track" so that I don't have to jog in the street. (I pass 2 numerous grocery stores and fast food restaurants along the way though.) Then in the winter time, I need to hibernate because of the snow on the ground. This impedes the poors quest to get into shape as does the people with money. This is a better solution then making sure the poor people don't have any sweets. Advertising will have people flocking to them in no time. This worked in Houston, the undisputed fattest city in the US for 2-3 years until this year when Detroit won the the title, and we still have all that delicious Tex-Mex.

As far as what they are using their welfare dollars for, it's still none of your business, is called food stamps and they can only buy food. It still doesn't effect you, no matter what they buy. Whats the point of restricting them? Just because your picking up the tab, it doesn't mean you should dictate the meals. What wrong with letting poor people decide what they eat? Just because they are poor it doesn't mean that they don't know what food is good for them?

Hey! I guess I should be subsidized, too. I also have to jog in the street. Are you under the impression every taxpayer has a nice 50 dollar gym to go to? That's a sad story about the weather and your jogging schedule.
You might think it's none of the taxpayers business where their money goes. I disagree.

I can only jog after work and jogging in the street can be very dangerous, especially when there is snow on the side walk and I can only jog on the side of the street. The place that I'm currently jogging there are no facilities like water fountains, lights, or even pavement. Why would someone who is still trying to form the habit of jogging continue with facilities that just present more obstacles.


No, that exactly what I'm referring to. Maybe if we subsidize gymnasiums they can get the price down lower to a level that most of us are willing to pay. If me and my lady want to work out together, working out with a friend is always better, thats 1200 dollars a year, and they usually try to set you up for more then one year. ($50 will only get you the basic level at Bally's where you can only come in a few days a week. )


You do have a say in what your tax payer dollars go to, just not a say in the personal lives of the poor, just because they are poor. When we grant financial aide to students we don't dictate what classes that they should take, we give it to them in good faith that they won't waste the money on drugs and other things we deem inappropriate.

Rev, I'm sorry my last response was not very considerate.

I do understand (and, actually agree to an extent) with your points on this thread, and Heart's, and everyone else with whom I disagree. I am simply becoming frustrated because I don't believe that candy and soda should be an entitlement, and we have skyrocketing obesity which leads to health problems for the underclass. I favor moderate measures to combat this. IMO, this shouldn't obligate me to pay for someone else's gym membership, if I am paying for the food that is making them fat. I don't even suggest we cut food funding at all. I just believe the funding we do should go towards more healthy choices.

Rev_DelFuego


That is a pretty powerful statement. The reality is welfare dollars derive from tax dollars. Because we all pay taxes we are given the right to elect representatives whom will spend our tax dollars for us, that is why we elect them, to represent us. If they were not required to represent us then we would all scream "no taxation without representation". When I pay my taxes I am not in the mind set of charity, for me it likens to a tooth extraction. When I am in a charitable mindset I never question where the money I give goes as it is a gift, it also is a choice, to give or not to give. When I pay my taxes there is no choice, I must pay them, and I require representation by an elected official as to how the monies are spent. It is and always will be the business of any tax payer or citizen as to how our tax dollars are spent. Now as to the candy bars, as you may have noticed I haven't posted much lately in this thread, well I am on the fence as a result of the advocates. If I ever get off this fence and decide pro or anti candy I will expect my choice to be a relevant choice as it is my right to have an opinion because we discuss tax dollars.

edited oops

Yes it is our choice to how our money is spent, but it is not our choice to tell others what they have in in their diet. I pay pay taxes to feed to poor, they poor are fed, I don't see how there is a misuse of funds that needs to be be corrected. If it is obesity then it should be on a large scale on the entire population, not just the population that we have leverage against.


It's not so much as candy is an entitlement, but the freedom of them to choose what they eat. The way I see it, it's not just the underclass that suffers from obesity but the entire American society, therefore there needs to be be a more effective way to target it then forcing the poor to be the ones who lower the percentage so that the rest of us Americans can hold their head up high again.



Well the people in the middle classs and upper class will also benefit from it as well. Instead of funding private gyms, we could also focus on building community centers with gyms that would bring together communities. (or pay for advertising, because I always hear about community centers but have yet to see one.)

Rev_DelFuego Posted on Mar 30 2004, 06:04 PM


Here lies the difference, You believe that a portion of tax dollars are a donation to charity. I do not see any portion of my tax dollars as a charitable donation, my charitable donations are in fact tax deductable. There is a very clear line between the two for me. As I said before I am on the fence as to the junk food issue though I fully support Mrs. Pigpen's right to express her opinion and find many of her points quite compelling, likewise I find the opposing points equally compelling. I have larger fish to fry with the state of the welfare system, I am not happy with it in the least. I certainly do not endorse leaving my fellow citizens to starve in the streets though I see the general attitude of entitlement as counterproductive and a self perpetuating. Our governments role is not to provide the necessities of life to it's citizens it is to create an atmosphere for the citizens to be able to provide the necessities of life for themselves.