Food Stamps

[cicy33]

oh on a side note, unless I am really, really paying attention I can't even tell who is and who is not using an ebt card. It isn't my business. credit cards and debit cards come in so many colors today one can't. so maybe we shouldn't be sticking our noses so close to their "private" transaction since they do enter a pin, just like on my debit card.

[GrimJack]

The mayor of New York has taken on this issue. Apparently he was involved in the decision to ban using food stamps to buy cigarettes and liquor. He feels this is a health issue; he's lobbying to ban soda and sugary drink purchases on the food stamp program due to the incredible increase in number of type 2 diabetes patients. He talked about the children who are clinically obese as a secondary concern.

No, the mayor of New York was not involved in the banning of buying cigs and liquor with food stamps - neither of those items have ever been on the list of items you can buy with food stamps.

[cicy33]

No, the mayor of New York was not involved in the banning of buying cigs and liquor with food stamps - neither of those items have ever been on the list of items you can buy with food stamps.

Exactly. having been on them I can assure that you cannot buy these things with ebt. It does limit to a degree.

[disneysteve]

From what I know, WIC limits users a great deal more than food stamps. So there is some way to do that. I see no reason why they can't limit food stamp users more and eliminate most of the junk food.

[cicy33]

From what I know, WIC limits users a great deal more than food stamps. So there is some way to do that. I see no reason why they can't limit food stamp users more and eliminate most of the junk food.

WIC has evolved some since I was on it when my daughter was little. then you could only buy milk, cereal, cheese, etc. now it includes fruit, veggies, and a few others. It is different from ebt because they are actually paper physical transactions. Every item is checked against what you buy physically. This could cause more problems because the list would be so big to list each item. the reason this would be necessary is due to what I call the coupon cops at the stores. for example, when I use a coupon these particular people read, reread, and reread again the coupon to be sure I am using it properly. and even if I am they still argue that the item I bought (when it says any) isn't right. this could transfer to ebt if done the same way. there are so many different types of food, the time alone spent to look over the list would be astronomical and then people would complain about the wait. Though I do think that the every three month requirement that you come into the office for nutrition counseling is a good thing. If they would implement that with ebt it might help, or not. It is possible they don't do that anymore but they used to. Of course you also have to keep in mind WIC is NOT for the family. It is for the baby, children until 5, or the pregnant mom. It is designed specifically for children. that is why the limits are so strict.

[disneysteve]

This could cause more problems because the list would be so big to list each item.

Surely that could be done electronically. Swipe the card at the start of the transaction. Scan each item. Any item disallowed under the plan would be indicated immediately and have to be put back or paid for in cash.

I've also seen little shelf tags in the supermarket indicating that certain items were WIC-eligible. They could do the same with food stamp-eligibile items.

[cicy33]

Surely that could be done electronically. Swipe the card at the start of the transaction. Scan each item. Any item disallowed under the plan would be indicated immediately and have to be put back or paid for in cash.

I've also seen little shelf tags in the supermarket indicating that certain items were WIC-eligible. They could do the same with food stamp-eligibile items.

WHile I agree with you, in theory, WIC is still on paper. It actually has a stipulation that the product must be the lower cost (or at least it used to be) so, then the cashier would also have to check that and what if you were using a coupon which made the name brand cheaper than the off brand?? I personally buy very few off brands, to me they taste different. with coupons and sales I usually pay less than the off brands. Then again, the question would come up, what goes on it, what doesn't? can we include cake mix? or nestle morsels, just hamburger, or just chicken, or what types of canned foods. Do we allow ravioli's? Canned fruit? canned tuna? What about allergies? I can see where this could cause serious issues. I think the other problem would be is that many stores call many things differently, trying to make it work everywhere would be a problem. I can see it refusing an item that is just fine. Which is probably why they don't do this to begin with. Too many areas for it to wrong. I am not saying that I don't think there is abuse and I do think there should be something done to help that but I don't think it is as bad as some people put it out to be. Lots of people actually do use it right. It is like anything else. some people take advantage of something. This is just the easiest thing to pick on.

I don't know if anyone on here is aware of this or not, but there were new rules put into place a few years ago. I don't recall when and am not sure of all of them, but I am aware that if at least one parent doesn't work in a two parent household, they are cut off after a specified time period. In a one parent household I am not sure. Of course, food stamps is not going to be enough to cover expenses. money is required.

I will say this though and I know that people will disagree with me but I don't think our taxes would be much lower if this plan got tighter or even went away. The government would think of a new reason to raise our taxes and spend the money some where else. They aren't exactly thrifty! This program has been out for a very long time. yet my taxes are raised for many reasons other than this as well.

[SnoopyCool]

"Every way we looked at the data, it was clear that the use of food stamps was associated with weight gain,” Zagorsky said.

Food Stamp Use Linked To Weight Gain, Study Finds

I agree with the article, and limiting OBVIOUS nutritional no-no's (or perhaps those foods determined so by a nutritional scoring system) would be a good start, as well as offering nutritional counseling or classes.

The fact that an individual can buy scores of candy (pun intended) for her business should not be a possibility.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Interesting that the article said the study only found weight gain among women users of food stamps. "Male food stamp users...did not have significantly higher BMIs than those not in the program."

I also found it odd that one of the authors of the study is quoted, "“That figure [$81 dollars/month average food stamp value] was shocking to me.” Zagorsky said. “I think it would be very difficult for a shopper to regularly buy healthy, nutritious food on that budget.” Who says that was the total budget? It was just the total food stamps. Food stamps are supplemental, not a total nutrition program.

[SnoopyCool]

The stats on BMI were interesting. I'd like to know more. I'd also like to see numbers on how long individuals/families have stayed on the program. My suspicion is that this program promotes very little self reliance, but I wonder if the numbers back that. I mean, I'm sure some people really use it to bridge over to better financial times, but I wonder what percentage.

[cicy33]

I think the reason that people find that people on food stamps have weight issues, is due to the fact that it is a low esteem time and most women do tend to eat more when depressed or stressed. I do however know LOTS of women on food stamps that are thin as can be and I also know LOTS of women not on food stamps that are fat as can be. I am not on food stamps and have not been in a very, very long time and I am still overweight. granted not by a huge amount but huge by my standards (40 pounds) so the study is like all the others. Blame the food, not the person. just another hype meant to freak people out.

I recently saw a thing on tv where two girls tried to sue mcdonalds because mcdonalds made them fat. oh good grief. no they didn't the girls did that to themselves. and neither does food stamps make people fat. their decisions on what they eat and how much they work out does. Maybe when people stop blaming everything else for their problems or other people's problems and learn to accept responsibility it will get better. It is my fault that I am overweight. not anybody or any programs fault. I am working on it but unfortunately it takes time.

[asmom]

Sometimes a building can become so decayed that the best way to improve it is to tear it down and build a new one. Our welfare system is like that. It is so broken it can't be fixed. It needs to be leveled.

I'm against all forms of government sponsored welfare. There are people who need help/charity. I don't deny that. I just don't feel it's the government's job. We need less government, not more.

I hate to break it to you but sometimes there really is no one else to do it. I know it's comforting to believe that the majority of welfare recipients are lazy welfare queens but the truth is that a huge number of so-called government sponsored welfare benefits people who are simply unable to take care of themselves.

Case #1: 35 year old man with mild MR and Cerebral palsy, wheelchair-bound. His parents recently died in a house fire. He is able to get out of the home in a van and go to a government-sponsored work program which does not pay enough to sustain him monetarily so he also receives food stamps and TANF benefits. He requires supervision to stay in his government-sponsored home, other option is institutionalization paid for by the government. So if the government doesn't take care of him, who is going to do it?

Case #2: 82-year old man who married late in life, no children, no siblings. His wife died 2 years ago and he has been living alone in his own home since. However, he has recently been found wandering his neighborhood confused and upon entering his home, county social workers noticed the remnants of small fires caused by him leaving the stove on and forgetting. Who's going to take responsibility for this man? Is he going to be left to wander the streets hungry and confused or will we just wait until he dies in a house fire?

Case#3: A 40 year old woman with MR who recently suffered a stroke, she is now bedbound and dependent on a feeding tube. Her elderly mother is taking care of her in her own home but obviously this 75 year old woman is unable to do it alone. Besides, she is now experiencing her own health problems. She relies on government-paid for nursing support to help take care of her for a lousy 36 hours a week as very, very few people are able to pay for this type of help out of pocket. The option is nursing home placement (also paid for by the government) which is much more expensive. Who else is going to help except for the government?


I could go on and on. Every time people such as yourself vote to decrease funds for these types of programs, these are the people who get hurt. I see this everyday. It's great to say we need less government especially when you don't have to look in the face of those you are hurting but what solutions are you offering?

[maat55]

I hate to break it to you but sometimes there really is no one else to do it. I know it's comforting to believe that the majority of welfare recipients are lazy welfare queens but the truth is that a huge number of so-called government sponsored welfare benefits people who are simply unable to take care of themselves.

Case #1: 35 year old man with mild MR and Cerebral palsy, wheelchair-bound. His parents recently died in a house fire. He is able to get out of the home in a van and go to a government-sponsored work program which does not pay enough to sustain him monetarily so he also receives food stamps and TANF benefits. He requires supervision to stay in his government-sponsored home, other option is institutionalization paid for by the government. So if the government doesn't take care of him, who is going to do it?

Case #2: 82-year old man who married late in life, no children, no siblings. His wife died 2 years ago and he has been living alone in his own home since. However, he has recently been found wandering his neighborhood confused and upon entering his home, county social workers noticed the remnants of small fires caused by him leaving the stove on and forgetting. Who's going to take responsibility for this man? Is he going to be left to wander the streets hungry and confused or will we just wait until he dies in a house fire?

Case#3: A 40 year old woman with MR who recently suffered a stroke, she is now bedbound and dependent on a feeding tube. Her elderly mother is taking care of her in her own home but obviously this 75 year old woman is unable to do it alone. Besides, she is now experiencing her own health problems. She relies on government-paid for nursing support to help take care of her for a lousy 36 hours a week as very, very few people are able to pay for this type of help out of pocket. The option is nursing home placement (also paid for by the government) which is much more expensive. Who else is going to help except for the government?


I could go on and on. Every time people such as yourself vote to decrease funds for these types of programs, these are the people who get hurt. I see this everyday. It's great to say we need less government especially when you don't have to look in the face of those you are hurting but what solutions are you offering?

Where in the Constitution does it give these powers to the federal government as apposed to the states and people?

It is foolish to presume that only the federal government can deal with these issues. The federal government has nothing that is not taken form the people and states.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

The food stamps program is run by the Department of Agriculture. The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is a presidential cabinet position. While it is true that the constitution does not mention anything called a "cabinet" nor anything called a "secretary" (except in the signatures: William Jackson, Secretary) it does mention executive departments, which is what the cabinet members are in charge of. The heads of executive departments is mentioned in the constitution. Executive departments carry out the law; they execute the law. Congress funds the food stamps program through the executive/cabinet department. Cabinet positions started with George Washington. Food stamps do have legal standing: law. Congress funds it and the executive branch runs it.

The world has changed immensely since the constitution was written in 1787. I personally do not believe it would be possible to still be a country in these times without expansion of the government beyond what it was in 1787. I wonder if we would not look something like "modern" Afghanistan if we stood still for the intervening 223 years. The fact that the constitution allows for amendments and even repeal of amendments offers internal confirmation that people can desire to change, add, or delete fundamentals.

[asmom]

Where in the Constitution does it give these powers to the federal government as apposed to the states and people?

I have no idea. I'm not a constitutional scholar and I don't pretend to be. I'm just the person who has to contend with the reality of society today; that there are people who really do not have anyone else to take care of them and I believe it is our collective responsibility to help these people, not hide behind arguments about constitutional powers and whether or not they should be able to have a Coke. Would you prefer they lay out in the streets begging? Is that the vision of the US you have in mind? I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a very pleasant place to live.

It is foolish to presume that only the federal government can deal with these issues. The federal government has nothing that is not taken form the people and states.

And it is equally foolish to believe that state and local governments are able to do so without the help of the feds. The truth is Maat, state and federal government are interdependent. The states and local governments receive federal help for everything from roads to schools to medical care. Even in red states like the one I live in, they are heavily dependent on federal dollars to keep us from turning into our own little third world country. And for all the pandering that politicians do to people like you, the legislators know it. They know better.