Regulating use of food stamps in NYC...

Dela

Dela

Cathlete
So just saw a piece on the NY news, NYC is looking to prevent people using food stamps from buying soda or other sugary drinks with them. If you look at the intent of a law like this, it is so people use the food stamps for necessary food items.

I agree with Bloomberg on this and think it is a positive step.

The opposition of course felt their rights to choose were being taken away but I don't feel this is taking away a person's choice at all, they can still choose to buy soda with cash, but I think if the state is giving you money/stamps for food, it is fair to expect it is for actual food/drinks that could keep you alive.
 
I'm Liking you more and more Dela, and I could not agree with you more.
Two things:

1.) People that are in need of food stamps & welfare can either live with the regulations when they are on that type of program and be HAPPY they they ARE actually getting FREE help ( AND keep thier mouth shut about it ) OR
2.) They can do what a lot of us (including myself ) did when they were/are struggeling,,,,,,Get another job and pay for your own survival!!
Too many people out there are really abusing the system ( I can name two right now) and it makes me ill. The more these programs are regulated, the harder it will be to abuse them.
Way to point that out sister !!

Morgs
 
Yeah, I'm with you on this one too. I make too much money for food stamps, but I have a lot of expenses because I'm a single mom and my ex hasn't contributed to his daughter's expenses since March. There have been weeks when I've run out of money 5 days before I get paid and need food. If someone gave me money to buy it, you can be sure I wouldn't spend it on pop. Unfortunately, welfare sometimes creates an attitude of entitlement.
 
I think Bloomberg has taken many positive steps in NYC, this particular issue is not one I agree with.

It's also not the first time it made me think exactly "why do we need charities?"

the rhetorical question, because? why?
 
morgs said:
I'm Liking you more and more Dela, and I could not agree with you more.
Two things:

1.) People that are in need of food stamps & welfare can either live with the regulations when they are on that type of program and be HAPPY they they ARE actually getting FREE help ( AND keep thier mouth shut about it ) OR
2.) They can do what a lot of us (including myself ) did when they were/are struggeling,,,,,,Get another job and pay for your own survival!!
Too many people out there are really abusing the system ( I can name two right now) and it makes me ill. The more these programs are regulated, the harder it will be to abuse them.
Way to point that out sister !!

Morgs
Click to expand...

Get another job? who knew it was so easy? Yes there are people who abuse the system, but there are millions more that don't. Whether its a private or public program there will always be abusers. At some point that person now on food stamps once paid taxes (for most of their lives) and yes technically they are entitled to it. Why take money from my paycheck for these safety nets and then when I need it, someone's telling me I need to go survive on my own? Really? Either give them the benefits for as long as they qualify and or need it or give them a big fat lump sum refund of all the taxes they paid for those benefits. Its only fair.

In any case I don't have a problem with adding sugary drinks to the list of prohibited items. I will bet money though that corporate interests are going to try and block this measure. Recipients will def cut back on soda purchases and that will scare big food, big time.
 
completely agree.
wic has strict rules of which cereal, and other specific items you can get. i often wished the link card program was similar. the wic items are bc those people are pregnant,nursing,infants,0-5yrs, all categories of women and children that especially need that nutrition.

in that same way virtually everyone on the link card is at risk for many health problems, not the least of which is diabetes. and need a cooking class to learn budget cooking. so we should be limiting what they can buy.
i don't think most have an entitlement problem, people should just be happy to have healthy food. if they aren't that certainly is a problem.

the reality is anything that requires cash, gets carefull thought. alcohol, warm deli chicken, tp, soap. all things we would buy at some point, with cash. any food that isn't covered , like getting things from the deli counter, i just don't buy it. if soda was a reg. purchase, you bet i'd think twice before paying cash.

interesting thought, i had a debate on this topic in a college ethics class few yrs back. class was clearly devided on the issue.
 
I am not in NY but I agree with this proposal.

At one point, I had 1 full-time job and 1 part-time job (plus went to school part-time) to make ends meet (and I don't even have kids-my husband had just been laid off). My part-time job was a cashier at Wal-Mart. I would get so mad around the 1st of the month when everyone would come in with their new allotment of food stamps. I don't mind helping people in need but when I was ringing up cart loads of chips, soda, ice cream, candy bars, junky frozen food items (and I mean cart loads of this stuff), it really irritated me. Here I was working 2 jobs with my taxes going to pay for someone else to eat so poorly. I just don't understand why if you are getting free food, you wouldn't want to buy fresh fruit, good bread, lean meats.

I have long thought that if our tax money is going to help other people, we should have a say in how that money is spent not those getting the money. I am not saying that people shouldn't enjoy junk food every once in awhile but the majority of what they buy should be healthy not junk.

Perhaps a compromise of only allowing x% of the money to go towards unhealthy food?
 
if we make the rules too complicated, it makes the cashier's job harder.
on wic you have to get specific sizes of cheese, cereal boxes. thats within the narrow list of foods you can get. after some experience, this is no big deal, but it makes the training of cashiers harder, and the customer's job harder too.

if certain foods are not allowed, it needs to be a consistent rule. i think it should be no soda at all, they are saying diet soda is allowed.
there will still be times when they have soda- holidays, parties, visiting their family/friends,resteraunt(sp?). cant believe idk spelling of that word.
moderation is healthier. but makes it too hard to inforce. there are still many sugary junk foods allowed including sugary cereals and koolaid. most likely, if the people don't change the rest of their diet, and including more produce, the risk for health problems is the same.
 
I worked for years w/ low income folks and seen it all. Those who can't work and those who just won't. But I now live in a mixed income area and I've kind of had it with assistance. Two summers ago I stood in line at the grocery store, having carefully shopped according to budget, and watched the couple in front of me pay for groceries with a bridge card, then pull out a wad of cash to buy lottery tickets.
 
I understand about making things complicated. Although when I worked as a cashier at Wal-Mart and had to deal with WIC, I didn't find it complicated. The system would tell you when a product didn't qualify because it wasn't the cheapest in the inventory. I would say the people on WIC were more confused than the cashiers. They couldn't understand why they had to buy the Great Value peanut butter instead of Jif. Also, some stores actually put up signs that say "WIC" approved.

I am not sure how complicated it would be to make the Link card not allow certain products since it is capable of doing that now. You can't buy cakes from the bakery or certain products from the deli of grocery stores. The system knows that these products are ineligible and lists them out at the end of the transaction.

Although I fully agree that if you allow people some leeway into unhealthy items it really isn't teaching them anything. I would actually rather see all unhealthy products banned and instead let them spend the money on diapers, toilet paper, soap, and other hygiene essentials. That makes more sense to me anyway!
 
Although it is reasonable, it would be likely difficult to enforce only a certain percentage of the stamp dollars to go to unhealthy drinks/snacks.

Generally though for my tax dollars, I would like to see people be at least as healthy as possible. Even when I participate in those food drives at the store, where you buy some food and drop it off on your way out, I always try to pick items that can be used as a meal like peanut butter, pastas, sauces, canned veggies/fruits, etc. They don't usually ask for too much junk, but I won't buy cookies or crackers for the food drives.

It's sort of similar to me when you lend/give someone money because they need dental work, or will miss a car payment, and then you find out they also bought $500 worth of clothes, or made a big bet on a football game after you gave them the money, it's VERY frustrating to say the least. (Both have happened to me and DH).
 
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think it's a great idea to try to remedy childhood obesity. And lower income folks tend to be less educated when it comes to healthy eating, not to mention healthy eating is more expensive than unhealthy eating. Also, if a low income family wants to go out to dinner, they're kind of limited to garbage like MacDonald's.

The problem that I have is, basically this means poor kids won't be allowed to drink crappy stuff, but wealthy kids still will. There is a hint of income discrimination behind this. I don't really like the comparison of alcohol & cigarettes, b/c they're addictive drugs.

Personally, I prefer the idea of a "sin tax" to the idea of preventing poor people from having something "for their own good" while more affluent people still easily access said unhealthy beverages.

And ITA with LastChance. My mother is on food stamps. She's a RE agent & wouldn't be able to feed herself without them. She's 70 years old & desperately trying to find JUST ONE PT job so she can pay her bills. I help her when I can, but I'm not in the best financial shape right now either. She was also on welfare when I was a child, & I wouldn't have eaten if it wasn't for that. It had nothing to do w/being lazy & everything to do w/the lack of employment for someone w/her qualifications.
 
I agree with you Laura! I had experiences of my own with food stamps growing up and it feels like a slippery slope - start with sugary soda, then can they not buy sugar? Where does it end. Who's defining healthy?

And how would if feel to be on food stamps and be treated as if you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself?

If a family is struggling, I'm not going to begrudge them a soda - it might be the only indulgence they get.
 
Laura, they did try to pass that tax on sugary beverages in NY, but I don't think it passed. There were a bunch of commercials on tv from the soft drink opposition trying to make it sound unreasonable. The best they came up with was this would also tax sugary lemon ade and sugary iced tea too. I didn't fall for it ;).

I do see both sides to this, and that is a good point about where the line stops being drawn, do they say sugar is not ok, but flour and chocolate chips are (that would make for some crappy cookies). But is there enough money given out in stamps to provide a family with enough to buy what they need AND some luxuries, or are thinks like soda and chips taking the place of real food? Not a rhetorical question, I really don't know. I'm not as concerned with individual adults, I think my concern is more concern for kids without control of the finances getting short changed on their meals.
 
Dela said:
Laura, they did try to pass that tax on sugary beverages in NY, but I don't think it passed. There were a bunch of commercials on tv from the soft drink opposition trying to make it sound unreasonable. The best they came up with was this would also tax sugary lemon ade and sugary iced tea too. I didn't fall for it ;).

I do see both sides to this, and that is a good point about where the line stops being drawn, do they say sugar is not ok, but flour and chocolate chips are (that would make for some crappy cookies). But is there enough money given out in stamps to provide a family with enough to buy what they need AND some luxuries, or are thinks like soda and chips taking the place of real food? Not a rhetorical question, I really don't know. I'm not as concerned with individual adults, I think my concern is more concern for kids without control of the finances getting short changed on their meals.
Click to expand...

Yes, I live in the NYC metro area so I'm watching the same stuff you are. The fed govmt tried as well, if I remember correctly as a way to pay for part of the health care bill, but the food lobby killed it. And I could not believe their ridiculous commercials--crap like "people are already hurting & now the fed govmt is gonna make it more expensive for you to feed your children." Yeah, b/c soda & Hawain Punch are critical to a child's nutrition. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure what the formulas are to receive food stamps. I know my mom, a single adult, doesn't get much help. Barely enough to get by.
 
I see the overall point on this, and I (mostly agree). Foodstamps should by whole ingredients (not sure how to put this) and not just junk crap fillers.

In Illinois we have LINK cards, which is basically a foodstamp card. (oh, and the buying and selling of LINK cards from person to person is a hot commodity around here, too. I think you should have to show ID along with it)

I don't know how many times I've been to the store and the person in front of me is buying a bakery made cake, pop, chips, hot dogs, and candy with the LINK card. Cool, they're having a birthday party for someone - no problems with that. My problem is the bakery cake ($20) with the LINK card.

Flour $2, Eggs $1, Sugar $2, Water free (sort of), Butter $3, Baking soda $1, Salt $1, Powdered Sugar (gotta have frosting) $2, Sprinkles and food coloring for fun $2, cocoa powder if you want chocolate $3

Total $15 to make your own cake. And all those things HAVE OTHER USES!!!!!!! Sorry to yell, but quit wasting my flippin' tax money! Shoot, or buy a cake mix $1 and a can of frosting $2 and call it a day.

It shouldn't pay for specialty things. How'd they would determine what's what, I don't know. But if I am funding your food (and I don't have a problem with it, if people really need it) then I should have a say where my money goes.

Nan
 
LauraMax said:
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think it's a great idea to try to remedy childhood obesity. And lower income folks tend to be less educated when it comes to healthy eating, not to mention healthy eating is more expensive than unhealthy eating. Also, if a low income family wants to go out to dinner, they're kind of limited to garbage like MacDonald's.

The problem that I have is, basically this means poor kids won't be allowed to drink crappy stuff, but wealthy kids still will. There is a hint of income discrimination behind this. I don't really like the comparison of alcohol & cigarettes, b/c they're addictive drugs.

Personally, I prefer the idea of a "sin tax" to the idea of preventing poor people from having something "for their own good" while more affluent people still easily access said unhealthy beverages.

And ITA with LastChance. My mother is on food stamps. She's a RE agent & wouldn't be able to feed herself without them. She's 70 years old & desperately trying to find JUST ONE PT job so she can pay her bills. I help her when I can, but I'm not in the best financial shape right now either. She was also on welfare when I was a child, & I wouldn't have eaten if it wasn't for that. It had nothing to do w/being lazy & everything to do w/the lack of employment for someone w/her qualifications.
Click to expand...

My thought is that if it is considered income discrimination for the poor who are on food stamps to not be allowed to purchase certain products with said food stamps, it would also be income discrimination for those who are "affluent" to pay more.

Kind of reminds me of the "sin tax" on cigarrettes and liquor enacted around my neck of the woods to help pay for the new baseball stadium (back in the late 80's/early 90's). Baseball stadium is built...and you can't smoke in the stadium!! Kind of a big slap in the face to those who actually paid to build the darn thing!!

Carrie
 
carres1973 said:
My thought is that if it is considered income discrimination for the poor who are on food stamps to not be allowed to purchase certain products with said food stamps, it would also be income discrimination for those who are "affluent" to pay more.

Kind of reminds me of the "sin tax" on cigarrettes and liquor enacted around my neck of the woods to help pay for the new baseball stadium (back in the late 80's/early 90's). Baseball stadium is built...and you can't smoke in the stadium!! Kind of a big slap in the face to those who actually paid to build the darn thing!!

Carrie
Click to expand...

But they wouldn't be paying more. They'd be paying the same. And if there was a sin tax instead, it'd apply to everyone regardless of income.

Not sure what to say about the ciggy tax. I'm an ex-smoker, so I have a love-hate relationship w/them. It'd be really tough to go to a ball game & sit next to a smoker, but then I guess that's my problem, not his/hers.

But I assume you can still drink in the stadium. It's just not a ball game without a cold beer. ;)
 
Oh, I wouldn't want there to be smoking actually in the seats, but a designated smoking area would have been NICE. I also don't smoke anymore...and can I just say, I miss it EVERY DAY!!!

Carrie
 
Laura I just wanted to say that I agree with you. I think this idea is a slippery slope, and it sounds like income discrimination. Our society as a whole is getting heavier and to say to low income people that we are going to penalize you if you eat the junk food does not sit well with me. Just a side point, these people that some of you see in line purchasing this food, they are not given a lot of money and many times they will get a few junk food items because their kids do not get these things very often, or like someone else posted, they may be having a small family gathering. I am just saying that unless you have actually been in someone elses shoes be careful how you choose to judge them. Some of these people do take advantage of the system and others are not trying to take advantage and can barely survive even with the systems help. Trust me, the government is not handing out the kind of money these families can live comfortably off of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top