A discussion On Food stamps:

[JU_88]

Same in the uk, welfare is simply money, so it can be spent on anything, no matter anyway, if we have this financial collapses that is supposedly coming, that will spell the end of the welfare state in most developed countries I expect.
We got unsustainable ponzi capitalsim (Banks lending money they created out of thin air) fueling these unsustainable socialist government scemes. Its a bad system and its not going work for much longer, since we cant print our way out of all this debt.
Germany tried this in the 1930s. didnt work out too well for them did it?
The sad part is, after 2008 we actually had a chance to start putting things right and we blew it, we bailed out the trouble makers and just carried on with business as usual.... a terrible mistake for which we have not yet seen the consequences.

If we actually had responsible capitalism in place, we would not be in this mess.

[mookiemookie]

So if Pennsylvania and North Carolina can have state-run liquor stores, why not a state run grocery store? Welfare benefits would only be good at state stores that only carry basic necessities (hamburger meat instead of snow crab legs, fruit juice instead of beer and wine).

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

(hamburger meat instead of snow crab legs, fruit juice instead of beer and wine).

Hamburgers are anything but healthy, and fruit juice usually is refined with plenty of sugar and can be classified to be as unhealthy as usual soft drinks. There is an extremly strong statistical link between education level/social class, and food-induced health problems and obesity. The poor and uneducated tend to eat that bad stuff by greater ammounts than the more educated or people with higher income in general, since it is cheaper, tastes good, and knoweldge on its bad quality is not present in the individual's mind, even more it often is part of the "way of life". Since treating food-induced health problems also is at the cost of the tax and insurrance payer (health insurrance and social wellfare), all this bad stuff (too much bad fats, too much salt, too much sugar, too much alcohol, tobacco in general) should not be sold in state-run shops at all, I think - and should not be available for food stamps.

No need to exaggerate it. But some healthy sanity should be applied, I think. Bad food habits probably produce the biggest share of the health system costs alltogether. And others have to pay for it - me as a netto-payer says "thank you for your egoist stupidity, Sir." If somebody gets hit by fate withoiut it beign his fault, then I support the idea of insurrances. But if insurrances get abused to finance the egoism or the self-induced stupidity of somebody, then I have a problem with that - and no, I refuse to be "solidaric" in such a scenario. I am not solidaric with the egoist or the stupid.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hamburgers are anything but healthy, and fruit juice usually is refined with plenty of sugar and can be classified to be as unhealthy as usual soft drinks. There is an extremly strong statistical link between education level/social class, and food-induced health problems and obesity. The poor and uneducated tend to eat that bad stuff by greater ammounts than the more educated or people with higher income in general, since it is cheaper, tastes good, and knoweldge on its bad quality is not present in the individual's mind, even more it often is part of the "way of life". Since treating food-induced health problems also is at the cost of the tax and insurrance payer (health insurrance and social wellfare), all this bad stuff (too much bad fats, too much salt, too much sugar, too much alcohol, tobacco in general) should not be sold in state-run shops at all, I think - and should not be available for food stamps.

No need to exaggerate it. But some healthy sanity should be applied, I think. Bad food habits probably produce the biggest share of the health system costs alltogether. And others have to pay for it - me as a netto-payer says "thank you for your egoist stupidity, Sir." If somebody gets hit by fate withoiut it beign his fault, then I support the idea of insurrances. But if insurrances get abused to finance the egoism or the self-induced stupidity of somebody, then I have a problem with that - and no, I refuse to be "solidaric" in such a scenario. I am not solidaric with the egoist or the stupid.

Oh yes, healthy foods should be included, but not Luxury foods like this. A t-bone is more more "healthy" than a normal cut of meat because of all the fat it has in it...and you can get 96% lean hamburger if you want. But I just can't see a nutritional reason for people on food stamps being able to get crab and hamburger. Plenty of other healthy alternatives out there that don't cost over 10.00 a pound if you know that to look for (which honestly probably isn't beef at all, rather chicken, pork, or fish). I'd have no problem a family picking up a salmon fillet for 6.99 or so. it's a fine healthy cut of meat, not the cheapest but good for you.

I'm just saying. Crab and Fine steak does not really make sense at all, it's not more healthy or anything. It's just well, Luxury food that has no other warrant to it other than being tasty and very, very expensive per pound.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

So if Pennsylvania and North Carolina can have state-run liquor stores, why not a state run grocery store? Welfare benefits would only be good at state stores that only carry basic necessities (hamburger meat instead of snow crab legs, fruit juice instead of beer and wine).

Overhead. Plain ad simple. It's expensive to run a store. I probably can't say who, but the place I work for has an overhead from stock loss alone that equals the total profit of 8 stores alone per year (and it really pisses management off as well ). And that does not include other costs. It would cost a huge amount of money per year for enough "state" stores for people to have reasonable access...lets remember not all welfare takers have good transportation. It would just be prohibitively expensive to build or buy a government store that fills these needs.

However, the easiest thing to do would be to just make these items not accepted through the food stamp system.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Oh yes, healthy foods should be included, but not Luxury foods like this. A t-bone is more more "healthy" than a normal cut of meat because of all the fat it has in it...and you can get 96% lean hamburger if you want. But I just can't see a nutritional reason for people on food stamps being able to get crab and hamburger. Plenty of other healthy alternatives out there that don't cost over 10.00 a pound if you know that to look for (which honestly probably isn't beef at all, rather chicken, pork, or fish). I'd have no problem a family picking up a salmon fillet for 6.99 or so. it's a fine healthy cut of meat, not the cheapest but good for you.

I'm just saying. Crab and Fine steak does not really make sense at all, it's not more healthy or anything. It's just well, Luxury food that has no other warrant to it other than being tasty and very, very expensive per pound.




Overhead. Plain ad simple. It's expensive to run a store. I probably can't say who, but the place I work for has an overhead from stock loss alone that equals the total profit of 8 stores alone per year (and it really pisses management off as well ). And that does not include other costs. It would cost a huge amount of money per year for enough "state" stores for people to have reasonable access...lets remember not all welfare takers have good transportation. It would just be prohibitively expensive to build or buy a government store that fills these needs.

However, the easiest thing to do would be to just make these items not accepted through the food stamp system.

You misunderstood me, or me intention.I just wanted to say that food stamps should not allow for unhealthy products - like Hamburgers or softdrinks. That they also should not allow for royal dinners three times the price than necessary for a reasonable healthy meal, is clear.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I just wanted to say that food stamps should not allow for unhealthy products - like Hamburgers or softdrinks. That they also should not allow for royal dinners three times the price than necessary for a reasonable healthy meal, is clear.

The problem is implementing it. We would need a system to monitor all the food items available for sale, determine their nutritional value, and certify that you can purchase them with EBT.

Then we have to determine if someone using EBT can buy some unhealthy products. Are the allotted one bag of chips a week or two.

Now we can't expect people with EBT benefits to know what items are on this list so manufactures would need to mark their products as EBT certified. Like it Kosher.

Any system that limits what food one can buy with EBT would require a huge effort to implement and maintain. Do we really need more government at the department of health and human services?

If they buy a shopping cart of fancy food with EBT I say fine. If they have enough money for another one full of booze then someone needs to turn them in for unreported income so their benefits would be reduced or denied.

[Skybird]

Yes, and after the regime being established here in Europe I am certainly not for blowing up the bureaucratic moloch even more.

But as I said: stamps for the essential needs of life, food, school items for the kids and education for them, and so on. These are attached to a certain purpose, that'S why they are stamps.

Social wellfare can additionally include a - much smaller - ammount of money - the aid that it is right now, but minus the vlaue of the food stamps, and then some. That gives a person or parents the ablity to jhave a small financial reserve that can be sdpend on chips and chocolate per week, theatre per month, cinema per month for the kids, soft drinks cigarettes or whatever it is. What I am about is to limit the access to thes ethings as long as the general community has to come up for it.

I also think, as I said, that the state should not sell unhealthy products in its own shops, like it should not raise taxes on tobacco, make a profit from that, but having rising health costs due to smoking-induced diseases. Or alcohol - the same issue. You cannot make a believable policy against alcohol or nicoteine especially for protecting the young ones if you have a profitable income from selling it, while the general community has to pay for the follow-up costs.

[Sailor Steve]

I can't even get food stamps. Apparently my small pension is too much money for me to qualify. Fortunately we also have food banks. That's probably where the people in question get their "real" food.