Maine Gov. LePage threatens to halt food stamp program amid sugar crackdown

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You realize you just said "the government isn't involved while the government is involved"?

The government is involved with distributing the food stamps. The government is not involved with the purchases made with those stamps.

[Zyster]

Are you some sort of sugar crusader? You seem oddly determined to prevent people from eating any sugar with SNAP benefits.

SNAP is a supplemental program, designed to act as a safety net to ensure needy people and families have adequate resources to purchase food. SNAP already provides education about healthy eating and lifestyle habits.

What exactly are you so pissed off about? That people are using SNAP benefits to buy food you think they shouldn't be, or that people in general are making unhealthy choices?

You've dodged a lot of really valid criticisms and challenges to your position. That's usually a sign you're wrong.

So your argument now is umad?

- - - Updated - - -

The government is involved with distributing the food stamps. The government is not involved with the purchases made with those stamps.

Yes they are, hence why there is already restrictions on products you can purchase that are edible.

[Tinykong]

So your argument now is umad?

Thanks for proving my point. Another stunning rebuttal.

[Kathandira]

Taxable food varies by state.

That is something that drives me crazy, lol. Enforces my thought that we should really break apart the US. Make each state it's own country. We practically already exist that way any how with the differences in laws and policies from state to state.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So your argument now is umad?

- - - Updated - - -



Yes they are, hence why there is already restrictions on products you can purchase that are edible.

And are sugary foods not-edible?

[Zyster]

Thanks for proving my point. Another stunning rebuttal.

What? So you state umad, then claim victory?

[Gamdwelf]

Disdain
the feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.


I never said they aren't worthy. Never said I have a lack of respect for them. And I hold no contempt for them.

However, I do not believe it is wise to waste money on useless crap like candy and soda.

Consider this, $1 a week adds up to $52 a year. That is a cell bill for a month. If someone is on government assistance, you would think they would be wiser about their spending.

No being unwise about your spending is how you end up in government assistance.

But we live in a society that tries not to punish people for not being as smart.

[Zyster]

And are sugary foods not-edible?

You stated that government wouldn't be involved unless they put restrictions on sugary products. The government is already involved to begin with, but going along with your argument, the government already has restrictions on edible foods. I don't know what that has to now do with whether sugary foods are edible or not.

[upirlikhyi]

Maybe you're referring to something other than the US? Because an employer provided cell phone is not "income" under SNAP guidelines.

yes it is in iowa anything employer provided here is income esp phones. Iowa has very strange laws

[Tinykong]

That is something that drives me crazy, lol. Enforces my thought that we should really break apart the US. Make each state it's own country. We practically already exist that way any how with the differences in laws and policies from state to state.

The idea of restricting what food can be purchased sounds like it would work. But, not every store that accepts SNAP is a super retailer like Walmart with a sophisticated electronic inventory management system. There are thousands of bodegas and small stores that use old style cash registers. How are they supposed to enforce complicated compliance requirements?

It also won't impact the diets of 70% of SNAP participants who are using their own money to purchase some of their food. Even if you restricted them to not buying anything with added sugar or fat, what's stopping them from using their own income from buying those foods?

And if you say "it's fine if they buy it with their own money" then you really need to step back and think about whether or not you care about the overall national nutrition landscape, or if you are actually just expressing your disdain for people using SNAP benefits to buy something you perceive as a luxury.

- - - Updated - - -

yes it is in iowa anything employer provided here is income esp phones. Iowa has very strange laws

That's not part of the Federal guidelines, any non-cash benefits are not counted as income.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You stated that government wouldn't be involved unless they put restrictions on sugary products. The government is already involved to begin with, but going along with your argument, the government already has restrictions on edible foods. I don't know what that has to now do with whether sugary foods are edible or not.

Food Stamps being intended to be used on Food is not a restriction. That's the whole concept.

[Deleted]

Haha, Amerifats keep getting fatter. Yes, feed the poor more Junk Food that ensures that they keep being poor and disabled fat blobs.

Eat yourself into an early grave and misery life, it is the only thing you got left.

Infracted - trolling

[Tinykong]

What? So you state umad, then claim victory?

You aren't posting any rebuttals to my points, which means you probably can't, and are therefore wrong.

[Gamdwelf]

Do you think supporting us is refuting? Also, you keep ignoring

"Please answer the question. Do food stamps not operate how they are suppose to restricting excessive sugary purchases?"

That is not the purpose of food stamps.

[Zyster]

The idea of restricting what food can be purchased sounds like it would work. But, not every store that accepts SNAP is a super retailer like Walmart with a sophisticated electronic inventory management system. There are thousands of bodegas and small stores that use old style cash registers. How are they supposed to enforce complicated compliance requirements?

It also won't impact the diets of 70% of SNAP participants who are using their own money to purchase some of their food. Even if you restricted them to not buying anything with added sugar or fat, what's stopping them from using their own income from buying those foods?

And if you say "it's fine if they buy it with their own money" then you really need to step back and think about whether or not you care about the overall national nutrition landscape, or if you are actually just expressing your disdain for people using SNAP benefits to buy something you perceive as a luxury.

- - - Updated - - -



That's not part of the Federal guidelines, any non-cash benefits are not counted as income.

Does the SNAP program still work with restricting these purchases?

- - - Updated - - -

Food Stamps being intended to be used on Food is not a restriction. That's the whole concept.

The government already restricts food, again. You are straying away from what you said.

- - - Updated - - -

You aren't posting any rebuttals to my points, which means you probably can't, and are therefore wrong.

How do I post a rebuttal to umad? I'm not mad? Is that rebuttal enough?

[Tinykong]

Does the SNAP program still work with restricting these purchases?

With current funding? Nope. Are we going to raise taxes to offset the increased costs?

How do I post a rebuttal to umad? I'm not mad? Is that rebuttal enough?

You respond to the questions or refute the claims in the post, rather than just posting a snippy one-liner. That would be a start.

[Zyster]

With current funding? Nope. Are we going to raise taxes to offset the increased costs?



You respond to the questions or refute the claims in the post, rather than just posting a snippy one-liner. That would be a start.

With current funding? How does the effect all all helping feed families in need? The SNAP program does exactly what it is still intended to do.

I don't know how to post more than I'm not mad. If I do several lines of it will it help?

I'm not mad.
I'm not mad.
I'm not mad.
I'm not mad.

Does this help?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The government already restricts food, again. You are straying away from what you said.

From the SNAP webpage: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.

Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/defaul...strictions.pdf

Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

IMPLICATIONS OF RESTRICTING THE USE OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS - SUMMARY
By most standards, almost all American diets are in need of improvement. Given interest in using Federal
nutrition assistance programs to promote healthy choices, some suggest that food stamp recipients should
be prohibited from using their benefits to buy foods with limited nutritional value. However, there are
serious problems with the rationale, feasibility and potential effectiveness of this proposal.

No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy.

• Federal dietary guidance uniformly applies to the total diet – there are no widely accepted standards
to judge the “healthfulness” of individual foods.

• Foods contain many components that can affect health, and diets contain many foods. As a result, it
is challenging to determine whether – and the point at which – the presence or absence of desirable
nutrients outweighs the presence of nutrients to be avoided in ruling a food “in” or “out”.
Implementation of food restrictions would increase program complexity and costs.

• There are more than 300,000 food products on the market, and an average of 12,000 new products
were introduced each year between 1990 and 2000. The task of identifying, evaluating, and tracking
the nutritional profile of every food available for purchase would be substantial. The burden of
identifying which products met Federal standards would most likely fall on an expanded bureaucracy
or on manufacturers and producers asked to certify that their products meet Federal standards.

• Responsibility for enforcing compliance would rest in the hands of employees at check-out counters
in 160,000 stores across the nation. While many have modern scanning and inventory control
systems, others – especially small stores and specialty markets – do not.

• New effort would be needed to help participants avoid the rejection of purchases at the check-out
counter, an event with the potential to reduce productivity at the register and stigmatize participants.
Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants

• About 70 percent of all food stamp participants – those who receive less than the maximum benefit –
are expected to purchase a portion of their food with their own money. There is no guarantee that
restricting the use of food stamps would affect food purchases – other than substituting one form of
payment (cash) for another (food stamps).

No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity.

• There is no strong research-based evidence to support restricting food stamp benefits. Food stamp
recipients are no more likely than higher income consumers to choose foods with little nutritional
value; thus the basis for singling out low-income food stamp recipients and restricting their food
choices is not clear.

[Tinykong]

With current funding? How does the effect all all helping feed families in need? The SNAP program does exactly what it is still intended to do.

You aren't going to be able to restrict these foods without additional costs to the program.

Who knows what it might cost. You're going to need to update inventory control systems, train employees who don't have those systems, hire more people to enforce the requirements, train and implement a program that educates SNAP recipients as to what is and isn't allowed, etc., etc., etc.

Are we raising taxes to accomplish this?

[Zyster]

From the SNAP webpage:

The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.

Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

We know they are food items. No one is saying they aren't. You specifically stated the government isn't involved while they are involved. Then stated they would only be involved if they restricted sugary products. I stated they already restrict edible foods. You are now arguing I said that sugary products aren't edible, when I never said that at all. Are you just continuing an argument off of what you hope I would say?

- - - Updated - - -

You aren't going to be able to restrict these foods without additional costs to the program.

Who knows what it might cost. You're going to need to update inventory control systems, train employees who don't have those systems, hire more people to enforce the requirements, train and implement a program that educates SNAP recipients as to what is and isn't allowed, etc., etc., etc.

Are we raising taxes to accomplish this?

Who said any of this would have to happen? Or are you just assuming?