What Happened When a State Made Food Stamps Harder to Get

[Mayhem]

Nah people should have agency over what they buy. Healthy eaters should be rewarded for their good health choices, unhealthy people should not be rewarded until they decide to change their lifestyle.

That has nothing to do with my post.

[PC2]

That has nothing to do with my post.

I'm saying your veggie-only food stamps are a bad idea because it takes away the recipients agency to buy whatever they think is right for them.

[Acidbaron]

I'm saying your veggie-only food stamps are a bad idea because it takes away the recipients agency to buy whatever they think is right for them.

And this is why you can't have nice things, you see some sort of nefarious political agenda behind this simply based on the word vegetables.

[Breccia]

Imagine living in a country that still uses a wartime era system like food stamps.

Hmm. Funny story: did you know SNAP began in 1939, significantly before the US entered WWII, to align food surplus with the starving poor caused by the Great Depression? It is "wartime era" pretty much by coincidence. In fact, it originally ended in 1943 because the war effort ate all the food, making "wartime era" actually directly refuted.

Now I suppose you could be talking about the 1960's revival and say "Vietnam War" to which I'll respond
1) Lyndon Johnson signed a bunch of related stuff in 1964 as part of the "War on Poverty"
2) The next major changes were in 1977 and 1979 and we were out of the Vietnam War by then, and
3) This is America, we're damn near always at war, so "wartime era" is just meaningless filler.

Now I will admit, there's some sense of shame that the richest country on Earth has to use SNAP to keep its people eating. That's just sad. But I think we all know why. We have the money, but the people with the money aren't spending it on food. The tax cut for the rich led directly into stock buybacks, not massive increases in wages, bonuses, or charity. Trickle down still isn't working. The minimum wage still blows. I'm ashamed our country has to use "War on Poverty era" programs to keep its people fed, but I'd still rather see that happen (and spend my taxpayer money towards it) then just watching my fellow citizens go without food, and especially while saying "get a job" when they already have one.

[Mayhem]

I'm saying your veggie-only food stamps are a bad idea because it takes away the recipients agency to buy whatever they think is right for them.

No, it doesn't, with the money they have they can buy whatever garbage they want.

[Sunseeker]

I'm saying your veggie-only food stamps are a bad idea because it takes away the recipients agency to buy whatever they think is right for them.

But you can't reward people for making good choices without the government deciding what is or isn't a good choice, and tracking their purchases.

It's still taking away agency, just with a carrot instead of a stick.

[Milchshake]

And this is why you can't have nice things, you see some sort of nefarious political agenda behind this simply based on the word vegetables.

Basically the conservative strategy since Nixon. Turn every fucking issues into a ZERO SUM CULTURE WAR.
To them, the policies of food insecurity, child nutrition, farm surpluses are not about those things. its VEGGIE PEOPLE ATTACKING MEAT EATERS!

Also see how the climate crises was turned in a culture war.
We need to think about energy conservation. To them is, LEFTIES WANT TO TAKE MY INCANDESCENT LIGHTS FROM ME!
We need to think about how agriculture affects global warming. Is; NEO-LIBERAL ELITES WANT ME TO EAT BUGS!

[Acidbaron]

But you can't reward people for making good choices without the government deciding what is or isn't a good choice, and tracking their purchases.

It's still taking away agency, just with a carrot instead of a stick.

Either government decides starting from the basis of what is good for the public since it saves them money in the long run, or corporations do based on what makes them money since people seem to believe that the placement and pricing of goods in stores is accidental it isn't. Much rather have a Scandinavian government approach to food than an American corporation one.

Than again i would like to be default not riddled with diseases by the time i hit 50, perhaps the people opposing this dream of a short life span with a suffering end, so long we don't away the illusion of choice it is supposedly worth it

[Zan15]

Hey, uhm, I have this idea about solving this malnutrition problem looming on the horizon and your farms going bust. How about you give out food stamps that can only be used to purchase american grown vegetables? You could call them greenbacks, because you know, it's for purchasing veggies.

You better be ready to up the food stamp allowance then if you want to do this since it would artificially boost these prices and farmers are notorious for gouging the customer when anything extreme happens. If a gas station during a hurricane does it all hell breaks loose, if farmers do it....its just "business"

[Acidbaron]

You better be ready to up the food stamp allowance then if you want to do this since it would artificially boost these prices and farmers are notorious for gouging the customer when anything extreme happens. If a gas station during a hurricane does it all hell breaks loose, if farmers do it....its just "business"

Are farmers though? I Believe the reason farmers are struggling financially is because of the big retail companies and distribution that is taking the biggest cut out of their earnings by underpaying them for their goods. It is why if you can it is actually better to buy at the farmer locally, i know plenty here although different continent are selling on the farm in stores.

I would be really surprised if "farmers" are the ones in control of the price at all.

[jeezusisacasual]

Hmm. Funny story: did you know SNAP began in 1939, significantly before the US entered WWII, to align food surplus with the starving poor caused by the Great Depression? It is "wartime era" pretty much by coincidence. In fact, it originally ended in 1943 because the war effort ate all the food, making "wartime era" actually directly refuted.

Now I suppose you could be talking about the 1960's revival and say "Vietnam War" to which I'll respond
1) Lyndon Johnson signed a bunch of related stuff in 1964 as part of the "War on Poverty"
2) The next major changes were in 1977 and 1979 and we were out of the Vietnam War by then, and
3) This is America, we're damn near always at war, so "wartime era" is just meaningless filler.

Now I will admit, there's some sense of shame that the richest country on Earth has to use SNAP to keep its people eating. That's just sad. But I think we all know why. We have the money, but the people with the money aren't spending it on food. The tax cut for the rich led directly into stock buybacks, not massive increases in wages, bonuses, or charity. Trickle down still isn't working. The minimum wage still blows. I'm ashamed our country has to use "War on Poverty era" programs to keep its people fed, but I'd still rather see that happen (and spend my taxpayer money towards it) then just watching my fellow citizens go without food, and especially while saying "get a job" when they already have one.

This is very important and those whom are against this plan or action even with the loads of economic data that provides it as a net increase are just being cruel for the sake of it all. If people are starving they will lie, cheat and steal to make sure themselves and loved ones are not suffering period. This is why i get so upset at the a group of people whom vote on the right whom would never give a loaf of bread but want to determine what a diabetic can buy with their SNAP allotment. I used SNAP while i was in college which was not much i think and could be wrong but i want to say it was around 90$ a month.

People also fail to realize that monetary measures have to be forced in order to spread around but without going in on a huge ass paragraph pointing this out it is better to say that greed knows no bounds in a dog eat dog world.

[Mayhem]

You better be ready to up the food stamp allowance then if you want to do this since it would artificially boost these prices and farmers are notorious for gouging the customer when anything extreme happens. If a gas station during a hurricane does it all hell breaks loose, if farmers do it....its just "business"

Considering it is a subsidy in its function include price control for goods purchasable only with greenbacks.

[Sunseeker]

Either government decides starting from the basis of what is good for the public since it saves them money in the long run, or corporations do based on what makes them money since people seem to believe that the placement and pricing of goods in stores is accidental it isn't. Much rather have a Scandinavian government approach to food than an American corporation one.

Than again i would like to be default not riddled with diseases by the time i hit 50, perhaps the people opposing this dream of a short life span with a suffering end, so long we don't away the illusion of choice it is supposedly worth it

I would think that it would be much more cost-effective and health-enhancing to just say "these things are healthy, you can only spend this money on those things" than it would be to say "we're not going to tell you if a purchase was healthy or not until after you make it, and if you make healthy purchases, you'll get more Government Bucks".

Now, there's certainly room to argue that at least for the American government, they have no fucking clue what is or isn't healthy and lobbyists will actively try to get cheeseburgers declared a health food, but even as obnoxious as that is, it's easier to add or remove something from a healthy list, than to make a determination later on if the sum of your purchases were healthy or not.

[Shadowferal]

Hey, uhm, I have this idea about solving this malnutrition problem looming on the horizon and your farms going bust. How about you give out food stamps that can only be used to purchase american grown vegetables? You could call them greenbacks, because you know, it's for purchasing veggies.

Hmm...as long as regulations are strengthened I see a lot pf merit in this line of thinking.

[Orlong]

A work requirement is, fundamentally, a form of indenture, which is a form of slavery. Not chattel slavery, but slavery nonetheless.

If you're obliged to work by another party and it isn't your choice to do so, that's slavery. You might call it something else to assuage your sensibilities, but changing the label doesn't change the character.

No its not. That would only be true if you were also forced to apply for and receive welfare. Slaves do not get to choose whether they want to be a slave or indentured servant or not. You have the option to not work and not get your free welfare too. You can go live off the land somewhere or dumpster dive

- - - Updated - - -

B- They are not "allowed" to abuse it. Its illegal, its criminal, it can be reported, etc etc etc.
Nothing is 100% fool proof unless you want to quadruple the cost and have a monitor at each store verifying purchase.

C- Technically NOT against the rules. They are allowed to buy the very things you mentioned. They did not "abuse" it, the people who made the system are to blame not the people.

You don't like it get the rules changed, don't just fucking throw everyone off the program because you are angry at the .001% minority.


D- You sound like the last person I had an argument about the "welfare queen" syndrome that is almost always proven to be 100% false.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. Instead of giving them what is essentially cash that only works for food so they can buy whatever they want (usually not spent wisely either or used in conjunction with specials or coupons), The government could and SHOULD issue vouchers for specific foods. IE:

1 32 ounce bottle of store brand ketchup
2 Heads of Romaine Lettuce
3 Cans of store brand kidney beans
5 pounds of 75% lean ground Beef
5 Pounds of Chicken Thighs
6 Gallons water
2 Dozen Eggs
1 Pound Store Brand butter
2 loaves of store brand whole wheat bread
etc...

This is how WIC is run and SNAP should be same way!!!!

[Themius]

No its not. That would only be true if you were also forced to apply for and receive welfare. Slaves do not get to choose whether they want to be a slave or indentured servant or not. You have the option to not work and not get your free welfare too. You can go live off the land somewhere or dumpster dive

- - - Updated - - -




Wrong. Instead of giving them what is essentially cash that only works for food so they can buy whatever they want (usually not spent wisely either or used in conjunction with specials or coupons), The government could and SHOULD issue vouchers for specific foods. IE:

1 32 ounce bottle of store brand ketchup
2 Heads of Romaine Lettuce
3 Cans of store brand kidney beans
5 pounds of 75% lean ground Beef
5 Pounds of Chicken Thighs
6 Gallons water
2 Dozen Eggs
1 Pound Store Brand butter
2 loaves of store brand whole wheat bread
etc...

This is how WIC is run and SNAP should be same way!!!!

Why store brand? There are plenty of times when brand is cheaper.

Work requirements for food stamps is dumb. Why, well NOT EVERY AREA HAS JOBS and if you’re so poor you can’t eat affording travel or a car is even less likely.

[Endus]

No its not. That would only be true if you were also forced to apply for and receive welfare. Slaves do not get to choose whether they want to be a slave or indentured servant or not. You have the option to not work and not get your free welfare too. You can go live off the land somewhere or dumpster dive

What you're describing is literally the indenture slavery system.

It's still slavery. This is what I meant when I clarified that there are other forms of slavery than chattel slavery, since apparently people like yourself can't conceive of other systems, despite their historical precedence.

Quibbling about whether it's "forced labor" or a form of "bonded labor" is pointless, since both are slavery.

[Yadryonych]

Work requirements for food stamps is dumb. Why, well NOT EVERY AREA HAS JOBS and if you’re so poor you can’t eat affording travel or a car is even less likely.

Why don't use food stamp money to relocate people to more suitable place with a job then? Also these people should tell more about lack of jobs and not being able to travel to illegal immigrants storming US border like waves because these people are sure all the jobs are there across the border and are willing to travel by feet to get these jobs while being incomparably more poor.

[Elegiac]

Why don't use food stamp money to relocate people to more suitable place with a job then?

Because it's actually prohibited to use SNAP funds for non-food items?

That's why they're called food stamps.

[Themius]

Because it's actually prohibited to use SNAP funds for non-food items?

That's why they're called food stamps.

I feel people truly don’t understand how these things work