Bill: No sweets with food stamps

[cranberry49]

Feb 7, 2012 10:15:36 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

I don't think you would actually decrease obesity. You would increase it. More starch, less fruit and vegetables, at least in urban areas. Maybe it would work in wealthier suburban areas with better stores. The probable result in the city would be fewer sales at farmer's markets, more in small bodegas with limited produce. White rice, potatoes, white bread, plantains, corn and other starches are fattening, cheap and easy.

I understand what you're saying here, tt. However, there are other options. Brown rice, whole wheat bread, etc. This is how I eat myself. As far as the beans go, they are complex carbohydrates and very healthy. Even if all they ate were the things you listed above, it would still be healthier and a lot more nutritious than eating only junk food. Especially sweets, which have almost no nutrition what-so-ever...

[formerroomate99]

You know, when we're talking about forcing Catholic hospitals to do elective abortions and Catholic adoption agencies to adopt out to gay couples, most of the left leaning folks on this board say "You take the King's shilling, you do the king's bidding", but when we talk about having any kind of restrictions on what folks buying food on the government's dime, the same people say the government shouldn't restrict what these folks buy with the government's money. Curious isn't it?

[Deleted]

I was watching the Sunday morning political talk shows and I really liked how one of the Democrats rationalized it. To summary he said that as long as the Church as acting like a church they can follow their beliefs without anyone batting an eye, but as soon as the Church wants to operate as a business in the business world they have to follow the rules of all other businesses.

[cranberry49]

I use to have a neighbor on FS (I know this because I took her grocery shopping several times) she had two young children. I felt so sorry for those kids. All they ate was junk. No lie. I mean literally nothing but junk. Her groceries consisted of potato chips, soda, pizza, ice cream, cookies, etc. I don't ever remember her buying any vegetables or meat that she had to cook herself. She is not the only one out there that does this either. And yes, she was obese and lazy. I watched her literally make her 4 year old son change her babies diaper! Those kids will grow up with all kinds of health problems, not to mention a shortened life span. They have to be literally starving for vitamins and minerals that there diets are sorely missing. This is where my heart goes out to. The children. The poor most definitely do need help. But, they need to wise up and make better choices for their kids sakes.

[floridayankee]

Feb 7, 2012 10:14:17 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Feb 7, 2012 9:12:03 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

We just did a dinner at the Lodge last Saturday. We cooked for 180 and fed 150+- a handful. Cost of all ingredients was a little under $500. Cost per plate worked out to around $2.77 (prepped) and $3.34 per plate (served) for a meatloaf dinner with cheesy potatoes, broccoli and dinner roll. Deserts were all donated at no cost to us so I didn't include them.

Eating a decent meal doesn't have to be expensive.

You get that there were some economies of scale involved, right?

You could not cook that same meal for 4 for $2.77 per person.

I sure could. We bought 5 lb packages of ground chuck off the same shelf we usually do, not a 50 lb bucket. Everything we bought, we also purchase to use at home....just a lot more of it.

And food stamp benefits are only about $4.50 per person per day. So spending close to $3 for dinner really cuts in to your breakfast and lunch options.

Immaterial, considering a heart attack in a bag meal at your local fast food joint will cost about the same and cuts into your $4.50/day just like my dinner would. So, meatloaf that requires a little work or greasy bag of crap that requires none. It's a pretty easy choice for me to make. I'd also imagine my dinner would hold you over a lot longer than $3.00 in fast food would.

[cme1201]

Feb 7, 2012 10:14:17 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Feb 7, 2012 9:12:03 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

We just did a dinner at the Lodge last Saturday. We cooked for 180 and fed 150+- a handful. Cost of all ingredients was a little under $500. Cost per plate worked out to around $2.77 (prepped) and $3.34 per plate (served) for a meatloaf dinner with cheesy potatoes, broccoli and dinner roll. Deserts were all donated at no cost to us so I didn't include them.

Eating a decent meal doesn't have to be expensive.

You get that there were some economies of scale involved, right?

You could not cook that same meal for 4 for $2.77 per person. And food stamp benefits are only about $4.50 per person per day. So spending close to $3 for dinner really cuts in to your breakfast and lunch options.

I cook for a family of 5 nightly for less than 10 per night, or roughly $2 per person with fresh veggis and dessert.

[Deleted]

Feb 7, 2012 10:26:10 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

You know, when we're talking about forcing Catholic hospitals to do elective abortions and Catholic adoption agencies to adopt out to gay couples, most of the left leaning folks on this board say "You take the King's shilling, you do the king's bidding", but when we talk about having any kind of restrictions on what folks buying food on the government's dime, the same people say the government shouldn't restrict what these folks buy with the government's money. Curious isn't it?

There was a great Daily Show story on drug testing welfare recipients and how that program saved Florida negative $200,000. Realistically, I think that is how this would go. It is a nice idea to keep people from eating junk, but I don't think there is a cost effective way to do it - so this would be a high cost, low benefit way to erode our libertarian values. The math just doesn't work for me.

[floridayankee]

Feb 7, 2012 10:12:43 GMT -5 Mkitty is pro kitty said:

Anybody remember that bill to cut down on corporate welfare? Oh right, when millionaires get more millions they don't need, somehow that's acceptable.

You apparently read a different thread than I did. Most people are in favor of removing corporate subsidies.

[cme1201]

Realistically, I think that is how this would go. It is a nice idea to keep people from eating junk, but I don't think there is a cost effective way to do it - so this would be a high cost, low benefit way to erode our libertarian values. The math just doesn't work for me.

Since the inception of the WIC program in 1974 the infrastructure has been there the onus is on the retailer to sell the appropriate Items as classified by the Federal Government, it would not take a lot of money or man power on the Federal side to institute a change such as this.

(I am playing Devils Advocate)

[formerroomate99]

Feb 7, 2012 10:44:25 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Feb 7, 2012 10:26:10 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

You know, when we're talking about forcing Catholic hospitals to do elective abortions and Catholic adoption agencies to adopt out to gay couples, most of the left leaning folks on this board say "You take the King's shilling, you do the king's bidding", but when we talk about having any kind of restrictions on what folks buying food on the government's dime, the same people say the government shouldn't restrict what these folks buy with the government's money. Curious isn't it?

There was a great Daily Show story on drug testing welfare recipients and how that program saved Florida negative $200,000. Realistically, I think that is how this would go. It is a nice idea to keep people from eating junk, but I don't think there is a cost effective way to do it - so this would be a high cost, low benefit way to erode our libertarian values. The math just doesn't work for me.

Again, it is the retailers who are paying for this, not government. Do you think that magic fairy dust is the reason people on food stamps can't use them to buy cigarettes or diapers?

The cash registers are already programmed to weed out the eligible and not eligible stuff. All it would take is a minor change in the code to get this done. This type of thing won't cost the government much of anything and will be a pretty cheap adjustment for the vast majority of retailers.

[Deleted]

Big retailers perhaps - someone should ask Loony what this would cost her to implement.

[Opti]

Feb 7, 2012 10:53:20 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Realistically, I think that is how this would go. It is a nice idea to keep people from eating junk, but I don't think there is a cost effective way to do it - so this would be a high cost, low benefit way to erode our libertarian values. The math just doesn't work for me.

Since the inception of the WIC program in 1974 the infrastructure has been there the onus is on the retailer to sell the appropriate Items as classified by the Federal Government, it would not take a lot of money or man power on the Federal side to institute a change such as this.

(I am playing Devils Advocate)

WIC and foodstamps are different programs. With WIC you can only
get what's on the list and with foodstamps I believe you are limited to buying food, i.e. no TP. The latter is an easy exception to code because it doesn't fall into a food category.

I do think it will cost the retailers more to administer and provide very little useful benefit. I think pasta and white rice is probably a larger problem than cookies but given the junk food grocery shopper example above my guess is she would just buy more pizza, sugary cereal, etc. instead of promoting health in any way. JMO.

[floridayankee]

Feb 7, 2012 10:53:20 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Realistically, I think that is how this would go. It is a nice idea to keep people from eating junk, but I don't think there is a cost effective way to do it - so this would be a high cost, low benefit way to erode our libertarian values. The math just doesn't work for me.

Since the inception of the WIC program in 1974 the infrastructure has been there the onus is on the retailer to sell the appropriate Items as classified by the Federal Government, it would not take a lot of money or man power on the Federal side to institute a change such as this.

(I am playing Devils Advocate)

As am I. I never support more government control, but I also don't support long term reliance on government. We have let government intrude further and further into our every day lives all in the name of protecting us from ourselves. We've called for increased control and regulation of our lives because we're apparently too stupid to make our own choices (all of us except food stamp recipients apparently). We voted these idiots in, so the government we get is the government we deserve.

A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.

[cme1201]

Feb 7, 2012 11:15:25 GMT -5 Opti said:

Feb 7, 2012 10:53:20 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Since the inception of the WIC program in 1974 the infrastructure has been there the onus is on the retailer to sell the appropriate Items as classified by the Federal Government, it would not take a lot of money or man power on the Federal side to institute a change such as this.

(I am playing Devils Advocate)

WIC and foodstamps are different programs. With WIC you can only
get what's on the list and with foodstamps I believe you are limited to buying food, i.e. no TP. The latter is an easy exception to code because it doesn't fall into a food category.

I do think it will cost the retailers more to administer and provide very little useful benefit. I think pasta and white rice is probably a larger problem than cookies but given the junk food grocery shopper example above my guess is she would just buy more pizza, sugary cereal, etc. instead of promoting health in any way. JMO.

Correct 2 different programs that would be able to use the same infrastructure for limiting purchases. Code that states Bread = food, Soda = not food, meat = food, prepared dish = not food, milk = food, hi-c = not food, juice = food, juice flavored ice pops = not food.

Both run along the same guiding factor, the only thing that will affect the retailer is the first 6 months of having to restock the products that are ruled not allowed by the program.

[cranberry49]

Feb 7, 2012 11:50:08 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

Feb 7, 2012 10:30:09 GMT -5 cranberry49 said:

I use to have a neighbor on FS (I know this because I took her grocery shopping several times) she had two young children. I felt so sorry for those kids. All they ate was junk. No lie. I mean literally nothing but junk. Her groceries consisted of potato chips, soda, pizza, ice cream, cookies, etc. I don't ever remember her buying any vegetables or meat that she had to cook herself. She is not the only one out there that does this either. And yes, she was obese and lazy. I watched her literally make her 4 year old son change her babies diaper! Those kids will grow up with all kinds of health problems, not to mention a shortened life span. They have to be literally starving for vitamins and minerals that there diets are sorely missing. This is where my heart goes out to. The children. The poor most definitely do need help. But, they need to wise up and make better choices for their kids sakes.

Hasn't a junk food diet been linked to deviant social behavior?

I have no idea, lone. But if so, then this woman is a perfect example!

[Opti]

Feb 7, 2012 11:34:32 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Feb 7, 2012 11:15:25 GMT -5 Opti said:

WIC and foodstamps are different programs. With WIC you can only
get what's on the list and with foodstamps I believe you are limited to buying food, i.e. no TP. The latter is an easy exception to code because it doesn't fall into a food category.

I do think it will cost the retailers more to administer and provide very little useful benefit. I think pasta and white rice is probably a larger problem than cookies but given the junk food grocery shopper example above my guess is she would just buy more pizza, sugary cereal, etc. instead of promoting health in any way. JMO.

Correct 2 different programs that would be able to use the same infrastructure for limiting purchases. Code that states Bread = food, Soda = not food, meat = food, prepared dish = not food, milk = food, hi-c = not food, juice = food, juice flavored ice pops = not food.

Both run along the same guiding factor, the only thing that will affect the retailer is the first 6 months of having to restock the products that are ruled not allowed by the program.

Its not the same infrastructure at all though. WIC I believe is only certain listed items, not categories so it is totally different in implementation. Not sure if every retailer is required to deal with WIC but the only one I notice that actively flags items is an ethnic leaning grocery store. Based on what I see on the shelves it is this juice is WIC approved(those not so flagged I believe are not), this bag of frozen veggies is WIC approved, etc. I think you have to purchase what's on the list which is totally different than foodstamps which just excludes categories like non-grocery, cigarettes, and alcohol. I have noticed in general where I see WIC approved tags is that the prices are higher than average.

[zibazinski]

Those people on food stamps are getting their kids fed breakfast and lunch btw.

[cranberry49]

As CME stated above, all the managers would have to do is redifine the code in the cash registers to recognize the item as food approved for FS purchase or not. The same way toilet paper, alcohol, washing powders, all non-food items are already done. Use to be that food stamp items had to be seperated from the other items. Not so anymore. It is all done with a bar code and is all dependant on what the manager puts into the cash register.

[cranberry49]

WIC is actually harder to do. I use to work at a grocery store and I know this first hand. You have to manually check the items to make sure it is wic approved, then write in the price after it is rung up.

[Phoenix84]

"Critics say the government shouldn't be telling people what to eat."

When you hand over providing for your basic needs to the government, you should expect instrusion into your life. He who has the gold makes the rules. If you don't like it, get off food stamps.

[pepper112765]

Feb 6, 2012 22:06:22 GMT -5 cranberry49 said:

Feb 6, 2012 22:05:11 GMT -5 @lonewolf said:

But I don't understand why it would cost any more. The grocery stores know what can be purchased with food stamps and what can't. They are already doing it.

You beat me to it, girl! ;D

I don't think that the recipients will be raising that much hell if they are precluded from buying prepackaged snacks...it is not as if they are precluded from buying sugar, etc., to make cookies and cakes. The manufacturers will be making the most noice. People tend to adapt pretty easily to which they have no control over.

[Deleted]

Every able bodied person of relatively sound mind receiving food stamps should have to do something in return, even if that means sweeping the streets a few hours a day, then I wouldn’t care if they bought smokes and booze with them.

[thyme4change]

such regulations would actually decrease the amount of both healthy foods and cookies in favor of lower quality across the board. That is because in many urban areas, healthy produce is only available sporadically and when a farmer brings it in.

I'm not sure how denying cookies makes produce more or less available. I'm not seeing the connection at all.

[pepper112765]

Feb 7, 2012 13:18:46 GMT -5 Robert not Bobby said:

Every able bodied person of relatively sound mind receiving food stamps should have to do something in return, even if that means sweeping the streets a few hours a day, then I wouldn’t care if they bought smokes and booze with them.

That is based on the assumption that all those receiving food stamps do not work. A lot do work. They don't make enough after paying for housing and utilities to buy food.

[Opti]

Feb 7, 2012 12:29:01 GMT -5 cranberry49 said:

As CME stated above, all the managers would have to do is redifine the code in the cash registers to recognize the item as food approved for FS purchase or not. The same way toilet paper, alcohol, washing powders, all non-food items are already done. Use to be that food stamp items had to be seperated from the other items. Not so anymore. It is all done with a bar code and is all dependant on what the manager puts into the cash register.

My guess is taxable, non-taxable, and currently what is food stamp
OK is by category not individual items/bar codes. Perhaps given how often price changes percolate through the system it wouldn't be that big of a deal for the larger chains. My guess is the manager doesn't do the price changes in bigger grocery chain stores, but they are downloaded to all stores at a regular time.

Since its Florida I'm sure the law will pass. I wonder if they will drop
all baking mixes as well. Flour, sugar, baking soda, baking powder, salt, vanilla, butter or butter substitute do cost money and the start up costs for baking would be over $10 easy. That doesn't even count the cost of pans and spices that aren't cinnamon. Maybe I should move to Florida if the law passes and start a black market in baked goods.

[pepper112765]

Feb 7, 2012 13:22:44 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

such regulations would actually decrease the amount of both healthy foods and cookies in favor of lower quality across the board. That is because in many urban areas, healthy produce is only available sporadically and when a farmer brings it in.

I'm not sure how denying cookies makes produce more or less available. I'm not seeing the connection at all.

The connection is that in most urban neighborhoods they have corner stores, bodegas, what have you, that do not sell fresh produce or even have a large selection of items from which to choose, but do sell pre-packaged meals-- Oodles of Noodles, Top Ramen, etc., and the prices are higher for things like bread and milk. Decent grocery stores are not within walking distance or even a moderate bus ride with no transfers. The District of Columbia (where I work) is a prime example. There are really not a lot of grocery retailers in the poorer sections of the city -- north and east of the Anacostia River. Walmart is trying to get a store in each quadrant...And say what you want about Walmart, at least those residents will have more selections to choose from.

[floridayankee]

Feb 7, 2012 13:33:48 GMT -5 Opti said:

Maybe I should move to Florida if the law passes and start a black market in baked goods.

No need for black market baked goods. This bill wouldn't make them illegal.

[zibazinski]

And just why is it that no grocery chain will go into bad neighborhoods? Maybe because of the crime?

[floridayankee]

Feb 7, 2012 13:36:31 GMT -5 pepper112765 said:

Feb 7, 2012 13:22:44 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

I'm not sure how denying cookies makes produce more or less available. I'm not seeing the connection at all.

..... and the prices are higher for things like bread and milk.

Aren't the prices higher for nearly everything in urban centers?

[Value Buy]

Feb 6, 2012 22:35:48 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Feb 6, 2012 22:16:34 GMT -5 @toughtimes said:

Everyone doesn't ring up purchases with a modern register. If someone buys food at a farmer's market set up for a few weeks at a Botanical Garden during the Fall Harvest or if a farmer sells produce out the back of his truck a lot of that recordkeeping goes by the board.

Yes and no. In order to use food stamps at a farmer's market, they need to have a fancy pants EBT machine. (Also popular with the debit card carrying masses)

But no UPC codes to scan, so in that sense, you are right.

Farmer's markets might be set up to accept wic vouchers, (and I believe they have to be pre-approved for this) but unless they have filled out the application(s) for being a foodstamp vendor in advance, they will not be allowed to get reimbursed for any foodstamp redemptions.