Food Stamp Reform: Alcohol & Tobacco Restrictions

Why do you think those stores went away?

 

Their own?
(I am in favor of our current systems btw, but the hard facts are, many folks are not spending "their own".)

Restricting your use of money that you did not earn to necessities that improve your health and overall quality of life rather than allowing you to spend it on things that will now make you more likely to be a drain on the health system seems like a jo brainer.

 

I think he was referring to non-government aid income that a person in poverty has possession of separately. I get the human impulse to want to control every aspect of someone in poverty getting money from aid to eat healthy, not smoke, etc but its just not very practical and has elements of big brother/oppression.

 

Yes, their own. He wasn't talking about food stamps. He was talking about what they were buying with their cash money. As for the restrictions, I agree with Doc and disagree with you. Give people money. Let them decide how to spend it. If they make poor choices, so be it.

 

TLDR: Republicans want more government to oversee and punish poor people for being poor.

 

Fair point. I agree about their personal money. I misread.

I don't agree that they should be allowed to poison themselves (or unsuspecting children) on taxpayer money though.

Tax money should be for certain foods and necessities. If you dont regulate that then kids will go hungry in exchange for smokes and beer.

I am happy that my tax money shelters kids, even if they are from lazy parents. I am happy my tax money protects good adults who are just underserved or unable to meet the family need.

Just make sure the money hits It's mark.

 

That isn't what was said at all. And certainly isnt the theme of the thread.

 

Got it. Misread. See post to GL above.

 

Let’s face it this is a redistribution scam not a feed the hungry program. They really don’t care how it’s used as long as they keep them in office.

 

It does in many respects. Maybe imperfectly because there's always going to be people trying to game the system and well, perfection would be a mythical and imo unreasonable expectation (not saying you're demanding perfection).

Anyway, as mentioned upthread, there are numerous restrictions on what people receiving food assistance can buy. Part of the problem is that while it would be great that if this money went toward getting nutritious food because that is obviously better than all the junk food that dominates, this would be an unreasonable requirement. The goal is to get *food* i.e. calories into people who can't afford it...even if it means from twinkies & pepsi.

 

Query: Are you referring to bourbon because corn is its primary ingredient?

 

I thought the argument you were going to make is that money is fungible. I'm not saying it's a perfect analogy, but I've heard similar arguments about Planned Parenthood receiving both private and public funding, for example, whether it should matter if the public funds are targeted for non-abortive services. I agree with y'all that if someone qualifies for food stamp money, the government shouldn't try to ban them from buying vices with their own money. But I think I at least get the conceptual concerns.

 

Opening argument: "People on food stamps shouldn't be able to use them for cigarettes and alcohol"

Response: "They can't. They have to buy those things with cash."

"Well they shouldn't be able to do that, either! If they're so poor as to need food stamps, then they shouldn't be allowed to purchase any alcohol, cigarettes, etc. at all!"



Now tell me how we restrict Americans' ability to buy beer and tobacco with cash without additional government action/intervention.

Also tell me how "If you're poor, you get no help to feed yourself or your family unless you agree to sacrifice your rights to buy things like beer and cigarettes" is not a punitive message.

Convince me and I'll retract my previous comment.

 

Nobody should smoke (at all) or consume too much alcohol anyway, really. But to try and target certain people seems ridiculous. They can’t buy it with their food stamp money, that’s good enough for me. I don’t really care what these people spend their “own” money on. Where does something like that end? If a single mom saved up and bought their kid a video game system, does that forfeit their WIC money? What if they bought their kid some name brand sneakers or a few decent pieces of clothing instead of shoes and clothes from wal-mart? Would that be ok?

I’d be inclined to think poors might have a higher propensity to smoke and drink. Or in general, just make poor financial decisions. So there’s probably some degree of moral hazard that lifting their food burden does some enabling in other areas. But it seems folly to think the govt has the capacity to micromanage individual decisions that go on outside of food programs. I’d say even poor people should be allowed those small joys in life anyway. That’s sort of the point of the food assistance, so they aren’t spending every last dollar on food/rent. Doesn’t seem like a major thing to get upset about. This reminds me of a former poster who used to go on about people on food stamps who drive Escalades as if that was the norm (presumably he at least saw one example of that and it really bothered him). Always struck me as bizarre.

 

If we weren't required by our parties to argue hyperboles we could be left with:

- yes, smoking and alcohol are horrible for people...especially people that don't have anything in the way of a discretionary income. It could potentially benefit our society if we could figure out an approach that would alleviate that. What ramifications would need to be considered, and what are the trade offs? Can this be done without significantly increasing the cost? Or is the increase in cost worth the reduction in waste and side effects of the addictive behavior?
- yes, government subsidies for farming should be re-evaluated. Corn (for example), likely isn't the best crop to subsidize (for another thread, though)

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Well said. I agree with all that. I've heard the Escalades and lobster arguments too many times to count. I suspect the prevalence of that going on is highly exaggerated, but it's not something I've looked into it or seen going on myself.

 

I'm OK with the food stamp program. Would like to see the recipients at least do some volunteer work in a community center or something (Big Brothers/Sisters). I think everyone has value for something even if it's just their time.
But that's not the biggest takeaway, Why the F--- would they be using their food stamps in the most expensive place to buy groceries? I know there aren't grocery stores on every corner everywhere but you would think it would be worth a bus ride to double your buying power at an Aldi or Sav A Lot.

 

As Doc said, the people motivated to use their food stamps on that will simply turn to the black market. It's just creating waste to police people's personal choices.

 

Get rid of the cash.