Amazon.com Widgets

Should the government limit what kinds of foods can be bought with food stamps?

  • Limit the money we give them

    The government should absolutely limit the kinds of food that is bought. I worked at Wal-Mart for a couple of years and it was ridiculous what I say food stamps paid for. There was one person that bought a bunch of Jello to make Jello shots and was talking about it the whole time that I was ringing up the items and then paid with food stamps. There was another one that bought about 50 dollars worth of candy.

  • Yes, the government should limit what types of food can be bought with food stamps.

    People buying food with food stamps should not be able to buy any type of food at the super market. There are only a few limitations to what people can buy with their food stamps. But I think there should be even more in regards to what they can use it for. People using food stamps should only be able to buy the most basic of foods like oats, rice, pasta, ground beef, etc.

  • Food stamps are to provide basic nutrition and therefore

    The purpose of the food stamp program is to ensure basic nutrition for those who otherwise may not be able to provide for themselves. Obviously there are many types of 'food' items that do not provide nutrition however, and may in fact even be detrimental for health. Soda or candy would be examples. Therefore it would be reasonable for the government to exclude these items from food stamps.

  • Food stamps are to help people survive only.

    Food stamps are given to people who are unable, or unwilling to earn enough money for food. The cost of food stamps comes from other tax payers in the community. Food stamps should be spent on healthy foods only, to enable the person to survive until they can support themselves. There is no place for spending food stamps on tobacco, alcohol, junk food, or luxuries.

  • Food-Stamps are meant to support nutritional health.

    There are two main reasons why food-stamp programs should limit purchase of sugar: academics, And mental/physical health complications.

    Https://www. Todaysdietitian. Com/newarchives/100614p64. Shtml

    Clearly people who consume more sugar are having more trouble academically. Some people are arguing that limiting the consumption of sugar with food-stamps is unfair to their quality of life. . . But if you are relying on sugar in food and drinks to enrich you and your childrens' lives, That is a problem itself: sugar is proven to be linked with increase mental-health problems, So relying on snack-foods and soda to provide happiness is a non-starter. You need to teach your child to enjoy life WITHOUT sugar, Because it WILL make life more difficult for them, Even if you don't notice the damage it does. I personally remember that when I was around 3-4, My single mom waking up to find me tearing open box of cereal. I had spilled it all over the floor. She left our apartment, And went outside to cry on the stoop. . . Because for her, That box was expensive. I will never forget that for the rest of my life. While we had access to sugar as kids, We mostly had fish, Mashed potatoes, Corn, Chicken-pot pie, Etc. I still enjoyed my diet as a child. What you teach a child to enjoy diet-wise, Can greatly impact what they "enjoy" as an adult.

    The second issue is obesity and coronary disease. If you don't have a good education, You are likely to get a lower paying job (end get foodstamps yourself), Which means you have to work that much harder to support a family. If you have to work harder, You have less time to properly exercise. If you have less time to exercise, You will gain weight, And have an increased risk of health complications, Which means that social welfare assistance also needs to be diverted to your healthcare. And if you have a family, But die as a result of health complications due to sugar consumption, Your spouse and society must pick up the slack, Which means your children become even further dependent on food-stamps. It's a clear cycle. If food-stamp users were not allowed to purchase sugar, At least a small percentage of food-stamp beneficieries would suffer less academic and health setbacks. This would mean less revenue devoted to taking care of unnecessary healthcare, And therefore more money that can be put into food-stamps AND school programs for underprivileged communities.

    There are plenty of people for attacking social welfare programs for the wrong reasons. Do not let their attacks blind you to the fact that restricting the consumption of sugar is actually in the best INTERESTS of food-stamp recipients, And society as a whole.

  • Food-Stamps are meant to provide nutrition.

    There are two main reasons why food-stamp programs should limit purchase of sugar: neurological development
    of children, And health complications.

    Https://www. Todaysdietitian. Com/newarchives/100614p64. Shtml

    Clearly people who consume more sugar are having more trouble academically. Some people are arguing that
    limiting the consumption of sugar with food-stamps is unfair to their quality of life. . . But if you are relying
    on sugar in food and drinks to enrich you and your childrens' lives, That is a problem itself: sugar is proven
    to be linked with increase mental-health problems, So relying on snack-foods and soda to provide happiness is
    a non-starter. You need to teach your child to enjoy life WITHOUT sugar, Because it WILL make life more difficult
    for them, Even if you don't notice the damage it does. I personally remember that when I was around 3-4, My
    single mom waking up to find me tearing open box of cereal. I had spilled it all over the floor. She left our
    apartment, And went outside to cry on the stoop. . . Because for her, That box was expensive. I will never forget
    that for the rest of my life. While we had access to sugar as kids, We mostly had fish, Mashed potatoes, Corn,
    chicken-pot pie, Etc. I still enjoyed my diet as a child. What you teach a child to enjoy diet-wise, Can greatly
    impact what they "enjoy" as an adult.

    The second issue is obesity and coronary disease. If you don't have a
    good education, You are likely to get a lower paying job (end get foodstamps yourself), Which means you have
    to work that much harder to support a family. If you have to work harder, You have less time to properly
    exercise. If you have less time to exercise, You will gain weight, And have an increased risk
    of health complications, Which means that social welfare assistance also needs to be diverted to your
    healthcare. And if you have a family, But die as a result of health complications due to sugar consumption,
    your spouse and society must pick up the slack, Which means your children become even further dependent on
    food-stamps. It's a clear cycle. If food-stamp users were not allowed to purchase sugar, At least a small
    percentage of food-stamp beneficieries would suffer less academic and health setbacks. This would mean less
    revenue devoted to taking care of unnecessary healthcare, And therefore more money that can be put into
    food-stamps AND school programs for underprivileged communities.

    There are plenty of people for attacking social welfare programs for the wrong reasons. Do not let their
    attacks blind you to the fact that restricting the consumption of sugar is actually in the best INTERESTS
    of food-stamp recipients, And society as a whole.

  • Absolutely they should

    Food should be limited to exactly what is needed for daily nutrition and nothing more. I believe alcohol and tobacco is usually band, would have to look up for junk food. But I would even ban something like steak as I consider that a luxury. If you need food stamp help you should only be buying exactly what you need not what you want

  • Food Nazis, Really?

    I cannot believe that with the shrinking middle class, that anyone would want to add another nail to the coffin of the struggling, under employed poor of this nation, already demoralized by an inability to to make what meager funds they have stretch from paycheck to paycheck! And in one of the richest developed countries in the world with one of the lowest minimum wages and biggest disparities between what women and men make Yes! Lets punish the single mothers, the elderly, the disabled, the children and a lot of our disabled veterans and their families! Let's be sure they feel as disenfranchised and marginalized as possible by policing their FOOD selections. You! Put that back! How Big Brother is that? Sounds more in line with something you'd find in North Korea, not North America. And for those of you so ready to look down your noses at these aforementioned groups receiving food stamps who buy "luxuries" like candy for the kids or a nicer cut of beef for Sunday dinner. Folks, you have no idea how tenuous your own footing in this economy can be, how quickly things can go from great to Honey, what are we going to do? It happens to people just like you and me- every. Single, day.

  • No Food Police!

    I received food benefits after I had to leave my husband--their father--because he became addicted to crystal meth and then became abusive. I tried counseling and other measures but he would not cooperate or even try at all.
    Should our children have been punished because their father made bad choices?
    Most of those receiving these benefits are elderly, disabled or children.
    The rest are already working--I was working full-time but did not make enough to pay rent, utilities AND buy decent food!
    Many of those working families are our MILITARY families, too! People are ignorant if they think people who receive benefits are lazy (I worked DAMNED hard but my 'good, Christian' employers only paid minimum) or unwilling to work! Those are LIES and you would know that if you bothered to volunteer in your communities!

  • Government does not need to babysit my grocery list

    It is hard to police the world and all that we do. Some things are better left alone and not complicated. As of right now you cannot buy hot food, energy drinks or alcohol. To go any further would complicate the system, cause loonger lines in stores, and quite frankly how would someone determine what is and is not acceptable. Sugar in certain forms are not healthy but not all sugars are bad. Vegetarians will tell you meat is bad for you, will a vegetarian diet be implemented and now people cannot use food stamps for meat? Let families decide how they eat and what they want to eat and if health issues arise, cutting the food stamps may prevent unhealthy choices and start marking down the ier foods and raise the cost of "unhealthy foods."


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.