Should food stamps be allowed at fast food restaurants?

[alp227]

USA Today story "Restaurants want a piece of food stamp pie":

Louisville-based Yum! Brands, whose restaurants include Taco Bell, KFC, Long John Silver's and Pizza Hut, is trying to get restaurants more involved, federal lobbying records show.

That's a prospect that anti-hunger advocates welcome, but one that worries some current food stamp vendors and public health advocates.

Federal rules generally prohibit food stamp benefits, which are distributed under the USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), from being exchanged for prepared foods. Yet a provision dating to the 1970s allows states to allow restaurants to serve disabled, elderly and homeless people, USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel said.

Between 2005 and 2010, the number of businesses certified in the SNAP program went from about 156,000 to nearly 209,000, according to USDA data.

Shouldn't Michelle Obama, whose "Let's Move" initiative encourages healthier eating, be speaking out against this? Or is it a rule for First Ladies to shut up about lobbyists?

[Tx4obama]

1. In my opinion. food stamps should be used only in grocery stores and farmers markets.

Not for prepared foods in restaurants, especially not fast food places.

You can make healthy food for less money than what they charge at fast food places!

[saras]

8. I would absolutely agree, if good grocers and farmers markets were available to everyone.

The exception in the law is primarily to serve those who don't have places in which to prepare or store food.

"... serve disabled, elderly and homeless people, USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel said."

Many disabled and elderly people live in places where they can neither store nor prepare food. This sucks, for a bunch of reasons, but it's America. The homeless, of course, don't even have the option of places that might let them store food and cook. And one of the purposes of the food stamp program is to get nutrition to these populations, who often otherwise have either institutional food or nothing.

And, of course, being America, if such a loophole for exploitative corporations exists, they will start pushing shipping containers of corruption through it.

If someone can figure out how to transport the homeless between nice grocers and farmers' markets and the places they have to hang out to get money (whether begging or waiting for temp labor) in a way that won't cost anything, a lot of people would appreciate it.

[liberalmike27]

95. I think

There is a reasonable expectation that one on a government program, should be required to not go to restaurants to get their food. Besides, I'll tell you that just over a hundred dollars, won't allow for someone to hit the Taco Bell more than a few times, and they'll go hungry for the rest of the month, and if they don't need the money, or can do that, then they probably should not be getting food stamps anyway.

Now I wouldn't mind an extra food voucher for a restaurant of $20 a month, but good luck getting that past Republicans in congress.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. What if the eligible recipient has no cooking facilities or is physical unable to cook?

That's the principal reason for the current exemptions -- people who can't go home and make a meal.
The homeless, those living in SROs, and people with impairments which act as barriers to cooking may need the food assistance in spite of those obstacles.

[alp227]

15. fast food would make their health worse wouldn't it? n/t

[auntAgonist]

30. Not necessarily. If you know how to choose your food at a restaurant

(fast food restaurant) you can make healthy choices. Grilled chicken, salads, soups ..

[Gormy Cuss]

33. Worse than not eating? Worse than the food at the convenience store?

Worse than eating only food that can be consumed without prep or cooking?

It's easy to think that there's always a better option but one of the reasons FNS has historically rejected restrictive food choices is the agency's experience with real life situations of those eligible for aid. Under current regs, fast food is only an option for a tiny fraction of recipients who may not have better food choices.

[Quantess]

171. Yes.

Fast food is often worse than not eating at all, and it is almost always worse than food you can possibly find at the convenience store.

[Name removed]

183. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Quantess]

185. How about telling

Dreamer Tatum off, instead?
If you are so smart, you would see that Dreamer Tatum is a fake troll.

[CreekDog]

191. I really can't argue with that

any of it.

:rofl:

[Quantess]

186. YOU are the one who doesn't know

what you are talking about.

[CreekDog]

192. Gee, please don't act like my opinion is so important

I was just annoyed that in the context of people who aren't getting enough to eat that your comment was that it's often better to eat nothing at all than to eat fast food.

Yes, if you're well nourished and never miss a meal due to lack of money, that's true --but this is about food stamp recipients and it's pretty callous to say about that group of people that they're better off not eating at all.

[Quantess]

193. Reading Comprehension. (no text)

[CreekDog]

195. hey you're the one that said i'm not smart

:rofl:

[Quantess]

198. Not true. Don't "put words in my mouth"

What is so hilarious about this conversation?

edit because I added text.

[auntAgonist]

197. most FF restaurants have chicken, salads, milk, fruit...

that's worse ???


You're so wrong.

aA

[Claudia Jones]

74. no

It would not make people's health worse than not eating at all.

[CreekDog]

182. if they can't cook, then what do you propose --starving?

if you take away one avenue for eating and they don't really have others --what is the result?

[Quantess]

189. You have never been in this situation, obviously.

You do not always have to cook food in order to eat it. Are you really that dense?
In other words, no, everything does not need to be deep-fried.

[pipi_k]

205. If someone can't cook...

there are always raw fruits and vegies.

Canned tuna.

Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

Lunch meats.

All that stuff is probably way healthier than the cooked crap anyway.

[Quantess]

172. LOL, just ask me how to buy food from the grocery store & avoid cooking

That is honestly kind of a ridiculous excuse, in my opinion.
Sandwiches. People all over the world, from centuries ago until now. Sandwiches are a time-tested universal staple of nutrition around the world.

If you aren't allergic, buy a bag of peanuts. How about a goddamned apple or banana? A bottle of juice or milk?

DUH....NO...MUST HAVE BURGER & FRIES! MUST EAT TACO!

[blueamy66]

204. I was gonna reply, but you said it best.

nt

[AndyTiedye]

11. That Assumes You Have a Place to Cook It

[FrodosPet]

14. No food stamps for fast food!

OTOH, there are some people who, due to diminished physical or mental capacity, cannot cook their own food. For them, perhaps their should be some kind of list of acceptable prepared foods, or perhaps funding for professional caregivers to shop and prepare meals for them.

The only other solution is institutionalization, but that should be a last resort. People should have as much independence as possible for as long as possible.

Able bodied and minded people, no prepared foods, but free healthy cooking classes.

[JuniperLea]

46. What about the homeless?

They have no place to prepare food. They would be limited to cold and raw foods.

[pintobean]

53. +1. That's the obvious question.

It would benefit the people who need food stamps the most.

[JuniperLea]

59. The apparently invisible yet most needy among us...

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, let alone think about their fellow human being before spouting off about how our tax dollars should be spent.

It is disheartening.

[liberalmike27]

96. I don't think

You can get food stamps if you don't have an address. If things are that bad, we need to design a new program, just for the homeless, the stove-less, or the refrigerator-less.

[JuniperLea]

106. Please educate yourself...

Use The Google... food stamps for homeless+your state.

[Quantess]

202. Maybe cold & raw is good.

I eat cold & raw food every day. What's wrong with that?

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

181. how quaint --what about people who don't have kitchens?

homeless people don't have cooking facilities and many, many in poverty live in single rooms without access to kitchens and cooking.

and many on food stamps need to eat during the day (imagine that!), because, well, they work and often don't have access to kitchens where they work.

:eyes:

[Quantess]

196. Oh, so tragic! The poor can't afford to get everything deep-fried!

Maybe only an oreo deep fried now and then. How can poor obese people possibly stay fat that way?

[Claudia Jones]

201. what is the matter with you?

Your posts on this thread are a disgrace.

[CreekDog]

211. and now you're stereotyping

food stamp recipients, people who grab a bite at fast food restaurants (there are salads and other items that a lot of us buy you know).

sometimes it's the only practical option or the healthiest one around. for example, a McDonald's salad is better than grabbing a bag of potato chips.

[Trekologer]

2. No

A fast food restaurant, as with any restaurant, is not selling food. They are selling the service of preparing food for the customer. The only time food stamps should be usable in a restaurant is the existing allowance for those who cannot prepare the food for themselves (disabled, elderly, etc).

[eShirl]

4. existing allowance?

[shanti]

3. hell no

the corps have really sunk their claws into us, haven't they? :(

[izquierdista]

5. Only if they sell Soylent Green

Seeing how it is ready to eat from the factory and Yum! would just be distributing it.

[pinboy3niner]

19. They're on the way to BEING Soylent Green

[LoZoccolo]

6. You should make this into a poll. n/t

[alp227]

17. can't - am not a donor n/t

[rocktivity]

7. No -- its not an efficient use of tax revenue

Paying $5 for four ounces of ground beef when it could buy a pound in a supermarket? Or $20 for one meal in a "real" restaurant when it could feed you for a couple of days?

If restaurants are getting that desperate for customers, they'd better start reducing their portions and prices.

:shrug:
rocktivity

[ChandlerJr]

20. I suppose you could always throw that pound of hamburger

on the exhaust manifold of your Buick if you're living in your car.

The exemption is for homeless, handicapped and others without cooking facilities. Imagine if you're in an apartment where the utilities have been disconnected for non-payment. What do you do until you can get them turned back on, chew on a thawed chicken?

[rocktivity]

39. The "bigger piece of the pie" these food corporatists are after is EVERYONE on food stamps.

Like the story says, restaurants already have the the ability to serve homeless and handicapped people on food stamps. Not everyone has access to large supermarkets where their food (stamp) dollars can allegedly go further, so adding convenience stores makes sense.

For the rest of us, being able to eat out is a privilege made possible by discretionary income, not an inalienable right.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[smirkymonkey]

100. Most convenience stores where I live will make sandwiches -

I have found a few that make them for $4 or $5 (and that's with everything - turkey, cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, pickle, condiments if you want them). And I live in Manhattan. Of course I can go a block away and find a meal for $45.00 too.

A sandwich can be fairly healthy and a lot of those places serve homemade soups or cooked eggs and salads very cheaply. They shouldn't have to go to Corporate fast food places to find a decent meal.

[MedicalAdmin]

81. Sigh - this country is in freefall.

How about the idea of community kitchens and gardens?

There is no good solution to this,, even civilized countries like Canada struggle with it.

My feelings are that were I ever on food stamps (and I may qualify this year - I need to check on that) that I wouldn't waste my limited stamps on restaurant food. But then again I would have to get creative. Maybe this. http://www.motherearthnews.com/Hands-On-How-To/Hobo-Stove-Cooking.aspx

[Zoeisright]

9. It's filling and cheap. Sometimes that's the only food around.

Why the hell not? Are we really that petty?

[Wait Wut]

165. I don't see it as being petty.

I'd like to see this discussion open up more resources for those that have no stove or ability to cook for themselves. Eating at a fast food restaurant is not cheap, despite the low cost. I'd much rather give those in need more resources to extend their stamp dollars than have them eating double cheeseburgers and fries.

I'm no expert on this stuff, but what about a bi-monthly bus pass to a grocery store? How about funded delivery services for cooked or uncooked foods, depending on need?

I don't want anyone feeling they "have" to eat McDonald's to survive. I know there has to be more options. Fast food is more than just bad for your physical health. The lack of nutritional value and the added chemicals do a lot of damage to a persons psyche and chemical makeup.

/sigh, but if this is all we can do, it's better than letting them go hungry. And that just plain sucks.

[pipi_k]

207. Other things are filling and cheap, too...

Like dog kibble.

A good brand of dog kibble is probably better, nutritionally, than greasy-assed fries and cowburgers.


I mean, if we're going to go the "cheap and filling" route, why not?

[datasuspect]

12. We need to arm the homeless and drug addicts

[Iggo]

13. Do they sell food there?

[JDPriestly]

16. This should be allowed on condition that those on food stamps

only have pay half price at fast food joints.

[alp227]

18. look what happened at a San Francisco McDonald's that did something like that

"" (SF Chronicle, 9/6/10): "The McDonald's at the corner of Haight and Stanyan streets eliminated its Dollar Menu about a month ago, making the items on it too expensive for the people who spend the better part of their day on the sidewalk in front."

[MedicalAdmin]

84. I like that idea.

Make the corps put some skin in the game. God knows they ain't payin' taxes.

[Horse with no Name]

103. I could go for that

They are cutting benefits for food stamp recipients. Some families receive less than $200 a month.
A family of 4 to go eat out cheaply still costs over $20. 10% of a food budget on one meal might give short term relief but cause long term pain for that family.

I think half price, or giving a few separate food vouchers along with the benefits might be a workable solution.

For those that are talking about this affecting the elderly folks not being able to cook, sadly enough, very few elderly get more than $20 or $30 a month in food stamps. It is a travesty that should have been addressed long ago, but has not.

[former9thward]

121. Where is your link to that?

The food stamp program has expanded rapidly in the last few years. I am unaware of any cuts.

[Horse with no Name]

134. It is serving more people..of course

but fewer benefits per family. And my link? Well, I work with "at risk" families. They have all seen reductions in benefits.

Type in "reduction in food stamps" in Google and you will get 2.25 MILLION hits. Here is one at the top for you...
http://www.empirejustice.org/issue-areas/public-benefits/food-stamps/expect-food-stamp-reductions.html
>>>snip
Food stamp law 1 requires annual adjustments to the standard utility allowance (SUA). The SUA, along with rent or mortgage payments and certain other shelter related deductions, are subtracted from a food stamp household’s income to determine the amount of the food stamp grant for which the household is eligible. For the first time in memory, the SUA adjustments scheduled to go into effect on April 1 of this year will result in a reduction in the food stamp benefits for many households, particularly those with elderly or disabled members.

[RedCappedBandit]

208. I like this idea!

Who cares about the health implications? You can get equally poor choices at any grocery store. I have more of a problem with wasting tax dollars on paying for 'atmosphere' or whatever justifications restaurants use for their prices.

[Lil Missy]

21. No.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. In an ideal world no

but then we have food deserts. and populations that do not have access to cooking and storage facilities.

So that muddles it, doesn't it? Problem is that mickey Ds does cause serious health problems as well.

[Zanzoobar]

23. They're being cut out by the steak houses and champagne bars!

I say let 'em in!

[Bluebear]

24. Fine with me. If it's this or the kids don't get a meal, what do I care?

[999998th word]

25. Are you still 'poor' if you have a microwave, air conditioner etc..

? this stuff on DU ? :wtf:

[JVS]

26. This could be a good way to give the fast food providers an incentive to make healthier food.

Set up a nutritional equivalent of the CAFE system. Tell the companies that if they want to qualify to be allowed to accept foodstamps their sales need to conform to the standard.

[MedicalAdmin]

86. Good idea.

But I suspect it would take about 2 days for those standards to get watered down as per lobbiest instructions made via a suitcase full of unmarked $20 bills.

[Safetykitten]

27. No.

[backscatter712]

28. No.

The .gov has the right to put in a few ground rules to ensure that money it spends to keep people from starving be spent at least somewhat efficiently.

I wouldn't put too many rules on food stamps, but I'm not against restricting their use to grocery stores & such, and restricting certain things, like alcohol, from being purchased with food stamps.

[me b zola]

29. Shouldn't we lay the fuck off of poor people and their choices?

They are not children. They are not your pets. They are living men, women,and children who deserve to be fed, clothed, housed, and left the fuck alone without fucking busy-bodies judgments.

Sweet Jesus.

[999998th word]

31. THANK you.

Sick of seeing right wing talking points on DU.

[Bluebear]

36. You said it sister

[Raine]

38. Yes, EXACTLY, it's so insulting and patronizing. nt

[kctim]

40. Not if we are paying for it.

[JuniperLea]

49. What a nasty way to be...

Homeless hungry people might enjoy a hot burger once in a while... or a nice salad. But no... they are trash people and should be treated accordingly... that's fucking sick.

[kctim]

72. Please

I have no problem paying to help them out, but they can pay for their own enjoyment. Just as the rest of us do.

[JuniperLea]

105. Right... because we are all sooooo equal...

And you are so effing righteous...


:puke:

[kctim]

107. Na

IF, I wanted to claim to be so "effing righteous," I would have said you take your $10 and give a homeless person a "hot burger" and I will take my $10 and give that homeless mother AND her children, a full belly for two days.

[JuniperLea]

108. Yet your response is oozing with self-righteousness...

You think you are the best to decide who gets what. That homeless person could be a vet... and that homeless mother may be a crack whore... but you decide. :crazy:

[kctim]

114. Yes, when it comes to how my money is used

I am the best to decide who gets what by voting for the person who will do the most good with my money.
Vet, crack whore or bad luck Chuck, I would rather they eat beans and rice 7 days a week than eat one hot burger just one day a week.

[JuniperLea]

117. My... more disgusting tripe with every post...

Cruel and ridiculous, that's what you are. It must suck hard to be you.

[kctim]

158. Hmmm? Nope, not at all

However, that is a mighty 'busy body judgement' on your part, don't you think?
Whatever happened to respecting 'people and their choices?'

[JuniperLea]

162. I might ask you the same thing!

If people are given a set amount to spend on food, why can't they be given a choice? Is freedom only for those who can afford it?

You really should read your posts... and try pretending you are the one who is down on his luck, you know, the one you want to limit choices on.

[Gormy Cuss]

145. You can't eat beans and rice without the means to cook them.

That's the reality of the SNAP benefits exception at fast food joints --it's a means to get hot food to people who can't cook their own meals.

[kctim]

156. You really should read all of the posts before jumping in

Juniper mentioned a homeless mother and her children not being fed because of not enough at the shelter.
I said I could feed that mother and her family for 2+ days for the same price she will spend on one person to have one hot burger meal.

[Gormy Cuss]

160. You really should visit some shelters.

Very many have no cooking facilities for the guests.

[JuniperLea]

161. You're right...

And so many here are quick to jump in and be mean to people who are so very down on their luck. I really can't stand it sometimes.

[Claudia Jones]

175. thank you

I very much appreciate your comments on this thread.

[Missy Vixen]

152. Will you be cooking that "beans and rice"?

Maybe the food stamp recipient in question is homeless, and has no electricity to cook your precious "beans and rice".

When was the last time you invited a "vet, crack whore or bad luck Chuck" over for a meal?

:eyes:

[Taitertots]

155. No, they CAN'T pay for their own enjoyment, they are poor

Which is why they qualify for food assistance in the first place.

[kctim]

157. They qualify because they are in need

Feeding them multiple days helps alleviate that need.
Feeding them one burger meal for their enjoyment does not.

[Taitertots]

176. They are in need, but they are still human beings that deserve their quality of life be taken....

into consideration. Eating at a restaurant occasionally is a perfectly reasonable way to expend food subsidies.

Hopefully there are enough real progresses to offset the selfish people who want to punish people for being victims of the bad economy.

[me b zola]

135. Priorities

Trillions in welfare to the wealthiest, yet hardly a word. But ZOMG, let a poor person have a tv or a night out on the town so they don't blow their fucking brains out from the inhumanity of it all and lets tear the shit out of them.

Pay for them. What shit. What utter bullshit. Its called civilization. I understand that its a foreign concept to many in the US, but the health of a civilization can and should be measured by how the least of its people are afforded. Get it? Just Ugh.

[Missy Vixen]

151. What percentage of your taxes goes to food stamps?

And, NO, I'm not doing a Google search for you. Go ahead and look it up. I'll bet it's less than $10 a year. So, you want ultimate control over another person's life who's just trying to get through a day.

People who think they're immune from catastrophic illness/long-term unemployment/poverty make me SICK.

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. I don't have a problem with them spending THEIR money as they choose

But the people who pay taxes should have a say in how those tax dollars are spent.

[JuniperLea]

48. And force the homeless to eat raw and cold foods only...

Yeah, mighty nice of you.

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. Most homeless shelters provide hot meals

[JuniperLea]

61. Ever worked in one?

Ever watched as they closed the doors and turned away a crowd because the food ran out?

Ever watch a homeless mother try to throw together sandwiches for her hungry crying children in a market parking lot?

There isn't enough charity in the world to cover the needs of our fellow human beings.

[Freddie Stubbs]

143. Yes, I have worked at a homeless shelter

[JuniperLea]

144. Yet you can still bring yourself to utter such ridiculousness...

Interesting.

[Freddie Stubbs]

148. Serving food to the homeless is a great opportunity for human service organizations to

make contact with homeless individuals in order to get them to use their other services (substance abuse rehab, mental health services, job training, ect). If they are eating every meal at Taco Bell, they may miss the opportunity to get help that can put them on the road to net being homeless.

[JuniperLea]

149. So better they miss out on food and services...

When the doors close. Gotcha.

[Missy Vixen]

153. You rawk

ONE-SIXTH of the population of the US is now on food stamps. Fifty million people. Homelessness and desperation everywhere, and it is amazing to me that there are those who would begrudge someone else a meal.

>There isn't enough charity in the world to cover the needs of our fellow human beings.<

No, there's not. You're trying your best, though, and I admire you for it.

:hug:

[me b zola]

137. When I was homeless I missed almost all free meals cause i was working

I get so fucking tired of judgmental sob's talking stuff they know nothing about.

[totodeinhere]

190. There are plenty or raw and cold foods that are quite nutritious.

Whereas a lot of food at fast food joints is not.

[Bill McBlueState]

65. People do have a say.

You vote for a President. The winning candidate chooses a Secretary of Agriculture. Under that person's leadership, the USDA sets food relief policies.

[me b zola]

136. Lets start by stop giving our tax dollars to millionairs...okay? n?t

[Claudia Jones]

177. that makes no sense

If you give a person in need something, then it is no longer yours - it is theirs. Otherwise you didn't really give anything, did you?

[Gormy Cuss]

188. Nope. FNS has a say in how those tax dollars are spent, and FNS has reams of data

on how recipients spend their benefits, and also on how the limitations of the programs may inhibit useful expenditure of those benefits.

[JuniperLea]

47. Best post in MONTHS!

Thank you.

[Cid_B]

51. When they start doing it with their own funds... then absolutely...

Just like if your Great Aunt Tilly loans you a few grand for your wedding... don't be surprised if she has an opinion about the invitation style (and expects it to be followed)

[KamaAina]

62. So you're cool with the government being Great Aunt Tilly

The "Great Aunt Tilly state". I lkie that much better than the hackneyed "nanny state". :P

[Cid_B]

67. Nope... but there are lots of things I'm not "cool" with...

... that exist in modern society. Doesn't change reality either way...

[11 Bravo]

113. So if your Great Aunt Tilly is receiving Social Security, and I see her in a Burger King ...

should I get in her face?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

119. No... social security is not welfare. It was paid into and earned.

[Cid_B]

140. I thought we were talking about food stamps...

? :shrug:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

142. Bravo commented on deriding people who spennd Social Security on Fast Food.

I was merely pointing out SS is nothing like food stamps or welfare.
SS is an earned benefit that was paid into.

[me b zola]

139. It just blows my mind

Trillions to million dollar welfare queens, but lets beat up on those who are just trying to survive. Lets micro manage their decisions, lets look in their shopping cart, lets fucking drug test them...but those fucking millionaires taking trillions in welfare, well, we can't fuck with them cause they are "the job creators".

I don't get beating up on poor people. I really don't. But I do feel a certain animus toward those who do.

[RedRocco]

194. it's because we are easy targets and can't fight back

being poor means you have no voice.

[GreenPartyVoter]

52. Thank you!

[kentauros]

64. Threads like this one have helped me coin an appropriate phrase:

"Conditional Compassion"

In other words, "I'm going to give you some money, but you can only spend it the way I would spend it were I in your situation."

I have a hard time understanding how my fellow liberals can think this way! If I'm going to be compassionate enough to those less fortunate than I, then I'm not going to turn around and dictate how that same money can be used. It's a gift out of the goodness of my heart! And, once it's left my hands/pocketbook, it's no longer mine. I have no control over it, nor should I.

Personally, I don't think we do nearly enough for our poor. Get rid of corporate welfare, pare back the MIC at least 75%, and we'd have so much surplus cash that we'd be able to pretty much eliminate poverty. Feed them, clothe them, educate them, and all for free. We can afford it, handily. And we shouldn't tell them how to manage their money, health, and lives simply because we want them to better themselves. That's their choice, same as it is for the rest of us.

[chill_wind]

71. Well and nicely stated. n/t

[MedicalAdmin]

89. conditional compassion = all charities, doesn't it? n/t

[kentauros]

94. The food stamp program isn't really a charity

because it's run by the federal government out of an agency, with its own conditions, and is funded by tax money (money that's not necessarily given freely out of the goodness of the former owner's heart.) The very definition of charity is what I'm talking about and as such, is unconditional.

Reread the thread and see how many people tie the spending of their tax dollars to conditions they want applied to people on food stamps. That's conditional; charity is unconditional.

[MedicalAdmin]

110. Name a charity that is unconditional...

I'm not aware of any. Every soup kitchen seems to have a sermon attached. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see charities as very conditional.

But I think you are spot on in your analysis of the conditions being put on government programs pushing them into the realm of charity.

[kentauros]

120. There are certainly charities that aren't religious based.

I can't name them because I usually don't have a reason to remember them, unless their mission has really stood out and I want to donate. And really, for those charities that require hearing a sermon, that's not the same kind of "condition" I'm talking about. I'm speaking of the restrictions put on the gift or you can't get it at all. If a sermon is attached at a soup kitchen, well, that seems more like something tacked on versus a restriction to getting the gift of food. Or do these charities you mention restrict access if you just aren't listening to the sermon?

Okay, here's a list of secular charities:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Secular_charities

I see they list kiva.org, and that is one I have supported that is most definitely a non-religious charity :)

[MedicalAdmin]

124. Thanks and I'll check out that list.

The way my life is going I might need them soon.

I guess I see sermonizing as a condition. "Here, you can have this soup and old bread as long as you sit and listen to us tell you how you are going to hell but that god loves you." At one point in my life I used these places and they didn't serve until after the sermon. If you didn't sit and listen, no soup. It seemed a small price to pay, but it grates even now all these years later.

edit: upon checking out the list what I see is mostly NGO and not what I think of a charities, or what would traditionally be considered a charity, and certainly not what the GOP define as a charity... maybe I need to expand my definition. Thanks for the conversation.

[kentauros]

126. Yeah, I understand about that.

I don't agree with that kind of charity either. Nor does the definition I linked to "charity" agree. It's supposed to be an altruistic act. For some, it seems to be another means of controlling people. If we can just get rid of the control-freaks everywhere... :)

[MedicalAdmin]

131. Yes! Control freaks need to lit a fatty and chill out. n/t

[Claudia Jones]

178. yes

That is the problem, and that is why there is a need for public programs. In fact, perceiving and addressing that need was always what it meant to be a Democrat. Not so much anymore, apparently.

[treestar]

73. But wouldn't the stamps go further

used in grocery stores? And better nutrition.

[Claudia Jones]

77. no

Studies have shown that people with lower incomes are in fact not making "bad choices" but are accurately assessing how to get the most calories for the money they spend.

These proposals to force people to do this or that in regards to food are about control, and not about helping people, and are condescending and de-humanizing. The de-humanization of people based on their relative income and access to resources is the root of the problem, and can never be part of any solution.

[muffin1]

167. I guess you've never heard of neighborhoods without grocery stores.

Lots of areas have crappy corner stores that charge about five times what grocery stores charge. Not to mention the homeless who have nowhere to KEEP food.

I find it very revealing the people who defend telling the poorest among us how to live. It seems to be the same group who thinks Obama can do no wrong.

[Claudia Jones]

75. thank you

Well said and much needed (sadly).

[G_j]

76. +1000!

:applause:

[SammyWinstonJack]

80. +1000!

:applause:

[smokey nj]

82. Yes, we should.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Bravo to you. And to hell with the "father knows best" authoritarians.

[HappyMe]

91. You couldn't be more right.

I don't understand this need to control poor people.

[Llewlladdwr]

104. If I have to subsidize your choices then I should get a say in them.

Or do you feel we should allow foodstamps to be used to purchase cigarettes and alcohol? If not, why?

[Claudia Jones]

128. red herrings

The right wing - who in truth want to eliminate any sort of assistance to the needy whatsoever - throw these caveats and "reasonable" exceptions into the discussion for the purpose of eroding people's support for such programs.

"You" - as in you personally - are not "subsidizing" anything or anyone. Again, that is a red herring that the right wingers throw into the discussion to erode people's support for such programs and to encourage hateful and punitive attitudes about it.

As for having a "say," none of us have much say in anything that is going on, so singling out this area for applying this "principle" should be seen by all as suspect.

[Whisp]

141. no fucking kidding, I just HATE shit threads like this.

let them eat what the fuck they want!

let them drink, smoke, I don't give a shit, it's none of my business and certainly not anyone else's.

GAWD!!!!!

[rucky]

169. A-to-the-MEN!

[RedCappedBandit]

209. Agreed

I'd be willing to bet that a significant portion of the people up in arms about the poor health implications of fast food don't know shit about nutrition, anyway.

[Name removed]

213. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[markpkessinger]

32. I have a much bigger problem with the paternalism embedded in your question n/t

[SoCalDem]

34. Certainly NOT. n/t

[Fumesucker]

35. Fuck no... If you don't have somewhere to cook then you should starve..

:sarcasm:

[Raine]

37. Yes, if people on food stamps want fast food now and then

like other Americans eat when they feel like it they should be able to have it too. It's wrong to not let them have it when they want it.

[HopeHoops]

41. No. They should only be allowed to buy actual food.

[JuniperLea]

50. Raw and cold food only is what you are saying...

God forbid a homeless person enjoy a hot bowl of oatmeal or a burger...

I'm really disheartened by DU. Seriously fucked up attitudes are giving me a headache.

[Dreamer Tatum]

42. I think SNAP should be spendable only on organic vegan fare. nt

[w8liftinglady]

43. As I have said many times... Dallas Housing Authority

is NOT within walking distance of anything BUT fast food and convenience stores.
The local homeless shelters are not within walking distance of anything but fast food and convenience stores.

That would be a large percentage of folks with no access to food....many of them have no place to cook it...and many are kids feeding themselves.
Reality is a bitch, but it IS reality.

[JuniperLea]

45. Some people are homeless, donchano...

And have no place to prepare food. Their only market options are raw and cold foods. It's only fair that they have an opportunity to have a hot meal once in a while... or a salad.

[Fleshdancer]

54. This one is tough for me and I'll tell you why...

1. I don't feel comfortable judging the food choices of others. It's simply not my place to tell other adults what or where they can eat.

2. As others have pointed out in this thread, what if a person doesn't have a kitchen or constant access to one? This is a legitimate concern.

3. I really hate Yum! Brands. I hate that they're lobbying for this and I hate the idea of their profits increasing because they could start receiving govt $$ in the form of food stamps.

4. I hate that artery clogging, nutrient deficient crap has the ability to sustain the human body the way it does. Sure it's at the expense of long term health, but when a person is very hungry, there is no long term vision at that moment. Obviously I have no control over this so bitching about it on an internet forum is an obvious solution. ;)

At the end of the day, my respect for other people's choice and privacy trumps my hatred of a corporation and their crap product. The whole situation still makes me very uncomfortable though.

[Myrina]

56. +10000

Well said.

[David Sky]

58. Good summary of the issue. I respect and agree with it. and If I may,

it's sort of like the choice we have to vote for Obama next year...in my mind at least...not a great choice but better than the alternative.

[bullwinkle428]

87. You put my own feelings into words in a beautiful and thorough manner.

[MedicalAdmin]

90. Expect the former VP in charge of development at YUM to be ...

... the next Sec. Of Agriculture. This is a slam dunk.

[dionysus]

57. no.

[uppityperson]

60. oooo, today's "pass judgement on others" topic?

[negativenihil]

63. ignoring nutrition...

...No, they should not. For the cost of a meal for the whole family at any of these places, you could easily buy enough food for SEVERAL meals in a super market. It would be a wasteful use of food stamps.

[ChandlerJr]

116. How well will that weeks worth of food keep in the trunk of a car

or the backpack of a transient?

You're making some assumptions that my not always be true.

[auntAgonist]

199. so, they buy enough food to make several meals but ..

they are homeless, living in a car. NO place to store the food and no place to cook it.


What a wasteful use of food stamps. The food rots and the children starve.


NEXT....



aA

[Hosnon]

66. I don't have a problem with using food stamps as a policy tool.

E.g., to push those who need them towards more efficient and healthy eating.

And taxpayers do seem to have a legitimate interest in how food stamps are used. This is universally acknowledged by the very concept of food stamps: they must be used on food. Limits have already been set; this is simply a matter of increasing those limits.

As for the concern that some do not have the resources to cook and prepare food, perhaps a two-tiered system could be established, whereby the poorest of the poor get "general" food stamps, but those with a bit more income (enough income to reasonably conclude they can afford to cook and prepare food) get the more limited kind.

[Motown_Johnny]

68. are we assuming the people on assistance have a home and electricity

and a refrigerator, and a stove and/or microwave?



For some people simply eating is healthier than what they have been doing. Even dollar menu fast food.

[Shagbark Hickory]

69. No and those junk fooderies should be shut down and lobbyists arrested for bribery.

Except pizza hut.

[PRETZEL]

70. In general, I'd say no

however, I wouldn't be against having a portion of one's allocation designated for a convenience food option.

There are much better alternatives where food stamps could be used aside from general groceries which is where it should be.

I'd like to see where Meals on Wheels providers take food stamps for payments. I know that some do in rare cases but if agencies that provide these meals can redeem them at their cost than that could be an incentive. I'd also like to see MOW's expanded to provide meals for all those who need them,not just the elderly.

[dembotoz]

78. yes but it will never happen

from the posts above? and hell we are supposed to be the liberals.....

if you live as i have in an inner city ghetto with very limited transportation.
you will discover that the decent grocery stores are no where to be found.
The within walking distance stores were little on the corner things with very high prices and very
questionable quality. They smelled. The produce could have been carbon dated for freshness.
And the prices were stratispheric.
the dollar menu at mc donalds would produce a better quality meal at a lower cost then these hell holes. and they might be safer too.


yes it would be nice if people on food stamps shopped only at whole foods or what ever is the market of choice.... but sometimes reality is not the same

[OneGrassRoot]

79. Link to Grist article regarding this topic:

http://www.grist.org/food/2011-09-08-stamping-out-hunger

[Claudia Jones]

83. no strings whatsoever

No assistance should have any strings attached whatsoever. Tax breaks for the wealthy have no strings attached. We are forced to merely "hope" that if they get tax breaks they will then "do the right thing" and "create jobs" or whatever the latest nonsense the politicians are paddling these days.

People with less income and access to resources should have fewer hurdles to jump, not more.

[closeupready]

99. That's a good point.

nt

[KittyWampus]

111. Government assistance isn't a 'gift' with no strings attached. That's the central point so many here

refuse to acknowledge.

Edit- not worth arguing about either. Like spitting into the wind.

[Claudia Jones]

129. of course

Of course government assistance isn't a 'gift,' it is a return of wealth to the people who produced it (as a group) and it is a strengthening of the society for everyone's benefit. Or at least that is the position of all holding any political views that differ in any serious way from the views of this of the right wingers and their sponsors.

The wealthy receive all sorts of benefits, subsidies and welfare from the rest of us with no strings attached, which is the true central point that some here refuse to acknowledge.

[and-justice-for-all]

88. No...Fast food is not a necessity...

milk, eggs, bread on the other hand are. If one needs food stamps, then they obviously do not have enough money to be eating out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. NO. We should continue to punish the poor because they have to suffer to appreciate our generosity.

Everybody knows that their just lazy, willfully ignorant, and have spent their money on frivolities and have gamed the system so they can shop at Nieman Marcus and drive BMW's.

Not to mention all the high-paying executive jobs they keep turning down so they can enjoy the luxuries they waste their/our money on.

[Redford]

93. I have no idea what restrictions are currently on food stamps

but I am pretty sure that cigarettes and alcohol are not allowed to be purchased with them. Fast food is just as bad but I get the fact that if someone is hungry and MickiD's is the only food around they should be allowed to eat it. If grocery stores will not go into the poor areas due to crime why would fast food companies?

[Broderick]

97. With 40 plus million on the program

Who cares.

[Horse with no Name]

98. No. Strictly because it is costly and unhealthy

and it would greatly cut into a tight grocery budget.

[boston bean]

101. people should be allowed to use them for food.

I don't care what kind of food they buy with it.

[Lucian]

102. Why do we need to limit the poor?

They should spend their food stamps on whatever the hell they want, when it comes to food.

First people bitched about them getting steaks. Then cakes. Now, it's about fast food.

Lay off already.

[anneboleyn]

132. Yes, I find the urge to control what food the poor are "allowed" to buy very disturbing.

The poor are severely degraded and humiliated by our system as it is, to even get food stamps in the first place. The idea that we then dictate to them that they -- "the poor" -- can then never buy a taco or a chicken sandwich, etc. with their foodstamps is just beyond anything appropriate. It is one thing to encourage good eating habits; it is entirely another to restrict entirely what a portion of the population can buy because they are on government assistance.

[KittyWampus]

109. No, if you can't cook food then a different kind of "food stamp" should be created for you.

[War Horse]

125. Agreed 100%. But until those food stamps are created?

Let's say you're homeless, 2000 kcals is subsistence, and you can get 1100 kcals from a fast food meal?

[Gormy Cuss]

146. SNAP benefits are nearly always EBT these days. That allows for coding

for the recipients who are eligible for the hot food exception.

[southernyankeebelle]

112. I have mixed feelings on it. Sometimes you can alot more by buying fast foods.

[Shandris]

115. No, not for fast food.

It's overpriced, almost entirely unhealthy (some of the salads have more sugar and calories than a damn Big Mac!), and essentially BAD for the person.

However, someone mentioned those who can't cook for themselves. This is a good point. Here is the answer.

GROCERY STORES SELL PREPARED FOOD. It's often fresher, tastier, cheaper, and can be stored for simple reheating with a microwave. Even CONVENIENCE STORES have microwaves, so there is no need for the food to always be cold after purchase. And oftentimes this food can be purchased with EBT (though not always...rotisserie chicken comes to mind as an example that can't be, at least in Indiana, and I think that should be changed). But the same quantity of food would be 4 times as much at a fast food restaurant. As someone who has gotten food stamps in the past, I have NO difficulty in realizing that there IS a limit to what government services can - and should - provide. Fresh chicken for someone who can't prepare their own? I'm all for that. A Big Mac? That's pushing the line, since ONE Big Mac can get me 3/4 of an entire chicken (!).

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

118. Only @ Mr Hero, Taco Bell, Burger King, and McDonalds.

Something tells me that patrons who enjoy the crap that those "restaraunts" serve won't mind putting up with the mess and shenanigans that would ensue should this initiative pass.

[taught_me_patience]

122. 100% no way

I refuse this huge subsidy to Taco Bell, McD, et all with my tax dollars.

[Quantess]

170. Ab-so-fuckin-lutely!

Yum! Brands

Anyone interested in animal cruelty in the meat industry should look it up.

[hamsterjill]

123. I can't get past the fact that Yum! Brands is lobbying for this.

Aren't they the ones who sponsor the triple crown races many times? Mega bucks at a minimum.

So I'm picturing this big company lobbying to receive federal dollars, when they should, in fact, be offering food to anyone who comes through their doors and says they are hungry and have no money.

[TheManInTheMac]

127. If you want to bring a swift end to the food stamp program, sure.

I can just imagine how the teabaggers would milk this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. In This Economy Food Stamps And Other Welfare Programs Prevents Us From Having A Mad Max Society

.

[TheManInTheMac]

133. True. But when the pukes start campaigning about food stamps

being used in McDonald's, the "welfare queen" meme will explode bigger than ever.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Generic Other]

147. Disabled, elderly and homeless should have meals delivered if needed

Nutritious food.

I don't know if fast food restaurants qualify. I can see how those not on foodstamps but who can't afford to eat out might resent those who are able to afford to do so using food stamps. I also hate letting McDonald's skim even more profits from the poor (and the taxpayer) for serving crap.

[Modern_Matthew]

150. Yes. If I have that luxury... then someone down on their luck should have it as well.

It is not up to us to decide their habits.

[Taitertots]

154. Why do so many people get so upset when the poor want the tiniest luxury

What do they have against them that they would deny them pizza or a bucket of fried chicken?

Keep in mind that many people on food stamps have jobs, many of them working at the very fast food restaurants that many people enjoy preventing them from spending food subsidies when dining.

[Quantess]

159. Good god, NO!

Seriously. No!

Anti-hunger advocates "welcome" this? Look, it isn't that difficult to find lunch at the grocery store, or maybe the corner store, if that's all you have access to. Buy a bag of peanuts and a bottle of juice with your food stamps. There's your lunch, and it's healthy, to boot! Buy a couple packages of string cheese and a bag of carrots & a banana. For dinner: a can of tuna & a loaf of bread & jar of pickles, and maybe a tomato or a head of lettuce, with mayonnaise & mustard packets. Whole wheat bread & cheese sandwiches. So simple, so nutritious. No cooking is required.
Eat like that, and you'll be in much better health than if you spend your food stamp money at TacoBell or KFC.

[PeaceNikki]

163. Papa Murphys accepts EBT - noticed a sign in their window recently

http://www.papamurphys.com/FAQ

[Quantess]

168. That's not "fast food".

You have to take it home and bake it. And, I would add, that's a pretty good deal. A lot of food for the $$. Pizza may be fattening, but it's a lot more nutritious than french fries.

[eShirl]

164. Yes. Food is food.

Personally, I would only resort to if DH were having a diabetic emergency - which has happened before while we were out, BTW.

[flying rabbit]

166. The sad part is

that Yum brands sees this as a viable thing to spend their money on. Hey, it's the future.

[Bunny]

173. I don't give a shit what anyone is buying with their food stamps.

If your life is such that you need food stamps, who the hell am I to begrudge you a Big Mac, for chrissake? You deserve whatever comfort you can find. There but for the grace of God, and all that. The self-righteous pricks in this thread make me sick - take your beans and rice and shove them up your ass.

[muffin1]

179. +

:thumbsup:

[auntAgonist]

200. :applause:

:applause:

[SmileyRose]

206. +1

Beat me to it, and much better put.

[bettyellen]

210. go Bunny!

[ecstatic]

174. I think it would increase fraud

There are some people who do not feel comfortable using stamps at the grocery store, but would have no problem using stamps in a drive through or through pizza delivery. People try to sell me stamps all the time around here.

[killbotfactory]

180. Let's just give everybody a basic monthly food budget

Rich or poor. No more stigmas. Everyone has to eat. Let businesses compete for a cut of that budget.

[Avalux]

187. Yes, Some people in need don't have kitchens. n/t

[blueamy66]

203. NO

nt