What are some of the negatives associated with regulating the SNAP program?

[A Tripolation]

Working as a cashier at a bread-and-eggs Walgreen's near my university, I've often heard from the other cashiers that work there that the government should regulate SNAP (Food Stamps) more than they do.

 

Now that it's been pointed out, I agree with it for the most part. I do not see why being able to buy cases of Red Bull or Monster is necessary nutrition. Or 6 24-packs of Mountain Dew. I'm by no means against a family being able to get some sugary drinks, or being able to give their kids Oreo's or treats, but I think there should be a limit. Something similar to this maybe?

 

 

I myself can't afford to drink Mountain Dew or Coke regularly anymore. I tend to opt for cheap tea, or just plain tap water in a bottle, and it is troubling to me to see a family buy nothing but pop and cookies, on taxpayer money.

 

So I'm asking you all, what are the negatives that would come through such regulation? Or am I just being elitist and have no point whatsoever?

Edited January 12, 2011 by A Tripolation

[lemur]

Working as a cashier at a bread-and-eggs Walgreen's near my university, I've often heard from the other cashiers that work there that the government should regulate SNAP (Food Stamps) more than they do.

 

Now that it's been pointed out, I agree with it for the most part. I do not see why being able to buy cases of Red Bull or Monster is necessary nutrition. Or 6 24-packs of Mountain Dew. I'm by no means against a family being able to get some sugary drinks, or being able to give their kids Oreo's or treats, but I think there should be a limit.

 

I myself can't afford to drink Mountain Dew or Coke regularly anymore. I tend to opt for cheap tea, or just plain tap water in a bottle, and it is troubling to me to see a family buy nothing but pop and cookies, on taxpayer money. Something similar to this maybe?

 

So I'm asking you all, what are the negatives that would come through such regulation? Or am I just being elitist and have no point whatsoever?

 

Personally, I agree that people should make good nutritional choices and economical choices by ignoring brand-status. The problem you get into by only controlling the choices of people using food stamps is that they get stigmatized and feel second-class because they are not allowed to consume products that seem to be higher quality, although they may not be. In other words, if I'm poor and I'm not allowed to buy the same brands and products that someone else is, I'm going to think that there's something better about those products. Imo, no one should buy brand name junk food but the fact that some people are allowed to buy food with private funds instead of using food stamps means I have no say in their prerogative to do so.

[A Tripolation]

The problem you get into by only controlling the choices of people using food stamps is that they get stigmatized and feel second-class because they are not allowed to consume products that seem to be higher quality, although they may not be.

 

Yes. I agree with you on that. I'm afraid regulation would cause such a thing.

[lemur]

Yes. I agree with you on that. I'm afraid regulation would cause such a thing.

But, on the other hand, should expensive brand products be profiting from government subsidies? Maybe premium brand companies should provide a certain amount of product at the same cost as generic brands to be sold to customers with food stamps.

[Pangloss]

The problem you get into by only controlling the choices of people using food stamps is that they get stigmatized and feel second-class because they are not allowed to consume products that seem to be higher quality, although they may not be.

 

I don't see why it's my fault that they're erecting additional psychological barriers for themselves that I certainly didn't put in place. The idea of rules is to prevent abuse of a temporary aid program. If they don't like the rules, they can get off the program.

 

I've personally seen people waltz through unimaginable adversity to achieve success. Students who get four hours of sleep between two jobs and coming two school, and still get every homework assignment and extra credit done on time -- THAT's how you behave when you're on welfare. Feeling "stigmatized" because you have to buy "cola" instead of "Coca-Cola" is not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.

[A Tripolation]

Feeling "stigmatized" because you have to buy "cola" instead of "Coca-Cola" is not something I'm going to lose any sleep over.

 

So you think that the program needs to be regulated? Can you think of any negative economical impact it would have?

[Pangloss]

What I can't think of is a valid reason why economic impact would factor into consideration for a Food Stamp program.

[A Tripolation]

What I can't think of is a valid reason why economic impact would factor into consideration for a Food Stamp program.

 

Well, if it would drastically hurt our economy, I'd say it would be a negative thing to regulate it. I didn't think there were many negatives. I just wanted to check with the members of this forum to see if they could think of anything.

 

So if regulation wouldn't be a big deal, why has it not been done?

[Pangloss]

Aren't they pretty much going to use their Food Stamps one way or another? Hard to see why there would be a drastic impact.

 

The reason for lack of regulation (if there is a lack of regulation, which I'm not convinced of) probably falls under one of two categories: Not significant enough to warrant attention, or ideological opposition.

[Marat]

A friend of mine developed psychiatric problems, lost her high-paying Wall Street job, and wound up classified as psychiatrically disabled so she now lives off food stamps. Her major complaint is that not all grocery stores are required to accept food stamps, which forces her to endure all sorts of otherwise unnecessary logistical difficulties to buy food far from where she lives even though there is a good grocery store which refuses food stamps rights across the street from her apartment. Since the federal government declares on its bank notes that these 'are legal tender for all debts, public and private,' and thus enforces their legitimacy as a universal mode of exchange, why doesn't it do the same for federal food stamps? Is it just because money is useful to everyone but food stamps are used only by officially detested poor folk?

[Pangloss]

The answer to your question is that it's necessary to prevent abuse of temporary assistance by people who aren't disabled.

 

I'm not familiar with your local laws or your friend's problem, but it sounds like she shouldn't be living off a temporary assistance program. But I have no problem with carrying people who aren't capable of carrying themselves, I have a problem with carrying people who ARE capable of carrying themselves. I favor some permanent welfare for permanently disabled (including psychological) cases.

 

And those of you who support permanent social welfare programs shouldn't hide your ideological preferences behind loopholes and emotional manipulations. If society doesn't want a thing, don't sell it as something else. Manipulation is manipulation; it's not justified by circumstance.

[A Tripolation]

And those of you who support permanent social welfare programs shouldn't hide your ideological preferences behind loopholes and emotional manipulations. If society doesn't want a thing, don't sell it as something else. Manipulation is manipulation; it's not justified by circumstance.

 

I don't even understand this. What are you trying to say?

[Mr Skeptic]

Working as a cashier at a bread-and-eggs Walgreen's near my university, I've often heard from the other cashiers that work there that the government should regulate SNAP (Food Stamps) more than they do.

 

I think it needs changing significantly. People on food stamps can buy the subs at the deli, but only if they are the cold subs. The hot ones aren't allowed. That seems pretty dumb to me -- they're essentially the same. Soft drinks on the other hand aren't even food. However I'm also not sure anyone wants the government going in and looking at the details of each product before deciding whether people can have those or not under food stamps. It might be a good idea but it would seem too much like a precedent. So we'd want to have it work with a simple rule, maybe based on dollars per calorie and excluding things with too much of the calories from sugar -- but then people could eat expensive foods if it was dunked in oil.

 

Another aspect to the buying soft drinks with food stamps, is that soft drinks are really bad for you and contribute to obesity, diabetes, and increased healthcare costs (which these people are probably not paying for either).

[swansont]

There are some countries who tie assistance to the poor to things like getting education about nutrition (and other things, like keeping their kids in school and getting medical checkups). It's had a big impact in places where there is extreme poverty. So, a certain amount of regulation can work under the right circumstances.

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/to-beat-back-poverty-pay-the-poor/

[Anura]

I personally think buying sugar water or very high fat content items on food stamps should be banned. You cant buy alcohol on them. But that is just my opinion.