Art Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Minnesota's new governor, Tim Pawlenty, has proposed changes to Minnesota's welfare program such that people who receive food stamps may only use them to buy "nutritional" food. The public outcry from the massive left in this state is beautiful and frightening to behold. My one concern with this proposal is who is to define what is nutritious and what isn't. I mean, is Macaroni and Cheese not nutritious? Of course, the actual proposal is stuff that is kind of known and understood as being junk food -- chips, candy bars, etc. Still while the libs may at time mention this as a reason of concern, more often than not the two reasons they are really crazy over this proposal are as follows: 1. Should government be telling people what to eat? 2. If a person on food stamps is in line and something he wants is not allowed, how would that make that person feel, being embarrassed and such to the others in the line or store within earshot. My answer to No. 1 is, that NO the government shouldn't be telling people what to eat, and it shouldn't be telling business it can't serve smokers and it shouldn't be doing a lot of things. But, one thing it should be doing and has always done, is direct how public money can be used. We're not talking about a person on food stamps not being allowed to use their own money for a Snickers bar. We're saying he can't use my money and the governments money on one and I'm ok with the difference. Yet, the left up here doesn't seem to see there is a difference at all. On the second issue, who cares . Just wondering if this brings as much outrage among some here as it has done among many in my state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just skins baby Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 No argument here. On point number 1, I think they should have to buy the store brand of items. On certain items, I have found the store brand to be just a good as the higher priced national brand. As far as a store brand on infant formula, I have heard that some are just a nutritious as Enfamil and Similac. I have been in grocery strores and waited behind young (anywhere from 15 on up) buying large amounts of Similac and then they whip out the WIC coupons. As far as number 2, let them get embarassed. I would also like to say that if I have to pay for it, I should get a say in what I'm buying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Stupid stupid idea. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddha Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I like Chris Rock's solution. Make each food stamp from a 3' X 5' cardboard sheet. Then when they go to the store people will laugh and holler, "Look at that dude carrying that bigass food stamp!" Seriously, I'm not very warm hearted on this issue, growing up with relatives that easily qualified for aid but always managed to get by without it. But if the gubmint wants to go so far as to regulate what kind of food aid a person can buy, they might as well open up their own store and stock it only with eligible items. All the food aid can be stored in the register system so people would only need to get what they need and swipe a photo card to deduct the credit. It's the gubmint's money to give out, but they should come up with a more common sense way of doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 On 1, I couldn't agree more. If I'm paying, I have a say in the matter. I'm sick of how the system has been abused for years. I also remember seeing it years ago when working in a supermarket. Junk food, pet food, smokes, you name it. When the system cracked down a bit, and stopped people from getting things other then food, it became common for small stores to keep selling them whatever they wanted. Being small, the loss of that income could kill them in some cases, and that's still going on as far as I know. As for 2, it's kind of a tough call. I could give a rats arse if some lazy piece of dung gets embarassed. It's another story with the eighty year old lady who broke her butt all her life working, but just wasn't set well enough to live once the spouce passed, and the pension income stopped, forcing her to live of of social security and food stamps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 1. Could be interesting especially if those on the fringe of their party get involved. Say sprout eating liberals are in control and they deem red meat a non nutritional food because of it's damaging fat or prion content. Or a far right winger gets in there and bans sprouts because they contain pesticides. 2. Back in the day folks had to much pride to take handouts and would do without before taking charity. Not sure if pride like that exists as it once did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montilar Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 On point number 1, I think they should have to buy the store brand of items. On certain items, I have found the store brand to be just a good as the higher priced national brand. As far as a store brand on infant formula, I have heard that some are just a nutritious as Enfamil and Similac. I have been in grocery strores and waited behind young (anywhere from 15 on up) buying large amounts of Similac and then they whip out the WIC coupons. There just might be a reason for that. Who do you think actually manufactures the off label products? Richfood labeled canned goods used to be manufactured at the Del Monte plants. (I don't know if they still are.) Yet the Del Monte canned vegetables will be 20 cents, 30 cents more per can. Do you think Giant Food, Safeway or the others have there own canning facilities? NOPE. Like the vast majority of the companies, they just pay another company to put their label on the product. The label might say Distributed by sos and so. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was actually manufactured by that company. I could also tell you who manufactures the Giant brand tortilla chips. The chips are the exact same chips and formula as those under another label. But the prices are different for the other label.... As far as the nutrient value of the infant formula. It has to have the proper nutrient content. The baby cannot tell you it's not getting the right nutrients. That's actually what the date on the can is for. the product may not necessarily have gone bad; it's that the nutrient value of the formula may have decreased so tjhe baby isn't getting the nutrients. Again, enfamil or similac and the off brand you are talking about could easily be coming from the same facility. NOTE: that's not to say some off brand cola is going to taste like coke or pepsi. some products have copyrighted formulas, so the formulas ARE slightly different. Seagrams ginger ale is different from Canada Dry whiclh is different from Carvers, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 please, please don't take away my government cheese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Stupid idea. I dont want the Govt telling someone they can have 1 type of cheese but not another. Thats why Communism failed. IT didnt account for individual tastes. No booze, no smokes. Otherwise eat the dingdongs if you want to. A point on infant formula and infant needs in general. When it comes to a child, they do have preferences. My child would only use Enfamil. IF we tried anything else he would screma bloody murder. Even though the ingredients were identical. Same goes for diapers. The comfort zone is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 A couple of points. I don't think what has been shown of the idea reads generic food or only certain types of cheese. I think it kind of is being portrayed as no junk food. Cheese curls, beer, snickers bars, doritos, etc. So, again Kilmer, I don't want the government telling someone they can have 1 type of cheese but not another either. I do, however, not mind the government telling someone who's using my money that they can only have one type of cheese and not another, while using their own money for whatever other type of cheese they want. I don't think that captures what the program is asking for, but even under that example, if the government wants to say food stamps can only be used for one type of cheese, that's up to them, because it's the government's cash, and therefore my money, and not the person's who's spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Since it doesnt affect me, I dont really care either way It just seems like a waste of time and a creation of a larger bureaucracy to enforce it. Why not make them (those using food stamps) ONLY buy junk food with them. It would cut down on life expectancy and lessen the strain on the Govt. (Insert extreme sarcasm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 I guess I don't see that it would create a larger bureaucracy. I think people have to demonstrate they qualify for food stamps anyway. Enforcement could be as easy as saying people have to save their itemized receipts and send them in every month and random audits that turn up junk food will signal the end of funding. It doesn't have to be all that complex. I don't know whether I support it or not because I haven't seen how the determination will be made for what is ok to eat and what is not. But, it seems to me that asking people on government assistance to focus their assistance on healthy food -- read no cigs and no beer -- is not a poor idea as a generic idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Overall, I don't have a problem with the gubment restricting the use of food stamps. However, I think the more restrictions they put on them the more we'll see of schemes to use the $$ for whatever the recipient wants. For example, in the past (and I would imagine even now) there were "food stamp brokers" in the hood who would happily buy your food stamps in exchange for cash at a set "exchange rate". I don't know if the move to electronic cards instead of paper food stamps has had any effect on this, but you get my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I believe the "food stamps" should only be for use on items deemed necessary by the government (us). They should be given a "credit card" that is only good at selected stores and for selected items. Maybe we could put ding dongs on the list, I do like them too. This is kind of interesting discussion because this is exactly how I feel about school vouchers. Hmmm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by Art But, it seems to me that asking people on government assistance to focus their assistance on healthy food -- read no cigs and no beer -- is not a poor idea as a generic idea. What's the difference? Food stamps are meant to *supplement* one's income. Ergo, they have some cash to buy groceries, food stamps make up the difference. They'll just use the cash to buy the booze and cigarettes, and the foodstamps to buy the rest. What irritates me is that if they didn't buy the booze and the cigarettes (non living essentials) they'd have more money to buy essentials and have less of a need for food stamps. This coming from someone who's family relied on foodstamps growing up. My mother was an alcoholic and smoked cigarettes. Some years ago my sister asked to borrow some money. She too is an alcoholic and a 2 pack-a-day smoker. I told her if she didn't buy the booze and the cigarettes she wouldn't have a need to come to me for money. Request refused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 It's an interesting conjunction of the two Jack, but it remains slightly off topic. People on food stamps do not pay any federal income tax whatsoever. Telling them that as a requisite for assistance from the government that they have to do something specific with that money is something I agree with, and would agree with under the situation in which people who are not paying federal income taxes would receive a voucher from the government, which is, at present, the only people eligibile in early forms of the plan. However, when you extend beyond that you have two issues. One is due to the extension and one is due to our fundamental right as all citizens, that overrides this conversation. Even in the case of poor people who pay no Federal Income tax and yet receive school vouchers, the government can not pass into law any circumstance that would isolate any religion as ineligible. This is because we have a first amendment and that first amendment doesn't dictate that any person should have ding dongs . It does state that any person has a right to freely express their religion, and, school vouchers do not differentiate between religous schools of any sort, keeping true to that. The second issue, which is lesser and meaningless given the truth of the first, is when you expand vouchers to people who do pay taxes. Returning them the money they already pay into a failing public education system is not the same as giving people money that is not their money and when you return to people what IS their money, we should not dictate what they use their money for. But, again, that's largely unimportant because of the first amendment. You can't forbid one religious school from vouchers because that's a direct violation of establishment clause of the first amendment. You can't exempt all religious schools from vouchers because that's a direct violation of the freedom of expression clause and the fact is the government can't prohibit it by law and Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Art, I think I know where you're coming from on the school voucher issue. I think the point you're missing is that education is paid for by all of the people, not just the ones with school aged children. Mostly education is paid for by property taxes, so I don't buy that its all the parents money being given back. I relate it to the food stamps thing because I look at vouchers as a welfare program too. As a tax payer I don't want my money possibly being spent on a school that teaches kids to hate. What kinds of qualifications if any do you think a private school should have to meet in order to receive money from vouchers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 Jack, If a school is accredited and a diploma qualifies you as a graduate of high school, that's pretty much it. And, there are billions spent by the feds on education. Indeed, it IS giving people their money back, just as the existing Lifetime and Hope credits do. What you are saying about your desires as to what can or can not be taught to people who use vouchers/credits is not an abnormal thought and is fair and just and reasoned. It's just trumped by the fact that the Constitution prevents us from prohibiting religious expression. If a school were to have a curriculum that was secular in nature and taught "hate" such that blacks were inferior, I would suppose there could be safeguard in place to prevent that. If a religious school teaches a world map without Israel, whether you and I like it or not, there's no safeguard that can be placed there. Privatizing education all around would benefit everyone. Just watch the Philly schools turn around as it's really going to be what replaces vouchers as the way of the future. It's the testing ground for the rest of the nation. Just as Cleveland and Milwaukee are the testing ground for vouchers right now. Both places are working. I just suspect you'll see Philly work better in a couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Art, I not against the right for parents to decide what they want to teach their children. What I'm against is tax payer money supporting it. I would argue that "safeguards" exist already on this issue. No vouchers at all, pretty safe! Society provides a public school setting for every single child free of charge. Yes some schools are good and some are bad. Parents are not forced to send their children to these schools. I am in favor of the fixing the public schools. Have the state takeover failing schools, try different methods. Same sex schools, charter schools but if they are going to use public funds than they should have to live by the government mandates with respect to what they teach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.