Jump to content

Opinions on SNAP/Food Stamps ??


JungleFever

Recommended Posts

http://bit.ly/Y6YcFh

480647_468591303209354_915391655_n.jpg
 
 
I guess that a person can spend his Gov't Subsidies as they would like, but this is not what it was meant for! Their monthly budget is gone, or is it? This needs to be researched more! The purpose of "Food Stamp Program" was to help aid families with adequate and sufficient provisions. For over 30 years, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, has served as the foundation of America's national nutrition safety net, working to end hunger and improve the health of low-income people by helping families buy the food they need for a nutritionally adequate diet. For children, a better diet means better learning in school. For adults, it means better performance on the job or a better foundation for developing the job skill that can give them and their families independence. For seniors, it means access to a balanced diet vital to their nutritional well-being. For everyone, participation in SNAP can help stretch limited budgets, improve nutrition, and reduce the risk of diet-related health problems. This has gone completely out the window!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why does the soda bother you? Aren't poor people allowed to have soft drinks? Just curious as to why it bothers you.

MULLY

 

I'm pretty sure the person who posted this did so to point out that people on welfare were eating STEAK AND LOBSTER! (insert pious indignation here).  I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) the age-old "why should someone on welfare eat better than I do?!?" outrage.  My point is at least the shellfish and beef has nutritional value.

 

And no, MULLY, I don't believe that people using food stamps should be allowed to purchase something that has absolutely NO nutritional value whatsoever and has been shown to be detrimental to ones health.  The food stamp\public assistance programs were put into place to help those without the means obtain food to stave off starvation and malnutrition, an aim which I wholeheartedly support.  I would much rather my tax dollars go to helping the hungry than buying Tomahawk missiles.  However, I don't think that items like soda, candy, etc. should be considered "food" under the law.

 

'Course, reading the ingredients on most of the stuff on grocery store shelves makes me question whether most of it is real food but I digress... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/receipt.asp

 

Interesting story about that receipt.

 

Yes, very interesting.  The stores I have seen do not require any proof of ID when using those cards.  None.  Can't really blame them because I am rarely if ever asked to prove who I am when my credit card goes across the counter.  Kind of scary in a way.  If someone gets ahold of your card, they can wreck your account in the blink of an eye until the card gets cancelled.

 

In regards to the story of the receipt:  If that card was willingly given to the individual who wrongfully used it, the person who gave the card to them should have been held accountable too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Food Stamp program in this country needs to be audited and revised, but getting all pissy about what people eat is a but much, imo. I mean who cares, at the end of the day the money is going back into the economy so it's win-win from a macro-economic viewpoint.

aww..no..taxpayers pay for food stamps..less food stamps stronger economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aww..no..taxpayers pay for food stamps..less food stamps stronger economy.

"That a cause leads to an effect, is scarcely more certain than that, so far as Morals are concerned, a repetition of effect tends to the generation of cause. Herein lies the principle of what we so vaguely term 'Habit.'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aww..no..taxpayers pay for food stamps..less food stamps stronger economy.

 

 

For the love of everything holy please read a book....

 

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-economic-case-for-food-stamps/260015/

 

 

 

The Economic Case for Food Stamps

 

 

In its current form, the House Agriculture Committee's version of the farm bill proposes draconian cuts to food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The ill-thought-out proposal would deny food assistance to millions of people, many of them children. Speaking as a chef and CEO of a national nonprofit that supports small and mid-sized farmers who make fresh fruits and vegetables available to everyone regardless of income, I'm obviously alarmed.

 

The Senate's version of the farm bill would reduce overall funding by $23 billion, with a reduction in food stamps of $4.5 billion over five years. The House Agriculture Committee is proposing to cut funding by $35 billion -- with nearly half the overall cut coming from reductions in food stamps by $16 billion over five years.

 

Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy -- not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody's Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. "Expanding food stamps," the study read, "is the most effective way to prime the economy's pump."

 

It is important to point out that SNAP benefits go to those who need them most. USDA's Amber Waves recently wrote that 54 percent of food stamp recipients live below 50 percent of the poverty line, and 34 percent live at a level between 50 percent and 100 percent of the poverty line. According to the Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines for 2011, the poverty line for a family of three is a combined income of $18,530. As with most federal money that goes directly into people's hands, the poor are likeliest to spend what they receive rather than stashing it somewhere safe, as higher-income families tend to do with windfalls.

 

Most voters support the food stamp program. The American public has long supported legislation that helps low-income families put food on the table. Polls taken as early as 1939, the year the food stamp program was first launched, found that 70 percent of Americans approved of it. That approval rating has remained consistent during the years, and has recently grown.

Despite the House's unacceptable proposed cuts in food stamps, the chamber's bill contains a few diamonds in the rough. Here are a few of the key provisions that would provide significant safety nets for both family farmers and those struggling with poverty and hunger.

 

The bill:

· Establishes "nutrition incentive" programs to make local fresh fruit and vegetables more affordable for families pummeled by the recession

· Expands the Farmers Market Promotion Program, which helps local and regional food businesses give small farmers a way to market healthy local produce to school children

· Increases funding for specialty crop block grants. Fruits and vegetables should be eaten five times daily, but are considered "specialty crops" and receive little to no federal support.

 

While these provisions represent a refreshing shift in traditional ag-policy views, the House could learn from the Senate's bipartisan leadership, which instead of proposing to slash food stamps, preserves 99.5 percent of current funding. The Senate targeted its savings on so-called loopholes that add up to about $4 billion -- a far cry from the $16 billion in cuts the House is proposing.

As Americans are becoming more aware of the importance of eating fresh fruits and vegetables, it is not surprising that a recent W. K. Kellogg Foundation survey found that 93 percent of Americans said they believe it's "important" to "make sure all Americans have equal access to fresh fruits and vegetables." In fact, 75 percent said they support national nutrition incentive programs that would double SNAP benefits at farmers markets.

 

For many Americans, the farm bill wasn't something we learned about in high school civics class. Knowing what we do now about how critical the legislation is to vulnerable people struggling to feed their families, and to small and mid-sized farm businesses working hard to grow healthy food for us all, perhaps we should have.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

that too

I read your article..that is a temporary thing..if food stamps boost the economy why not everybody go on it...I do not listen to rush or hanity by the way..It is just proven that a stronger economy has less food stamps..I am not against food stamps but there should be ways to get off of them not stay on them forever...I actually listen to Alex jones..he is my dude I get my info from!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read your article..that is a temporary thing..if food stamps boost the economy why not everybody go on it...I do not listen to rush or hanity by the way..It is just proven that a stronger economy has less food stamps..I am not against food stamps but there should be ways to get off of them not stay on them forever...I actually listen to Alex jones..he is my dude I get my info from!

 

Well, that explains a lot...  :doh:  :35:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...