Sherry
You're not the boss of me
I have not bought sugar gum since I was a child. The granola bar actually is worse for me, than Trident Gum original.
And when I was on food stamps, I was also on Tanff because my vacation time ran out, because I had to take a month off before I had my son. I didn't really have a lot of extra money.
I also went back to work the moment I could, because I couldn't afford to live of either.
You guys act like most people living on food stamps and Tanff are living the good life. I guess some of you, should maybe take the time to get to know someone who does live on Tanff and or food stamps.
I haven't gotten the impression, at least from this thread, that anyone is viewing food stamp recipients as "living the good life". I'm sure there are a lot of stressors in their lives, and that being the case, logically many will reach for comfort and convenience foods which often are less nutritious. I feel for the single moms working a full-time minimum wage job who qualify for benefits, and wouldn't it be easier at the end of the day to pick up that box of Banquet chicken, even though it will use up 2-3 times more of her balance, than buying the fresh chicken that needs to be prepared?? Or some bags of chips rather than boiling water for rice. Nobody likes to feel controlled, but the simple fact is that when you need assistance, you should expect to lose some of that freedom of choice.
I don't have a problem with their buying a box of Banquet chicken, or microwave White Castle burgers. At least they have some nutritional value.
What bothers me is the junk. Soda, donuts, greasy potato chips and candy should not be allowed as they do not have any benefit for growing children.
I agree. My point is that reasonable people will not always make reasonable choices during difficult circumstances. In my opinion, the overriding goal of the program should be to make certain that there are not children going to bed hungry, and provide them with healthy meals. The government has guidelines for what can be served in the public schools, and this is just another extension of welfare in which they get to determine the scope of choices.
On a side note, I find it interesting if cons or libs aren't seeing the correlation to universal health care. Those against it recognize that when the government runs a program, they get to dictate the rules and regulations. The more the goverment is involved, the less freedom of choice the people will maintain.