http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stores...124318966.html
Printable View
While it may be overreach, small stores that do not carry 'milk' or 'butter' are really just liquor stores, and the bureaucrats are trying to get people to shop where, you know, the food is. There is no manpower to see if the little corner bodega with the 1978 smith corona adding machine for a register is really selling beer and cigarettes instead of food to food stamp clients.
Considering how many people live in a food desert and literally have no other option than the corner store I couldn't support this legislation. I don't fall into that category (WM ~10 min away) but when I used SNAP would frequently get milk at the 7-11 2 blocks away when I didn't need 100 other things.
Smaller stores are just going to have to figure something out. Regulating foods people can buy with food stamps is a good thing in the long run because the families will have to buy and cook mostly nutritious food. Nobody want to pay for theirs or their kids unnecessary gov healthcare because they chose to eat junk food and now have preventable health issues like obesity and type 2 diabetes etc.
Yes we should all be able to enjoy some chips soda whatever every now and then but not on taxpayer dollars. If food stamp users are limited in ability to purchase comfort food and junk food (which is engineered to keep you addicted) then they would be less likely to depend on food stamps.
Fresh produce only because it's healthier and two because you can grow your own produce so eventually people could become less dependent on gov assistance.
Small stores will need to quit complaining and figure a way to adapt or they'll lose business.
The real purpose of the food stamp program is intended to be to benefit agriculture. Unfortunately, it has, like everything else government does it has been corrupted and food stamps can be used for junk food, and the net result is to support manufacturers, not the producers of food.
You'd love some chicken fried rattlesnake !
Sorry I know it's a bit off topic but ....Chicken fried rattlesnake? I'd be interested to see how they capture it and how it's served. Does it actually taste like chicken? Maybe rattlesnake can be on the list of things people can buy with food stamp.
I think the chicken thing refers to the breading/frying process. :)
Maybe I should not have called it “chicken fried”. Many “chicken fried” things now are like chicken fried steak, with heavy breading. Rattlesnake is usually cooked more like actual fried chicken or maybe perch with a light coating of flour.
It actually does taste like chicken and it is bony like panfish. Try searching for “rattlesnake rodeo” or “rattlesnake roundup”.
(There is also chicken fried bacon.)
Oh I'm quite familiar with the fried foods lol! I'm in the south so you know everything here is fried or "chicken" fried. Ibe tried a lot of different meats but never rattlesnake those things scare the daylights out of me Id probably piss on myself if I saw one in real life. I didn't know you could eat them. There's an upscale restaurant here that serves a rattlesnake pasta but sadly no real rattlesnake meat to taste. Talk about false advertising. Hopefully I can find some somewhere to try.
From what I've googled so far it's an exotic meat so it's probably pricey and would most likely take a chunk out of the monthly food stamp amount unless it was a less expensive canned meat version or something. But I can't imagine the average food stamp user eating rattlesnake meat.
So I have never used food stamps but my grandparents did because that's what they got as part of their social security benefits. I don't remember them buying junk food though. So I researched on what food stamps can buy and found this article.
http://business.time.com/2013/11/01/...h-food-stamps/
Not sure if much has changed in three years but I am shocked. Looks like there are restrictions against tabacco, alcohol, etc but caffeine, white processed sugar, and artificial sugar are just as unhealthy and addictive - esp when consumed on a regular basis.
Please don't stone me for saying this but I am wondering if something slightly dark is behind this like the government doesn't want to regulate those unhealthy items from the menu because #1 telling these big companies no would be like telling a drug cartel they're gonna lose their biggest clients and #2 those who are extremely poor and consistently eat junk food would most likely cause health issues thus shortening their life span - like a slick survival of the fittest?!?
If I were the law makers, I would regulate food stamp recipients to take nutrition and cooking classes and reward those who chose healthier options.
I don't personally know anyone who has rattlesnake as a staple.
Junk food probably wont kill people fast enough to make it financially advantageous to expedite its purchase via public assistance. People will just be sick for a long time before they die, and run up medical bills.
Public assistance should only be usable to buy real food, but the junk food manufacturers wont let that happen.