A “heavily processed foods” exclusion is one that should be fairly easy for nutritionists and economists to isolate and exclude from food stamp programs if we really wanted to do it. Participants who still desire to purchase these foods could still freely purchase them out of their personal funds. That’s their right; and, I think it is important to remember that the food stamp program is not an earned loan, or wage, it is a type of subsidy or “bailout” program for those who (for whatever reason) require assistance with their food purchases. Americans are lucky to have it, but they also have the right NOT to participate if they so choose (and many who would qualify do).

Yes, not all “junk foods” are obvious. Canned soup, for example, tends to have very high levels of sodium. But canned soup still has nutritional value and will actually nourish you, unlike potato chips. Certain fruit juices may have high levels of sugar, but they are still more nourishing than soda. The examples you provided–granola, raisins, mango yogurt, etc–might contain sugar or a lot of calories, but they are still more nourishing than candy.

People should be able to eat what they desire, but when taxpayers are footing the grocery bill, I’m all for imposing a few restrictions on what can be purchased with the money. No one is telling anyone they can’t eat “junk food,” but by making those items be paid for out of pocket instead of with food stamps, it would encourage the nation’s poorest to eat healthier food. Something we all should be doing, really. It wouldn’t even take many restrictions–just eliminating soda pop, potato chips, and candy, which are obvious junk foods that provide almost no benefit, would help.

It isn’t a matter of criticizing or penalizing individuals for their food choices. It’s about ensuring that the food stamp program–taxpayer money, mind you–is used to help low income people buy the foods they need to live and thrive. Chips, soda and candy do not help that goal. Rather, they detract from it.

It is true there is abuse, but its unlike what politicians will try to make you believe, for instance TANF represents less than 2% of the budget and has not been indexed for inflation, yet republicans will make comments and lies about how its a lot of money, and how minorities were the main beneficiaries , when whites were the main one.

You can also get laid off tomorrow, get cancer, have an accident, etc , be careful before you criticize , by the way if you are capitalist, how do you feel about fat and lazy ceo’s , the game can be switched, the beauty of course of capitalism in defense is that it helps everybody because its an incentive, “hard work” is a misnomer, should bill gates not be rewarded even though he doesn’t toil like a day laborer or a waiter, even though the later may not benefit to society.

Think about it, given that your hard work does not entitle you to any sort of entitlement but may benefit you and society as a whole, whether a free market or a welfare state.