|
Ban sugar drink purchased with food stamps
Article
Quote:
|
I'll play stupid just to kick off the debate:
I think it's pretty easy. Soft drinks are a luxury item with no nutritional value. The food stamp program is designed to provide sustenance, right? |
What slippery slope? I don't see it. The government is handing this money out with little or no strings attached--they could add a lot more than they do, and honestly, I think they probably should.
I think SNAP benefits need to be accompanied by education in healthy food options and where to find them in the local area, and the government should have the right to tell people who receive SNAP benefits what they can buy with said benefits. I really don't think soda should be an allowable purchase with SNAP benefits. |
I vote slippery slope. What next? A ban on all products containing HFCS? Processed corn products at all? Or better: Food stamps can only be used to buy fresh produce, dried legumes, and whole grains. Everything else is a "luxury."
EDIT: I don't think that soda consumption is causing the obesity problem. It is a big factor, yes, but if you remove this from the picture, it can easily be filled with other crap. Are they still allowed to buy sugar? |
What about diet sodas?
|
Don't fuck with my diet sodas.
... Baraka, Sugared soft drinks are, of course, only a small part of the obesity problem in America. If food stamps could get people off their couch for half an hour a day, that'd be the win. If food stamps could change serving sizes and the Super Ultra Big Gulp culture, that'd be the win. Input is only a small part of the problem. You can't feed someone into fitness. (I mean, you could... but... that'd be a really broken program; one that dispenses only beans) |
Quote:
what to eat? They'd go nuts. |
I tend to be of the opinion that food stamps should be only for basic food items. Things like rice, beans, flour, yeast, salt, sugar, generic-only canned vegetables, canned beans, frozen vegetables, eggs, milk, and cheese. No meat, no fresh or specialty-brand anything. Stuff to help you eeek by with your basic nutritional needs met. Food stamps should have some amount of stigma and hassle associated with their use. Then again, I am more familiar and comfortable with community foodbanks than foodstamps.
|
I think the feds should eliminate subsidized corn.
The net effect would be fewer cheap food products made with cheap processed corn substances that add empty calories. Subsidize something else instead...like fruit and vegetables or something. Make them ultra cheap. |
Bingo. But good luck, the corn problem isn't just about cheap food and HFCS.
|
corn has already skyrocketed due to the dumbass government putting corn in our gas tanks.
Food stamps should only purchase raw ingredients. Absolutely no finished foods. |
Quote:
First, what's to prevent somebody from buying something else from the approved food list, then selling it or trading it to get soda? Second, if Bloomberg is successful at this, what's to stop him from trying to control sales of soda to the general public? New York has already tried one extension of nanny-state mentality by imposing a soda tax. Also, this doesn't solve the obesity problem. As far as I know, ring dings and potato chips are not prohibited foods. Nor frozen pizzas, etc, etc. |
To me that is the biggest concern since what is to stop them force you to eat a very strict diet after they slowly whittle away all items that can be 'harmful' for you. This is only the first step, and soda while is bad for you, is that the main item that is causing obesity, that I can not say.
|
I don't think there is any "main item that causes obesity." I think what causes a lot of obesity is cheap, processed, convenience foods that lack nutritional value—this includes a swath of what we see in stores that sell food that aren't farmer's markets or the like. Targeting and banning soda and sugary drinks for 20% of the population is myopic.
|
Yeah, but that 20% of the population has a bigger percentage of those that are obese. In America, the poor people are fat.
... There is no one main item causing obesity. The obesity pie, if you will, is compromised of many little slices that all add up to one big FUPA. Americans are Ignorant - Lack of proper nutrition education / meal planning knowledge Americans are Lazy - Fast food being cheaper / easier than healthy food Americans are Simple - Soda being a ubiquitous beverage (see Fast Food) Americans are Gluttonous - Serving sizes being Double Extra Mondo H'yoog Americans are Sedentary - Idea that exercise is for pro-athletes and dorks in short-shorts Americans are OK with Being Fat - Trend toward accepting "plus size" people as a more normal body image (*) |
When you get an increasing number of people who are simultaneously overweight and malnourished, you know there is something wrong with the food system and food culture.
Yeah, the the problem too is that Americans are also often deceived: health claims on food often distract from the fact that these same foods have things added to them (salt, sugar, corn products, etc.), even canned foods that are supposed to be good for you such as fruits and vegetables, soups, etc. |
Whaddya mean a Flintstones chewable and a cupcake aren't a part of this complete breakfast?
... Also, the author's name? Try to say that five times fast. Anemona Hartocollis. Yikes. I bet she's got a 'stache. |
Quote:
And Baraka: SNAP benefits are accepted at many farmer's markets around the United States now. This is why I suggested there by an educational component--the awareness level regarding SNAP benefits and farmer's markets is abysmally low. Our local farmer's market even offers a program that offers those who use SNAP benefits at the farmer's market an extra $6 to spend. |
Quote:
|
Actually, NYC's Greenmarkets have done a really good job of addressing the issues of food access. They're one of the organizations working the hardest in this country at the moment to get at the heart of the access problem. They have 51 greenmarket locations.
Greenmarket Farmers Markets | GrowNYC Here's a list of locations that take EBT cards to get tokens (how SNAP benefits are administered at farmer's markets): EBT/Food Stamps and Food Access in Greenmarkets | GrowNYC And here's an article from the AP that covers the farmer's market/SNAP benefits issue: The Associated Press: Farmers' markets draw few food stamp users |
This ban is simply silly. Ask 100 people who have used or use food stamps and 99 of them will tell you how they would get sugary soft drinks if they want them. The ban simply will create a minor inconvenience. The key, it that these drinks are relatively inexpensive compared to the alternatives. If the price of orange juice was the same as Coke - the consumption of orange juice would exceed that of Coke for people on food stamps.
|
Quote:
No salad, fresh fruit or squash, for me, eh? Perhaps the government should issue bright neon t-shirts stamped with an appropriate stigma slogan, that have to be worn while in the check-out lane. I rely on foods stamps versus community food banks, because)1 I am gluten-intolerant. 2: Most food items to be found in the food banks are rank over-processed food. Canned soups are full of monosodium glutamate. I won't eat a five pound slab of Velveeta cheese food or ring bologna. Sorry. I do buy & subsist on mostly whole grain rice & beans, frozen veggies, olive oil, & cheap frozen catfish nuggets. Salt & pepper & garlic powder are a luxury you are telling me I don't deserve. Well, that & the fresh food. I haven't had a soft drink or a ding-dong or a potato chip in a long time, nor do I want them. I can just imagine how the Coca-Cola peoples are lining up their lobbyists to fight this sort of action. They had big hissy fits about their products being taken out of the public schools. |
Many in the SNAP program do not have easy access to the healthiest foods. You dont find a Fresh Foods market in low income areas.
The growing acceptance of ETP cards at farmers markets is a plus but there is still a "food desert" in many low income urban areas. Quote:
|
Quote:
And diet is a large part of the obseity problem. Even Rush Limbaugh has lost weight with his no exercise diet. Quote:
(Or you can blame the purchasing power of the dollar not being anywhere close to what it was in the 80s/90s) Quote:
---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:05 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I suppose I feel the same way about people buying junk food with government money as I do about people purchasing cigarettes and alcohol with their welfare checks.
|
Quote:
Growing up, my family was either dependent on the food banks or donating to them, depending on if Dad had a job. Perhaps our Bishop's Storehouse and Manna were entirely different from those you have available. It is difficult for food banks to accommodate allergies, and it is good that you have found a way to meet your dietary needs. When it comes to stigma, I did not mean to imply that one should stick out as they make their purchases, rather I meant that there should be some negative social pressure that would motivate people to move on from the system as soon as they are capable. Perhaps the difference in our ideologies is that I view food stamps as a stop-gap emergency program to see families through the worst times, rather than a long-term or permanent solution. The reality is that few people share my viewpoint, and perhaps it is best that they do not. The economy has changed drastically since the '80s, and my family's occasional 2 months without an income seems insignificant compared to the year+ of unemployment that people now face. |
Quote:
Another fun fact is that about half of them are children. Many who make up the balance are either elderly, disabled, or both. |
...The government shouldn't be handing out food stamps at all.
I do support not letting people starve (at least not until they prove they are unwilling, rather than unable to work), but I feel we should be handing out food directly rather than giving people the ability to 'shop.' By giving someone the ability to make choices you give them the ability to make bad choices, which is what got them into the sort of situation requiring food stamps in the first place. By handing out nutritious but bulk-purchased bare-bones subsistence foodstuffs directly we could: -Drop the net price of social programs funded by taxpayers while still providing the same level of nutrition. -Eliminate (or at least largely reduce) the popularity of selling food stamps for a lesser amount of cash....Who wants to buy a wheel of government cheese? -Regulate the total caloric intake of fatties who want ME to pay for their meals by simply providing them with only 2,000 calories a day in food...enough to live off of, not enough to weigh 500 pounds. -Encourage a quick return to being a productive member of society because you would have to make money before you would enjoy eating again. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
There is no way it's less costly for (deadbeats) to purchase brand-name (unnecessary) soft drinks in order to meet their caloric requirements than to simply hand out a loaf of moldy bread and some cheese. Or, for that matter, a 50 pound bag of potatoes which were on sale for $10.99 at my local farmers market recently...That will feed a lot of people for a while.
There is no ethical problem either....If you want a free handout it should be on our terms. you have no right to 'expect' Coca Cola or the ability to sell your food stamps. Even better: If you want to eat you have to assist with the distribution of said food items free of charge. Basically: If you want to eat the soup you need to work in the kitchen, at least occasionally. As far as I am concerned I think it is ethically preferable to provide no public services whatsoever than to continue on the way things currently are. A good percentage of food-stamps and welfare are used to purchase drugs, rims, and flat-screen TV's....How is that ethical? I get shot at to earn my money, and I would much rather spend it on my daughters education, paying off student loan debt, etc. than on someone who is too lazy to work. I feel much more charitable to those who live a truly spartan existence and are still struggling. However my house backs up to subsidized housing and at least in my neighborhood, every trailer has a crappy car with an expensive paint job/rims and the owners are home at all times of the (work) day watching TV, drinking, throwing bottles in the yard, selling drugs, and generally being parasites. They can go piss up a rope if they want to claim it is unethical for me to give them food rather than what equates to money. Lastly, if I/we (via the government) are going to take my or anyone else' earned money and give it away to a third party, it is perfectly ethical to place any restrictions on it we want to...such as don't use my money to eat your way to type 2 diabetes which I will also have to pay for. Don't like it? Great, then don't take the handout. It is unethical and wasteful to give away what belongs to someone else. Inexcusably so when you give away more than the bare minimum they really need. |
Quote:
First of all, like Xazy says, where does it end? No sugary drinks. What about snack cakes? Salty snacks? Fatty meats? Butter? Caffeinated beverages? Non-organic produce? Will the law ever be satisfied until and unless poor people are using their food stamps with the consultation of a nutritionist? Or at some point will the government just make it easy on the bureaucrats and demand that everyone on food stamps be vegans? I'm sorry, but you can't do that in a free society. Second of all, if the problem is obesity among the poor, can you get exemptions from these bans on what you can buy with food stamps if you prove that you spend a certain number of hours working out? What if you have a naturally high metabolism? If not, then isn't that unduly restrictive? And if so, isn't it just discriminatory? If a certain food product is really that bad for people, the best way to deal with it legally isn't to bar food stamp users from purchasing it per se, it's to slap a fat surtax on it, universally, which is not covered by food stamps. Makes it more expensive for everyone, and financially impractical for the poor. Use the revenue to help fund school lunches and public health care. |
I completely disagree with the idea and think its a ridiculous attempt at social control.
And it's not about the slippery slope, its about the dehumanization of the poor. Sure, they are using "public" money. But the same thing isn't about to happen to other recipients of public money (which is why this is not about a slippery slope argument). That is, the problem isn't with "what's next." It's with this sort of control itself. Why is it ok to enforce this sort of social control over the poor, but not over, say, medicare recipients? People who go to public schools and universities? People who use publicly subsidized hospitals? People who drive on roads? Why aren't people clamoring for laws requiring medicare recipients to stop drinking, smoking, etc lest they lose their benefits? Why aren't people clamoring for expelling and banning for life all students who don't maximize their learning potential? Should anyone driving on a public road be required to carpool, only drive cars with maximum safety records, and so on? Again, the problem isn't that this requirement will lead to the ones above. Because it won't. The problem is that this clearly dehumanizes the poor: "everyone else who gets other forms of public assistance may do as they please, but you, the poor, clearly isn't as bright as everyone else so we will make your decisions for you?" |
As a side note about social programs, I never understood why everybody was so cranky about taxes until I actually made enough money to start paying them. I guess before today I was too poor to be a Libertarian or Republican or whatever it is that well-to-do white people are.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have a very skewed view of the poor, which is unfortunate. Do you think the rich are all corrupt con artists? Quote:
Oh, and there's this (which is a link I snagged from the TARP thread): Boost in Food-Stamp Funding Percolates Through Economy - WSJ.com Quote:
Quote:
By the way, what system of ethics do you subscribe to? It seems rather dysfunctional. |
Did someone drop a copy of The Lord of the Flies in the thread?
|
Quote:
|
seems to me that the 'slippery slope' is just a fallacy. at least that's what several here have told me in the past.
|
Quote:
And, I also think that they should have to do community service, go into the fields and work for a few weeks, or distribute the food if they want to receive benefits. I just wonder if I lost my job, would I be eligible? I have enough money to survive for 3-4 years saved up, but would they make me sell stocks, sell off material items, or sell my house before qualifying? Then again, I've heard that pilots are getting food stamps because they don't have a high enough salary. *People do work second or third shifts. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project