is it ethical to ban food stamp recipients from using it to buy soda?

[helgaleena]

There's a lot of great info about nutrition in this thread! It is worthy :bowdown:

 

[BadBoyCanada]

no doubt about it. i'm gonna assume you're canadian, from the fact you brought it up. how does SA work in canada? is it as easily abused as it is in the states? then again, you guys have better social programs than we ever will.

It's a provincial jurisdiction, so it's hard for me to generalize across the country.

That said, those who apply for welfare get a monthly cheque and then must live on it. For a single person, its around $500 per month. They have to house, clothe and feed themselves on it. If they move in with another SA recipient, they lose some of their benefits. If your a parent, its much more generous. I've seen small split level homes built for families.

However, they have free medical, over and above the general population (free drugs, access to dentists, eye care, etc..) most of which isn't covered by Medicare. They also receive free daycare and training if needed.

However, one thing I agree with is that the working poor can access some of these programs (or at least be subsidized).

There is tons of abuse, especially in rural areas where its easy to work for cash. As in the USA, recipients are free to spend their money on whatever, so lots of starving kids with big TV's and fast food for the first few days after the monthly cheque.

What bothers me most is when there is a debate on the system, the advocate for the poor always minimizes the abuse of the system. For us paying taxes, that infuriates us and we mentally turn off their side of the argument.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

What bothers me most is when there is a debate on the system, the advocate for the poor always minimizes the abuse of the system. For us paying taxes, that infuriates us and we mentally turn off their side of the argument.

It's not a question of minimizing it, but more about the actual number of abusers versus ones who play by the rules. Considering all of the political clamor surrounding government entitlement programs by our Congress, you'd think this was some kind of widespread epidemic where the majority of food stamp and welfare recipients were nothing more than lazy cheaters who lived their entire life off of it. That sentiment is echoed throughout this thread by certain people on various levels. If we can prove that a healthy chunk of the 41+ million people enrolled in the Food Stamp program are indeed cheating the system in ways that really do burden taxpayers beyond self gratification, then perhaps more restrictions should be applied.

On a side note, what gets to me is how some people think that because they are receiving government assistance that they don't pay taxes. That couldn't be further from the truth. In some states, certain purchases that are not completely covered by food stamps are taxable. Many people who receive food stamps are also employed. Unemployment Insurance is taxable. Welfare is not taxable, however, when you spend it on various goods it is unless we've all forgotten about sales & use taxes (just to name a few). Taxes don't only count on April 15th.

 

[august86]

Wow, I didn't realise that what one spends your food stamps on is regulated to such an extent that it affects your dignity.
I would only presume that having to be turned away for every second product you want to purchase with your governmental social assistance stamps must be utterly embarrassing and undignified...

I find it totally unacceptable that a capitalist society would make such a communist move... Surely everyone receives the same about of stamps and one should, within reason, be able to exercise your due judgement in ascertaining what it is that you and your family needs; regardless of whether you spend it on alcohol or the like.
Have we reached the point where we're now forcing people to eat what we feel is good for them??
If you feel that your druken stupor is more desirable, then clearly your family has to deal with that, or try and bring you to reason.
By imposing ideals on people, we're taking the perceived power away from them, and we end up with an obese and enslaved society...

 

[b.c.]

Wow, I didn't realise that what one spends your food stamps on is regulated to such an extent that it affects your dignity.
I would only presume that having to be turned away for every second product you want to purchase with your governmental social assistance stamps must be utterly embarrassing and undignified...

I find it totally unacceptable that a capitalist society would make such a communist move... Surely everyone receives the same about of stamps and one should, within reason, be able to exercise your due judgement in ascertaining what it is that you and your family needs; regardless of whether you spend it on alcohol or the like.
Have we reached the point where we're now forcing people to eat what we feel is good for them??
If you feel that your druken stupor is more desirable, then clearly your family has to deal with that, or try and bring you to reason.
By imposing ideals on people, we're taking the perceived power away from them, and we end up with an obese and enslaved society...

Actually, the proponent of the idea, Michael Bloomberg, undoubtedly had every good intention behind it, given his record on philanthropic efforts and his positions on government assisted living for those who truly need it.

No doubt though he hadn't foreseen how his good intent would be twisted by those who are quick to miscategorize and stigmatize people in need of assistance, into the kind of diatribe that some have posted here.

Such opportunists, having no Willie Horton to dredge up, would seize upon this in lieu of him - to make the villain out of an entire segment of society because it serves their own purposes.

To what depths have we sunk, that the focus of our ire should turn, not to those who've squandered away our nation's economy in financial mishandlings while lining their own pockets, or to those who've made every attempt to stand in the way of any effort to drag us out of the economic despair created by George W.; but to whether someone on food stamps should have a right to a cola?

How fuckin' pathetic.

 

[surferboy]

There's nothing pointless about shining a light on the shady, corporate business and governmental practices happening inside the food industry. If more people actually knew about this stuff, they can become more aware and perhaps take the initiative to seek out better choices.

this is one of the most important things said in this topic. people need to educate themselves about our food industry: the corn lobbyists and their foot hold on what we eat, and, more importantly, what we feed our livestock. which, coincidentally, yet not coincidentally at the same time, a lot of the feed comes from corn. but there's the disgusting part, even worse than the hormones, steroids, and antibiotics we feed them: they feed our live stock dead animals.

road kill. i'm talking about possum and squirrels. the mechanically separated chicken parts that don't make it to mcdonald's (a side note: chicken nuggets come from a pink goop). cats and dogs that have been put down (what's even sicker than the fact that they're pets is that we don't know why they were put down. did they have rabies? cancer? no one knows!) and the worse offense...they feed our cattle other cows! it makes the feed cheaper than to feed them what they eat by nature - grass and hay. hell, even the corn they feed the cows is not in their natural diet. a cow does not know what corn is. they're not meant to eat corn. hell, corn, for the most part, is not even able to be digested!

and here's the source: They Eat What? The Reality of Feed at Animal Factories | Union of Concerned Scientists

Nobody is suggesting that these changes happen overnight. Everyone knows that changes like this take years or even decades to become reality and there will be plenty of opposition from those who financially benefit from things in their current state (like those who grow & harvest corn for instance). Most of the changes made in our food industry happened within the last 4-5 decades anyhow. But the ball needs to start rolling sometime and it's ultimately for the better.

it's so sad, but so true. however, if people would wake up and educate themselves, i bet we could get a good head start on those changes within 5 years. we need to kick the corn industry out of d.c.

organic food does not have to be expensive. i watched a documentary about organic livestock, and it only costs 5-10 cents extra to raise the live stock in more open conditions, free of antibiotics (why would they need it? they're not in close quarters!), steroids, and growth hormones. 5-10 cents extra. i don't have proof, but i truly believe the prices of organic food is somehow controlled by the corn lobbyists, and the non-organic farmers.

5-10 cents extra. per pound. fucking ridiculous

Wow, I didn't realise that what one spends your food stamps on is regulated to such an extent that it affects your dignity.
I would only presume that having to be turned away for every second product you want to purchase with your governmental social assistance stamps must be utterly embarrassing and undignified...

I find it totally unacceptable that a capitalist society would make such a communist move... Surely everyone receives the same about of stamps and one should, within reason, be able to exercise your due judgement in ascertaining what it is that you and your family needs; regardless of whether you spend it on alcohol or the like.
Have we reached the point where we're now forcing people to eat what we feel is good for them??
If you feel that your druken stupor is more desirable, then clearly your family has to deal with that, or try and bring you to reason.
By imposing ideals on people, we're taking the perceived power away from them, and we end up with an obese and enslaved society...

i can't tell if this is satire or not

 

[haulthat]

Been to the gym lately? There are people who you see there all the damn time, have money, personal trainers, and often more time than other people to spare. Still never make real improvement. All the resources in the world won't help someone who doesn't have the discipline or make the decision to get something done. I have seen average to chubby people stay that, and I have seen morbidly obese guys become cute, over extremely long periods of time, but it happens. Personal trainer helped a shitload, I know I was damn lucky. Point wasn't to say look how easy it is, it was to illustrate the fact where I am coming from is based on logic and not some exaggerated sense of moral superiority.
You completely avoided the question I asked, and what I pointed out. Your obviously not stupid, so I know damn well you understood everything I said, could clearly see where I was coming from, but because you are the type of person who is more interested in winning what they perceive as an argument than having a productive conversation... I do consider you could have gone into fight or flight mode, so I won't over react and start talking shit.
The problems being discuss aren't as simple as car repairs, but you either misunderstood or intentionally ignored what I pointed out with the analogy "You act as if the problems surrounding the food industry and consumers are as simple to see as a nail in a car tire." In my analogy food stamps being spent without factoring in nutritional value was the nail in the tire, the problems in the food industry were not. You made the link wrong. Here is help. Food Industry/health problem= major truck repairs at a distant shop. Paying for 0 nutritional value with food stamps = nail in tire. Fix the nail in the tire first, smart! Wait till you drive far to fix nail in tire which is easy and quick not smart! You admit addressing those problems will take years, yes it needs to be done, it does not change the fact that the nail in the tire should be patched first. Period. Ignore it, avoid it, and distract from it all you want. Doesn't change the facts. You fix what you can fix now quickly, because it can be done right now. You fix the problems it will take years to fix over the years it will take to fix them.
Where you are coming from is all over the place, you praise food inc but then dismiss coke as if its not unhealthy. Yeah, junk food won't kill you if you eat it. Habitual over-consumption of it can. You know damn well two people eating the same amount of calories, and the same types of calories over the same period of time their health will not be the same if 1 of them is getting the micro-nutrients carried in their food, and the other is drinking coke and eating fast food. You admit that people on food stamps usually are restricted from the healthier shit because it costs more, but at the same time feel like its a bad idea to also restrict the worst offenders.
Very few people on here have shown any type of moral justification for their view. Your trying to say food stamps managed nutritionally is bad because its pushing morals? Spare me. Your obviously responding to this post out of some sort of emotional response. It seems as if you obviously know better from the logical standpoint, you watch food inc, you care about health issues YET you are empathizing with people who suffer financial hardships and need food stamps, which is great I appreciate that I'm not saying its easy, but not if it clouds your judgment as far as health goes.
On that note, there has been research done that suggests food can mimic the behavior of a drug as far as its effect on the brain. Using it to stimulate you, make yourself feel better, or comfort you to cope. They have noticed people going through withdraw from hardcore drugs, or even people who stop smoking tend to gain weight because they supplement the loss of 1 fix for another. If people are struggling financially, there is a good chance that even subconsciously they will develop unhealthy eating habits to cope with it. Making it convenient for that to happen by paying for shit like coke (among other stuff that I won't involve because its off topic and if you try to make assumptions about what I would have included to make me a bad guy, have a ball you don't know me) is practically forcing them down that road.
Ever watch the show intervention? Morals can sure as hell get thrown into that. But the way you demonstrate having enough knowledge on the food industry and health related to the topic, yet still defend paying for crap like coke with food stamps in such an emotionally fueled manner, trying to peg it as some sort of "moral" high horse is crap. Its like parents who cant stop giving their kids drug money because they are emotionally tied to them. Be supportive, be empathetic, and be gentile when approaching anyone in a hard spot for damn sure. Its fucked up to stare down at them and say why are you doing THAT are you stupid? Do this instead isn't that simple!? I'm not for any of that. Enabling behavior that can, will, and has been studied and documented to harm someone is fucked up just as well though. If someone is in a hard spot, and bad decisions are convenient for them to make they probably will. Taking away their freedom so they cant make them is too far, I agree, but enabling them to make them is doing 1 thing and one thing only.
It is making the person who is acting as an enabler feel better about themselves. Yeah hes struggling, he is on drugs but I still give him money with no questions if he asks, so he can't be upset with me that is proof I am trying to help him! Your misguided idea that somehow paying for nutritionally worthless crap with food stamps, is kinder, or more helpful for people who are struggling is crap. All it does is make you feel like your in their corner when you really aren't, you just somehow find approaching it like that a guilt reliever as if it some how makes their situation better. One of my friends cousins died in a motorcycle accident. His parents argued over weather or not to buy it, his mom said fuck no, his dad said he deserved it in less than 48 hours he was dead and his friend was badly injured. She fucking hated him for it, he was full of guilt, and they both lost their son it sucked. Period. Put someone in a position where they might hurt themselves, and will have fun doing it is not looking out for them. It is only looking out for the recognition you get when and if it doesn't turn out bad for them. Being the nice guy, isn't always being the good guy. Being the good guy isn't always easy or popular. :slap: :28: :nono:

They taught us about fight or flight at work, to help us productively help customers rather than getting in a bitch fight with them, them getting pissed off and leaving without getting the help they wanted. We get in trouble if we let fight or flight take over.
Behavioral manifestations of fight-or-flight

In prehistoric times when the fight or flight response evolved in humans, fight was manifested in aggressive, combative behavior and flight was manifested by fleeing potentially threatening situations, such as being confronted by a predator. In current times, these responses persist, but fight and flight responses have assumed a wider range of behaviors. For example, the fight response may be manifested in angry, argumentative behavior, and the flight response may be manifested through social withdrawal, substance abuse, and even television viewing.:tdown:

Or one can say that I can do my own research, make my own decisions and is not intellectually impaired by the hot men that inhabit this board. Either way, I can multitask around here. Been doing it for several years now.



Their business models are no different from most other companies in the same fields. The only difference is the amount of money & capital pre-invested into these ventures. Most small business owners don't look at their career investments as a means to take over nations and get filthy rich. They do what is necessary to take care of their own needs and don't aim to put everyone else out of business in the process.

Also, it's not as if there's never going to be a demand for food in this country. You do realize that without it, the human race will die. Regardless if the food that is sold in supermarkets is organic and more affordable or nothing but processed crap you suck through a tube (once there aren't enough natural resources left), marketing strategies & business models don't change that much.



There's nothing pointless about shining a light on the shady, corporate business and governmental practices happening inside the food industry. If more people actually knew about this stuff, they can become more aware and perhaps take the initiative to seek out better choices. I know my partner and I changed the way we look at and consumed food after we started to learn about how our food is processed in this nation.



Spare me the rhetorical "you can do it too" speech...
Do you know how many people go on diets everyday and fail to achieve their goals even with their best efforts? Want to know why they fail? One of the biggest reasons is because they either lose the will or interest to keep going. Much of this comes from the strict limitations placed on certain fad diets that prevent them from eating what they like. And no, this has nothing to do with eating junk food either. Too much emphasis is placed on individual items as being bad & unhealthy instead of achieving some kind of balanced equilibrium which allows people to occasionally indulge in the things they like while focusing on healthier foods that aid to weight loss. Trust me, not a single soul is going to become overweight or even a diabetic if they consume soda in moderation and in proper doses. It does become a problem if they drink soda more than healthier choices on a prolonged basis, but that can be regulated in a proper diet without the need of eliminating it altogether.



And ANY food or drink can harm you if you consume too much of it. A two liter soda hurts NOBODY. If consumed in proper doses along with other healthy choices and proper exercise throughout an elongated period of time, it will not cause someone to become obese or become a health risk.



Nobody is suggesting that these changes happen overnight. Everyone knows that changes like this take years or even decades to become reality and there will be plenty of opposition from those who financially benefit from things in their current state (like those who grow & harvest corn for instance). Most of the changes made in our food industry happened within the last 4-5 decades anyhow. But the ball needs to start rolling sometime and it's ultimately for the better.



Bad analogy. You act as if the problems surrounding the food industry and consumers are as simple to see as a nail in a car tire. It's attitudes that nonchalant that lead us to the problems we experience in the future.



LOL... now please, do try to follow along here.
You had the benefit of a personal trainer to help you get into shape, keep you motivated and adjust your diet. Where does a food stamp recipient come up with the money to do all that? I mean, ultimately we are still talking about them even if we go through temporary tangents about health, nutrition and food (which wouldn't be happening if people didn't bring these up as reasons for wanting to prohibit them from purchasing soda on a food stamp).

Face the "logical facts" here. You had access to options & information to help you lose weight that most people who are struggling financially do not. You sit here and try to dismiss certain bits of information as being "pointless", meanwhile propose an overly simplistic approach to the issue by waving your finger at the most blatantly obvious targets and assuming if everyone "worked harder" they would achieve their goals. Meanwhile, several people still take this phony-moralistic stance on food stamp purchases and claim that they're looking out for someone else's health. "Oh, it's bad for you! Only use food stamps for items with nutritional value!" When in reality, the mass majority of items these people have access to is junk, all the way down to the processed meats they buy from the butcher. No sense in looking at one part of the equation and ignoring the rest. There are many things one can do if the ideal is to promote better health in poverty stricken areas. You won't achieve this by limiting their purchasing power with food stamps.

 

[B_lrgeggs]

Good question...don't know. If it would help a person get on their feet and find a quicker way to independence, I would be all for it.

 

[Empathizer]

i think food stamps should be used to buy healthy foods, not junk. i'm not barring peoples from buying soda. if they want soda, they can buy it with their own money, not the money they receive from the taxes i pay.

i'm an extremely liberal person, but i'm sorry; if you're on food stamps, you shouldn't be allowed to use them to buy shit like soda and candy

What about hypoglycemics and diabetics who actually do need sugar rushes to live? Are you gonna say they should be limited to those nasty-orange-colored glucose tablets?

Once, when I was nine or ten years old, I ran up to my dad and asked him if he was interested in investing in an innovative idea in ice creameries. I enthused that I had never seen potato ice cream, garlic ice cream, pickle ice cream, steak ice cream: I could make people eat all four food groups in ice-cream form and nobody would be unhealthy again, and since I'd have the patent on the special recipes, I'd be rich and could buy him and my mother a house in Florida like a pair of their friends had bought for their parents.

Dad laughed his signature erudite-howler-monkey laugh, and stroked my head, then ruffled my hair. "Would you eat that? Garlic Ice Cream?"

I stopped to think about it, then frowned a little and realized what he meant: Nobody would eat a steak ice cream sundae. No one would go for it.

Lesson? If nobody has done the incredibly obvious thing you have in mind, there's probably a surprisingly good reason.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Been to the gym lately? There are people who you see there all the damn time, have money, personal trainers, and often more time than other people to spare. Still never make real improvement. All the resources in the world won't help someone who doesn't have the discipline or make the decision to get something done.

Totally missed the point. So let me guide you back to the right direction. Again, you had the benefit of a personal trainer to help you get into shape, keep you motivated and adjust your diet. It doesn't matter whether or not some people who have access to the same tools does as good as you or worse. Since you can afford these things you have a better chance at achieving your goals. Whereas a poor person on food stamps would have to work harder than you to do the same thing. I'm not making a judgement call here as to whether or not this is fair. If you have the money and can afford the trainer, the nutritionist, the life coach and even the chef to cook you your food then go for it. But then don't turn around and look at people who have to work much harder than yourself and make it about their ability to "work hard and stay disciplined". That's nothing more than a dismissive statement that doesn't address the real needs of someone struggling to lose weight with fewer resources and information.

Personal trainer helped a shitload, I know I was damn lucky. Point wasn't to say look how easy it is, it was to illustrate the fact where I am coming from is based on logic and not some exaggerated sense of moral superiority.

Your supposed logical answers are overly simplistic in nature. Also, speaking from personal experience as well as the ability to look beyond it and visualize other perspectives is not an exaggerated sense of "moral superiority".

You completely avoided the question I asked, and what I pointed out.

No I didn't. I just didn't give you the simplistic answer you expected to receive.

Your obviously not stupid, so I know damn well you understood everything I said, could clearly see where I was coming from, but because you are the type of person who is more interested in winning what they perceive as an argument than having a productive conversation... I do consider you could have gone into fight or flight mode, so I won't over react and start talking shit.

There are no winners or losers in a rhetorical argument. I could careless if someone agrees with me or not. We wouldn't be having this discussion if everyone shared the exact same vision and ideals. And trust me, if I was in "fight mode" you would know it. I could be a lot more vicious, condemning and sarcastic than I am now. But I have no reason to be that way with you.

The problems being discuss aren't as simple as car repairs, but you either misunderstood or intentionally ignored what I pointed out with the analogy "You act as if the problems surrounding the food industry and consumers are as simple to see as a nail in a car tire." In my analogy food stamps being spent without factoring in nutritional value was the nail in the tire, the problems in the food industry were not.

However, the problems in the food industry ARE a major factor when it comes to health, nutrition and why many people on Food Stamps choose cheaper, unhealthier options for food & drink over nutritional ones. Even you agree with that to some extent so why ignore the obvious elephant in the room just to make some fruitless, rhetorical rant about personal responsibility?

You made the link wrong. Here is help. Food Industry/health problem= major truck repairs at a distant shop. Paying for 0 nutritional value with food stamps = nail in tire. Fix the nail in the tire first, smart! Wait till you drive far to fix nail in tire which is easy and quick not smart!

Congratulations... you have essentially placed a band aid over a gaping wound and called it a solution.

Here's something else you haven't pondered. Most people who are on food stamps use a combination of food stamps and actual cash when they go shopping. They don't pay for everything entirely through Food Stamps and they can't because other necessary items such as toilet paper and laundry detergent CANNOT be purchased under the program. So what happens if government makes it so food stamp and EBT recipients cannot purchase soda with their government aid due to "lack of nutritional value"? The majority will purchase the 99 cent soda through their regular cash reserves, along with all of the other items they can't get with Food Stamps. The attempts at trying to make poor people healthier through stricter Food Stamp regulations fail because they still go home with the soda anyhow. This is another reason why it's a ridiculous suggestion. However, I'm sure you'll just want to link that to a lack of motivation & discipline.

You admit addressing those problems will take years, yes it needs to be done, it does not change the fact that the nail in the tire should be patched first. Period. Ignore it, avoid it, and distract from it all you want. Doesn't change the facts. You fix what you can fix now quickly, because it can be done right now. You fix the problems it will take years to fix over the years it will take to fix them.

Nobody said ignore the "nail in the tire".
However, you're the one trying to ignore the other stuff because it takes too long.

Where you are coming from is all over the place

No... like most adults I can visualize a problem from different angles and come up with a more centralized solution.

you praise food inc but then dismiss coke as if its not unhealthy. Yeah, junk food won't kill you if you eat it.

What a way to contradict yourself.
I praise "Food Inc" for the information it has provided in regards to the food industry so that I can make better choices. I also realize that even though it was a great documentary that even they didn't have all of the answers.

You know damn well two people eating the same amount of calories, and the same types of calories over the same period of time their health will not be the same if 1 of them is getting the micro-nutrients carried in their food, and the other is drinking coke and eating fast food.

No I don't. Case in point, if the two people in question consist of one teenager who plays a lot of sports and gets plenty of exercise while the other is a middle aged adult who doesn't have the same amount of time to devote to the gym, it would be extremely foolish to just assume that the person who is eating healthier will also do better. That is, unless, you want to also assume that the two people also have the same body chemistry and metabolisms, and in most cases they wouldn't.

This is not a simple issue, so please stop with the overly simplistic solutions.

Very few people on here have shown any type of moral justification for their view. Your trying to say food stamps managed nutritionally is bad because its pushing morals? Your obviously responding to this post out of some sort of emotional response. It seems as if you obviously know better from the logical standpoint, you watch food inc, you care about health issues YET you are empathizing with people who suffer financial hardships and need food stamps, which is great I appreciate that I'm not saying its easy, but not if it clouds your judgment as far as health goes.

Oh my... I use emotion when I type. Was I supposed to drone on like Ben Stein and regurgitate bullet points? And since when is having empathy for those still caught in the struggle a bad thing?

I have lots of empathy for those who struggle because in many ways I grew up just like them, and despite being in a better place now I don't forget where I came from. If there's any way I can help my friends and loved ones get where they need to go faster, I will aid them. I don't just tell them to "work hard like me", or "stay disciplined like me", or come up with overly general solutions that are as effective as Hulk Hogan telling his Hulkamaniacs to "say their prayers, eat their vitamins and believe in themselves". Because despite all of our similarities, I understand that they're not me.

I won't even waste my time addressing your judgements of me surrounding health and whether or not my thoughts are "in the clouds"... or the rest of your post for that matter.

 

[haulthat]

I never dismissed the issues with the food industry, or said they did not need to be addressed. The topic of the Original Poster was... no coke with food stamps ethical or not? It wasn't having tho choose between fix the food industry OR don't pay for coke with food stamps. I think we need to fix both, changes to what food stamps can be spent on can take place quickly, easily, and won't put off any other work that needs to be done in a real way. If I need to make a few sandwiches for some cousins, and a turkey dinner for the whole damn family. Sandwiches will get done first, turkey dinner will still get made.
I agree 100% that a lot of people will still buy the coke with cash, mentioned that in the post you responded to. The point is that is a freedom I don't think its right to take away, but at the same time it doesn't mean we need to make it convenient for them to do so. Bottom Line: Yes, I think its perfectly ethical. I also think the order in which we address problems should be thought out and executed both efficiently and effectively.
You responding to my posts or not is your decision, I was never under the impression this was a private message, and its a discussion online... I will survive the rejection. Fight or Flight... Flight= "I won't even waste my time addressing your judgments of me surrounding health and whether or not my thoughts are "in the clouds"... or the rest of your post for that matter. " "in the clouds" are your words. Not mine. :kabong: It confused me because they were in quotes... so I went back and scanned for having said that, it wasn't there.
Painting people who don't like the idea of paying for coke with food stamps with the same paint and brush as MANY people who see this topic, and skip it because they think food stamps in general are a waste of money. That is an extreme, I simply don't think this is. Oh wait... that's overly simplistic... eh... oh well.

PS: I don't need your approval
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8NtNHLn5Dk :headbang:
(Take care, I just really like that song)

Totally missed the point. So let me guide you back to the right direction. Again, you had the benefit of a personal trainer to help you get into shape, keep you motivated and adjust your diet. It doesn't matter whether or not some people who have access to the same tools does as good as you or worse. Since you can afford these things you have a better chance at achieving your goals. Whereas a poor person on food stamps would have to work harder than you to do the same thing. I'm not making a judgement call here as to whether or not this is fair. If you have the money and can afford the trainer, the nutritionist, the life coach and even the chef to cook you your food then go for it. But then don't turn around and look at people who have to work much harder than yourself and make it about their ability to "work hard and stay disciplined". That's nothing more than a dismissive statement that doesn't address the real needs of someone struggling to lose weight with fewer resources and information.



Your supposed logical answers are overly simplistic in nature. Also, speaking from personal experience as well as the ability to look beyond it and visualize other perspectives is not an exaggerated sense of "moral superiority".



No I didn't. I just didn't give you the simplistic answer you expected to receive.



There are no winners or losers in a rhetorical argument. I could careless if someone agrees with me or not. We wouldn't be having this discussion if everyone shared the exact same vision and ideals. And trust me, if I was in "fight mode" you would know it. I could be a lot more vicious, condemning and sarcastic than I am now. But I have no reason to be that way with you.



However, the problems in the food industry ARE a major factor when it comes to health, nutrition and why many people on Food Stamps choose cheaper, unhealthier options for food & drink over nutritional ones. Even you agree with that to some extent so why ignore the obvious elephant in the room just to make some fruitless, rhetorical rant about personal responsibility?



Congratulations... you have essentially placed a band aid over a gaping wound and called it a solution.

Here's something else you haven't pondered. Most people who are on food stamps use a combination of food stamps and actual cash when they go shopping. They don't pay for everything entirely through Food Stamps and they can't because other necessary items such as toilet paper and laundry detergent CANNOT be purchased under the program. So what happens if government makes it so food stamp and EBT recipients cannot purchase soda with their government aid due to "lack of nutritional value"? The majority will purchase the 99 cent soda through their regular cash reserves, along with all of the other items they can't get with Food Stamps. The attempts at trying to make poor people healthier through stricter Food Stamp regulations fail because they still go home with the soda anyhow. This is another reason why it's a ridiculous suggestion. However, I'm sure you'll just want to link that to a lack of motivation & discipline.



Nobody said ignore the "nail in the tire".
However, you're the one trying to ignore the other stuff because it takes too long.



No... like most adults I can visualize a problem from different angles and come up with a more centralized solution.



What a way to contradict yourself.
I praise "Food Inc" for the information it has provided in regards to the food industry so that I can make better choices. I also realize that even though it was a great documentary that even they didn't have all of the answers.



No I don't. Case in point, if the two people in question consist of one teenager who plays a lot of sports and gets plenty of exercise while the other is a middle aged adult who doesn't have the same amount of time to devote to the gym, it would be extremely foolish to just assume that the person who is eating healthier will also do better. That is, unless, you want to also assume that the two people also have the same body chemistry and metabolisms, and in most cases they wouldn't.

This is not a simple issue, so please stop with the overly simplistic solutions.



Oh my... I use emotion when I type. Was I supposed to drone on like Ben Stein and regurgitate bullet points? And since when is having empathy for those still caught in the struggle a bad thing?

I have lots of empathy for those who struggle because in many ways I grew up just like them, and despite being in a better place now I don't forget where I came from. If there's any way I can help my friends and loved ones get where they need to go faster, I will aid them. I don't just tell them to "work hard like me", or "stay disciplined like me", or come up with overly general solutions that are as effective as Hulk Hogan telling his Hulkamaniacs to "say their prayers, eat their vitamins and believe in themselves". Because despite all of our similarities, I understand that they're not me.

I won't even waste my time addressing your judgements of me surrounding health and whether or not my thoughts are "in the clouds"... or the rest of your post for that matter.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I never dismissed the issues with the food industry, or said they did not need to be addressed. The topic of the Original Poster was... no coke with food stamps ethical or not? It wasn't having tho choose between fix the food industry OR don't pay for coke with food stamps

So did you expect everyone here to come to the table with a yes or no answer with no rebuttals? It was wrong to dispute people's reasonings for feeling one way or another? Please, dear... spare me the drama. I've made every post in this thread about the topic. I took a reason (whether it be one I agree with or not), went into major detail with it and used it to explain why I think adding soda to a list of prohibited items for food stamp purchases was a bad idea.

I agree 100% that a lot of people will still buy the coke with cash, mentioned that in the post you responded to. The point is that is a freedom I don't think its right to take away, but at the same time it doesn't mean we need to make it convenient for them to do so. Bottom Line: Yes, I think its perfectly ethical. I also think the order in which we address problems should be thought out and executed both efficiently and effectively.

You think it's ethical, and as I stated many pages before I think it's a bunch of pseudo-moralistic bullshit spewed by "taxpayers" who want to feel a bit more self righteous about their own flaws by telling others what they should be doing. People on both sides of the issue are giving their reasons why and those reasons are being disputed in detail. That's precisely how a forum debate is supposed to work if you expect a thread to actually last for a while.

The fact that a poor person uses a small portion of their food stamps to buy some treats for themselves (and their families) shouldn't bother anyone.

You responding to my posts or not is your decision, I was never under the impression this was a private message, and its a discussion online... I will survive the rejection. Fight or Flight... Flight= "I won't even waste my time addressing your judgments of me surrounding health and whether or not my thoughts are "in the clouds"... or the rest of your post for that matter. " "in the clouds" are your words. Not mine.

So sorry if you lack the comprehension skills to keep up with me. Many others have been able to follow along with no issues, and if you have a problem with that then perhaps you should take a bit more time to understand where things are going or ask.

Painting people who don't like the idea of paying for coke with food stamps with the same paint and brush as MANY people who see this topic, and skip it because they think food stamps in general are a waste of money. That is an extreme, I simply don't think this is. Oh wait... that's overly simplistic... eh... oh well.

Really? You think I'm generalizing here? I'm the one trying to go into detail and debate the reasonings people feel the way they do on the subject matter and you're trying to tell me that I'm painting a group with a large brush. Seriously, do you know what the hell you're even talking about?

PS: I don't need your approval

I'm so brokenhearted... really.
Next time, make an effort to actually read what is being said before opening your trap.
BTW... I'm sure you thought you were clever with the YouTube link. Sure you like the song, but I have about one or two songs that I also like that I can say back to you in response. Now be nice or else I'll have to break out my claws.

 

[Tee&A]

IMO, people who are on food stamps already have enough struggles to deal with. There are already very strict guidelines to be on the program, some of which really impede on a person's trying to rebuild their life.

When you mentioned the "strict guidelines to be on the (food stamp) program", were you referring to the maximum income requirement guidelines one must qualify for to participate in the program? If so, how do you feel that impedes upon a person's goal of rebuilding their life?

Also can anyone tell me the current guidelines on what one can and cannot purchase with Food Stamps (aside from the obvious items such as alcohol, non-food items, etc)? It has been a long time since the days I was familiar with the restrictions, and I honestly don't know if the rules have changed much since then. In the late '80's - '90's, all I remember is that you couldn't buy hot, prepared food, non-food items, or use them at restaurants. So I then thought about how the old restrictions would have affected Food Stamp users with certain ailments (taking into consideration diabetics, anemics, hypoglycemics, etc), and I don't see how they would have been restricted from buying items they need to eat to maintain their health; but, perhaps the rules governing use of Food Stamps have changed since that time? So does anyone know what you can't buy with them now?

One more thing: back then, one could not buy vitamins with Food Stamps; I thought that was silly. Does anyone know if that has been changed as well?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

When you mentioned the "strict guidelines to be on the (food stamp) program", were you referring to the maximum income requirement guidelines one must qualify for to participate in the program? If so, how do you feel that impedes upon a person's goal of rebuilding their life?

I wasn't focusing on one particular item when I stated that. But it is a daunting process just to get on the program. On top of that, once you're on the program you're subjected to several financial reviews to make sure your income stays below a certain level in order to qualify. On the surface it sounds rather routine and painless, but once we look at the numbers it tells a different story. Let's use eligibility requirements from the state of New York for this example - Food Stamps | Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

In order for a family of four (with dependents) to qualify, the monthly gross income cannot exceed $3,675 a month or $44,100 a year. Very few people consider any other expenses for a family of this size. Housing, clothing, transportation, utility bills, health insurance, etc... Without going into too much detail, here's an article that explains how much more it is to live in New York than other places in our country: N.Y.C. so costly you need to earn six figures to make middle class

According to an article on eHow based on information collected earlier this year by the Food Stamp Outreach Program, the average amount of food stamps received is $91.40 per person per month in the state of New York. A family of four could receive a maximum of $588 a month. - New York Food Stamp Rules & Regulations | eHow.com

If the family is highly dependent on that maximum food stamp benefit, any progress or advancement towards rebuilding their lives would have to equal an additional gross of about $7000 a year just to maintain their current status (which isn't very good for living in New York anyhow). Add in the fact that we're still in the midst of a recession with very few good paying jobs available and many companies still trying to cut down on employees, wages & benefits by any means necessary. And keep in mind, if this household grosses even $10 more than the maximum allowed per month or year, they would no longer be eligible for food stamps altogether. I don't think I have to go into anymore detail in this for you to get what I'm saying. These are some of the struggles millions of people are going through right now in this country. Yet we have some people thinking they should not be allowed to purchase a measly bottle of soda with a food stamp and use the argument of nutrition and health to wretchedly defend their ideologies. Perhaps this will help shed more light on the subject matter and further illustrate how ridiculous the concept really is.

Also can anyone tell me the current guidelines on what one can and cannot purchase with Food Stamps (aside from the obvious items such as alcohol, non-food items, etc)? It has been a long time since the days I was familiar with the restrictions, and I honestly don't know if the rules have changed much since then. In the late '80's - '90's, all I remember is that you couldn't buy hot, prepared food, non-food items, or use them at restaurants. So I then thought about how the old restrictions would have affected Food Stamp users with certain ailments (taking into consideration diabetics, anemics, hypoglycemics, etc), and I don't see how they would have been restricted from buying items they need to eat to maintain their health; but, perhaps the rules governing use of Food Stamps have changed since that time? So does anyone know what you can't buy with them now?

I think a lot of that differs from state to state, although it's safe to say that alcohol and tobacco products are prohibited across the board.

 

[Tee&A]

Food Stamps | Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance
In order for a family of four (with dependents) to qualify, the monthly gross income cannot exceed $3,675 a month or $44,100 a year. Very few people consider any other expenses for a family of this size. Housing, clothing, transportation, utility bills, health insurance, etc...

I am glad you used New York as an example. At one point in my youth my mother moved our family there to be closer to my aunt (who assured my mother there would be more opportunity for better wages). Long story short, my mom moved us back to Maryland 13 months later. At one point she literally had 2 full-time jobs and we still were left wanting just for necessities, not for the other "frilly" things like ice cream cones and dinners at McDonald's.
The Empire State is a perfect example of a place where the rich kvetch about taxes but enjoy a far better standard of living and tax breaks than those who make a fraction of what they make. But that is off-topic so I won't go there...
Also, it's important to note that the figures you listed above for an example were for a household with an elderly or disabled member, and it's far more generous than the income guidelines for a similar sized household with no disabled or elderly member...which in essence is pretty damned sad. And it's all gross, not net (which is even damned sadder). At the bottom of the charts there is a lovely asteriked footnote that states "These figures based upon October 1, 2009 Federal Poverty Levels"; I'd looooove to know who determined (or how they determined) their figures.

Without going into too much detail, here's an article that explains how much more it is to live in New York than other places in our country: N.Y.C. so costly you need to earn six figures to make middle class

Wowsers. Most of the talking points stuck out to me, but these especially:

• In Manhattan, a $60,000 salary is equivalent to someone making $26,092 in Atlanta.
• The average monthly rent in New York is $2,801, 53% higher than San Francisco, the second most expensive city in the country.

I had to live in Frisco for 14 months for work; I got a monthly stipend from my employer for housing allowance, meals (and a bonus for the temporary duty) so that put me near 6 figs for that year's wages. Even with all of that extra denero, at the time I couldn't imagine anywhere in the US being more expensive than Frisco. My Lord...

 

[helgaleena]

Why McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers won't decompose - the real story behind the story
Soooo- McDonalds accepts food stamps now?

 

[Hoss]

Why McDonald's Happy Meal hamburgers won't decompose - the real story behind the story
Soooo- McDonalds accepts food stamps now?

"You bet your sweet bippy!
This was discussed a few pages back.

I just found an article from 1994 saying this.
MCDONALD'S TO TAKE FOOD STAMPS - The Record (Bergen County, NJ) | HighBeam Research - FREE trial


JERRY DeMARCO, Staff Writer
The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
02-11-1994
MCDONALD'S TO TAKE FOOD STAMPS -- PILOT PROGRAM AIMED AT SOME N.J. HOMELESS

"For years, Jim Henderson has watched the homeless pass through his
McDonald's on Broadway in Paterson, wondering what he could do to help.

Within the next several weeks, Henderson's restaurant and three
other McDonald's restaurants statewide will become the first eateries in
New Jersey to accept food stamps."

It's a way to further curtail your riights and freedoms. Next it will be meat products because it has fats and pasta and bread and whatever else they decide.

As far as the recipients with jewelry and cars, they may have had the items ahead of landing in public assistance or they might have been gifts given them.


Meanwhile, several fast food places accept food stamps. Yes, a Big Mac, large fries and a shake can be purchased with the Food Stamp/card allotment. Is that any healthier than the soda?

Adults are aware that there are health risks, the government should educate us, post fat and calorie info and leave it at that.

I've never heard of such a thing. From what I understand you can't use them for most prepared foods even in a supermarket such as the fresh roast chickens or subs that they sell. Some private small places may accept them illegally for prepared foods, but it's not the norm. People used to sell the paper food stamps to buy beer or drugs and now it's harder with electronic cards, but I bet it's still done. There is no place where you can legally buy a Big Mac with foodstamps.

It isn't in all states if I remember it right.

A google search with "fast food restaurants accepting food stamps brings up several hits. Add McDonald's and see add. results.

You are right. They set if up to help the homeless and people who can't cook for themselves.

 

[marleyisalegend]

imo, they should only be allowed to buy healthy foods with their stamps.

healthy foods are more expensive, it'd be sorta counterproductive as they'd need more money to make up for the rising expense. and since food stamps are prevelant in low-income areas where healthy food is NOT ready available, it's not even practical.

i'll never forget an interview with an older woman in a low-income neighborhood who said it'd be easier for her to get her hands on an illegal handgun than a fresh tomato.

as hard as it may be to believe, fresh markets and health food stores aren't fighting tooth and nail for property in low-income areas.

 

[Hoss]

healthy foods are more expensive, it'd be sorta counterproductive as they'd need more money to make up for the rising expense. and since food stamps are prevelant in low-income areas where healthy food is NOT ready available, it's not even practical.

i'll never forget an interview with an older woman in a low-income neighborhood who said it'd be easier for her to get her hands on an illegal handgun than a fresh tomato.

as hard as it may be to believe, fresh markets and health food stores aren't fighting tooth and nail for property in low-income areas.

Well said!

Even chain supermarkets avoid the low income spots. If a big chain enters the area, then phase 1 of gentrification has happened already and rents are rising pushing the poor out, even if there's nowhere to go that's affordable, which adds to the homeless population.

 

[haulthat]

Suggesting that restricting how food stamps can be used is meant to "curtail rights and freedoms" isn't valid. Food Stamps are not a right or a freedom. They are part of a government program made to help people who are struggling. You have the right to spend your money how ever and whenever you see fit, the risk or intelligence of that decision rest on your shoulders and yours alone. If it is not money you got on your own, but rather it was provided by the government the government is responsible to not only determine but justify how it is spent. Without that, there is plenty of room to argue that the program be cut completely because it can fail to do what it was designed for.
Our country is struggling and there is plenty of opportunity for it to fall apart in the long term. I think food stamps are necessary, and I'm not against them but I can't argue in their favor against those who are fiscally conservative, have never had to struggle, and lack empathy for those they could give a shit about to begin with if the program isn't clearly defied and has a documented effect to justify it. Everyone has a budget, including the Federal Government and a little reminder, they went WAY over budget. Have for years. X amount of dollars can be spent in X amount of ways. If their going to get smart they have to prove that money that is being spent can't be spent in better ways. How Americans spend their own money is completely up to them, weather or not the government funds something like food stamps much less restricts how it can be spent is not a right. Its like people who argue that members of a site like this shouldn't get banned for violating the terms of use, because they have "freedom of speech" its not a fair argument.
Check out FOOD STAMPED: A Documentary by Shira & Yoav Potash I stumbled on it while I was thinking about this thread.

Well said!

Originally Posted by Hoss
It's a way to further curtail your riights and freedoms. Next it will be meat products because it has fats and pasta and bread and whatever else they decide.

As far as the recipients with jewelry and cars, they may have had the items ahead of landing in public assistance or they might have been gifts given them.


Meanwhile, several fast food places accept food stamps. Yes, a Big Mac, large fries and a shake can be purchased with the Food Stamp/card allotment. Is that any healthier than the soda?

Adults are aware that there are health risks, the government should educate us, post fat and calorie info and leave it at that.