Suggesting that coke is such a big deal that it needs to be taken into consideration this far brings into question weather the program as a whole is worth while. Refusing to address ways in which it can be improved, consider what it was intended to do, and how effectively its doing that The ship has sailed, the horse is dead, and I won't beat it anymore. Stick to your guns, and I will stick to mine. No problem there. I am just trying to point out that there are a lot of people who are opposed to the program as a whole, and they do not hear a word that people on the opposite end who are arguing over spending it for coke or not have to say. Compromise is necessary for things not to be taken to a much worse place. At this point, as I have been exposed to it much more than the face value, on this issue I say either do it do it fast or drop the subject. If an issue this trivial is going to come under fire this heavy, its not worth it.
I do think at this point its being used more as a distraction and that time and effort could be better spent on a major overhaul of SNAP and the food industry. Seeing as how Big Food and Big Beverage are weighing in on the debate over buying coke with it, I think it needs to be taken to a more serious place. I'm sure their concerns are in favor of the health of its recipients, no sarcasm there or anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/weekinreview/17hartocollis.html
"Can't something be done about the freeloaders who are costing us taxpayers millions?" I don't think it helps the impression people get on the subject that Big Food and Big Beverage are in that corner when it comes to the merits of the argument for coke.
Food stamps debate heats up in San Diego over farmers market participation - San Diego Nonpartisan | Examiner.com
"He goes further, calling into question the wisdom of providing food stamps at all." On this article, I do think farmers markets should have to accept food stamps so long as it doesn't cost them. Why there is opposition to that... I don't get.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/opinion/17sun4.html?_r=1&ref=food_stamps
"Democrats preoccupied with political survival have been nearly as hostile toward the food stamp program. Fecklessly invoking fiscal responsibility, the Democratic-controlled Congress voted to strip $11.9 billion in long-term food stamp financing in a Peter-to-Paul stunt to pay for emergency aid for state budgets. And the Senate has been aiming to cut another $2.2 billion in stamps to finance child nutrition reform." As I said, there are those who are taking it to an extreme, which they can justify if changes are made to make it more effective. At this point I don't think coke is worthwhile debate, I don't think it should have been a debate in the first place. It could be seriously improved in many other ways, and with all this time and energy lets go that direction.
The fact that there are so many so-called "fiscally conservative, economically responsible people" in this country who have no problem impeding on the lives of those who struggle without fully looking into the reasons why (as they scramble to hide their several credit cards, college tuition bills, car payments, mortgages and other forms of self-accumulated debt so they don't look too hypocritical) is substantial enough for some people to argue in their favor. I get sick of watching people act like they've made it and never have to live under the threat of losing everything, come up with some of the most ridiculous reasonings to suggest binding and repressive legislation on those who have close to nothing.
One really needs to analyze their positions as to why they think regulating Food Stamp programs more than its current level is necessary and consider whether or not if it really would make a difference for the people you claim to be helping or if you're just out to rhetorically stroke your own ego. If it's not worthy of a fair analysis that weighs all the pros and cons, then it's most certainly not worthy of a mention.
