Wait, re-post the link that says that poorer people don't eat more unhealthy foods. That goes against a lot of what I've read.
Also, I did a taste test this weekend between high-end bottled water and notoriously bad tap, and I totally failed. I'm sure there are some pipe problems out there, but bottled water is in many cases less safe than tap, and a lot of the taste difference is often completely circumstantial. As long as they are both the same temperature you're unlikely to really taste a difference.
If you rephrase this to be, "raise a fuss when the government tries to control what people buy with their own money, but applaud them when they try to control what the government is buying for people..." then is very much not hypocritical and seems rational. Though I don't oppose the idea of a junk food tax.
Only if you supposed that everyone on food stamps is always going to be on it and is a net drain on the system, which is a load of total shit.
When you say "our money" you mean theirs as well unless they're poor forever, which in this economy is a silly sentiment to believe
Pretty sure you didn't read correctly, as your reply doesn't logically address anything I said.
No, I am, I'm saying it is still hypocritical in most cases because the person on food stamps is oft times on it for a very short time, and it's their money as much as it is yours.
Derrick, don't take it personally, Darkewolfe just thinks that poor people don't deserve to have things that taste good when they're not using their own money.
So, there's a couple of ideas that you've decided to hyperbolically oversimplify in order to make a straw man argument, since you are incapable of actually arguing with me in a rational way. First, there is the problem that in urban centers, poor people drink soda to the exclusion of water. This is an obvious health risk, and government and non-profit programs have been trying to target this for awhile. That's the whole source of the OP and the main argument here.
Second, choosing to drink something for flavor at risk to your health, when you're not paying for your own food or healthcare anyway, is a selfish decision. Now, the public can't regulate whether people have selfish desires, but they can somewhat regulate whether they are able to act on them.
Third, what I specifically said was that I don't care whether people like the taste of what's good for them or not. They should learn to like the taste of what's good for them. It is within the rights of an individual to choose to make decisions that are bad for their own health, but their ability to make those choices is often limited when the government has to intercede to give them the ability to buy food in the first place.
Derrick, don't take it personally, Darkewolfe just thinks that poor people don't deserve to have things that taste good when they're not using their own money.
So, there's a couple of ideas that you've decided to hyperbolically oversimplify in order to make a straw man argument, since you are incapable of actually arguing with me in a rational way. First, there is the problem that in urban centers, poor people drink soda to the exclusion of water. This is an obvious health risk, and government and non-profit programs have been trying to target this for awhile. That's the whole source of the OP and the main argument here.
Second, choosing to drink something for flavor at risk to your health, when you're not paying for your own food or healthcare anyway, is a selfish decision. Now, the public can't regulate whether people have selfish desires, but they can somewhat regulate whether they are able to act on them.
Third, what I specifically said was that I don't care whether people like the taste of what's good for them or not. They should learn to like the taste of what's good for them. It is within the rights of an individual to choose to make decisions that are bad for their own health, but their ability to make those choices is often limited when the government has to intercede to give them the ability to buy food in the first place.
So what makes banning food stamps from being used on soda superior to putting a tax on soda to increase its price above that of bottled water? Too much soda is no less a problem in middle america than urban detroit
Derrick, don't take it personally, Darkewolfe just thinks that poor people don't deserve to have things that taste good when they're not using their own money.
So, there's a couple of ideas that you've decided to hyperbolically oversimplify in order to make a straw man argument, since you are incapable of actually arguing with me in a rational way. First, there is the problem that in urban centers, poor people drink soda to the exclusion of water. This is an obvious health risk, and government and non-profit programs have been trying to target this for awhile. That's the whole source of the OP and the main argument here.
Second, choosing to drink something for flavor at risk to your health, when you're not paying for your own food or healthcare anyway, is a selfish decision. Now, the public can't regulate whether people have selfish desires, but they can somewhat regulate whether they are able to act on them.
Third, what I specifically said was that I don't care whether people like the taste of what's good for them or not. They should learn to like the taste of what's good for them. It is within the rights of an individual to choose to make decisions that are bad for their own health, but their ability to make those choices is often limited when the government has to intercede to give them the ability to buy food in the first place.
Guess what? Having a soda now and then isn't going to hurt you. Even if you drink them nearly every day. It's not rat poison.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
Derrick on
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Gatorade isn't necessary for physical exercise. At all.
Well, that depends on what type of exercise you're doing. Gatorade probably isn't necessary for taking a jog around the block, but water doesn't cut it for high-level athletics unless you're going to add bananas and salt tablets. And while Gatorade has gotten a lot more sugary in the last decade and basically become a soft drink, even its original version down in Gainesville had sugar added.
Gatorade isn't necessary for physical excercise. You can safely run a marathon without a sip of gatorade.
On a related note, should public sector employees be allowed to buy soda (or smokes or booze)? My tax dollars are paying for that too, as well as their health care.
This is a false equivalency. You are paying public employees a wage for their work, not subsidizing their smoking/drinking/soda.
There are absolutely a not insignificant number of people that qualify for food stamps, but are too embarrassed to actually take advantage of them, so trying to limit that as much as possible seems like a good thing to me.
I am also fairly loath to control too strictly what foods are and are not allowed. People on food stamps are not children, and shouldn't have the government twisting their arms into eating the way we think they should. If you care so much, start some programs for cooking and nutritional education.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves? Why does this supersede any limits the government puts forth on what you can buy with food stamps?
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
Don't put words in my mouth and in no way was my argument a slippery slope.
Derrick, don't take it personally, Darkewolfe just thinks that poor people don't deserve to have things that taste good when they're not using their own money.
So, there's a couple of ideas that you've decided to hyperbolically oversimplify in order to make a straw man argument, since you are incapable of actually arguing with me in a rational way. First, there is the problem that in urban centers, poor people drink soda to the exclusion of water. This is an obvious health risk, and government and non-profit programs have been trying to target this for awhile. That's the whole source of the OP and the main argument here.
Second, choosing to drink something for flavor at risk to your health, when you're not paying for your own food or healthcare anyway, is a selfish decision. Now, the public can't regulate whether people have selfish desires, but they can somewhat regulate whether they are able to act on them.
Third, what I specifically said was that I don't care whether people like the taste of what's good for them or not. They should learn to like the taste of what's good for them. It is within the rights of an individual to choose to make decisions that are bad for their own health, but their ability to make those choices is often limited when the government has to intercede to give them the ability to buy food in the first place.
Guess what? Having a soda now and then isn't going to hurt you. Even if you drink them nearly every day. It's not rat poison.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
If it's "every now and then", you shouldn't need food stamps to buy them anyway.
NYC has taken this position because a large portion of the urban poor are using allowances that are meant to be used for their daily subsistence and instead regularly spending it on empty calories.
And if you want to be offended when someone tells you "what and what not to drink" (which isn't happening here, I might add), then I'm just letting you know that I'm really offended when someone tells me that I'm not allowed to have any say over the destination of the tax money I paid to the local government I voted in.
So what makes banning food stamps from being used on soda superior to putting a tax on soda to increase its price above that of bottled water? Too much soda is no less a problem in middle america than urban detroit
More than half of New York City residents are overweight or obese, as are about 40% of the city's school children, according to Farley and Daines.
"One in eight adult city residents now has diabetes, and the disease is nearly twice as common among poorer New Yorkers," they wrote, adding that the diabetes rate in a poor neighborhood like East New York is about four times higher than the rate in "affluent Gramercy Park."
Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that New Yorkers spent $75 million to $135 million of the $2.7 billion in food stamps they received in 2009 on sodas and sugary drinks.
Thats 5% of the total FS budget getting spent on something with no nutritional value and a laundry list of deleterious health effects. Why not allow people to buy booze with foodstamps? Hell, there are at least some studies that say moderate drinking is good for you, soda is pretty much bad all around.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
Let's just restrict food stamps to lentils, beets and beans.
Probably sounds like a fantastic idea to every moron in this thread who has no clue about negative externalities to such an action.
Derrick, don't take it personally, Darkewolfe just thinks that poor people don't deserve to have things that taste good when they're not using their own money.
Third, what I specifically said was that I don't care whether people like the taste of what's good for them or not. They should learn to like the taste of what's good for them. It is within the rights of an individual to choose to make decisions that are bad for their own health, but their ability to make those choices is often limited when the government has to intercede to give them the ability to buy food in the first place.
I really don't see a difference here. Either way you're eating stuff that tastes terrible, and telling people to "learn to like the taste" is completely unhelpful. If you want people on food stamps to use them on healthier food, saying "you'll eat food that tastes like shit and like it, dammit!" is not going to have a positive effect.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
Don't put words in my mouth and in no way was my argument a slippery slope.
I'm not saying you said that. I said that someone brought up birthdays.
My retort is those fuckers don't need ice cream or cake.
Those assholes taking advantage of our tax money better buy the dairy, sugar, eggs, salt and do it from scratch. Frosting too. Then they know just how hard the world is working to make sure they can have a decent human life.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And if you want to be offended when someone tells you "what and what not to drink" (which isn't happening here, I might add), then I'm just letting you know that I'm really offended when someone tells me that I'm not allowed to have any say over the destination of the tax money I paid to the local government I voted in.
...that's how the government works. Your tax money will be used on stuff you don't like, because it's not your money anymore.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
Don't put words in my mouth and in no way was my argument a slippery slope.
I'm not saying you said that. I said that someone brought up birthdays.
My retort is those fuckers don't need ice cream or cake.
Those assholes taking advantage of our tax money better buy the dairy, sugar, eggs, salt and do it from scratch. Frosting too. Then they know just how hard the world is working to make sure they can have a decent human life.
I did. I was trying to illustrate a situation where restricting an activity with free stamps money could have a negative effect on a child. I withdrew the argument as it was more emotional than rational.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
Let's just restrict food stamps to lentils, beets and beans.
So you're proposing there should be zero restrictions on food stamps then since any restriction is a slippery slope?
And if you want to be offended when someone tells you "what and what not to drink" (which isn't happening here, I might add), then I'm just letting you know that I'm really offended when someone tells me that I'm not allowed to have any say over the destination of the tax money I paid to the local government I voted in.
...that's how the government works. Your tax money will be used on stuff you don't like, because it's not your money anymore.
Before they get it from the government it doesn't belong to a person getting food stamps either.
So should the government decide they want to set certain conditions for that money, like they have for years, sucks for them. That's how the government works.
Quid on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
When overtime food gets here I feel so much shame seeing my bottle of juice amongst all those soda cans I prefer to wait after everyone else has taken their stuff. My pride would take such a hit if my coworkers knew I was the one ordering juice instead of soda!
And if you want to be offended when someone tells you "what and what not to drink" (which isn't happening here, I might add), then I'm just letting you know that I'm really offended when someone tells me that I'm not allowed to have any say over the destination of the tax money I paid to the local government I voted in.
...that's how the government works. Your tax money will be used on stuff you don't like, because it's not your money anymore.
Well of course not, if you're going to look at it like "the moment you hand over your liquid cash, it is not yours anymore".
But I was under the impression that the foundation of democracy was that the government was by the people, for the people.
Is my say in beareaucratic affairs not a right? Am I not allowed to...debate and discourse? :winky:
And in any case, it's all hypocrisy on Derrick's part, and yours, if you agree with him. If you're going to say "well now that you've paid your taxes, you're an idiot for thinking you have some say in where you'd like that money to go.", you can't just say "I'm on welfare, thus I get to decide just how much money I deserve from the government!".
And if you want to be offended when someone tells you "what and what not to drink" (which isn't happening here, I might add), then I'm just letting you know that I'm really offended when someone tells me that I'm not allowed to have any say over the destination of the tax money I paid to the local government I voted in.
...that's how the government works. Your tax money will be used on stuff you don't like, because it's not your money anymore.
Before they get it from the government it doesn't belong to a person getting food stamps either.
So should the government decide they want to set certain conditions for that money, like they have for years, sucks for them. That's how the government works.
Baser, your stance is basically that people should not be able to buy things like soda and cake, which are bad for you, with foodstamps. My contention is that folks should be allowed treats sometimes.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
Let's just restrict food stamps to lentils, beets and beans.
So you're proposing there should be zero restrictions on food stamps then since any restriction is a slippery slope?
I'm saying that restricting mainstream foods from food stamp programs will discourage people, possibly shame them in public, and in general increase the stigma on using government assistance which, if you know anything about civics at all, is a bad thing, mkay.
Alcohol is a reasonable restriction. People don't consume it for sustenance. Soda doesn't pass the common sense test here. You want to go on a holy crusade against fucking soda pop? Okay, fine. Go on a holy crusade against soda pop as a whole and stop picking on people in circumstances that make it monumentally difficult to stick up for themselves.
The last thing this world needs is upper class fools trying to decide what everyone besides them should eat through whatever means they can manage.
Baser, your stance is basically that people should not be able to buy things like soda and cake, which are bad for you, with foodstamps. My contention is that folks should be allowed treats sometimes.
They can still have cake though. As pointed out they could make it. And after that they'd still have a ton of ingredients left over for other stuff, thus saving them cash.
Furthermore soda is not the only treat in the world, and if it's only once and a while then you don't need stamps for it anyway.
Food stamps aren't supposed to wholly cover the cost of nutrition; they're just there to supplement existing spending. There is nothing stopping folks from just buying soda.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
Let's just restrict food stamps to lentils, beets and beans.
So you're proposing there should be zero restrictions on food stamps then since any restriction is a slippery slope?
What's the basis for denying soda? It has sugar in it? I mean you might as well deny sugar and water then. If you want to be really silly about it, the person could make their own soda with materials bought with foodstamps. What did you do other than just be a silly goose?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm saying that restricting mainstream foods from food stamp programs will discourage people, possibly shame them in public, and in general increase the stigma on using government assistance which, if you know anything about civics at all, is a bad thing, mkay.
Alcohol is a reasonable restriction. People don't consume it for sustenance. Soda doesn't pass the common sense test here. You want to go on a holy crusade against fucking soda pop? Okay, fine. Go on a holy crusade against soda pop as a whole and stop picking on people in circumstances that make it monumentally difficult to stick up for themselves.
Beer can provide sustenance quite easily. Hell, probably more than soda given the amount of carbs. And alcohol isn't the only item restricted. Lots of actual foods a person can't buy at the grocery store. Often premade food from the deli. Yet that food's "mainstream". And I'd be all for them banning all soda from it along with a few other things. The fact that they haven't doesn't suddenly make this a horrible idea that restricts everyone to lentils.
The last thing this world needs is upper class fools trying to decide what everyone besides them should eat through whatever means they can manage.
<
Not upper class. Not sure I even count as middle class. Though frankly, not sure what that has to do with deciding food stamps shouldn't include every single food under the sun regardless of nutritional content.
Well of course not, if you're going to look at it like "the moment you hand over your liquid cash, it is not yours anymore".
But I was under the impression that the foundation of democracy was that the government was by the people, for the people.
Which doesn't mean individual people can decide for themselves what the government will do. That happens when you vote, and if you petition public officials.
And in any case, it's all hypocrisy on Derrick's part, and yours, if you agree with him. If you're going to say "well now that you've paid your taxes, you're an idiot for thinking you have some say in where you'd like that money to go.", you can't just say "I'm on welfare, thus I get to decide just how much money I deserve from the government!".
Nobody has said the latter at all, so nice strawman there.
And if you want to be offended when someone tells you "what and what not to drink" (which isn't happening here, I might add), then I'm just letting you know that I'm really offended when someone tells me that I'm not allowed to have any say over the destination of the tax money I paid to the local government I voted in.
...that's how the government works. Your tax money will be used on stuff you don't like, because it's not your money anymore.
Before they get it from the government it doesn't belong to a person getting food stamps either.
So should the government decide they want to set certain conditions for that money, like they have for years, sucks for them. That's how the government works.
Honestly, goosery on the highest level.
Except that my objection is to individuals claiming that because poor people are using their tax money, which somehow still belongs to them personally, they may dictate whatever restrictions on that money they desire.
The last thing this world needs is upper class fools trying to decide what everyone besides them should eat through whatever means they can manage.
But that's not really the case here, is it?
Soda is liquid shit. Nutritionists know this, soda is basically liquid death that fucks your body and ruins your teeth and provides you with no nutrients. Its terrible for you in every way and its also addictive and, unless you're talking about the flavor, there is nothing except a long list of reasons not to drink it.
We already have a "class of fools" deciding what we can and can't eat in agricultural departments and the FDA.
There's a world of difference between "elitists controlling the population and preventing them from enjoying life" and "you can't buy horrible addictive liquid bullshit with government-provided assistance."
There are already plenty of things you can't buy with foodstamps. Like videogames, or telephones, or shoes. Is any restriction on what you can buy with a food stamp the "upper class fools trying to decide what everyone besides them should eat?"
What's the basis for denying soda? It has sugar in it? I mean you might as well deny sugar and water then. If you want to be really silly about it, the person could make their own soda with materials bought with foodstamps. What did you do other than just be a silly goose?
Hell if nothing else got them to spend way less on sugar water than soda
Derrick, perhaps you are more versed in civics and social policy than I am. But I would like to think that shame and dignity is the least of your worries when you are on social assistance. Don't get me wrong. I know people, I've worked with people, who have come pretty close to rock bottom. Dignity is...important. That's an understatement of the year.
But look at it this way.
However it happened, whatever the cause was, these people are poor. Whether it was their fault or not. Something has fundamentally changed. They used to be able to support themselves, and now they cannot. I do not believe that allowing people to buy whatever they like (using public money), in an effort to "maintain their dignity", is a correct solution. Their priorities have shifted, and we shouldn't encourage the illusion that they're middle class citizens who can afford to buy goods with no inherent value. Would I rather see someone buy a lot of soda than someone buy cigarettes and alcohol? Absolutely. But I would rather see someone buy bread, eggs, milk, fruits and vegetables for them and their children then soda, fast food, and other processed goods.
Food stamps aren't supposed to wholly cover the cost of nutrition; they're just there to supplement existing spending. There is nothing stopping folks from just buying soda.
Given that money is fungible and foodstamps are virtually identical to money in many situations (everyone has to eat and not many people will get enough food stamps to eliminate the cost of food entirely), this doesn't do much.
I think it has more of a psychological impact than anything else. If you buy soda, you buy it with "real money" instead of foodstamps. Consumer psychology can be pretty weird.
Except that my objection is to individuals claiming that because poor people are using their tax money, which somehow still belongs to them personally, they may dictate whatever restrictions on that money they desire.
Food stamps aren't supposed to wholly cover the cost of nutrition; they're just there to supplement existing spending. There is nothing stopping folks from just buying soda.
And the negative externalities from denying random food products just to piss people off and make them feel inferior, such as decreased usage of assistance causing further poverty, is not worth it.
Think about for a minute. Don't just say "Blarg I'm right and this why!" Just sit your silly ass down for a second and think about the actual consequences. What happens when poverty deepens? Is society better served by restricting access to goddamn sugar water to the poor, or is it better served by people using the tools of society to dig themselves out of their hole?
Remember, it's not your money. It's our money. Their money too.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
Food stamps aren't supposed to wholly cover the cost of nutrition; they're just there to supplement existing spending. There is nothing stopping folks from just buying soda.
Given that money is fungible and foodstamps are virtually identical to money in many situations (everyone has to eat and not many people will get enough food stamps to eliminate the cost of food entirely), this doesn't do much.
I think it has more of a psychological impact than anything else. If you buy soda, you buy it with "real money" instead of foodstamps. Consumer psychology can be pretty weird.
Given that you get $6 a day maximum for an individual, unless you're eating white bread and ramen you aren't buying all your food on food stamps. Hence not only does this cause arguments, it doesn't really do anything.
Tax the soda! So what people will hate it, people hate everything (except, seemingly, something that can be construed as making the poor know their place. Clinton's disasterous welfare reform had broad public support because of the welfare unicorn queen)
override367 on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Baser, your stance is basically that people should not be able to buy things like soda and cake, which are bad for you, with foodstamps. My contention is that folks should be allowed treats sometimes.
My contention is that it's not the government or the taxpayers' obligation to ensure foodstamp users get "treats," especially when obesity and diabetes among the poor is so widespread.
Well of course not, if you're going to look at it like "the moment you hand over your liquid cash, it is not yours anymore".
But I was under the impression that the foundation of democracy was that the government was by the people, for the people.
Which doesn't mean individual people can decide for themselves what the government will do. That happens when you vote, and if you petition public officials.
And in any case, it's all hypocrisy on Derrick's part, and yours, if you agree with him. If you're going to say "well now that you've paid your taxes, you're an idiot for thinking you have some say in where you'd like that money to go.", you can't just say "I'm on welfare, thus I get to decide just how much money I deserve from the government!".
Nobody has said the latter at all, so nice strawman there.
Derrick did.
I was hasty, and I put words into his mouth. He didn't say exactly "I deserve just how much money I want", but he did dictate how he wanted money to be given to him. To paraphrase, "people on food stamps should be allowed to buy soda whenever they please." I have said "People on food stamps should not be allowed to buy soda whenever they please."
How are these any different? Why is my desire unfair but his is not?
No, once I have given my money to the government, I cannot physically control where they toss their hands. If the coins fall somewhere I don't like, tough luck.
But again, I thought the whole point of democracy was that we get to petition officials, raise support, make our voices heard, etc.
Isn't that what we're doing here? I like that the city has done this, I think, for the most part, it's a good idea. That's all.
Baser, your stance is basically that people should not be able to buy things like soda and cake, which are bad for you, with foodstamps. My contention is that folks should be allowed treats sometimes.
My contention is that it's not the government or the taxpayers' obligation to ensure foodstamp users get "treats," especially when obesity and diabetes among the poor is so widespread.
Atomic is right. Treats are for people who can afford them after they've already fed themselves with the basics, clothed themselves, ensured their children have an education. That sort of thing.
I'm coming off like an uncompassionate jackass right now, and I assure you, I'm all for social welfare. But I feel pretty strongly about priorities, and when you're impoverished, you have priorities that go beyond soda pop, and you have to find a way to accomplish those goals with what little funds you have.
What's the basis for denying soda? It has sugar in it? I mean you might as well deny sugar and water then. If you want to be really silly about it, the person could make their own soda with materials bought with foodstamps. What did you do other than just be a silly goose?
Hell if nothing else got them to spend way less on sugar water than soda
Maybe even start their own soda business.
I mean you can spend like $15 on sugar and a water filter for tap water and make probably $150 worth of soda, maybe even more.
But you got me there.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Baser, your stance is basically that people should not be able to buy things like soda and cake, which are bad for you, with foodstamps. My contention is that folks should be allowed treats sometimes.
My position in this thread is entirely limited to soda per the OP, I never mentioned cakes, ice cream, potato chips, gum drops or hot pockets.
My position on soda is that it isn't "food" in any meaningful sense and should not be covered by food stamps. I don't view the food stamp program as an entitlement to free stuffz, I think of it as a social program to provide for the welfare of people that are having a tough time. If the associated press is correct and approximately$75,000,000 of food stamp money was spent on a luxury product that contains no nutritional value, that this is a terrible waste of state money that could be spent in more efficient ways to promote individual dignity (ie a program to provide the poor with toilet paper and toothpaste).
In the past I worked for a food pantry and I'm not sure and this very well may be confirmation bias, but I don't recall EVER packing Mountain Dew in a box.
In short, I disagree with you that people on food stamps should be entitled to treats, but I don't think they should have to stand in lines for gruel either.
On the other hand, in the spirit of "taking it down a notch for America", I want to point out that I am not implying that you believe that people on welfare are entitled or should subsist entirely on Kobe Beef and Sour Patch Kids for the sake of their self esteem.
Alcohol is a reasonable restriction. People don't consume it for sustenance. Soda doesn't pass the common sense test here. You want to go on a holy crusade against fucking soda pop? Okay, fine. Go on a holy crusade against soda pop as a whole and stop picking on people in circumstances that make it monumentally difficult to stick up for themselves
People don't consume soda for sustenance, they consume it for pleasure. A can of Coke has fewer nutrients than a can of beer. No one is banning poor people from soda, we are trying to stop subsidizing it. Just like we don't pay for booze or cigarettes.
Posts
No, I am, I'm saying it is still hypocritical in most cases because the person on food stamps is oft times on it for a very short time, and it's their money as much as it is yours.
So, there's a couple of ideas that you've decided to hyperbolically oversimplify in order to make a straw man argument, since you are incapable of actually arguing with me in a rational way. First, there is the problem that in urban centers, poor people drink soda to the exclusion of water. This is an obvious health risk, and government and non-profit programs have been trying to target this for awhile. That's the whole source of the OP and the main argument here.
Second, choosing to drink something for flavor at risk to your health, when you're not paying for your own food or healthcare anyway, is a selfish decision. Now, the public can't regulate whether people have selfish desires, but they can somewhat regulate whether they are able to act on them.
Third, what I specifically said was that I don't care whether people like the taste of what's good for them or not. They should learn to like the taste of what's good for them. It is within the rights of an individual to choose to make decisions that are bad for their own health, but their ability to make those choices is often limited when the government has to intercede to give them the ability to buy food in the first place.
So what makes banning food stamps from being used on soda superior to putting a tax on soda to increase its price above that of bottled water? Too much soda is no less a problem in middle america than urban detroit
Guess what? Having a soda now and then isn't going to hurt you. Even if you drink them nearly every day. It's not rat poison.
There are greater things at stake than having a laughably marginal effect on diet. Like personal pride, and the ability to move on from a bad situation with a certain amount of dignity.
Gatorade isn't necessary for physical excercise. You can safely run a marathon without a sip of gatorade.
This is a false equivalency. You are paying public employees a wage for their work, not subsidizing their smoking/drinking/soda.
I am also fairly loath to control too strictly what foods are and are not allowed. People on food stamps are not children, and shouldn't have the government twisting their arms into eating the way we think they should. If you care so much, start some programs for cooking and nutritional education.
--LeVar Burton
What the Hell?
What is it with people and needing to buy soda to be proud of themselves? Why does this supersede any limits the government puts forth on what you can buy with food stamps?
Slippery slope. Someone brought up birthdays earlier. Fuckers don't deserve ice cream or cake, you know?
Don't put words in my mouth and in no way was my argument a slippery slope.
If it's "every now and then", you shouldn't need food stamps to buy them anyway.
NYC has taken this position because a large portion of the urban poor are using allowances that are meant to be used for their daily subsistence and instead regularly spending it on empty calories.
And if you want to be offended when someone tells you "what and what not to drink" (which isn't happening here, I might add), then I'm just letting you know that I'm really offended when someone tells me that I'm not allowed to have any say over the destination of the tax money I paid to the local government I voted in.
Thats 5% of the total FS budget getting spent on something with no nutritional value and a laundry list of deleterious health effects. Why not allow people to buy booze with foodstamps? Hell, there are at least some studies that say moderate drinking is good for you, soda is pretty much bad all around.
Let's just restrict food stamps to lentils, beets and beans.
I really don't see a difference here. Either way you're eating stuff that tastes terrible, and telling people to "learn to like the taste" is completely unhelpful. If you want people on food stamps to use them on healthier food, saying "you'll eat food that tastes like shit and like it, dammit!" is not going to have a positive effect.
I'm not saying you said that. I said that someone brought up birthdays.
My retort is those fuckers don't need ice cream or cake.
Those assholes taking advantage of our tax money better buy the dairy, sugar, eggs, salt and do it from scratch. Frosting too. Then they know just how hard the world is working to make sure they can have a decent human life.
I did. I was trying to illustrate a situation where restricting an activity with free stamps money could have a negative effect on a child. I withdrew the argument as it was more emotional than rational.
So you're proposing there should be zero restrictions on food stamps then since any restriction is a slippery slope?
Before they get it from the government it doesn't belong to a person getting food stamps either.
So should the government decide they want to set certain conditions for that money, like they have for years, sucks for them. That's how the government works.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Well of course not, if you're going to look at it like "the moment you hand over your liquid cash, it is not yours anymore".
But I was under the impression that the foundation of democracy was that the government was by the people, for the people.
Is my say in beareaucratic affairs not a right? Am I not allowed to...debate and discourse? :winky:
And in any case, it's all hypocrisy on Derrick's part, and yours, if you agree with him. If you're going to say "well now that you've paid your taxes, you're an idiot for thinking you have some say in where you'd like that money to go.", you can't just say "I'm on welfare, thus I get to decide just how much money I deserve from the government!".
EDIT: Quid nails it.
Honestly, goosery on the highest level.
I'm saying that restricting mainstream foods from food stamp programs will discourage people, possibly shame them in public, and in general increase the stigma on using government assistance which, if you know anything about civics at all, is a bad thing, mkay.
Alcohol is a reasonable restriction. People don't consume it for sustenance. Soda doesn't pass the common sense test here. You want to go on a holy crusade against fucking soda pop? Okay, fine. Go on a holy crusade against soda pop as a whole and stop picking on people in circumstances that make it monumentally difficult to stick up for themselves.
The last thing this world needs is upper class fools trying to decide what everyone besides them should eat through whatever means they can manage.
They can still have cake though. As pointed out they could make it. And after that they'd still have a ton of ingredients left over for other stuff, thus saving them cash.
Furthermore soda is not the only treat in the world, and if it's only once and a while then you don't need stamps for it anyway.
What's the basis for denying soda? It has sugar in it? I mean you might as well deny sugar and water then. If you want to be really silly about it, the person could make their own soda with materials bought with foodstamps. What did you do other than just be a silly goose?
<
Not upper class. Not sure I even count as middle class. Though frankly, not sure what that has to do with deciding food stamps shouldn't include every single food under the sun regardless of nutritional content.
But that's not really the case here, is it?
Soda is liquid shit. Nutritionists know this, soda is basically liquid death that fucks your body and ruins your teeth and provides you with no nutrients. Its terrible for you in every way and its also addictive and, unless you're talking about the flavor, there is nothing except a long list of reasons not to drink it.
We already have a "class of fools" deciding what we can and can't eat in agricultural departments and the FDA.
There's a world of difference between "elitists controlling the population and preventing them from enjoying life" and "you can't buy horrible addictive liquid bullshit with government-provided assistance."
There are already plenty of things you can't buy with foodstamps. Like videogames, or telephones, or shoes. Is any restriction on what you can buy with a food stamp the "upper class fools trying to decide what everyone besides them should eat?"
Hell if nothing else got them to spend way less on sugar water than soda
But look at it this way.
However it happened, whatever the cause was, these people are poor. Whether it was their fault or not. Something has fundamentally changed. They used to be able to support themselves, and now they cannot. I do not believe that allowing people to buy whatever they like (using public money), in an effort to "maintain their dignity", is a correct solution. Their priorities have shifted, and we shouldn't encourage the illusion that they're middle class citizens who can afford to buy goods with no inherent value. Would I rather see someone buy a lot of soda than someone buy cigarettes and alcohol? Absolutely. But I would rather see someone buy bread, eggs, milk, fruits and vegetables for them and their children then soda, fast food, and other processed goods.
Given that money is fungible and foodstamps are virtually identical to money in many situations (everyone has to eat and not many people will get enough food stamps to eliminate the cost of food entirely), this doesn't do much.
I think it has more of a psychological impact than anything else. If you buy soda, you buy it with "real money" instead of foodstamps. Consumer psychology can be pretty weird.
Oh that's cool. I fully agree with that.
And the negative externalities from denying random food products just to piss people off and make them feel inferior, such as decreased usage of assistance causing further poverty, is not worth it.
Think about for a minute. Don't just say "Blarg I'm right and this why!" Just sit your silly ass down for a second and think about the actual consequences. What happens when poverty deepens? Is society better served by restricting access to goddamn sugar water to the poor, or is it better served by people using the tools of society to dig themselves out of their hole?
Remember, it's not your money. It's our money. Their money too.
Something to think about-
Given that you get $6 a day maximum for an individual, unless you're eating white bread and ramen you aren't buying all your food on food stamps. Hence not only does this cause arguments, it doesn't really do anything.
Tax the soda! So what people will hate it, people hate everything (except, seemingly, something that can be construed as making the poor know their place. Clinton's disasterous welfare reform had broad public support because of the welfare unicorn queen)
My contention is that it's not the government or the taxpayers' obligation to ensure foodstamp users get "treats," especially when obesity and diabetes among the poor is so widespread.
Derrick did.
I was hasty, and I put words into his mouth. He didn't say exactly "I deserve just how much money I want", but he did dictate how he wanted money to be given to him. To paraphrase, "people on food stamps should be allowed to buy soda whenever they please." I have said "People on food stamps should not be allowed to buy soda whenever they please."
How are these any different? Why is my desire unfair but his is not?
No, once I have given my money to the government, I cannot physically control where they toss their hands. If the coins fall somewhere I don't like, tough luck.
But again, I thought the whole point of democracy was that we get to petition officials, raise support, make our voices heard, etc.
Isn't that what we're doing here? I like that the city has done this, I think, for the most part, it's a good idea. That's all.
edit:
Atomic is right. Treats are for people who can afford them after they've already fed themselves with the basics, clothed themselves, ensured their children have an education. That sort of thing.
I'm coming off like an uncompassionate jackass right now, and I assure you, I'm all for social welfare. But I feel pretty strongly about priorities, and when you're impoverished, you have priorities that go beyond soda pop, and you have to find a way to accomplish those goals with what little funds you have.
Maybe even start their own soda business.
I mean you can spend like $15 on sugar and a water filter for tap water and make probably $150 worth of soda, maybe even more.
But you got me there.
My position in this thread is entirely limited to soda per the OP, I never mentioned cakes, ice cream, potato chips, gum drops or hot pockets.
My position on soda is that it isn't "food" in any meaningful sense and should not be covered by food stamps. I don't view the food stamp program as an entitlement to free stuffz, I think of it as a social program to provide for the welfare of people that are having a tough time. If the associated press is correct and approximately$75,000,000 of food stamp money was spent on a luxury product that contains no nutritional value, that this is a terrible waste of state money that could be spent in more efficient ways to promote individual dignity (ie a program to provide the poor with toilet paper and toothpaste).
In the past I worked for a food pantry and I'm not sure and this very well may be confirmation bias, but I don't recall EVER packing Mountain Dew in a box.
In short, I disagree with you that people on food stamps should be entitled to treats, but I don't think they should have to stand in lines for gruel either.
On the other hand, in the spirit of "taking it down a notch for America", I want to point out that I am not implying that you believe that people on welfare are entitled or should subsist entirely on Kobe Beef and Sour Patch Kids for the sake of their self esteem.