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)
Well let's imagine an individual gets $6 a day in food stamps
and spends $10 a day on food total
But now they're at the store, and they've got their $6 of food stamp goods
and they look at soda
and instead of asking "should I buy this with my $6?"
They ask "should I buy this with my actual money?"
If this has a psychological effect and reduces soda consumption for people on food stamps, is that a bad thing?
PotatoNinja on
Two goats enter, one car leaves
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
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.
Possibly shame them in public? Im sorry, but this is silly. Food stamps aren't even actual stamps anymore, the city (or state) gives you a debit card. Unless you make scene (re: your inability to buy soda on the card), no one beyond you and maybe the cashier can even tell you're paying with a food stamp card.
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 actually okay with this change to be honest- you cant buy energy drinks why is soda exempt? I'd even take it a step further and block fruit juice. I want more done that has nothing to do with food stamps too.
My problem is so many people in this thread have this fucked up distorted view of the poor. What fucking bearing does buying soda have to do with them getting clothes and going to school? Oh fuck you BUY YOUR KIDS SODA (far too much of it, just like middle class families not in the ghetto!), so your kids are obviously naked and feral never having been to school.
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.
I could just repeat what I said before - that you should re-read because your reply has nothing to do with what I said - but you are refusing to cooperate. So I'll be clearer: I never said anything about people on food stamps spending "my" money. The money is the government's, or the people's, but it isn't "mine." What you are saying doesn't directly relate to anything I said. Expecting the government to control what it spends its money on is obviously in a different category than expecting the government to control what people spend their own money on. And thus it does not seem hypocritical at all when people applaud their government for controlling how it spends its money, but disapprove of their government trying to control how people spend their own.
Now, I'm sure there are many people who more simply see it as "hey, stop using my money to buy soda!" That's not at all what I said, but I'm sure it exists. Those people are not rendered hypocrites or incorrect just because the revenue also comes from others besides themselves, perhaps even including from the guy buying soda with food stamps because he pays some taxes, too. And I also think most of these people are at least somewhat aware of the chain of taxation, government revenue, budgets, entitlement programs, spending, etc. and that the person isn't exactly stealing a taxpayer's money directly in order to buy a soda. Despite all of this, the general idea behind "don't use my money to buy soda" is still a valid, simplified point. They are saying that subsidized soda in the diet isn't what they think is a valid use of money paid to the government in taxes. That's what we're discussing here.
My problem is so many people in this thread have this fucked up distorted view of the poor. What fucking bearing does buying soda have to do with them getting clothes and going to school? Oh fuck you BUY YOUR KIDS SODA (far too much of it, just like middle class families not in the ghetto!), so your kids are obviously naked and feral never having been to school.
That attitude just sickens the fuck out of me
This has nothing to do with poor people being shitty
Nobody should drink soda. Its liquid shit.
However, in our society the government generally doesn't tell you what to do with your own money unless there's a really compelling reason for it.
So you can buy your own soda if you want
but if the government is giving you money, in the form of food stamps
in order to feed you or yourr children and in order to ensure you don't starve
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
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.
Possibly shame them in public? Im sorry, but this is silly. Food stamps aren't even actual stamps anymore, the city (or state) gives you a debit card. Unless you make scene (re: your inability to buy soda on the card), no one beyond you and maybe the cashier can even tell you're paying with a food stamp card.
No it is not silly. It's the cashier, everyone in line, and possibly everyone in earshot. I once paid for food in a Super Fresh in the self checkout line wherein the automated system yelled out in a very loud voice exactly how I was paying for the food.
Also, I did not say that people on food stamps should have infinite soda. I simply said that as grown adults they can choose what to use their limited allotment of resources on. "Soda isn't food! It's mouth drugs!" Or similar, is goddamn stupid. You may not like the nutritional value, but it's food and commonly known to be food.
If you want what people drink to be healthier, and do it via government, get a fucking clue and start lobbying for nutritional value standards.
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 actually okay with this change to be honest- you cant buy energy drinks why is soda exempt? I'd even take it a step further and block fruit juice. I want more done that has nothing to do with food stamps too.
My problem is so many people in this thread have this fucked up distorted view of the poor. What fucking bearing does buying soda have to do with them getting clothes and going to school? Oh fuck you BUY YOUR KIDS SODA (far too much of it, just like middle class families not in the ghetto!), so your kids are obviously naked and feral never having been to school.
That attitude just sickens the fuck out of me
Woah woah woah, I don't think anyone here thinks that kids aren't going to school just because they're drinking a few cans of coke every day, myself included.
I was making a generic statement about needs coming before wants. All I'm saying is that healthy food should be a priority for those people who can't afford much food to begin with.
And yeah, middle class families, I'm aware, drink just as much soda. The difference is that the urban poor a) lead far, far more sedentary lifestyles on average, and b) they don't have the money to pay for health care when they DO have health problems down the road.
Let it be said I'd totally support a tax for soda for the general population, if only because I think no one really "needs" soda.
Rikushix on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
If you want what people drink to be healthier, and do it via government, get a fucking clue and start lobbying for nutritional value standards.
If you chill on your rage boner, you'd see that the OP in this thread is talking about the "government" pretty much doing this. That's what we're discussing.
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
Jesus Christ its not formaldehyde
I'm willing to bet most of the people extolling the atrocities of the common filled soda can on society are doing so while holding or sitting near an open can of soda.
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
Jesus Christ its not formaldehyde
C'mon, its pretty terrible to drink. I'm obviously being sarcastic but soda is truly terrible for you and there's no reason to drink it. It is liquidized unhealthiness.
My problem is so many people in this thread have this fucked up distorted view of the poor. What fucking bearing does buying soda have to do with them getting clothes and going to school? Oh fuck you BUY YOUR KIDS SODA (far too much of it, just like middle class families not in the ghetto!), so your kids are obviously naked and feral never having been to school.
That attitude just sickens the fuck out of me
This has nothing to do with poor people being shitty
Nobody should drink soda. Its liquid shit.
However, in our society the government generally doesn't tell you what to do with your own money unless there's a really compelling reason for it.
So you can buy your own soda if you want
but if the government is giving you money, in the form of food stamps
in order to feed you or yourr children and in order to ensure you don't starve
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
Why are you saying this to me and conveniently leaving out the part of the quote where I more or less agreed with you, and the quote I responded to that indicated that a poor person buying treats means their children are unclothed and uneducated
If you want what people drink to be healthier, and do it via government, get a fucking clue and start lobbying for nutritional value standards.
If you chill on your rage boner, you'd see that the OP in this thread is talking about the "government" pretty much doing this. That's what we're discussing.
Singling out the downtrodden and laying regulations on corporations are so fucking cosmically distant from each other I don't even know where to start with addressing the ignorance of that statement.
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
Jesus Christ its not formaldehyde
C'mon, its pretty terrible to drink. I'm obviously being sarcastic but soda is truly terrible for you and there's no reason to drink it. It is liquidized unhealthiness.
Hyperbole is one thing, but you're just being ridiculous.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
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.
Possibly shame them in public? Im sorry, but this is silly. Food stamps aren't even actual stamps anymore, the city (or state) gives you a debit card. Unless you make scene (re: your inability to buy soda on the card), no one beyond you and maybe the cashier can even tell you're paying with a food stamp card.
No it is not silly. It's the cashier, everyone in line, and possibly everyone in earshot. I once paid for food in a Super Fresh in the self checkout line wherein the automated system yelled out in a very loud voice exactly how I was paying for the food.
Also, I did not say that people on food stamps should have infinite soda. I simply said that as grown adults they can choose what to use their limited allotment of resources on. "Soda isn't food! It's mouth drugs!" Or similar, is goddamn stupid. You may not like the nutritional value, but it's food and commonly known to be food.
If you want what people drink to be healthier, and do it via government, get a fucking clue and start lobbying for nutritional value standards.
Look, I don't see soda as a drug (well, I do, in the chemical sense, like every other food), but the fact of the matter is that I don't like the nutritional value because it has none. It's sugar (or HFCS), water, artifical colouring and carbon dioxide. If you want to call it a food, sure, but you don't really get much from drinking it.
I agree with you that adults should be allowed to make their own choices. The issue here is that many of the urban poor - grown adults - are choosing to drink soda all the time, instead of far healthier alternatives. And it is not a good choice (when consumed regularly). Ask any nutritionist.
And I totally agree about lobbying the government for nutritional value standards! In fact, I think we should get started on both ideas right away.
While we're doing that, why don't you lobby Super Fresh to modify their automated checkout system? :winky:
C'mon, its pretty terrible to drink. I'm obviously being sarcastic but soda is truly terrible for you and there's no reason to drink it. It is liquidized unhealthiness.
Sarcasm would be if I said "Soda is like the fountain of youth!"
That being said, exaggeration does no one any good. We all agree its unhealthy, we all agree that people should be discouraged from drinking it.
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
Luckily these are not mutually exclusive policies.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
My problem is so many people in this thread have this fucked up distorted view of the poor. What fucking bearing does buying soda have to do with them getting clothes and going to school? Oh fuck you BUY YOUR KIDS SODA (far too much of it, just like middle class families not in the ghetto!), so your kids are obviously naked and feral never having been to school.
That attitude just sickens the fuck out of me
This has nothing to do with poor people being shitty
Nobody should drink soda. Its liquid shit.
However, in our society the government generally doesn't tell you what to do with your own money unless there's a really compelling reason for it.
So you can buy your own soda if you want
but if the government is giving you money, in the form of food stamps
in order to feed you or yourr children and in order to ensure you don't starve
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
Why are you saying this to me and conveniently leaving out the part of the quote where I more or less agreed with you, and the quote I responded to that indicated that a poor person buying treats means their children are unclothed and uneducated
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
Luckily these are not mutually exclusive policies.
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.
People don't buy pizza for sustenance either. Most of what people consume is largely informed by pleasure.
I'm ok with providing a blank check for food. I'm not comfortable with the paternalistic nature that we're taking with our citizens just because they are in need of assistance.
If we're going to be involved in the business of making sure the poor are healthy, I'd rather we provide a mandated list of grocery items every week that will round out a healthy diet. At least that actually affects the goal rather than ineffectual attacks on sugary bogeymen.
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 actually okay with this change to be honest- you cant buy energy drinks why is soda exempt? I'd even take it a step further and block fruit juice. I want more done that has nothing to do with food stamps too.
My problem is so many people in this thread have this fucked up distorted view of the poor. What fucking bearing does buying soda have to do with them getting clothes and going to school? Oh fuck you BUY YOUR KIDS SODA (far too much of it, just like middle class families not in the ghetto!), so your kids are obviously naked and feral never having been to school.
That attitude just sickens the fuck out of me
Woah woah woah, I don't think anyone here thinks that kids aren't going to school just because they're drinking a few cans of coke every day, myself included.
I was making a generic statement about needs coming before wants. All I'm saying is that healthy food should be a priority for those people who can't afford much food to begin with.
And yeah, middle class families, I'm aware, drink just as much soda. The difference is that the urban poor a) lead far, far more sedentary lifestyles on average, and b) they don't have the money to pay for health care when they DO have health problems down the road.
Let it be said I'd totally support a tax for soda for the general population, if only because I think no one really "needs" soda.
I'm sorry for misreading you, but what you wrote sounded really bad. Focus on getting your kids clothes and education instead of getting them treats
I'm pretty sure I have clothes and an education and my mom was fucking awful with nutrition
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
This, to me, very heavily implies that people on food stamps who buy soda aren't doing the above, given that it is what this thread is about.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Yes, absolutely, because if they still want soda as a treat, they can buy it without food stamps.
Edit: Also want to add that, like Potato Ninja, I do not consider this 'penalizing' at all.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
Jesus Christ its not formaldehyde
C'mon, its pretty terrible to drink. I'm obviously being sarcastic but soda is truly terrible for you and there's no reason to drink it. It is liquidized unhealthiness.
Hyperbole is one thing, but you're just being ridiculous.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Carrot I'm definitely siding with you on this one - I don't think the former should be punished like that.
But I'm under the impression that those people who buy a six pack of coke every couple of weeks are able to afford it just fine without foodstamps.
We're looking at those individuals who go to the store every day or two and think "Hm, what else can I buy with my stamps after I've bought this 2L bottle of Coke..."
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Nobody is being penalized. "You can't buy that with food stamps" is not a penalty. If I give you twenty dollars and tell you not to spend it on alcohol, that isn't a penalty.
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.
Couldn't we do that much, much more directly but just not, you know, subsidizing its creation in the first place? Is there a reason not to do that?
Well, other than the fact that "poor people" are easy to cut subsidies on and gigantic ag business are very not.
Next up-> Argue that sugar, the basis for energy production and retention in our bodies, has no use to the body when placed in a can in liquid form.
And go.
So you're fine if diet soda isn't covered under food stamps?
You're moving goalposts. You've gone from "I eat what I want!" to "I eat what I want as long as it has nutritional value." Hey, glad to see you're now at least playing on the same field as everybody else.
Hey, I'm not the one adhering to some arbitrary principle pulled out of thin air.
I think it's a pretty simple pragmatic calculus. Sugar soda is objectively bad for you. The health risks of drinking acidic liquid sugar vastly outweigh the nutritional benefits. Food stamps are meant to help people's well-being, and sugar soda runs counter to that goal.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Nobody is being penalized. "You can't buy that with food stamps" is not a penalty.
Adding useless red tape to a service we want the public to use, is however a deterrent to that service actually being used.
When we start randomly disallowing food products we pick and choose because of the relative health value, we are doing just that.
Derrick on
Steam and CFN: Enexemander
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
People don't buy pizza for sustenance either. Most of what people consume is largely informed by pleasure.
I'm ok with providing a blank check for food. I'm not comfortable with the paternalistic nature that we're taking with our citizens just because they are in need of assistance.
If we're going to be involved in the business of making sure the poor are healthy, I'd rather we provide a mandated list of grocery items every week that will round out a healthy diet. At least that actually affects the goal rather than ineffectual attacks on sugary bogeymen.
isn't "providing assistance" paternalistic by its very nature?
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 actually okay with this change to be honest- you cant buy energy drinks why is soda exempt? I'd even take it a step further and block fruit juice. I want more done that has nothing to do with food stamps too.
My problem is so many people in this thread have this fucked up distorted view of the poor. What fucking bearing does buying soda have to do with them getting clothes and going to school? Oh fuck you BUY YOUR KIDS SODA (far too much of it, just like middle class families not in the ghetto!), so your kids are obviously naked and feral never having been to school.
That attitude just sickens the fuck out of me
Woah woah woah, I don't think anyone here thinks that kids aren't going to school just because they're drinking a few cans of coke every day, myself included.
I was making a generic statement about needs coming before wants. All I'm saying is that healthy food should be a priority for those people who can't afford much food to begin with.
And yeah, middle class families, I'm aware, drink just as much soda. The difference is that the urban poor a) lead far, far more sedentary lifestyles on average, and b) they don't have the money to pay for health care when they DO have health problems down the road.
Let it be said I'd totally support a tax for soda for the general population, if only because I think no one really "needs" soda.
I'm sorry for misreading you, but what you wrote sounded really bad. Focus on getting your kids clothes and education instead of getting them treats
I'm pretty sure I have clothes and an education and my mom was fucking awful with nutrition
No, it's my bad, and I'm not just being gallant, I worded it pretty poorly.
Let me reiterate. I think there is nothing wrong with treats. I'll even go so far as to say that having soda occasionally really isn't that bad at all.
I doubt there's a single family in existence that would choose spending their last few dollars on soda over school notebooks for their children.
I'm just saying that the basic health of you and your children should always come first. I'd never make the claim that poor people drink soda regularly instead of clothing their children or sending them to school. But I would say that when it comes to food choices, there are probably (for instance), hundreds of thousands of families who would, faced with their last few dollars for the day, choose a 2L bottle of coke instead of a dozen eggs or a loaf of bread.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Nobody is being penalized. "You can't buy that with food stamps" is not a penalty.
Adding useless red tape to a service we want the public to use, is however a deterrent to that service actually being used.
When we start randomly disallowing food products we pick and choose because of the relative health value, we are doing just that.
This isn't random. Its very targetted, and for a very straightforward reason.
"Random" would be very different.
This isn't useless red tape. Actually, thanks to modern advancements in data management (HOORAY THE INTERNET!) managing purchases through food stamps is really easy. There's already a system in place making food stamps limited to certain products, adding one more category is not difficult at all.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Nobody is being penalized. "You can't buy that with food stamps" is not a penalty.
Adding useless red tape to a service we want the public to use, is however a deterrent to that service actually being used.
When we start randomly disallowing food products we pick and choose because of the relative health value, we are doing just that.
I can agree with that point in general, BUT I'd also point out that no one's going to turn down the money just because they can't buy soda with it. I also disagree with the assertion that this is "randomly disallowing food products". There is a very definite reason they're looking to do this: no dice were rolled, no roulette wheels spun, no cards shuffled.
Armored Gorilla on
"I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
No, seriously, there's a twitter app that basically tweets everything you buy with your credit card. As a society we're so far past the point where managing purchases is difficult the idea of "red tape" for this kind of subject is kind of adorable.
The technology for banning soda from food stamps is already there. No "bureau of hating poor people and making their lives crappy" needs to be created (or expanded, if you live in Texas). A few numbers get moved around, a few posters and letters get sent.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Nobody is being penalized. "You can't buy that with food stamps" is not a penalty.
Adding useless red tape to a service we want the public to use, is however a deterrent to that service actually being used.
When we start randomly disallowing food products we pick and choose because of the relative health value, we are doing just that.
This isn't random. Its very targetted, and for a very straightforward reason.
"Random" would be very different.
This isn't useless red tape. Actually, thanks to modern advancements in data management (HOORAY THE INTERNET!) managing purchases through food stamps is really easy. There's already a system in place making food stamps limited to certain products, adding one more category is not difficult at all.
Tell me it isn't random to the person waiting at the register who isn't aware that soda is now not nutritional enough for poor people.
Beef jerky next? Candy bars? Syrup?
Now, if you have a problem with soda in general in its nutritional value, then as I said, the proper way to go about that is to confront the corporations making said products directly. If soda is a problem in our country, and everyone drinks it, does it not behoove us to legislate in a way that effects everyone?
Or are we really just saying that those in a bad way are too stupid to make decisions for themselves with "my money"? Because that's what I'm getting from this thread in a big way.
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
Jesus Christ its not formaldehyde
C'mon, its pretty terrible to drink. I'm obviously being sarcastic but soda is truly terrible for you and there's no reason to drink it. It is liquidized unhealthiness.
Hyperbole is one thing, but you're just being ridiculous.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Soda has no redeeming nutritional value. Zero Zilch Notta.
Does the former exist in meaningful numbers? If the AP is right 1/20th of the FS budget is being spent on soda. Thats a lot to disperse into the a 6 pack every few weeks crowd(who could probably fit it in anyways because thats <$1 a week in soda ).
For what its worth: 1 Case of Pepsi(24x 12 oz cans ~4.5 liters of soda) translates to a pound of weight gain. Average US soda consumption(2003) was 46 gallons(128 oz a gallon) a year, factor out little kids(who can;t drink as much) and people who don't drink it and a 12 pack+ a week seems an entirely reasonable average for people who drink soda.
really not a great thing for a population already at a much higher risk of health problems.
Tell me it isn't random to the person waiting at the register who isn't aware that soda is now not nutritional enough for poor people.
"Hi person waiting at the register who doesn't read their mail, watch the news, or look at posters. In an entirely non-random event, New York has decided that it is not interested in providing public assistance for your soda purchases.
This is an entirely non-random event because at no point was any random chance involved whatsoever. No dice were rolled, no random numbers were generated, no dartboards were used, no hats filled with grocery items randomly fished through.
I'm sorry you don't know what the word random means, but that's ok, because I'm hoping to keep soda banned from food stamp purchases but allow food stamps to be used to purchase dictionaries."
Also, I did not say that people on food stamps should have infinite soda. I simply said that as grown adults they can choose what to use their limited allotment of resources on.
Like beer, right? The drink people use as both a treat, sustenance, and refreshment?
No, it's my bad, and I'm not just being gallant, I worded it pretty poorly.
Let me reiterate. I think there is nothing wrong with treats. I'll even go so far as to say that having soda occasionally really isn't that bad at all.
I doubt there's a single family in existence that would choose spending their last few dollars on soda over school notebooks for their children.
I'm just saying that the basic health of you and your children should always come first. I'd never make the claim that poor people drink soda regularly instead of clothing their children or sending them to school. But I would say that when it comes to food choices, there are probably (for instance), hundreds of thousands of families who would, faced with their last few dollars for the day, choose a 2L bottle of coke instead of a dozen eggs or a loaf of bread.
Okay good, I was worried there for a minute.
To be entirely honest the reasons I don't like this (which is different from not thinking it's a good idea, you can dislike something you see as good)
1. It's low hanging fruit. The poor are very, very easy targets for the government when politicians need to feel like they're doing something
2. It's very half assed. Many things are just as bad or worse than soda. Fruit juice? Ideally, we should get a bunch of nutritionists together to declare which items are really, really bad and essentially devoid of nutritional value.
3. We need comprehensive national nutrition reform. Banning soda from being buyable with food stamps to fix inner city nutrition will be as effective as a screen door on a submarine.
I mean what would be great is if they said "Hey, there's a lot more we want to do and not just for people on food stamps, we're just doing this now since it's quick and easy and we'll move on from there"
Posts
Well let's imagine an individual gets $6 a day in food stamps
and spends $10 a day on food total
But now they're at the store, and they've got their $6 of food stamp goods
and they look at soda
and instead of asking "should I buy this with my $6?"
They ask "should I buy this with my actual money?"
If this has a psychological effect and reduces soda consumption for people on food stamps, is that a bad thing?
Possibly shame them in public? Im sorry, but this is silly. Food stamps aren't even actual stamps anymore, the city (or state) gives you a debit card. Unless you make scene (re: your inability to buy soda on the card), no one beyond you and maybe the cashier can even tell you're paying with a food stamp card.
I'm actually okay with this change to be honest- you cant buy energy drinks why is soda exempt? I'd even take it a step further and block fruit juice. I want more done that has nothing to do with food stamps too.
My problem is so many people in this thread have this fucked up distorted view of the poor. What fucking bearing does buying soda have to do with them getting clothes and going to school? Oh fuck you BUY YOUR KIDS SODA (far too much of it, just like middle class families not in the ghetto!), so your kids are obviously naked and feral never having been to school.
That attitude just sickens the fuck out of me
Now, I'm sure there are many people who more simply see it as "hey, stop using my money to buy soda!" That's not at all what I said, but I'm sure it exists. Those people are not rendered hypocrites or incorrect just because the revenue also comes from others besides themselves, perhaps even including from the guy buying soda with food stamps because he pays some taxes, too. And I also think most of these people are at least somewhat aware of the chain of taxation, government revenue, budgets, entitlement programs, spending, etc. and that the person isn't exactly stealing a taxpayer's money directly in order to buy a soda. Despite all of this, the general idea behind "don't use my money to buy soda" is still a valid, simplified point. They are saying that subsidized soda in the diet isn't what they think is a valid use of money paid to the government in taxes. That's what we're discussing here.
This has nothing to do with poor people being shitty
Nobody should drink soda. Its liquid shit.
However, in our society the government generally doesn't tell you what to do with your own money unless there's a really compelling reason for it.
So you can buy your own soda if you want
but if the government is giving you money, in the form of food stamps
in order to feed you or yourr children and in order to ensure you don't starve
Putting "liquid fucking death shit" on the "not allowed" list strikes me as just fine.
No it is not silly. It's the cashier, everyone in line, and possibly everyone in earshot. I once paid for food in a Super Fresh in the self checkout line wherein the automated system yelled out in a very loud voice exactly how I was paying for the food.
Also, I did not say that people on food stamps should have infinite soda. I simply said that as grown adults they can choose what to use their limited allotment of resources on. "Soda isn't food! It's mouth drugs!" Or similar, is goddamn stupid. You may not like the nutritional value, but it's food and commonly known to be food.
If you want what people drink to be healthier, and do it via government, get a fucking clue and start lobbying for nutritional value standards.
Jesus Christ its not formaldehyde
Woah woah woah, I don't think anyone here thinks that kids aren't going to school just because they're drinking a few cans of coke every day, myself included.
I was making a generic statement about needs coming before wants. All I'm saying is that healthy food should be a priority for those people who can't afford much food to begin with.
And yeah, middle class families, I'm aware, drink just as much soda. The difference is that the urban poor a) lead far, far more sedentary lifestyles on average, and b) they don't have the money to pay for health care when they DO have health problems down the road.
Let it be said I'd totally support a tax for soda for the general population, if only because I think no one really "needs" soda.
If you chill on your rage boner, you'd see that the OP in this thread is talking about the "government" pretty much doing this. That's what we're discussing.
I'm willing to bet most of the people extolling the atrocities of the common filled soda can on society are doing so while holding or sitting near an open can of soda.
Just a guess
C'mon, its pretty terrible to drink. I'm obviously being sarcastic but soda is truly terrible for you and there's no reason to drink it. It is liquidized unhealthiness.
Why are you saying this to me and conveniently leaving out the part of the quote where I more or less agreed with you, and the quote I responded to that indicated that a poor person buying treats means their children are unclothed and uneducated
Singling out the downtrodden and laying regulations on corporations are so fucking cosmically distant from each other I don't even know where to start with addressing the ignorance of that statement.
A clue. One. Get.
I guess the question here is, is penalizing the folks who get a six-pack of coke every few weeks as a treat worth preventing those who are drinking two-liters every day?
Look, I don't see soda as a drug (well, I do, in the chemical sense, like every other food), but the fact of the matter is that I don't like the nutritional value because it has none. It's sugar (or HFCS), water, artifical colouring and carbon dioxide. If you want to call it a food, sure, but you don't really get much from drinking it.
I agree with you that adults should be allowed to make their own choices. The issue here is that many of the urban poor - grown adults - are choosing to drink soda all the time, instead of far healthier alternatives. And it is not a good choice (when consumed regularly). Ask any nutritionist.
And I totally agree about lobbying the government for nutritional value standards! In fact, I think we should get started on both ideas right away.
While we're doing that, why don't you lobby Super Fresh to modify their automated checkout system? :winky:
Sarcasm would be if I said "Soda is like the fountain of youth!"
That being said, exaggeration does no one any good. We all agree its unhealthy, we all agree that people should be discouraged from drinking it.
Luckily these are not mutually exclusive policies.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I did not say this.
Does that mean we should extend food stamps to cover liquor?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think I love you
People don't buy pizza for sustenance either. Most of what people consume is largely informed by pleasure.
I'm ok with providing a blank check for food. I'm not comfortable with the paternalistic nature that we're taking with our citizens just because they are in need of assistance.
If we're going to be involved in the business of making sure the poor are healthy, I'd rather we provide a mandated list of grocery items every week that will round out a healthy diet. At least that actually affects the goal rather than ineffectual attacks on sugary bogeymen.
I'm sorry for misreading you, but what you wrote sounded really bad. Focus on getting your kids clothes and education instead of getting them treats
I'm pretty sure I have clothes and an education and my mom was fucking awful with nutrition
This, to me, very heavily implies that people on food stamps who buy soda aren't doing the above, given that it is what this thread is about.
Yes, absolutely, because if they still want soda as a treat, they can buy it without food stamps.
Edit: Also want to add that, like Potato Ninja, I do not consider this 'penalizing' at all.
Carrot I'm definitely siding with you on this one - I don't think the former should be punished like that.
But I'm under the impression that those people who buy a six pack of coke every couple of weeks are able to afford it just fine without foodstamps.
We're looking at those individuals who go to the store every day or two and think "Hm, what else can I buy with my stamps after I've bought this 2L bottle of Coke..."
One drinks liquor to get a buzz. One drinks soda because one is thirsty.
How silly do you want to get with this?
Next up-> Argue that sugar, the basis for energy production and retention in our bodies, has no use to the body when placed in a can in liquid form.
And go.
Nobody is being penalized. "You can't buy that with food stamps" is not a penalty. If I give you twenty dollars and tell you not to spend it on alcohol, that isn't a penalty.
Well, other than the fact that "poor people" are easy to cut subsidies on and gigantic ag business are very not.
I drink beer when I'm thirsty too. That isn't covered under food stamps.
So you're fine if diet soda isn't covered under food stamps?
You're moving goalposts. You've gone from "I eat what I want!" to "I eat what I want as long as it has nutritional value." Hey, glad to see you're now at least playing on the same field as everybody else.
Hey, I'm not the one adhering to some arbitrary principle pulled out of thin air.
I think it's a pretty simple pragmatic calculus. Sugar soda is objectively bad for you. The health risks of drinking acidic liquid sugar vastly outweigh the nutritional benefits. Food stamps are meant to help people's well-being, and sugar soda runs counter to that goal.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
ding ding ding ding ding
You've guessed it! You get a prize!
Adding useless red tape to a service we want the public to use, is however a deterrent to that service actually being used.
When we start randomly disallowing food products we pick and choose because of the relative health value, we are doing just that.
isn't "providing assistance" paternalistic by its very nature?
No, it's my bad, and I'm not just being gallant, I worded it pretty poorly.
Let me reiterate. I think there is nothing wrong with treats. I'll even go so far as to say that having soda occasionally really isn't that bad at all.
I doubt there's a single family in existence that would choose spending their last few dollars on soda over school notebooks for their children.
I'm just saying that the basic health of you and your children should always come first. I'd never make the claim that poor people drink soda regularly instead of clothing their children or sending them to school. But I would say that when it comes to food choices, there are probably (for instance), hundreds of thousands of families who would, faced with their last few dollars for the day, choose a 2L bottle of coke instead of a dozen eggs or a loaf of bread.
This isn't random. Its very targetted, and for a very straightforward reason.
"Random" would be very different.
This isn't useless red tape. Actually, thanks to modern advancements in data management (HOORAY THE INTERNET!) managing purchases through food stamps is really easy. There's already a system in place making food stamps limited to certain products, adding one more category is not difficult at all.
I can agree with that point in general, BUT I'd also point out that no one's going to turn down the money just because they can't buy soda with it. I also disagree with the assertion that this is "randomly disallowing food products". There is a very definite reason they're looking to do this: no dice were rolled, no roulette wheels spun, no cards shuffled.
The technology for banning soda from food stamps is already there. No "bureau of hating poor people and making their lives crappy" needs to be created (or expanded, if you live in Texas). A few numbers get moved around, a few posters and letters get sent.
Tell me it isn't random to the person waiting at the register who isn't aware that soda is now not nutritional enough for poor people.
Beef jerky next? Candy bars? Syrup?
Now, if you have a problem with soda in general in its nutritional value, then as I said, the proper way to go about that is to confront the corporations making said products directly. If soda is a problem in our country, and everyone drinks it, does it not behoove us to legislate in a way that effects everyone?
Or are we really just saying that those in a bad way are too stupid to make decisions for themselves with "my money"? Because that's what I'm getting from this thread in a big way.
Soda has no redeeming nutritional value. Zero Zilch Notta.
Does the former exist in meaningful numbers? If the AP is right 1/20th of the FS budget is being spent on soda. Thats a lot to disperse into the a 6 pack every few weeks crowd(who could probably fit it in anyways because thats <$1 a week in soda ).
For what its worth: 1 Case of Pepsi(24x 12 oz cans ~4.5 liters of soda) translates to a pound of weight gain. Average US soda consumption(2003) was 46 gallons(128 oz a gallon) a year, factor out little kids(who can;t drink as much) and people who don't drink it and a 12 pack+ a week seems an entirely reasonable average for people who drink soda.
really not a great thing for a population already at a much higher risk of health problems.
"Hi person waiting at the register who doesn't read their mail, watch the news, or look at posters. In an entirely non-random event, New York has decided that it is not interested in providing public assistance for your soda purchases.
This is an entirely non-random event because at no point was any random chance involved whatsoever. No dice were rolled, no random numbers were generated, no dartboards were used, no hats filled with grocery items randomly fished through.
I'm sorry you don't know what the word random means, but that's ok, because I'm hoping to keep soda banned from food stamp purchases but allow food stamps to be used to purchase dictionaries."
This is not why it's being denied.
Like beer, right? The drink people use as both a treat, sustenance, and refreshment?
Okay good, I was worried there for a minute.
To be entirely honest the reasons I don't like this (which is different from not thinking it's a good idea, you can dislike something you see as good)
1. It's low hanging fruit. The poor are very, very easy targets for the government when politicians need to feel like they're doing something
2. It's very half assed. Many things are just as bad or worse than soda. Fruit juice? Ideally, we should get a bunch of nutritionists together to declare which items are really, really bad and essentially devoid of nutritional value.
3. We need comprehensive national nutrition reform. Banning soda from being buyable with food stamps to fix inner city nutrition will be as effective as a screen door on a submarine.
I mean what would be great is if they said "Hey, there's a lot more we want to do and not just for people on food stamps, we're just doing this now since it's quick and easy and we'll move on from there"