Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Want sugar? Using foodstamps? GTFO, says NYC.

189111314

Posts

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Rikushix wrote: »
    I just had a thought. What if buying healthy foods on food stamps got you more of them? I mean I still get the soda thing and that should still be done (otherwise there's just more for soda left!), but lets discount just soda for a second.

    If you're a mom who works at Mcdonalds and on food stamps, your child is probably filling up on hot dogs and macaroni (or the nutritional equivalent) most days, why?

    Well a pack of hot dogs is like $1.

    What if we made it so that for every $1 of food stamps you could get $2 of fresh vegetables?

    Well that is a damn good idea. I like it.

    That's interesting. So basically like a food-stamp-only subsidy of healthier foods.

    What a novel idea! (I mean that positively.)

    IIRC, there's at least one place that's trying this out now. I though it was New York...Boston, maybe? I remember reading about it somewhere. I think it was just for fresh produce, though.

    Spoiler:
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Jars wrote: »
    a pound of bananas is 49 cents I think. some fruits and vegetables are expensive(oh god blackberries), but most are not. the last time I bought green beans I had 2 handfuls of them and it came out to 27 cents.

    The fact that blackberries are expensive anywhere is crazy talk out here in Oregon. I could walk down to the river at almost any time and pick a couple of buckets-full. The state thinks of them as a weed.

    steam_sig.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    a pound of bananas is 49 cents I think. some fruits and vegetables are expensive(oh god blackberries), but most are not. the last time I bought green beans I had 2 handfuls of them and it came out to 27 cents.

    The fact that blackberries are expensive anywhere is crazy talk out here in Oregon. I could walk down to the river at almost any time and pick a couple of buckets-full. The state thinks of them as a weed.

    The river? Shit, my back yard.

    Spoiler:
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    when I was getting some frozen cherries I could not help but notice the price tag on them. I think it was $4.00 for a pound, and frozen is usually cheaper than fresh.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    It's weird, but the cheapest frozen fruit I've found at chain markets is at Whole Foods. A pound of (non-organic) frozen strawberries for $1.50, while it was around double that at the normal supermarket.

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    a pound of bananas is 49 cents I think. some fruits and vegetables are expensive(oh god blackberries), but most are not. the last time I bought green beans I had 2 handfuls of them and it came out to 27 cents.

    The fact that blackberries are expensive anywhere is crazy talk out here in Oregon. I could walk down to the river at almost any time and pick a couple of buckets-full. The state thinks of them as a weed.

    The river? Shit, my back yard.

    On one hand they're a complete pain in the ass. On the other hand, YAY BLACKBERRIES! YUMMY!

    steam_sig.png
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava One day, I will be able to say to myself "I am beautiful and I am perfect just the way I am"Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    There needs to be a way to get information out. Education of some sort. But the lack of information for what is allowed or disallowed on food stamps (don't even get me started on the WIC vouchers.. grrrr) is just impossible. And I say this a former Walmart Cashier.

    To be fair, I don't really care what the foodstamps are used for. so long as it's food. Would it be easier to use the foodstamps for some household items (tp, soap, hygiene products) as well? Hell yes.

    prices are different all over, even in my small town. Walmart has Bananas for about 39 cents/lb. Whereas the hispanic market has them for 79 cents/lb, and superfresh has them for about 46 cents/lb.

    My Little Corner of the World || I am ravelried! || My Steam!
    You have to fight through some bad days, to earn the best days of your life.
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2010
    i guess i don't really see the controversy with people accepting public assistance but resenting not having complete agency over what they can use it for.

    i mean, we can argue over what should or shouldn't be allowed, but the idea that people would be outraged that food stamp recipients couldn't waste their public support on soda pop just slides off of my brain somehow.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • taoist drunktaoist drunk Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Got any statistics on that obesity by income thing? I have a hard time believing someone who makes $20,000 a year is substantially fatter than $30,000 (I am aware the gap between 30 and 50 thousand is like 10% though)

    Well, there's this. Granted, it's from a horribly right-wing site, but the data doesn't appear to be all that biased. It basically asserts that there is a direct relationship between nutritional welfare and obesity, though there isn't much there talking about the variables within the data. SNAP is the name for the federal nutritional program.
    Average of the top five: 30.92% obese, 13.9% SNAP
    Average of the bottom five: 21.0% obese, 6.9% SNAP

    Basically, the most obese states have the highest incidences of people on welfare, and vice versa.

    That's an interesting correlation, but it doesn't even come close to proving anything.


    Here's a quote from the same USDA report I posted earlier:
    Finally, no evidence exists that Food Stamp Program participation causes obesity. While
    poverty is associated with obesity in some population groups and Food Stamp Program
    participation is closely linked with poverty, the independent effect of program participation on
    obesity is unknown.

    Also, and this seems particularly germane:
    For example, food stamp
    recipients are no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are
    less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Also, and this seems particularly germane:
    For example, food stamp
    recipients are no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are
    less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks.

    Of course, the flipside on that is probably that higher-income individuals are both eating healthier and working out more, thus negating the effects of any potential poor nutrition.

    But I see what you're saying.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Also, and this seems particularly germane:
    For example, food stamp
    recipients are no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are
    less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks.

    Of course, the flipside on that is probably that higher-income individuals are both eating healthier and working out more, thus negating the effects of any potential poor nutrition.

    But I see what you're saying.

    Even if there is no detectable difference in soda consumption between welfare recipients and the general population, there's still a pretty solid argument IMO that public assistance funds should not be used to purchase things that are objectively physically bad for you in the long-term.

    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.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Even if there is no detectable difference in soda consumption between welfare recipients and the general population, there's still a pretty solid argument IMO that public assistance funds should not be used to purchase things that are objectively physically bad for you in the long-term.

    i am one hundred percent with feral on this

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Also, and this seems particularly germane:
    For example, food stamp
    recipients are no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are
    less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks.

    Of course, the flipside on that is probably that higher-income individuals are both eating healthier and working out more, thus negating the effects of any potential poor nutrition.

    But I see what you're saying.

    Even if there is no detectable difference in soda consumption between welfare recipients and the general population, there's still a pretty solid argument IMO that public assistance funds should not be used to purchase things that are objectively physically bad for you in the long-term.

    Yes, quite.

    Welfare shouldn't mean "free pass for whatever," as there's far too many externalities surrounding the issue.

  • taoist drunktaoist drunk Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »

    Even if there is no detectable difference in soda consumption between welfare recipients and the general population, there's still a pretty solid argument IMO that public assistance funds should not be used to purchase things that are objectively physically bad for you in the long-term.

    Sure. That was in response to Ross's claim that "poor people are statistically far less likely to make good nutritional choices." Or in response to a response to that, rather.

    I think I understand the argument but I think my values are just different. I care less about other people's health than I do about the dignity of making the choice, and I really don't care about what other people, even poor people, eat. I also believe that incentive programs are better than restrictive programs, particularly when it comes to food assistance.

    I understand the concern about health, though, and I understand the position that if government is giving a benefit then the government ought to be able to put reasonable restrictions on the use of the benefit and that, because soda is so bad for you, restricting soda falls under the umbrella of "reasonable restriction" along with alcohol and tobacco.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »

    Even if there is no detectable difference in soda consumption between welfare recipients and the general population, there's still a pretty solid argument IMO that public assistance funds should not be used to purchase things that are objectively physically bad for you in the long-term.

    Sure. That was in response to Ross's claim that "poor people are statistically far less likely to make good nutritional choices." Or in response to a response to that, rather.

    I think I understand the argument but I think my values are just different. I care less about other people's health than I do about the dignity of making the choice, and I really don't care about what other people, even poor people, eat. I also believe that incentive programs are better than restrictive programs, particularly when it comes to food assistance.

    I understand the concern about health, though, and I understand the position that if government is giving a benefit then the government ought to be able to put reasonable restrictions on the use of the benefit and that, because soda is so bad for you, restricting soda falls under the umbrella of "reasonable restriction" along with alcohol and tobacco.

    For me, the overlying issue is that if a person is receiving government aid with food, they're fairly likely to need government aid for healthcare. Both of those things are being paid for by people who don't largely use those safety nets, so any effort to safely reduce the amount of money spent on preventable disease treatments should probably be made.

    Above, you make an appeal to personal liberty, which is fine and all, but as has been stated several times here, it's kind of hypocritical to posit libertarian ideals when you're on the receiving end of socialism.

  • taoist drunktaoist drunk Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »

    Even if there is no detectable difference in soda consumption between welfare recipients and the general population, there's still a pretty solid argument IMO that public assistance funds should not be used to purchase things that are objectively physically bad for you in the long-term.

    Sure. That was in response to Ross's claim that "poor people are statistically far less likely to make good nutritional choices." Or in response to a response to that, rather.

    I think I understand the argument but I think my values are just different. I care less about other people's health than I do about the dignity of making the choice, and I really don't care about what other people, even poor people, eat. I also believe that incentive programs are better than restrictive programs, particularly when it comes to food assistance.

    I understand the concern about health, though, and I understand the position that if government is giving a benefit then the government ought to be able to put reasonable restrictions on the use of the benefit and that, because soda is so bad for you, restricting soda falls under the umbrella of "reasonable restriction" along with alcohol and tobacco.

    For me, the overlying issue is that if a person is receiving government aid with food, they're fairly likely to need government aid for healthcare. Both of those things are being paid for by people who don't largely use those safety nets, so any effort to safely reduce the amount of money spent on preventable disease treatments should probably be made.

    Above, you make an appeal to personal liberty, which is fine and all, but as has been stated several times here, it's kind of hypocritical to posit libertarian ideals when you're on the receiving end of socialism.

    I think it's consistent because it's a personal dignity issue. I think that as a part of respecting everyone's personal dignity, we shouldn't let people starve, so we should give the needy food assistance. And I think that a part of respecting the personal dignity of the needy, we should afford them a reasonable amount of choice in the way they use that assistance. I think that a lot of the way welfare is set up in the country now is excessively punitive and that restricting benefits to exclude soda would be an addition to the list of other regulations in the welfare system as a whole that are unnecessarily punitive.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    I think it's consistent because it's a personal dignity issue. I think that as a part of respecting everyone's personal dignity, we shouldn't let people starve, so we should give the needy food assistance. And I think that a part of respecting the personal dignity of the needy, we should afford them a reasonable amount of choice in the way they use that assistance. I think that a lot of the way welfare is set up in the country now is excessively punitive and that restricting benefits to exclude soda would be an addition to the list of other regulations in the welfare system as a whole that are unnecessarily punitive.

    How is it punitive?

    There isn't anything restricting poor people from buying or using soda. It's just restricting those purchases made with socialized money.

    How is restricting an unhealthy substance a restriction of dignity, especially when the alternative is so much better for both the consumer and the government?

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »

    Even if there is no detectable difference in soda consumption between welfare recipients and the general population, there's still a pretty solid argument IMO that public assistance funds should not be used to purchase things that are objectively physically bad for you in the long-term.

    Sure. That was in response to Ross's claim that "poor people are statistically far less likely to make good nutritional choices." Or in response to a response to that, rather.

    I think I understand the argument but I think my values are just different. I care less about other people's health than I do about the dignity of making the choice, and I really don't care about what other people, even poor people, eat. I also believe that incentive programs are better than restrictive programs, particularly when it comes to food assistance.

    I understand the concern about health, though, and I understand the position that if government is giving a benefit then the government ought to be able to put reasonable restrictions on the use of the benefit and that, because soda is so bad for you, restricting soda falls under the umbrella of "reasonable restriction" along with alcohol and tobacco.

    Right. And this brings up the question "if we have enough evidence to restrict the sale of sugar soft drinks on assistance programs, why don't we sin tax them like alcohol and tobacco?"

    And my response is, "Yeah. Why don't we?"

    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.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • falsedeffalsedef Registered User
    edited October 2010
    Got any statistics on that obesity by income thing? I have a hard time believing someone who makes $20,000 a year is substantially fatter than $30,000 (I am aware the gap between 30 and 50 thousand is like 10% though)

    Well, there's this. Granted, it's from a horribly right-wing site, but the data doesn't appear to be all that biased. It basically asserts that there is a direct relationship between nutritional welfare and obesity, though there isn't much there talking about the variables within the data. SNAP is the name for the federal nutritional program.
    Average of the top five: 30.92% obese, 13.9% SNAP
    Average of the bottom five: 21.0% obese, 6.9% SNAP

    Basically, the most obese states have the highest incidences of people on welfare, and vice versa.

    That's an interesting correlation, but it doesn't even come close to proving anything.


    Here's a quote from the same USDA report I posted earlier:
    Finally, no evidence exists that Food Stamp Program participation causes obesity. While
    poverty is associated with obesity in some population groups and Food Stamp Program
    participation is closely linked with poverty, the independent effect of program participation on
    obesity is unknown.

    Also, and this seems particularly germane:
    For example, food stamp
    recipients are no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are
    less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks.

    Your first cite seems to back up Ross's initial claim.

    edit:

    Further explanation, if obesity is linked to poverty, like in your cite, and poverty is linked to snap, then that's a better indicator that obesity and SNAP are correlated.

    The wording indicates that having food stamps doesn't increase obesity moreso than poverty, but it doesn't exclude the fact that people on food stamps are more likely to be obese.

  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Right. And this brings up the question "if we have enough evidence to restrict the sale of sugar soft drinks on assistance programs, why don't we sin tax them like alcohol and tobacco?"

    And my response is, "Yeah. Why don't we?"

    are you familiar with the recent Citizens United supreme court decision?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Right. And this brings up the question "if we have enough evidence to restrict the sale of sugar soft drinks on assistance programs, why don't we sin tax them like alcohol and tobacco?"

    And my response is, "Yeah. Why don't we?"

    are you familiar with the recent Citizens United supreme court decision?

    The PAC advertising one? Yeah.

    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.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Irond WillIrond Will Dragonmaster Cambridge. MASuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited October 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Right. And this brings up the question "if we have enough evidence to restrict the sale of sugar soft drinks on assistance programs, why don't we sin tax them like alcohol and tobacco?"

    And my response is, "Yeah. Why don't we?"

    are you familiar with the recent Citizens United supreme court decision?

    The PAC advertising one? Yeah.

    it allows unlimited and unreported corporate donations to political campaigns

    that is basically why we don't regulate unhealthy foods in this country

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Right. And this brings up the question "if we have enough evidence to restrict the sale of sugar soft drinks on assistance programs, why don't we sin tax them like alcohol and tobacco?"

    And my response is, "Yeah. Why don't we?"

    are you familiar with the recent Citizens United supreme court decision?

    The PAC advertising one? Yeah.

    it allows unlimited and unreported corporate donations to political campaigns

    that is basically why we don't regulate unhealthy foods in this country

    Oh.

    Yeah.

    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.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Right. And this brings up the question "if we have enough evidence to restrict the sale of sugar soft drinks on assistance programs, why don't we sin tax them like alcohol and tobacco?"

    And my response is, "Yeah. Why don't we?"

    are you familiar with the recent Citizens United supreme court decision?

    The PAC advertising one? Yeah.

    it allows unlimited and unreported corporate donations to political campaigns

    that is basically why we don't regulate unhealthy foods in this country

    Don't forget the Iowa Caucuses.

  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    What part of "bossing around poor people is not cool" doesn't make sense here?

    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    This thread is a perfect example of that commonly seen phenomenon where valid, fact based arguments tend to reinforce people's badly held, non fact based opinions, rather than persuade.

    "U R JUST BOSSING AROUND TEH POOR PEOPLE. IT IS NOT FAIR!"

    Brave Frontier for Android and iOS. Final Fantasy-ish graphics/basic gameplay with a Puzzles & Dragons/Rage of Bahamut collection model.
    My referral code is: 81123930, which gets you a thing to level your guys.
  • Dyrwen66Dyrwen66 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Well, if you're literally asking the government to give you money; you're also giving them a license to have their money spent intelligently, which may mean they get to tell you where you can spend it.

    I mean, shit, I don't beg some friend of mine for cash because I reallllly need it then go blow it on candybars and expect I'm going to get another check next month. Bossing around those you willingly give money to is totally within their right. And they don't lose their "dignity" over the fact of prohibited products, since it's already a goddamn charity that most people have too much dignity to sign up for in the first place. Hell, I've been poor enough to consider taking a day off work just to go to the Food Bank, but I've known people who think that until they've gone without food days in a row and they have no chance of getting more, that only then will they buckle down and ask for help. Making welfare a positive element of the US culture is seriously one of the hardest things out there to do, since there's enough "American Pride" in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps that you're liable to starve reaching for them.

    "Famished dogs follow slowly as my own paws drag me to a dock, / to the last plank where I struggle to deny myself the path that every Pisces craves, /
    ... and I cough for every crater that I could see, / on the surface of that coffin we've come to call the moon." Circle Takes the Square
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    This thread is a perfect example of that commonly seen phenomenon where valid, fact based arguments tend to reinforce people's badly held, non fact based opinions, rather than persuade.

    "U R JUST BOSSING AROUND TEH POOR PEOPLE. IT IS NOT FAIR!"

    Clearly we should ban combination materials too. If you've bought water in the past week you can't buy sugar.

    Don't want those assholes making their own junk food.

    Just seems overly wasteful. It also seems like all the people we pay and time we spend debating this on the tax payer's dime could just be dumped into the fund and give all these jerks some TP for their butt too. But those jerks can't have nice things, mirite?

    No really, I don't really have a problem with them buying whatever they want with their foodstamps, even if it's beer. I think that only the lockdown on items should be for people with children or dependents. Though that would probably cost more money anyways.

    Is there a point where people on foodstamps are really being stupidly detrimental to their health in the long run because they bought booze or soda with all of their foodstamps? Don't foodstamps reduce the food price of their covered food too? I mean offsetting foods with foodstamps and then they buy it anyways with their own money didn't really solve anything but us going "yay our taxpayer money isn't paying for this anymore."

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    This thread is a perfect example of that commonly seen phenomenon where valid, fact based arguments tend to reinforce people's badly held, non fact based opinions, rather than persuade.

    "U R JUST BOSSING AROUND TEH POOR PEOPLE. IT IS NOT FAIR!"

    Clearly we should ban combination materials too. If you've bought water in the past week you can't buy sugar.

    Don't want those assholes making their own junk food.

    Just seems overly wasteful. It also seems like all the people we pay and time we spend debating this on the tax payer's dime could just be dumped into the fund and give all these jerks some TP for their butt too. But those jerks can't have nice things, mirite?

    No really, I don't really have a problem with them buying whatever they want with their foodstamps, even if it's beer. I think that only the lockdown on items should be for people with children or dependents. Though that would probably cost more money anyways.

    Is there a point where people on foodstamps are really being stupidly detrimental to their health in the long run because they bought booze or soda with all of their foodstamps? Don't foodstamps reduce the food price of their covered food too? I mean offsetting foods with foodstamps and then they buy it anyways with their own money didn't really solve anything but us going "yay our taxpayer money isn't paying for this anymore."

    Hey, look, you're doing it again! You're ignoring the rational, logical arguments based on evidence in order to make an emotional appeal!

    Brave Frontier for Android and iOS. Final Fantasy-ish graphics/basic gameplay with a Puzzles & Dragons/Rage of Bahamut collection model.
    My referral code is: 81123930, which gets you a thing to level your guys.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    The rational is silly.

  • Dyrwen66Dyrwen66 Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    Is there a point where people on foodstamps are really being stupidly detrimental to their health in the long run because they bought booze or soda with all of their foodstamps? Don't foodstamps reduce the food price of their covered food too? I mean offsetting foods with foodstamps and then they buy it anyways with their own money didn't really solve anything but us going "yay our taxpayer money isn't paying for this anymore."

    1. Yes. That's why booze is prohibited.
    2. They don't reduce the price of the food in my experience.

    Though you're right about the final thought, we can't stop them from using their own money, but if the government is going to foot the bill, it might as well feel right for doing it; and supporting unhealthy or vice-like products isn't really the way to go about it. I'd rather they get the ability to buy actual food and spend it keeping themselves alive than giving them nothing and watching the money they do have going strictly to booze and killing themselves outright. A generalization, but in context here, we're talking about people with problems who are poor and giving them less chance to create more problems is probably for hte better.

    "Famished dogs follow slowly as my own paws drag me to a dock, / to the last plank where I struggle to deny myself the path that every Pisces craves, /
    ... and I cough for every crater that I could see, / on the surface of that coffin we've come to call the moon." Circle Takes the Square
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    The rational is silly.

    I mean, it's impossible to argue with you if this is really your viewpoint. You're being a silly goose, ignoring facts and evidence, relying on emotional appeals and genuinely acting like a very ignorant person. This is like arguing with a right-wing Christian about evolution.

    Brave Frontier for Android and iOS. Final Fantasy-ish graphics/basic gameplay with a Puzzles & Dragons/Rage of Bahamut collection model.
    My referral code is: 81123930, which gets you a thing to level your guys.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    The rational is silly.

    I mean, it's impossible to argue with you if this is really your viewpoint. You're being a silly goose, ignoring facts and evidence, relying on emotional appeals and genuinely acting like a very ignorant person. This is like arguing with a right-wing Christian about evolution.

    No not really. The rationale is "this has no noticeable nutritional value." But a lot of foods fall into that category. What is often excluded from your argument is the noticeable part. It is empty calories sure. But if they're going to half ass it, don't disguise it as anything but.

    Fruit juice, gatorade, ice cream, any prepare frozen food, cookie dough, jello.

    I mean if we're going to do it, let's do it right, not be geese about "SODA BAN" that comes off as disingenuous at best as an attack on the poor people. Basically. Yeah it's not really a soda ban, but, try convincing people that. Especially when the next topic of debate is a levied tax on soda. I don't get why soda. There is so much more horrible things. All of then are fairly common, I don't think soda is anymore to blame for any of this than potato chips.

  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Paternalism is not a nice way to treat people.
    Some paternalism is inevitable as long as we have charities and social services; but I do think that the best kind of charity is the kind that comes with the fewest restrictions (excepting things like children and the mentally ill, who can't make their own decisions.) They're not dumb just because they're poor. A friend of a friend of mine has been homeless for a long time; he's very proud, very reluctant to take charity (and never takes more than he needs) and is pretty irritated by the hassles he's put through when he does have to take charity. "No sugar" is a lot like the Salvation Army saying you have to pray if you want to eat. It's demeaning. If you want to give, just give, and treat the recipient of charity like a customer. That's more polite.

    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    celandine wrote: »
    Paternalism is not a nice way to treat people.
    Some paternalism is inevitable as long as we have charities and social services; but I do think that the best kind of charity is the kind that comes with the fewest restrictions (excepting things like children and the mentally ill, who can't make their own decisions.) They're not dumb just because they're poor. A friend of a friend of mine has been homeless for a long time; he's very proud, very reluctant to take charity (and never takes more than he needs) and is pretty irritated by the hassles he's put through when he does have to take charity. "No sugar" is a lot like the Salvation Army saying you have to pray if you want to eat. It's demeaning. If you want to give, just give, and treat the recipient of charity like a customer. That's more polite.

    Emotional appeals while ignoring the rational some more, wheee!

    Welfare is not a charity. Welfare is a system designed to improve society, by allowing those on hard times to find a way back to contributing, as well as to prevent widespread poverty from producing additional societal problems.

    Brave Frontier for Android and iOS. Final Fantasy-ish graphics/basic gameplay with a Puzzles & Dragons/Rage of Bahamut collection model.
    My referral code is: 81123930, which gets you a thing to level your guys.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    That... that is pretty much one definition of a charity.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Part of this complete breakfast.
    Wholesome, all natural, and fortified. Reduced fat. And so on.

    I like the idea of more food stamps for healthier purchases. I could even see food stamps being somewhat disentangled from monetary value across the board. Like, food stamps get you certain things regardless of cost, not necessarily just a certain $ amount. A lot of room for more fraud and abuse maybe, but it is interesting.

    You know, the regulations on flexible spending health care accounts aren't all that terrible. That process is very specific about what products can and can't be purchased with that money, and retailers have completely changed how they code receipts to make it all easier. The regulations specify, in general, what can or can't be bought, the retailers use the regulations to make reasonable decisions on which specific UPC codes will be encoded and recorded as "eligible," and the benefits providers do random and triggered audits to make sure that people aren't buying DVDs with their health care money. The audit's easy because there's info on your receipt and in the store's records that point to how and why the purchase was eligible. It's in the retailers' best interest to do this and do it well, because a lot of consumers want to be able to use their flex card hassle-free and will seek out accomodating stores. I can only imagine the money from SNAP is also worth it, we'd just need a larger involvement from private industry middlemen or else a government that can do it just as effectively.

    As for this ongoing debate about the pride of people on assistance: don't confuse yourself. I agree that you're a schmuck if you lecture a homeless person about their lifestyle before you hand them a dollar. You don't know them or how they got where they are. Help them or don't. But that is not the same as what we're talking about here. The government has a practical responsibility to address public health issues, and absolutely has a responsibility to identify and resolve situations where the goverment itself may be enabling or contributing to a health issue. This is not about shaming poor people or forcing them to be good little Christians if they want help. This is about the government realizing that they are possibly, perhaps likely, subsidizing a major cause of a significant public health issue, with naught but the flimsiest of reasons why they should be doing so, and so they are going to see if they can change that and if it helps. Sure, there are other ways we could look into, but these are not exclusive, and regardless, most of the alternatives mentioned so far seem more indirect and have more obvious believable negatives involved.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    Well, I don't think HSAs are a good example because you can actually use the money on anything you want. You just get assessed a 10%(might be more depending on your income I think) tax on it (it was tax free money).

    For instance my HSA has almost $15,000 in it. I could cash it in, and pay off outstanding debts if I wanted to.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    bowen wrote: »
    That... that is pretty much one definition of a charity.

    No, charity is an act of benevolence. It might achieve the same ends, but it is not the same thing.

    Welfare is the government (and therefore collective people of the nation) acting in their own economic best interest by recognizing that subsidizing some things for those below a certain poverty level helps the economy, prevents systemic societal problems and improves the lifestyle of all its citizenry.

    As poster above (Yar) says, there is no reason for the government to provide money toward making its poorest even sicker, without any fungible benefit. Your argument could certainly be, "But there are other problems that are not also addressed" and that would be true. You're a fool if you argue against a partial solution because it isn't a whole solution, when any kind of change at all is hard to accomplish in our slow moving system.

    Brave Frontier for Android and iOS. Final Fantasy-ish graphics/basic gameplay with a Puzzles & Dragons/Rage of Bahamut collection model.
    My referral code is: 81123930, which gets you a thing to level your guys.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2010
    It's still a charity, whether you consider it by your skewed definition of it or not. Funds are appropriated to help someone in need. That is just like alms for the poor. There is absolutely no difference in it just because you said there is. These are all charity based programs, regardless if they're a government funded program.

Sign In or Register to comment.