Another topic to debate-soda and food stamps

Andrewsgal

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07stamps.html

So WDYT?

DandelionMom

Like it doesn't suck enough to have to get food stamps.  Ugh.

EMT

I think it doesn't make sense for the govt to subsidize something that is known to make people unhealthy (and thus, probably cost more tax dollars). If people give you money, they have every right to designate how it is used i.e. if I gave my kids money for college, that's how I want it spent. Same thing to me.

Heidisean

I think this is great! I really believe that there should be certain things that people can not buy with food stamps such as candy, soda, junk cereal, certain frozen dinners, etc. To make things easier there should be a list of things that are healthy and that they can buy with the food stamps. I can not tell you how times I go into a home to evaluate or treat a child for therapy and parents think things such as fruit snacks are nutritious because they are "fruit" snacks or that frozen dinners are nutritious because they are giving their children chicken and mashed potatoes and have no clue about all the sodium and junk in it! 

DaiLyght

I think I agree with this. There is no nutritional value in soda, so it's not necessary to buy it with government money. I think it should be treated more along the lines of WIC - you can buy things like milk, bread, cheese, peanut butter, etc.

littlemermaid

This is a very double-edged sword.  I guess my answer would be once the money(food stamps) are in their hands, if they want to buy all Twinkies with it, they should have the right too.  I don't think it's the government's place to dictate what they can buy or cannot buy with it.  Because where would it end, then the gov't could say if you receive welfare money then you can only use it for rent, utilities, clothing, but don't use welfare money to take your kid to an amusement park or McDonalds .  

Sunflower777

EMT:

I think it doesn't make sense for the govt to subsidize something that is known to make people unhealthy (and thus, probably cost more tax dollars). If people give you money, they have every right to designate how it is used i.e. if I gave my kids money for college, that's how I want it spent. Same thing to me.

 This. I think it's a good idea.  

Heidisean

I totally disagree with you littlemermaid. You are given this money for you and your family so that you can survive because you have low income or no income (you don't need soda or twinkies to survive)!

DaiLyght

littlemermaid:

This is a very double-edged sword.  I guess my answer would be once the money(food stamps) are in their hands, if they want to buy all Twinkies with it, they should have the right too.  I don't think it's the government's place to dictate what they can buy or cannot buy with it.  Because where would it end, then the gov't could say if you receive welfare money then you can only use it for rent, utilities, clothing, but don't use welfare money to take your kid to an amusement park or McDonalds .  

So just curious, if a good friend of yours came to you and said they were having trouble this month and asked you for $200 to pay their electric bill. Then you found out that they only paid $150 on the bill and used the rest of the money for beer, would you be upset?

CleoKitty

While in theory it sounds good and of course it would be great to see *everyone* eating mostly healthy foods I can't really personally support such an initiative. Yeah, people don't NEED twinkies or soda. But, it's a slippery slope, IMO. I'm not a fan of government dictating how people should live, what they should eat, etc. I do, however, fully support things like giving extra food stamp allowances/vouchers that can be used at farmer's markets, offering nutrition counseling, cooking classes, optional assistance with meal/menu planning, etc. A little education goes a lot further than heavy-handed big brother oversight.

august06mom

This is difficult to support but there are already limitations on what food stamps can be used to buy ... so I guess this is just one more thing.

summerbrideDC

What would be great would be if the gov't also provided some sort of free and substantial education to low-income families receiving this aid so that they could make healthier choices for their families.  A lot of people claim the problem of obesity comes from genuine lack of education about nutrition.  Here would be an amazing opportunity to educate people on how to use those stamps most effectively for the benefit of their family's health.   

MayorMcCheese000

""cleokitty: While in theory it sounds good and of course it would be great to see *everyone* eating mostly healthy foods I can't really personally support such an initiative. Yeah, people don't NEED twinkies or soda. But, it's a slippery slope, IMO. I'm not a fan of government dictating how people should live, what they should eat, etc."

 

But the goverment wouldn't be dictating what people can eat. The government is dicating what could be purchased with food stamps. People aren't required to apply for food stamps or use food stamps and they also are still allowed to use their own money to purchase whatever it is they do want.  I think it is great and long over-due.

MayorMcCheese000

summerbrideDC:

What would be great would be if the gov't also provided some sort of free and substantial education to low-income families receiving this aid so that they could make healthier choices for their families.  A lot of people claim the problem of obesity comes from genuine lack of education about nutrition.  Here would be an amazing opportunity to educate people on how to use those stamps most effectively for the benefit of their family's health.   

 

THIS is something I can get behind. I love when we agree on things, it feels good in my heart.

peekaboo716

But where do you draw the line? Sodas and sugared drinks are not the only thing that is bad for you in a grocery store that can be purchased with food stamps. I think that this would be a start to things that would make it so hard to use the food stamps that people wouldn't know what they can and can't purchase.

I agree with the educational angle, but how would you get people to fund and attend?

CleoKitty

The whole "where do you draw the line" part is a huge issue, IMO. Restrict soda, candy and chips. But then lets also start restricting processed foods such as TV dinners that are high in fat and sodium. Red meat is often fatty and contributes to high cholesterol, obesity, and heart disease. So let's also restrict the purchase of beef and while we're at it, hell: no one *needs* meat at all when they can get their protein from beans and nuts instead, so let's not allow any meat purchases with food stamps...

 

veloelle

I think it's akin to removing soda from schools. No one is going to make people on food stamps vegan hippies, ffs. Coupled with education- perhaps short seminars on food.

JOEBunny

I think it is fine.  I went grocery shopping yesterday.  DH requested soda.  I got about 4 days worth of healthy food, the total was $40.  The soda DH wanted was $4, or 10% of it.  Some stuff they should allow, like whole cooked chickens, which are often cheaper than whole uncooked chickens, they don't allow, and that is stupid, but soda, who cares.

SaraSmile

I am sure tons of people buy drugs with their welfare money.  The gov't can only control so much. 

wellfleet04

I hate these posts.  Food stamps are costing individual taxpayers literally pennies, if that.  It's not about "your money" and paying for people. It's about feeling like they are subject to your judgment because they are on assistance.  I think the whole welfare abuser thing is blown WAY out of proportion and people get disproportionately self-righteous and judgy about welfare/foodstamps when there are a million other things the government funds that cost them more and are way more disagreeable (we can start with the wars....).

Seminars?  If you want people on assistance to work, they probably don't have time between working multiple jobs, taking care of their families, etc to attend patronizing seminars about food.  In many markets, good, fresh food is just not available, or if it is it is WAY more expensive.  But, ultimately, I don't think you can legislate personal responsibility.  It robs people of their dignity, and it is a very slippery slope.  

CleoKitty

wellfleet04:

I hate these posts.  Food stamps are costing individual taxpayers literally pennies, if that.  It's not about "your money" and paying for people. It's about feeling like they are subject to your judgment because they are on assistance.  I think the whole welfare abuser thing is blown WAY out of proportion and people get disproportionately self-righteous and judgy about welfare/foodstamps when there are a million other things the government funds that cost them more and are way more disagreeable (we can start with the wars....).

Seminars?  If you want people on assistance to work, they probably don't have time between working multiple jobs, taking care of their families, etc to attend patronizing seminars about food.  In many markets, good, fresh food is just not available, or if it is it is WAY more expensive.  But, ultimately, I don't think you can legislate personal responsibility.  It robs people of their dignity, and it is a very slippery slope.  

*applauds* 

You've just perfectly stated what I couldn't figure out how to articulate. 

And FWIW, I'm totally be supportive of offering optional nutritional counseling, classes, farmer's market vouchers, etc. They key word is optional. 

belle204

I can't quote so I'll "ditto" Wellfleet.

DandelionMom

And once again wellfleet says it best!

veloelle

Nope, never did I mention patronizing. For reals. What is patronizing about honest dialogue?

EMT

Man, I think the slippery slope argument on this is as ludicrous as it is to those using it to oppose same sex marriage. Come on, there is literally no nutritional value in soda. Red meat? Not even close to the same thing. Why should taxpayers subsidize that? Even if it is only "pennies"...

august06mom

I'm with EMT. No, they haven't banned Little Debbie snack cakes, but maybe this is a step in the right direction. No one is saying people can't buy this stuff -- you just can't use food stamps for it. You also can't use food stamps to buy hot deli meals, so there are already things you can't buy. You can't use them to buy things like toothpaste and tampons -- frankly, I'd add those to the list of things you can buy and take away soda in a heartbeat.

EMT

PMQ:

If someone on assistance wants a can of Coke I say let them drink Coke. The government is wasting much more of my tax dollars in other areas for me to be concerned with what welfare recipients choose to drink.

Again, though, they can certainly DRINK Coke...

shopgirl_07

wellfleet04:

I hate these posts.  Food stamps are costing individual taxpayers literally pennies, if that.  It's not about "your money" and paying for people. It's about feeling like they are subject to your judgment because they are on assistance.  I think the whole welfare abuser thing is blown WAY out of proportion and people get disproportionately self-righteous and judgy about welfare/foodstamps when there are a million other things the government funds that cost them more and are way more disagreeable (we can start with the wars....).

Seminars?  If you want people on assistance to work, they probably don't have time between working multiple jobs, taking care of their families, etc to attend patronizing seminars about food.  In many markets, good, fresh food is just not available, or if it is it is WAY more expensive.  But, ultimately, I don't think you can legislate personal responsibility.  It robs people of their dignity, and it is a very slippery slope.  

Yes, yes, yes. Agree wholeheartedly.

BubblyToes

summerbrideDC:

What would be great would be if the gov't also provided some sort of free and substantial education to low-income families receiving this aid so that they could make healthier choices for their families.  A lot of people claim the problem of obesity comes from genuine lack of education about nutrition.  Here would be an amazing opportunity to educate people on how to use those stamps most effectively for the benefit of their family's health.   

Ditto this, and what Dande said.

EMT

Not trying to get ya PMQ...I just think there's a difference. I cannot get behind people snorting coke with welfare money though!

DandR

I just don't understand this:

"The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages,? Mr. Hacker said. ?However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not want to stigmatize people on food stamps.?

how would not being able to buy coke cause people on welfare to feel stigmatized?

I mean, its not like people are looking at what another shopper is getting AND how they pay and thinking "Oh, they bought pop, they are one welfare!" or "oh, they only have healthy stuff, bet they aren't using food stamps!" or whatever???

Am I reading it wrong?

Or is it the "oh man, I'm on food stamps and I can't buy a pop with food stamps! Poooor me!  how mean of them to limit me to buying milk and juice instead!"