Should people be allowed to buy soda with food stamps?

[LoZoccolo]

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Soda is crap, but people should be able to make their own decisions.

Just because somebody is poor doesn't mean they should have no right to decide what to buy.

[imdjh]

7. And as usual, the workaround (that red and orange crap FS people buy) is no better...

... possibly worse. As far as I know it's pure HFCS, water, and color.

[dysfunctional press]

37. even fruit juice isn't much better.

fructose is fructose.

[Hannah Bell]

78. most fruit juices are highly nutritious in terms of vitamins, phytonutrients, & a couple of minerals

& fructose, contra the hype, isn't a poison.

[CTyankee]

125. But you should limit the AMOUNT of the juice you drink and eat the actual fruit instead.

I have learned to limit my intake of orange juice, which I can't quit having, in the morning. I really love it. However, I have reduced my daily intake from 8 oz. to 4 oz and I don't feel deprived.

[MattBaggins]

220. Sugar isn't a poison?

As a diabetic I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one. Excessive sugar is extremely toxic to the human body.

Eating a reasonable amount of fruit is great for you. Taking a dozen fruits, squeezing the shit out of them and discarding the good stuff, just to concentrate the liquid down and add extra sugar to it; is nutritious in your mind only.

Eating fruit is smart. Drinking fruit juice is dumb.

Jack Lalane is an idiot.

[Hannah Bell]

303. so is no sugar, as glucose is the fuel required to sustain life. water, protein, vitamins, minerals

are all "poison" in "excess". so what? there's nothing wrong with drinking juice; in fact, it's healthy.

[MattBaggins]

371. No it's not healthy

Eating the proper amount of fruit is. Drinking the sugar concoctions that are labeled as "juice" is not healthy. It is a perfectly legitimate choice to consume if you choose to. You can do what you want with your own body, but using the words "nutritious" and "healthy" to describe that swill called "juice" is dubious at best.

Eat an apple and drink a glass of water and I'll agree with you on the healthy label..

[Hannah Bell]

390. i'm an MS Nutrition, RD. Juice is healthy. Obviously if all you ate was juice, it's less healthy,

just like it would be if all you ate was soybeans.

But you'd die quicker on the soybeans.

Food nazis are control freaks.

[elleng]

28. People DO make their own decisions, Ocelot,

but restrictions as food stamps are reasonable, and this is one I'd agree with. NOT fruit juices, tho.

[Hannah Bell]

90. there *are* restrictions on food stamps.

[elleng]

95. I know; I received them once.

[CTyankee]

114. How did restrictions harm you?

Did you suffer hardship and privation when on food stamps (caused by FS restriction; I know you had hardships that caused you to be on FS in the first place).

[elleng]

130. I was not harmed; I simply complied.

At the time, I was living on a meager stipend as a VISTA Volunteer.

[Toucano]

289. According to this thread, you were controlled and humiliated by these restrictions. n-t

[pipi_k]

146. I was never harmed by restrictions either

when I was getting food stamps years ago.

Not everything that goes into the mouth and comes out the other end can be considered "food" and therefore eligible for food stamps...

Like alcohol...Pepto Bismol...etc.


People want to have "fruit drinks"? Let them buy 5 lb bags of sugar, some cheap packets of Kool Aid, and they can make their own.

[JVS]

124. You'd let them buy this shit?

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1822/2

[Dorian Gray]

104. Exactly

[CTyankee]

109. I wonder, can people buy cigarettes with food stamps? If not, why not?

We accept that some things should not have the government stamp of approval on it by allowing its usage to buy a harmful, even deadly, product. With all the nutritious things you CAN buy with food stamps, I think it is a wise move to say "if you use your own money,that's one thing, but this is government assistance, which is different." After all, they are able to buy 100% fruit juice with food stamps...

[Sub Atomic]

138. Because cigarettes aren't food.

Is anyone really this stupid?

[CTyankee]

144. well, thank you. I appreciated your polite response.

[shintao]

399. Freedom or Restrictions?

Right on. I am surprised soda is even a discussion in a country that prides itself in Freedom, and should know the costs of Freedoms. Anytime you limit someone else's Freedoms, you have just limited your own.

[sandnsea]

2. No. Poor people should have no pleasure at all.

:sarcasm:

[baldguy]

10. Cheap, healthy fizzy drinks.

plus

[SPedigrees]

tastes better too. nt

[sandnsea]

30. That would be called a fruit flavored drink

which people also oppose.

This position is clearly from people who don't know what it is to have absolutely nothing. If you can't even look forward to a cookie or a soft drink, life is pretty bleak.

[SPedigrees]

64. No it would have too much real orange juice to be called "fruit flavored."

Would it be deprivation for a poor child to look forward to a soft drink made via the formula above, or a glass of milk with those cookies? These made pretty tasty snacks when I was a kid, and I and my peers didn't grow up with severe calcium shortages and obesity as the current generation of kids are.

I don't recall suggesting that food stamps not be used to purchase any dessert items or good tasting drinks. Only that I do not think FSs should be used to purchase HFCS or artificial sweetener laden grocery items. In fact I think these ingredients should be removed from our food supply, period.

[sandnsea]

72. It is still a fruit drink or punch, not juice

And if they can't have the sugar in pop, they surely shouldn't have the sugar in a cookie or a Ding Dong. Is it really so important to you that you require every sweetened product to be analyzed for every amount of artificial sweetener? What about dye? And if all of that is bad for kids' health, what about salt and fat? What about jelly? Is there too much fat in a frozen pizza?

Do you know they've told mothers not to give their children too much milk? The fat contributes to obesity?

Give out nutritional info and then leave people alone.

[Dorian Gray]

105. I agree with your point

We need to educate our kids and families about nutritional information. Pound that into their heads via school, advertising, etc. Then allow the parents to make their own choices. Hopefully they will make good choices, but many will continue to make bad choices. We can control everything that people do, though.

[CTyankee]

115. Do you think info on tobacco's harm to health was the decisive factor is getting people to stop

smoking?

I really don't know if it was that or if it was the increase of taxes on tobacco products...which is why I ask.

[Dorian Gray]

205. Probably a combination of the two

honestly. Smoking is too expensive a habit for many to pick up now. I quit smoking five years ago, however, more because of the health ramifications than because of the cost. The cost is prohibitive, but the health aspects were more important to me.

[CTyankee]

237. I gave it up because I didn't want to be considered a "loser." I think that was the capper for me.

It was my self image and you can call that vain and I would agree, it was! BUT I wasn't addicted, even after 20 years of smoking so I had no withdrawal problems...

[Dorian Gray]

258. Whatever reason gets one to quit smoking

is not a bad reason. I'm just glad I no longer do it.

It was painful for a few months, but I never want one now. Ever.

[sandnsea]

272. Yes, actually

And people didn't use food stamps to buy cigarettes.

[CTyankee]

279. No, I know that. I was just wondering if there was one major reason (among many)

that got people to quit smoking. I believe it was both the tax increase and the scary health information, plus the fact that as time went on smokers were stigmatized (rightly or wrongly) and smoking became less "cool." Also, the tobacco industry bastards were "outed" so thoroughly the industry never really recovered (at least not in this country). I hope the soda industry has the same fate, which is why I don't see why the taxpayer should line their pockets...

[Gemini Cat]

183. Yes, however,

Don't you know when you are poor you are not supposed to enjoy anything? When you are poor you obviously need someone to tell you what is good for you or otherwise you wouldn't be poor. You see, your IQ drops about 30 points when you are poor and as a result you can't make wise decisions on your own.
You need to feel bad every day of your life, miserable in fact. You are taking a hand out after all! If you refuse to feel miserable about your lazy self, then we as a society need to make sure that you do. Public whippings and/or public humiliations are in order to make you understand that your life style choices are what got you into this situation.
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[I Have A Dream]

361. +1 nt

[dana_b]

228. love that stuff

with a little grapefruit or lemon...


anyway, back on topic.. yes, I think they should be able to buy whatever the hell they want.

[pipi_k]

147. Oh for heaven's sake...

if they want something for "pleasure" they can save a buck out of their checks and buy themselves a can of soda once in a while.

They can even save money for what food stamps don't cover by not buying commercial cleaners. Baking soda works well. So does white vinegar. Both can be bought with food stamps. So what they save by not buying a spray bottle of cleaner with cash, they can put toward "pleasure".

[sandnsea]

274. You clearly don't understand there's no buck to save

The check doesn't usually even cover all necessities, let alone an extra dollar for a pop or treat for your kids.

[wickerwoman]

330. Foodstamps cover

milk, flour, sugar, eggs and peanut butter. Make peanut butter cookies for your kids. Make shortbread or gingersnaps or snickerdoodles. Make iced tea or frozen lemonade. Make pancakes, crepes or french toast with sauce made from frozen fruit. Every one of those options is cheaper, healthier and arguably more satisfying than a Twinkie or a glass of Coke.

I totally reject the argument that because you're on foodstamps you can only eat lentils. Or that arguing that foodstamp money shouldn't go to subsidize Coke, Hersheys and Keebler somehow implies a desire to take everything good and pleasurable away from poor people.

If you're trying to maintain your health long term on $1 per person per meal, it's insane and counter-productive to spend 25-70% (or in some cases 100%) of that budget on something with no nutritional value. And it's unreasonable to expect taxpayers to underwrite your poor food choices in a program designed to prevent malnutrition. The dollar that you're spending on Ho-hos is a dollar that isn't being spent providing necessary nutrition to someone else.

[rd_kent]

192. Are foodstamps for peoples pleasure or to ensure they get nutrition?

[Dorian Gray]

208. They're there to feed people

I don't know if you can legislate proper nutrition.

"Oh no... you're high on Vitamin C in your diet this week. No more orange juice for you. You need to buy Milk for calcium. And you haven't met your needs for healthy fats this month. Avocados and Salmon for you!"

[rd_kent]

233. Not sure anyones intent is to legislate nutrition

There is already a restrictive list of what food stamps can and cannot buy. Would further restricting that list to items that are the most nutritious be legislating nutrition?

I think the point is, that if the government is going to assist the neediest of us by ensuring that they can afford basic foods, why not make what the government is willing to pay for the MOST nutritious items? Excluding soda, candy, juice "drinks" and other similar items is not, IMO, restricting peoples choices, it is restricting what the government is willing to pay for.

[CTyankee]

240. Thank you! I have been trying to say this in post after post here!

I'm getting pretty fed up with these "freedom nannies" looking out for the soda industry that is making millions off of the misery of people and wants a government handout to boot...

[sandnsea]

275. Ever been on food stamps? n/t

[rd_kent]

284. Whats your point?

[sandnsea]

297. I suspect people complaining

have no clue what it is to really live on a welfare check and food stamps. Not getting food stamps because you hit a bump in the road and you've got your home, tv, music, and years of toys, etc for the kids. But really having nothing, starting from absolute scratch.

What would you do if it was Christmas and you lost everything in a fire or ran from an abusive relationship or were evicted after not being able to find work. Would you really deprive your child of a pop and Christmas cookies?

[rd_kent]

309. What does ANY of that have to do with the discussion at hand?

I agree that there needs to be a mechanism in place to assist the neediest with basic nutrition. Guess what? We have it. Its called food stamps. The government will pay for basic food needs. Its great, it works, I support it.
Not sure what your appeal to an emotional audience is all about. Last time I checked, food stamps were for food, not for ensuring your kid felt good about getting "pop and christmas cookies". Please take your strawman elsewhere.

This discussion is about whether food stamps should be used for purposes other than basic nutritional needs. It is my position, as stated before, that they should do just that, nothing more. There are other programs that provide other things, but we are not talking about that, now are we? Were talking about food stamps. Please try to stay focused and unless you really have something meaningful to add, you should refrain from trying to deviate from the topic at hand.

[sandnsea]

311. As I thought, no, you haven't

My post IS the topic at hand, sad that you can't see it.

[rd_kent]

314. Go right ahead, dodge the issue. Thats your MO anyway.

Have a nice day.

[sandnsea]

318. I'm not dodging any issue

I'm explaining why it would be cruel to limit food stamps.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6872010&mesg_id=6872385

[rd_kent]

321. Cruel? CRUEL? Are you serious?

I am not sure what is cruel about providing basic sustenance to those in need. Thats what food stamps are for. The argument here is whether or not soda and snack foods, that ARE NOT VERY NUTRITIOUS nor very healthy, should be included in the items that can be purchased with food stamps. I guess this will just be another thing you and I disagree on. I am shaking my head on this one though, at how not including soda on the list of items one can buy with food stamps is "cruel". I have to hand it to you, sandandsea, when you want to go beyond reality, you REALLY know how to do it.

[sandnsea]

327. Seriously answer the questions

No cake on birthdays? No pie on Thanksgiving? No chips on 4th of July? No candies on Easter or Halloween?

Do you know that even food banks will provide treats in a food box?

And you think I'm the one not in touch with reality??

[rd_kent]

328. No one is saying someone cannot have those things.

Especially not me. If someone wants cake, pie (cant one purchase the ingredients with food stamps and bake those things?) chips and candies, then they can buy them. I just dont think FOOD STAMPS should be used for those things. I will not deviate from the topic: What food stamps should and should not be used for.
If you want to debate whether someone should have those items at all, well, thats a different discussion.

[sandnsea]

331. What's the difference?

What do you care whether someone spends $10 of food stamps on baking ingredients or 50 cents at the day old bakery? If it's okay with you that they buy ingredients to bake, why not ingredients to make candy? Maybe it's a better use of their food stamps to just spend $1 on a bag of candy for a special occasion. Don't you think people can think for themselves? Would you really deprive kids of such a small thing?

[rd_kent]

332. Oh, I see, its "for the children".....

This is not about peoples feelings, or if someone should be able to have a treat. Lets look at the definition of "treat" as you have used it, shall we.


Treat-
–noun
12. entertainment, food, drink, etc., given by way of compliment or as an expression of friendly regard.
13. anything that affords particular pleasure or enjoyment.
14. the act of treating.
15. one's turn to treat.

I think 13 is the one you are referring to. So to answer you question, in regard to how you are framing the question "should people be allowed to buy a treat with food stamps?" I say no. I fully support providing food stamps for those that need it to ensure they can get enough nutrition to live, but not for providing treats.

I am now curious as to what kind of MONSTER you will try to make me out to be that I would deprive CHILDREN of candy......Oh, the horror!

[sandnsea]

334. You just said they could bake their own treats

Didn't you? What changed in 5 minutes?

Have you not read anything I've written? I've tried repeatedly to point out to you what it is like to have nothing but food stamps to provide a little bit of pleasure for your kids.

[rd_kent]

338. And have you not read anything I have said?

I am all for providing pleasure for your kids, just not with food stamps. That is not their purpose.

And nothing changed in 5 minutes. If one wants to buy raw ingredients, that can be used for countless applications, to bake a cake, great. This is not about preventing people from buying a cake. This discussion was about if SODA, and similar items, should be available with food stamps. For fucks sake, try not to take EVERYTHING out of context, will ya?

[sandnsea]

341. Soda is the same as cake

There's no damn difference. If you don't care if people bake a cake, there's no earthly reason to care if they buy a cake mix or pre-made treats. Really, I think people just do not know what real poverty is like and really don't even want to know.

[rd_kent]

346. Whatever, your just being obtuse. Im done with you.

[wickerwoman]

336. OK,

you can make cake and pie with the ingredients you get on food stamps. You can make chips by buying tortillas, cutting them up and baking them. You can make candied apples and popcorn balls and cookies and fudge with ingredients you get with your food stamps.

Making these foods from scratch is more nutritious and cheaper than buying them pre-made and they taste a hell of a lot better too. And once you're bought the ingredients, you can use them for lots of other things too, whereas once you've eaten the Twinkie, it is gone forever.

If you want convenient candy bars for Halloween, get them from the food bank.

I still don't see why a program designed to prevent malnutrition should subsidize junk food products.

[sandnsea]

337. It is not always cheaper at all

And if it's okay with you that people make things with ingredients, then why do you object to someone buying them already made?

Fried tortillas aren't any better for you than what you buy in a bag, or fried potatoes, or candy or anything else. Hell, a box of mac 'n cheese really isn't better for someone than homemade, but nobody would object to letting people buy that crap with food stamps.

[rd_kent]

339. She answered that question already.

And if it's okay with you that people make things with ingredients, then why do you object to someone buying them already made?

Making these foods from scratch is more nutritious and cheaper than buying them pre-made and they taste a hell of a lot better too. And once you're bought the ingredients, you can use them for lots of other things too, whereas once you've eaten the Twinkie, it is gone forever.

Thats the point I have been making and you refuse to acknowledge.

[sandnsea]

342. What are you going to do with $10 of flour, sugar, salt, etc?

You must just think there's an endless amount of food stamps. $10 is 2-3 meals. You can't just cross off meals in order to buy bags of baking ingredients that aren't going to go into actual meals. Unless you think feeding kids nothing but starch is healthy?

[Pithlet]

362. Making things from scratch also takes time, money, tools and know-how.

Those are things that not everyone is going to have, regardless of class. Time and money are the particulars that poor people are going to have trouble with. A lot of them are already working their asses off enough. It's also assuming they know how to make those things from scratch. You can't assume that anyone, regardless of their status, knows how to do that. If you already don't know how to do that, and you're poor, finding out how might be a little bit harder to do if you don't have the time and resources of someone more affluent. Not to mention the tools it takes to make things from scratch. They may not have them. If you don't grow up knowing how to do it, it takes time money and resources to learn how. As someone who recently learned how to bake a lot of things from scratch, I know. Oh, just bake from scratch, so easy! Except it's not.

[wickerwoman]

343. 99.9% of the time it is.

I live on about $5 a day (not a hell of a lot more than the $3 a day I'd get on food stamps). I do it by running a cost analysis of what I eat, figuring out the price per portion and the price per 100 calories and then making choices which maximize my nutrition for the smallest possible cost.

Making your own pancakes costs less than .15 a portion. Buying frozen waffles costs 2-3 times as much. Baking your own tortilla chips is waaaay cheaper than buying a bag of them and you can control the amount of salt and fat on them. You'd save $6-7 by buying a 12pk of tortillas and baking them vs. buying 3 bags of chips.

I can use my bag of flour to make pancakes, muffins, bread, a coating for chicken or fish, stew, gravy, biscuits, tortillas, pita bread, cookies, etc. What can I do with a Twinkie besides eat it and then be hungry again twenty minutes later when my blood sugar crashes?

Homemade mac and cheese is light years better for you than that radioactive crap from Kraft, especially if you stretch it with cabbage or spinach. I throw on a can of chopped tomatoes and bake it to get a kind of cheesy baked pasta with veggies. Six well-rounded meals in one go for just a fraction more than Kraft charges and I have leftover pasta, milk and cheese to use for something else.

The essence of good home economics is making things from scratch and there's almost always a huge nutritional benefit too. It's an essential life skill that anyone who wants to reduce their food budget should master.

I totally understand that poor people work hard and are tired and need some convenience in their lives. I don't favor restricting *all* convenience foods, just the ones that have absolutely no nutritional value. I'd rather see people on food stamps able to pick up hot foods from the deli (like a whole roasted chicken or potato wedges) than buy soda.

Saying restricting food stamps to exclude nutritionally worthless foods denies poor people any chance at pleasure is ridiculous. They are entirely capable of buying the ingredients for and making healthier version of pleasurable food for a fraction of what Coke, Hersheys or Keeblers would charge them for it.

[sandnsea]

347. It takes more than flour to bake

And if you've got $20 to last several days, the last thing you're going to do is buy baking powder, baking soda, salt, eggs, vanilla, shortening, oil, flour and sugar with it. Maybe a person has some of that, but if they need a couple of those items, it quickly makes more sense to buy $1 bag of cookies and spend the rest on nutrition.

The difference between $3 and $5 matters.

[rd_kent]

356. If you only have 20 bucks, it makes NO sense to buy a bag of cookies.

[sandnsea]

357. The poor should only have rice and beans

Got it.

:eyes:

[rd_kent]

395. Hahahahahaha!

Such douchebaggery. Well done.

[Pithlet]

363. Well yeah. That's what the food stamps would be for.

If the food stamp program isn't run the way some of the nannies here would have it.

[wickerwoman]

405. Few people go through the hassle of signing up for food stamps

for a few days worth of food. It's a 12 page application that takes hours to fill out and days or weeks to process. If you only need a few days worth of food you go to the food bank or sign up for an emergency cash assistance program.

The average length of time someone is on food stamps is 2 years. Over the course of those two years, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to build up a pantry than to just buy cookies every week. Cooking things yourself reduces your food cost to 20-40% what it would be buying only preprocessed foods and allows you to use the extra money to build more variety into your diet.

No, you wouldn't buy all the ingredients for cake or cookies your first week. But within three weeks on $21 a week per person, I could easily build up a pantry sufficient to produce peanut butter cookies as a treat (eat lots of pancakes the first week, buy bulk peanut butter the second week and use it in sandwiches, splurge on vanilla extract the third week and voila... ingredients for a huge batch of cookies that will last you two weeks). I wouldn't be able to do that if I was buying cookies and soda every week on top of trying to produce a nutritionally balanced menu because the cost per serving of store-bought cookies and soda vs. homemade cookies and iced tea or lemonade is ridiculous (more than 5 times as much).

Here's an example of a menu for 4 for $70 a week starting with an empty pantry (their food stamp allowance would actually be closer to $84):

http://www.hillbillyhousewife.com/70dollarmenu.htm

It shows how you can easily incorporate "treats" like iced tea, snickerdoodles, blondies and cinnamon toast using ingredients that you could buy with food stamps. It's a lot of work at the beginning and there's more salt than is probably good for you long term, but once you have a pantry built up and a system for handling leftovers, it's no more time-consuming to cook healthy food than it is to cook crap. I could do a similar menu a lot cheaper by repeating meals more often, cooking bigger batches and using leftovers and shopping bulk at Asian markets.

As for "know how" every food stamp program I've ever heard of includes nutritional counseling and meal preparation classes or literature. There is *tons* of information out there on how to cook healthy food on a budget. But the same people who object to "telling people what to do with their money" think it's "condescending" or "paternalistic" to suggest that information be made available to people who want to learn how to cook sustainably on a budget.

I was really grateful for it because I had *no* idea how to cook. My parents cooked maybe once a week when I was growing up and the rest of the time we ate pizza or take out. I threw away hundreds of dollars a month my first few years out of college because I didn't know how to cook from scratch or handle leftovers. I really, really wish that home ec had been a required course in high school. There is arguably no more essential life skill than learning how to adequately nourish yourself while saving money and reducing waste. Everyone should learn this before they graduate or make it a priority to acquire these skills if they don't have them already.

I know what it's like to work two full time jobs and rely on the bus system and be exhausted and depressed and not in the mood to cook or do dishes. But what I really wish is that someone had taken the time to show me how much time and money I could save by batch cooking, meal planning and making my own "TV dinners". A huge part of why I was so exhausted was eating crap all the time and a big part of why I needed to work so many hours was all the money I was wasting getting fast food and eating preprocessed junk every day.

You're not doing anyone any long term favors by insisting on their right to throw money at preprocessed convenience garbage that will make them even more ill and exhausted than they already are. And if I was trying to live on $3 instead of $5, it would be even more essential that I cook from scratch.

[sandnsea]

410. I was referring to the end of a month

When a person might need to buy a few more meals and consequently not have the choice to spend any of it on pantry items. When it would make more sense to just spend $1.00 on a treat of some sort.

As to the rest of your comments, I did grow up cooking. My grandparents were farmers. I spent my entire life cooking every single meal that was eaten. I would never begrudge anybody a soda pop or a packaged cookie. If you don't care if someone bakes it from scratch, there's no reason to care if they bought it already made.

[wickerwoman]

412. How did we get from "no cake on their birthdays"

to "three days at the end of the month with no cookies"?

Seriously? Three days without dessert is a deprivation? And if it actually was, why can't you go to the food bank and get a box with candy in it to tide you over?

I keep thinking about the time I spent with my uncle's family in Peru... how proud they were to produce a small bag of Hershey's kisses and the pain and pride in their eyes and they slid one over to each person at the table, how long they let that one piece melt in their mouths. You could tell that *maybe* once a year they got one small piece of chocolate. That's a "treat". Not being able to go a few days without cookies is a cheap carb/crappy sugar addiction that puts you on the fast track to diabetes.

And what are you teaching your kids by saying "life sucks but a cookie a day should make you feel better"? Do you really think it's a good idea to teach your kids to self-medicate with junk food?

I don't begrudge anyone a soda or packaged cookie but I'll bet the kids just over the food stamp cutoff limit who go to school hungry every day probably do. Buy soda and packaged cookies with your own money and eat them to your heart's content. Don't buy food with absolutely no nutritional value using a program intended to help undernourished children.

And again, I don't care if people buy preprocessed foods that have a demonstrable nutritional value. I would expand the program to include prepared foods like roasted chickens or potato salad from the deli. I don't care if people buy the ingredients to make junk because those ingredients can also be used to make non-junk foods and are useful to have around (and even homemade junk is usually more nutritious than store bought junk). But buying straight junk is disrespectful to the people who depend on this program to survive.

[sandnsea]

434. Oh gosh, maybe company dropped in

Poor people do have visitors you know.

Clearly you don't care about a child's nutrition or you wouldn't say to go to the food bank and get a treat.

It doesn't seem you know much about depending on food stamps for survival either, or you wouldn't suggest going to the food bank. Most people on food stamps don't go to the food bank, that is considered for people who are out of food completely and waiting for emergency food stamps, or people who don't qualify for food stamps but are out of food. Using food for truly hungry people when you can make your food stamps stretch is what is disrespectful.

As for your continued attacks on parents who "self-medicate" their kids with a cookie - good lord. Again, you clearly don't really care about that or you wouldn't suggest making a snack from scratch or going to the food bank to get the snack.

What you clearly care about is that your precious tax dollars don't provide one second of pleasure for anybody. I bet you resent poor people having a t.v. too.

[rd_kent]

446. "Clearly you don't care about a child's nutrition"- No, YOU clearly dont care.

Clearly you don't care about a child's nutrition or you wouldn't say to go to the food bank and get a treat.

If you cared about a child nutrition, cookies wouldnt even be in this discussion.


Poor people do have visitors you know. and food stamps are not for visitors.


It doesn't seem you know much about depending on food stamps for survival either, or you wouldn't suggest going to the food bank. Most people on food stamps don't go to the food bank, that is considered for people who are out of food completely and waiting for emergency food stamps, or people who don't qualify for food stamps but are out of food. Using food for truly hungry people when you can make your food stamps stretch is what is disrespectful.

So now, we on to food banks and who they are for and what people should be doing with that food, as decided by you. Who fucking died and left you in charge? Thank god, no one did.

As for your continued attacks on parents who "self-medicate" their kids with a cookie - good lord. Again, you clearly don't really care about that or you wouldn't suggest making a snack from scratch or going to the food bank to get the snack. YOU are the one that has been advocating children MUST HAVE cookies. "Who want to deprive a kid of a cookie?" you said. Apparently, you do now. How about some consistency, or does that elude you?

What you clearly care about is that your precious tax dollars don't provide one second of pleasure for anybody. I bet you resent poor people having a t.v. too. WTF do you not understand about the purpose of food stamps? THEY ARE NOT TO PROVIDE "PLEASURE", they are to provide basic nutrition.


You are wrong, your argument is bunk, and you have been dispatched. Back under the bridge with you........

[sandnsea]

460. Uh, I didn't say cookies were nutritious

I said they were a treat. And even a welfare parent on food stamps can figure out how to provide both, just like any other parent in the country.

And now food stamps recipients can't even offer company a cookie or cup of coffee? Can they buy coffee??

Whoe died and left ME in charge?? Look in the mirror.

You are fucking sick.

[rd_kent]

465. I'm sick?

the only thing I am fucking sick of is you.

[sandnsea]

473. All because I think a kid should have a cookie n/t

[rd_kent]

475. If it were only that simple. Reread your idiotic posts then join me at the puke bucket.

Theres room for more..... :puke:

[sandnsea]

477. I don't want to throw up my cookies n/t

[rd_kent]

478. You may have lost your mind, but at least you still have your sense of humor.

Have a nice day.

[wickerwoman]

456. Sorry but you can't have it both ways.

"Clearly you don't care about a child's nutrition or you wouldn't say to go to the food bank and get a treat." "What you clearly care about is that your precious tax dollars don't provide one second of pleasure for anybody. I bet you resent poor people having a t.v. too."

Which is it? I'm callous because I want kids to get a treat from the food bank or because I resent poor people having any pleasure?

Both are bullshit. People should have treats. Treats can easily be worked into a solid nutritional plan (such as the one I gave you in the link you've been ignoring). A bag of Oreos every single day is not a treat, it's a crappy habit. Food is not your only source of pleasure in life and teaching your kids that it is sets them up for a lifetime f*cked up attitude towards food. The same one that you are displaying when you think a family with enough money to buy real food, but no money for cookies the last three days of the month is in crisis. A crisis that can only be solved by stuffing a Twinkie in Junior's mouth so he feels better. Try living in the 95% of the world where $21 per person per week makes you upper middle class and then tell me it's "cruel" or "paternalistic" to encourage people at risk of malnourishment to buy milk instead of diet coke. I've seen poverty and it isn't the inability to eat Ding Dongs every day.

You set up the scenario of a family in the last three days of the month not having the money to buy the food they consider necessary for their family (i.e. candy). A family in that situation should go to the food bank and see what they are told. If you think it's selfish to go there just for the candy, that's your judgment.

I'm talking about people who are on food stamps to try to provide adequate nutrition for their families over a long term period. And I've shown repeatedly that there is no earthly reason why banning soda and pure preprocessed junk *from the list of foods that are covered by food stamps* means that kids will not have treats, birthday cakes, pie, chips, something to drink besides water, etc. They should absolutely have those things, just not at the expense of the nutrition that they need to grow and learn... the nutrition that the food stamp program is designed to provide them.

And I hope every poor person has a TV and a video or DVD player. It adds substantially to the list of things they can do when they feel like crap besides eat junk food which will only exacerbate their exhaustion and depression. Talk about a random f*ing comment.

[sandnsea]

459. Oh, poor parents are too stupid to provide nutrition AND snacks

"They should absolutely have those things, just not at the expense of the nutrition that they need"

So you have no problem with kids having any sort of treat, in fact you believe they should have treats. They can get those treats at the food bank, take them from people who have absolutely NO other options for nutrition or just food to keep the hunger pangs away. Give that food to the food stamps recipient instead. :crazy:

You really are just clueless about real poverty, that's all.

[wickerwoman]

462. Now you're just free associating. It's like arguing with a mad lib.

"You really are just clueless about real poverty, that's all."

Forwarding this to my cousins in Carhuas, Peru and my friends and students from Hunan, Guangxi, Fujian, Vladivostock and Phnom Penh.

Yes Virginia, "real poverty" is three days without a cookie.

I'm now officially bored of repeating myself so I will simply add a good luck and stay safe and healthy to everyone in the world who struggles with hunger. I hope that the help you actually need will be still be there by the time we're done subsidizing Cheetos for the sad.

[sandnsea]

464. Your cousins in Peru are online??

And in poverty? Who are you trying to fool.

[rd_kent]

467. And you are clueless about this conversation.

As I said for the umpteenth time, this is about food stamps, not treats, not poverty, or any of the other tangents you have tried to take this discussion. You have NO grounds for your argument anymore and further posts by you serve no purpose but to further your own embarrassment.

[rd_kent]

445. Oh, so now its time specific?

Your argument is now DOA. You are running out of tangents.....

[lumberjack_jeff]

487. I wish I could recommend this. +1 n/t

[ThomCat]

424. A big part of the food stamps program, and the way it has developed,

is to help people without inflicting judgment and shame. One of the big reasons foodstamps switched to cash cards instead of vouchers is so people like you wouldn't see when someone was paying with food stamps and would mind your own business.

This entire thread you've been trying to dictate what other people MUST do based on what you want to impose upon them. Well, you aren't a legislator so you don't have the authority to impose anything, thankfully. Even if you were a legislator, by some horrible twist of fate, hopefully there wouldn't be enough other assholes agreeing with you to turn food stamps into a punitive, restrictive, judgmental program that dictates how people eat. :grr:

I've been on foodstamps. It was my only source of income for food. I'm also disabled and on a medically restricted diet. I'm a vegan, and have been for 20 years, so my diet is about as healthy and nutritious as it gets. I still don't want you telling me what I can buy with my foodstamps. You do not dictate my diet. That is between me and my doctors.

If, along the way, there were some dark chocolate bars in my food basket occasionally, that's none of your fucking business. It doesn't detract from my nutrition at all, and you don't have the right to tell me that I can't have it.

Get your god damned ego out of other people's lives. Stop being a fucking busy-body and mind your own damned business.

[rd_kent]

448. You need to take a breath and calm down

This entire thread you've been trying to dictate what other people MUST do based on what you want to impose upon them. Well, you aren't a legislator so you don't have the authority to impose anything, thankfully. Even if you were a legislator, by some horrible twist of fate, hopefully there wouldn't be enough other assholes agreeing with you to turn food stamps into a punitive, restrictive, judgmental program that dictates how people eat

I want to impose NOTHING on anyone. I am not judging, casting shame or anything of the sort. I have stated several times that I SUPPORT the FS program for those that need it and that it is a GOOD program. Please show where I have done any of what you say or STFU.

Get your god damned ego out of other people's lives. Stop being a fucking busy-body and mind your own damned business.

This is an opinion board. Giving MY .02 on a public discussion is NOT being a 'fucking busy-body" so shut the fuck up. This discussion is about what food stamps should or should not pay for. FS are tax payer funded, I am a tax payer, so it IS my fucking business. This is NOT about judging people, this is about providing basic nutrition to those in need. You can take your poutrage elsewhere if you have nothing constructive to add to the conversation, asshat.

[ThomCat]

449. Oh fuck that.

Your concern for their nutrition is a lame excuse for you to go micromanaging other people's lives. you can't accomplish the one without doing the other.

Our government already determined that they don't want to micromanage people who get foodstamps, and they don't want people like you doing it either.

Yes, this is a discussion board, so you can state your opinion over and over and over until you've driven it down everyone's throat. But because it is a discussion board i can also state my opinion that you are a fucking busy-body trying to micromanage people's lives where you need to mind your own fucking business.

How would you like people micromanaging your life for every government subsidy you get directly or indirectly?

[rd_kent]

458. What part of "this is about foodstamps, NOT people" do you not understand.

This is about POLICY, not people. This is about how to best use tax dollars, not people. Where do you see me making this about PEOPLE anywhere in my posts?

[ThomCat]

485. Foodstamps is absolutely about people.

If you think that it isn't about people then you're deluded.

You go play with policy and money without affecting people somewhere else in your imaginary world where people aren't involved or affected. :eyed:

[rd_kent]

495. Not sure how ensuring FS are used is affecting people.

FS are for those in need. Ensuring they get the basic nutrition is their purpose. Discussing whether soda is a need and if FS should pay for it is not affecting people. No one is advocating cutting FS or taking food out pf peoples mouth. You can come on down from your cross now.

[Go2Peace]

499. They don't understand, empathy is not a readily understood emotion these days

The stress of being poor is enormous.

And people should investigate a little more as well. The reason that there are not more guidelines is because of industry lobbying! Go after the lobbyests, not the poor.

[DainBramaged]

3. Enough is enough

I guess diet soda is forbidden too................

We are becoming the Nanny state.....

[tonysam]

6. You bet.

If people not on food stamps can buy it, people on food stamps should as well.

This food fascism is getting ridiculous.

[Posteritatis]

44. Yep. To hell with micromanaging the choices of people who have enough to worry about as is. (nt)

[imdjh]

4. The program does have an objective.

I don't think we should follow people around to ensure they make good choices, but the program does have a design, it's not simply to supplement the income of low income people, it's to guarantee that minimum food requirements are met.

Do you think that Food Stamps should exclude hot prepared foods?

[Realityhack]

286. How dare you be reasonable on DU!!!!

Good points BTW.

[Go2Peace]

501. well then, blame the lobbysts, not the poor. It is industry that fights more guidelines

[SPedigrees]

5. I think HFCS should be illegal, regardless of how it is paid for.

It should be illegal to put it in bread or ketchup or any other food products as well as soda.

Products containing carcinogenic artifical sweeteners like apartame and splenda should be taken off the shelves as well.

[imdjh]

9. I wonder if Nutra System takes food stamps.

[DainBramaged]

20. We're talking SODA HERE, NOT HFCS

jeeze


And Splenda is a carcinogen now????
Good God and Jesus on a popsicle stick, the world is coming to n end........

[SPedigrees]

36. Get a clue, read the ingredient label on a can of soda, any brand ..your choice. nt

[DainBramaged]

40. Uh 'excuse me, I drink DIET NO HFCS, get your own clue

You people who think you're the food police need to get out of our refrigerators, you've already tried to get into our bedrooms, and your bullshit OFFENDS me.


Barq's Diet, Fridge Pack Root Beer
Ingredients
Carbonated Water, Caramel Color, Sodium Benzoate (to Protect Taste)Aspartame, Citric Acid, Acesulfame Potassium, Artificial and Natural Flavors, Acacia.


Wegmans Fountain Root Beer, Diet Soda

Carbonated Water, Caramel Color, Potassium Benzoate (a Preservative)Aspartame, Natural and Artificial Flavor, Citric Acid, Acesulfame Potassium.

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 1 can
Servings Per Container 12
Amount Per Serving Calories 0 % Daily Value* Total Fat 0 g Sodium 35 mg1% Total Carbohydrate 0 g0% Sugars 0 g Protein 0 g0% * Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your Daily Values may be higher or lower depending on your calories needs.

Lipton with Citrus, Diet Green Tea
Water, Citric Acid, Green Tea, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Ascorbic Acid (to Protect Flavor)Honey, Phosphoric Acid, Sodium Benzoate (Preserves Freshness)Natural Flavors, Aspartame, Potassium Sorbate (Preserves Freshness)Acesulfame Potassium, Calcium Disodium EDTA (to Protect Flavor)Caramel Color, Yellow 5, Blue 1.




Bite me

[Electric Monk]

52. The key word there being "I", and aspartame isn't exactly a healthy food either

http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/question536.htm

[SPedigrees]

62. Google Aspartame. I condemned both HFCS and artificial sweeteners in my original post.

Drink at your own peril.

[DainBramaged]

136. I am tired of you people who think they can dictate what I eat

go eat dirt, maybe you'll be happy then..............otherwise mind your own business and stay out of mine. You've been wrong throughout this thread, and you keep giving people BAD information.

[zipplewrath]

186. Well, let's be honest here

What is being discussed is whether food stamps should be allowed to have restrictions on the consumables that are purchased. Apart from the specific reasons, food stamps were created for a variety of reason having to do with serving the larger community, or society in general. (As an aside, most folk forget that it is run out of the Agricultural department which explains a bit of exactly whom it is serving). One will generally find that their will be an attitude that the folks paying for something have a say in what it will pay for. The problem with something like food stamps, and these kinds of rules is that wht may be frivolous, or unnecessary for one person, may not be so for another. I do struggle to figure out how this problem would apply to soda, but I also can see that the real problem is that manufacturers would be encouraged to try to get their product classified as something OTHER than soda so that it can be purchased.

It is a laudable goal to use a program like food stamps to do some teaching, experiential at that, in diet management and nutrition. However, the "unintended consequence" could easily be that we just muddy up the definition of "fruit juice" to the extent that no one really knows what they are getting.

[DainBramaged]

368. Why must you insist on 'teaching' adults??? Who made you principal?

What, they can't be allowed to make up their own minds?

Why do you think YOU have the right to teach them anything by restricting their rights as adults? I thought when we're 'of age' other than breaking laws, we have the RIGHT to make up our own minds.


Jesus.

[zipplewrath]

419. You do

You do have that right, and the guy paying the bill has the right to decide what he wants to spend his money on. The question really is whether the guy paying the bills is acting in his own best interest, or indulging in the risk of unintended consequences.

[DainBramaged]

453. It is NONE of our business if that person isn't breaking the law

When did you accept Fascism as the rule in America?? What give YOU the right to determine how they live their lives?????

[zipplewrath]

500. Um, I'm not

This is assistance. Typically the one providing assistance reserves the right to decide HOW they do that. There is a legitimate argument to be made about trying to be over controlling when offering assistance. None the less, you'll be hard pressed to get much agreement that the offerer of food stamps shouldn't be allowed to establish ANY restrictions upon their use. If you think food stamps are restrictive, look into WIC funds sometime.

[Hannah Bell]

394. why does our wonderful society produce adult individuals who need to be "taught"

what's healthy to eat? or how to cook?

such knowledge is common currency in "undeveloped" societies.

[zipplewrath]

421. We never stop learning

There is always more to learn. And don't indulge in the fallacy that good nutrition is "common knowledge" in under developed societies. They frequently have dietary problems, it's merely that in more developed societies, their diet is even crappier because they have access to "refined" foods. By its very nature, unrefined food will tend to be healthier.

I will admit though to being shocked at the lack of ability of supposed "grown" adults to cook, especially with any other device than a microwave. We could probably stand a modern equivalent of the "passage rite" of adulthood in which one was expected to do various "adult" tasks, amongst them make meat loaf and a salad, and balance a checkbook.

[Hannah Bell]

422. what to eat is indeed common knowledge in most societies, & adults don't need to

be taught it, or how to cook.

that it's not common currency today is a signature of cultural break & cultural theft.

[DainBramaged]

454. But that's what makes us unique, and if you can't accept each person's uniqueness

I feel terribly sorry for you. You need to examine your personal priorities and stop trying to rule the lives of others. It just isn't healthy.

[zipplewrath]

498. You need to take a deep breath

I'm not particularly advocating anything here. I'm merely explaining the realities of social constructs.

[blueamy66]

188. I consider this to be "my business", as

I pay for it.

[MattBaggins]

225. You can have my splenda when you pry it from my cold dead fingers

[spoony]

110. Jones. None there. nt

[rucky]

140. Jarritos & Jones Soda use cane sugar!

FYI

[Spider Jerusalem]

300. Why HFCS and NOT sugar?

Most people here seem to not quite get that HFCS is just another kind of sugar. HFCS is unknown here in Britain; soft drinks and candies and so on are sweetened with sugar (usually, beet sugar and not cane sugar) and Britain isn't too far behind the US in rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes. The idea that HFCS is solely responsible for obesity and related health problems is absurd and ill-informed; it's not the type of sugar consumed, but the quantity, in conjunction with sedentary lifestyles, that are a problem.

[imdjh]

383. We already had this out. We don't want HFCS in our food. It doesn't taste as good.

Various opinions on its functional similarity to sugar are not relevant, but in our discussion it became obvious that many people do not consider it to be the equal of sugar in quality and flavor.

[The Straight Story]

8. People are not fucking machines

(Well, I am a 'fucking' machine...) And I think it is wrong to keep taking away things like soda all in the name of health care - has health care become a religion? If ye sin, ye are hurting us all, etc?

Control freaks will do anything they can to make sure others follow their religion, even when that religion has no god or bible.

[imdjh]

11. novelties, hot food, soda, and nonfood items have been FS no-nos for as long as I can remember.

[The Straight Story]

27. And that makes it ok?

:shrug:

I have been on food stamps before. It was not easy, a lot of stigma attached, and felt like a kid having his mom shop for him at times.

When we can start putting restrictions on bankers that we give money to, etc, then maybe there would be a moral leg to stand on.

Food means a little different thing to different people - maybe you were used to having soda with your thanksgiving dinner for example, may mean squat to me or you, but can be comforting in a mental way to others.

Discourage it? Sure.

I just cannot believe it is such a huge deal - we give people food stamps to use at the grocery store, from there it should be their choice.

[CTyankee]

116. Tell us about the restrictions on what you could buy or not buy with FS.

People like me should know more about this. For instance, were you limited to plain packed meats either fresh or frozen, ditto vegetables. Could you buy anything in the fresh produce section, bread, canned tuna, plain rice and noodles with the FS? How about dairy products, were there limits on whether you could FS for all milk, including chocolate milk and ice cream?

I really need to know more about the FS restrictions on one's ability to have a healthful diet...

[imdjh]

133. Shame is by design- has been for as long as there has been charity and welfare.

The idea is that you aren't supposed to like being on welfare. You are supposed to be ashamed of yourself or your parents, and this will inspire you to get up and out and on the road to self sufficiency, salvation, and prosperity. See every book about growing up poor in New York City in the early 20th century.

[rd_kent]

358. Yes, it does.

The purpose of food stamps is to provide basic nutrition for those that cannot afford it. Its not cash, its not for snacks, its not for crap food. Its for basic nutritional needs. I support it, people need it. The fact that taxpayers fund this should mean that the money is used wisely (I know, tax payer money is not used wisely other places, but we not talking about other places, were talking about food stamps) Soda is NOT a nutritional need, juice "drinks" are not a nutritional need. Food stamps should only be used for basic nutritional needs.

[tonysam]

12. I absolutely despise "wellness" programs put in by employers

In fact, I think they are discriminatory.

I wish people would get off of this crusading nonsense about what we should or shouldn't eat, and try to force the fanaticism down people's throats.

[imdjh]

135. I stay away from Wellness programs, or anything that asks questions. They will use it against you.

Whether it's your employer or your insurance company, the questions they ask are not for your benefit, you can count on it. They will use this against you at some point. Ten years ago, my doctor asked me if I smoked, which I did at the time. I refused to answer. In the first place, if he can't tell then either he isn't much of a doctor or smoking isn't much of a problem. In the second place, I don't want it on record that I did. So I refused to answer. He looked at me funny but understood.

[Gormy Cuss]

232. Bingo.

If they really cared about your benefit, they'd offer free literature and videos to help you through a self guided program and off site, anonymous screening programs.

[rd_kent]

360. Why? Wellness programs reduce medical costs for everyone. You are against that?

[petronius]

13. The question wasn't whether people who receive food stamps are allowed

to buy soda, it was whether food stamps should be allowed to be used to buy soda. It's not the same thing...

[tonysam]

17. Big whoop

Who uses food stamps? People. Soda, along with ketchup, flour, and other things, is considered food.

Get over it.

[petronius]

23. Really!? It's people doing the shopping? I had no idea. Thank god you're

here to provide these gems of wisdom... :rofl:

[eShirl]

108. Yes, really.

thank god you're here to ridicule.

[petronius]

177. FTR, my response was in the same tone as what I was responding to

The ridicule was directed toward the snarking poster, not the topic at hand.

As to the topic, I think it's perfectly legitimate to limit food stamp use to products that best meet the goals of the program. However, given how much 'normal' food is on the unhealthy side I think it would be too unwieldy to differentiate, and since I doubt anyone is buying an entire cart of soda and candy bars I doubt it would be worth the effort. (Also, I prefer that a aid-receiving parent have the ability to drop a treat in a kid's lunchbag once in a while).

My first post above, however, was aimed at the notion that limiting food stamp uses is equivalent to banning junk food for poor people - although my first post didn't include ridicule, I think that silly leap is entitled to be ridiculed...

[PVnRT]

241. Jesus Fucking Christ

This is about people USING FOOD STAMPS, not everyone. Maybe you're the one who needs to "get over it."

[Freddie Stubbs]

119. Just because the governement isn't paying for it doesn't mean that we are taking it away

People can pay for it with their own money.

[CTyankee]

149. Wow. We're all now a bunch of food Savonarola's?

Poor people have the ability to make choices, just like non poor people, and they can use the food subsidy to buy healthy foods. If we're food nannies, then there are some on the other side who believe that poor people just naturally make poor food choices. There is a food policy problem in this country. The answer isn't more unhealthy food that promotes a billion dollar industry and creates illness and suffering for people. Why should it be our government's food policy to endorse helping the soda lobby make their money by deliberately inflicting misery and disease on poor people?

I think food policy should vigorously support anybody's ability to buy fresh, wholesome food. And providing FS is by definition government food policy. I also support vigorous nutrition programs in schools and in parent education classes. I don't think there is anything inherently evil in helping people understand the basics of nutrition. It is simply information that can help.

[dana_b]

231. amen!!

;)

[SPedigrees]

14. I remember the days when people in my state used food stamps to buy cigarettes and beer.

I think (and hope) that that practice has been halted.

[tonysam]

19. I don't know about beer, but cigs are out.

I have been on food stamps, and thank God they were available when I needed them. Of course everything now is on a debit card.

The problem is buying necessities that aren't food, including toilet paper and similar items.

[SPedigrees]

25. I have no problem with FS purchases of necessary paper products

and cleaning supplies. These non-food items do serve a health (sanitation) purpose.

[CTyankee]

294. I think that if it were on FS, I would do everything I could to fill up my food basket

with what I could in food staples and reserve my money for toilet paper and not sodas. Then at least I could be nourished and clean, two of my absolute standards for living.

[sandnsea]

31. No you don't. What utter crap.

The best somebody might do is gather some change from 2-3 food stamps and buy a bottle of beer or pack of cigarettes. Or a roll of toilet paper or bottle of shampoo.

[madamesilverspurs]

70. You don't get change.

It's a debit card transaction, no cash involved.

---

[sandnsea]

73. It didn't used to be

In answer to the claim that people were allowed to buy cigs and beer with food stamps. You used to have paper certificates and you got change on the $1.00 food stamps. If you needed soap, you used 5 food stamps for 5 packs of gum, 5 different times; got the change and bought soap or toilet paper with the cash. And yes, sometimes people bought a bottle of beer or a pack of cigarettes.

But you could never, ever, buy cigs and beer directly with food stamps. I don't know where people get these crazy ideas.

[juno jones]

79. I remember those days as well.

Back in the days of Ronnie Raygun. Sending everybody in with a dollar in FS to buy a packet of koolaid. The resulting change would be pooled for beer and cigs.

But no, you could never buy them directly with FS.

[eShirl]

97. bullshit!

[Rabrrrrrr]

132. Some did that, too, when I worked in a grocery store

They'd use the dollars of their food stamps to make repeated purchases of something cheap - like a pack of gum.

Since there is no food stamp money less than a dollar, we gave them change in real money.

Then they'd collect all that change, and go buy smokes or liquor.

Can't do that now with the cards they use, but back in the day of actual food stamps, it got abused heavily by some.

[SoCalDem]

161. It was never allowed, but there was "trading" going on all the time

person A "sells" $50 worth of their food stamps to another foodstamp recipient for $40 CASH... then person A uses cash to buy unauthorized stuff..but they no longer use the little "funny-money" ..it's on a debit card, so those offenses are nearly impossible to recreate these days:)

[Mariana]

168. Food stamp fraud has always gone on.

Some retailers illegally allow people to use food stamps for other things. Maybe you remember seeing that. You should have reported it if you did.

[guitar man]

15. Oh why the he'll not

If execs on bailout money and subsidies can live like kings, why can't poor people live a little too ? :shrug:

[Toucano]

292. Drinking a Pepsi is now the equivalent to living like a king.

My, how our standards have fallen.

[guitar man]

322. yeah, I guess

the poor must suffer even more if they are ever going to be inclined to pull on their bootstraps hard enough to lift themselves to a CEOs job :sarcasm:

[MissMarple]

16. No. Absolutely not. It has no nutritional value. It is not food.

[tonysam]

21. Ridiculous.

Neither is candy, cake, all kinds of stuff food fascist fanatics say is "bad" for you.

If you can buy the stuff without food stamps, by God, the poor should be allowed to buy the same thing with them. Food is food, whether you like it or not.

[MissMarple]

41. You're right, I misspelled "nutritional". Food promotes growth and health.

Soda, candy, most cake, et cetera do not.

[dysfunctional press]

35. it's not really much worse than fruit juice...

ask your doctor.

[MissMarple]

45. Actually, that is not entirely the case.

Sodas can suck the calcium right out of your bones... Well, actually they inhibit the absorption of calcium ,and they are often a substitute for more healthy drinks like milk, ask your doctor. Or better yet, ask a nutritionist. Sodas also erode the enamel on your teeth. Sugared sodas lead to obesity that contributes directly to high blood pressure and diabetes. Truth to tell.

Oh, and the juice thing. You are right in that they are not as healthy as they appear. And they can cause tooth decay in children. But Mountain Dew in baby bottles...that is evil. And, yes, many people do that....put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles. Usually that is out of ignorance. Children (or the immature, or the unnurtured) having babies is more common than you may think, I hope.

[dysfunctional press]

54. the carbonation is the main difference between soda and juice.

besides that, they're both just flavored sugar-water. although you could say that juice is 'natural'.

[MissMarple]

60. Right, although I suppose a case could be made for juice over high fructose corn syrup sodas.

Not that I would make it. When my children were young juice was a treat, now with many kids soda is a staple. In Appalachia, there is an epidemic of tooth decay and growth deficiency because so many people drink and then crave Mountain Dew. Babies with new teeth...have rotten teeth. Nutritional deficiency directly leads to mental deficiency in growing children. It's sad. I won't argue the juice thing with you...well calcium, vitamin D added OJ, may get a small pass, and some apple juice has additives, as well. But, as a primary beverage...NO.

[SPedigrees]

61. You are confusing "fruit juice" with "juice drinks."

A glass of freshly squeezed orange juice or grapefruit juice is vitamin rich and nutritious.

Most packaged juice drinks are indeed just uncarbonated soda, aka flavored HFCS-water (not sugar-water.)

[dysfunctional press]

198. no, i'm not.

yes- a small glass of orange juice has vitamin c- but drinking a lot of juice isn't as healthy for you as you might think. it's got a lot of (natural)sugar in it, and it can add lbs just as easily as soda.

[Hannah Bell]

83. your doctor's an idiot, then.

8 oz orange juice prepared from concentrate (ref = bowes & church)

1.7 g. protein
26 g carb
112 kcal
19 RE Vit. A (194 IU)
97 mg Vit. C (~1/4 DRI)
.20 mg B1
.05 mg B2
.05 mg niacin
.11 mg B6
109 mg folate (~1/4 DRI)
.39 mg pant. acid
474 mg potassium/2 mg sodium: heart healthy ratio
22 mg calcium
40 mg phosphate
24 mg magnesium
.24 mg iron
.13 mg zinc
.11 mg copper
.04 mg manganese
trace or higher fiber (depending on if you buy pulp/non-pulp)
good source of flavonoids hesperetin and naringenin

and all without any artificial ingredients.


something like Sunny-D has synthetic A & C added, higher sodium, lower potassium, no B's, no protein, no minerals, no flavonoids, & fake flavor.

But hey, whatever the doc says, sugar is POISON!!!!

[dysfunctional press]

200. drinking A LOT of juice is the problem...

if someone drinks a lot of soda, and decides to switch to fruit juice instead- they aren't going to see much of a difference in their health/weight on that basis alone.

[Withywindle]

18. Yes. I'm against the Food Cart Police.

I think it's fucked up to judge the poor more harshly for the most innocuous of vices and small pleasures than the rich, who get punished for NONE of their much greater vices, including the ones that really fuck up the world.

However, I also think people who can afford to pay for soda should stop whining about taxes on it. It's not really food in any meaningful sense, and if you approve the concept of "sin taxes" on, say, liquor or cigarettes, I see no reason why they shouldn't apply to addictive tooth-rotting obesity-increasing HFCS-water with no nutritional value as well.

[nolabear]

22. You do know foodstamps are currency, don't you?

Restricting what they can buy just allows the people who broker them to make more of a profit. People won't be controlled that way. Off the top of my head I don't know a solution to that, and neither, it seems, does anyone else.

[tonysam]

24. Yep, you're right.

Any more they are the same thing as a regular bank debit card, just as UI benefits are put on a debit card.

How DARE ANYBODY sit there and tell poor people what they can buy with food stamps! How DARE them!!!!!

[CTyankee]

160. To me, this is a public policy issue because whether you like it or not

it is the government, using tax dollars, to basically say what it promotes in terms of food that it subsidizes. And if you say that it should be our government's public policy to in essence foster an industry that manufactures a product that harms the populace, then go for it. But just be clear about what you are actually supporting...

[SoCalDem]

169. simple.. make it a nutrition program..not a paying mechanism

for anything "edible".

a $4.99 can of asparagus is NOT "equal" to a can of Del Monte green beans -no salt added,

a 4 pk of "cutesy" mini-yogurts with candy crumbles, etc is not "equal" to 4 cartons of "normal" store brand yogurt

If the food bought is SUBSIDIZED by taxpayers, it should be for the best/most nutrition, at the lowest cost ( so the $$ stretches further)

[ohheckyeah]

26. Should people start minding their own business and quit

worrying about who is and isn't drinking soda? I vote yes.

[SPedigrees]

34. Yes and we should allow the public to paint their walls with lead paint

and paper their walls with sheets of asbestos while they puff away on cigarettes.

I object to funding purchases of HFCS to feed to poor children, and I object even more to not being able to purchase a can of tomato soup from a grocery store shelf myself that does not contain this poison.

[ohheckyeah]

42. LOL you seriously need to get a life. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

89. who is this "we" who's so clever? you & who else?

[Freddie Stubbs]

120. It is their business when their tax dollars are paying for it

[rd_kent]

329. Is the question "should people drink soda" or "should food stamps buy soda"?

Two totally DIFFERENT questions with two totally DIFFERENT answers.

[Ozymanithrax]

29. Soda is classified as a food...

You would have to reclassify "Soda" as a non-food item.

I found this, which may help.

You can buy:

Foods for the household to eat, such as:

breads and cereals;

fruits and vegetables;

meats, fish and poultry; and

dairy products.

Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.

You can not buy:

Households CANNOT use food stamp benefits to buy:

Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco

Any nonfood items, such as:

pet foods;

soaps, paper products; and

household supplies.

Vitamins and medicines.

Food that will be eaten in the store.

Hot foods

[NYC_SKP]

32. Tax the hell out it. Then people might be less inclined to spend food stamps on it.

And, soda pop is not food.

Milk, juice, water, is food.

[Freddie Stubbs]

121. That would unnecessarily punish those who are not on the public dole

Unless that tax would only apply to those who are buying it with food stamps.

[NYC_SKP]

143. The tax applies to all, a sin tax, like cigs and booze. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

165. The government should not use the tax code to punish 'sins'

Leave that to God.

[Kansas Wyatt]

175. When is the Government going to start taxing GREED?

[Freddie Stubbs]

213. Perhaps when it starts taxing sloth

[Kansas Wyatt]

222. Right... The GREEDY who think they work so hard as the money rolls in.

Hit them for being GREEDY and for their fat lazy pampered asses too.

Wealthy Elite:
1. GREED
2. SLOTH
3. ?

[Freddie Stubbs]

230. Isn't wanting the government to take money away from someone who works and give it to you so that

you can buy soda a bit greedy?

[Kansas Wyatt]

268. The government doesn't "give" me anything.

So your hypothetical does not apply to "me."

What is GREEDY, is wealthy people pushing the tax burden on to those who don't have multiple homes, vacation homes, country club memberships, multiple vacations, several luxury cars, luxury boats, planes, helicopters, trust funds, bank accounts that earn amounts of money they cannot possibly ever spend, etc. etc. etc.

One would think that such a greedy person would be more than happy to buy a soda for the kid of someone who is having a hard time.

[CTyankee]

296. And they can do that w/o relying on a government handout for the soda industry.

We are not talking about private charity here. While we're on the subject of greedy people, you do understand that the soda industry is delighted to take taxpayer money to subsidize their greed? So it is odd that you seem OK with feeding their greed. I apologize in advance if I read your post the wrong way, tho...

[Kansas Wyatt]

301. Nobody was talking about whether the government should force poor people...

To buy soda. My point is that it should be their choice, if they want to buy soda with food stamps. I do not know what they are or are not allowed to buy with food stamps.

I don't think people should be beat down, then screamed at to get up if they want a small treat or to treat their kids. Hell, why not just slop the gruel and vitamin pills down their throats then?

The argument that you are taking, is that those who manufacture, distribute, and sell a product are subsidized by the government. Which means that just about everything paid for with food stamps, is subsidized by the government. So to answer your question, yes I understand there are greedy people running soda companies, just like there are greedy people making more money off of cereal companies, etc. etc. If the Mom & Pop Grocer is in a poor neighborhood, does that mean they are being subsidized by the government too?

I just don't feel the personal rush and gratification of slapping someone down further, when they are down on their luck.

[CTyankee]

306. I'm not at all gratified that the poor are slapped down. I would like them to get MORE not less

assistance. I would take that from inefficient subsidies of industries like the soda industry and have my tax dollars go to pay for MORE, BETTER foods. It's not either/or.

For instance, here in New Haven some enterprising do-gooders got a major supermarket chain to open a store in an underserved neighborhood in order to get fresh foods at a lower cost to low income people and also to provide jobs that people in the neighborhood could walk or take a bus to, thereby solving two problems that the inner city poor have to deal with. I was shocked to read about it in the NY Times, because the story revealed that it was a "first"! It was then I really learned that the poor have much fewer choices than the nonpoor in where they can obtain their food and the varieties they can choose from. Since it was on a major thoroughfare on my way to and from my job downtown I started doing my last minute shopping there, until a shooting in the parking lot scared me away for a while...

It's these kinds of things we have to think about when we envision how we can best use our resources, tax and otherwise, for a sensible food policy in this country. Giving tax money to the soda industry that produces bad health outcomes for our fellow citizens does those citizens no favors. A bad policy is still a bad policy.

I hope I have offered some food for thought (pardon the pun)...

[Pithlet]

365. Here's where I have a problem with your argument

We could ALL benefit from more. From better. Most Americans should eat better. The fact that soda is nothing but sugar and bad for you is a fact. It's one I'm sure most people understand. People shouldn't consume massive quantities of it. But that is true for anyone. Not just the poor. And soda isn't the only poor choice to make. Anything processed. Anything made from white flour. Basically anything not made from fresh ingredients low in saturated fats and sodium.

The average American could definitely stand to improve their diet and learn to make healthier choices at the market, which is really only one step. Americans eat poorly for a variety of complex reasons. Just strictly and harshly singling out and narrowing the list at the grocery store for poor people doesn't really address those reasons and fixes nothing. Narrowing the list of things they can choose at the grocery won't ensure they'll eat healthier. It just makes the task harder for them. Eating healthier is about more than what you buy at the grocery store.

[CTyankee]

442. I know that I have singled out but one egregiously bad segment of the food industry.

I get that. I also do not want to argue that we should enforce healthy policies upon people. What I am talking about is a coherent public policy on food. Since I can't overnight get rid of all processed foods I'd eliminate the soda industry from getting any subsidies from our taxes because there are NO redeeming qualities to the product. Some other processed foods have SOME redeeming qualities which could not be eliminated from coverage with food stamps without causing a hardship.

At the same time, as I see it, a coherent food policy would have a subsidy for growers/processors of healthier foods and also to make them more accessible to people in poor neighborhoods. I cannot believe that poor people don't have the ability to make healthy choices any more than anyone else. But often those choices either aren't available at the little bodega in their neighborhood or they are priced too high for them. My idea of a food policy would include set aside public land for little gardens where people could grow some of their own food. It would include "food literacy" (and "financial literacy") along with reading and writing literacy classes held at public libraries, with volunteers (such as myself) tutoring.

It seems to me that if we quit giving these multi billion dollar industries tax money they will simply continue to poison people and make us fatter. To me it is an ethical issue which is at the basis of our bad policy here. Give the tax money for the healthy products and we're all better off.

[dysfunctional press]

33. it's not much worse than drinking fruit juice all the time.

sugar is sugar.

[SPedigrees]

39. sugar is not fructose, and high fructose corn syrup is not ordinary fructose.

Soda has not contained sugar (sucrose) since before the 1980s, about when the obesity and diabetic epidemics began.

[dysfunctional press]

43. fructose is sugar.

whether it's in juice or soda.
too much of either one is not good for you.

and btw- you can get coke w/sugar(not hfcs) at costco, and pepsi & mt. dew had 'throwback' versions w/sugar this past summer. and jones soda always has sugar.

[SPedigrees]

66. sugar is sucrose, and sucrose is not fructose.

and the fructose in an apple is not the same as high fructose corn syrup made from genetically modified corn.

[Hannah Bell]

76. sucrose = 1 unit glucose bound to 1 unit fructose.

the fructose in HFCS = fructose: C6H12O6

The only difference between HFCS & the fructose in an apple is that HFCS is a more concentrated source.

[Codeine]

80. Actually, sucrose is glucose and fructose

in a glycosidic bond.

[dysfunctional press]

202. fructose IS sugar.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fructose

Fructose:

A very sweet sugar, C6H12O6, occurring in many fruits and honey and used as a preservative for foodstuffs and as an intravenous nutrient. Also called fruit sugar, levulose.

[Hannah Bell]

393. there are lots of sugars. table sugar is sucrose.

[dysfunctional press]

401. exactly.

some people don't seem to understand that.

[DainBramaged]

49. Wrong yet again Captain Food Police

Pepsi Throwback, Mountain Dew Throwback

Buy Kosher Coke


now, you want to lie some more?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

278. The sugar in fruit juice is mostly fructose.

There's very little difference between the sugar content of fruit juice and HFCS beverages when you get right down to it.

After all HFCS is just sugar that comes from corn. And corn's a fruit.

[BrightKnight]

38. Candy water is not food. - n/t

[tkmorris]

46. I don't give a damn what they buy

I'd MUCH rather have some people game the system than anyone in need go without. I have no problem showing compassion for the misfortunes of others without sticking my nose into how they handle their personal lives.

[voc]

53. +1 n/t

[Bertha Venation]

430. +2

[era veteran]

47. NO SODA SOAP YES

I have discussed this in another thread. Soda is not food. Feed your family food not shit. Feed your head!

[ohheckyeah]

48. Soap isn't food either. n/t

[era veteran]

58. Correct Thats how you clean dishes so you don't get sick.

I guess you could rinse the frito plate with Pepsi but soap probably is better.

[ohheckyeah]

59. But soda is good for getting bugs off the grill of your car. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

196. But you can't buy soap with food stamps

[era veteran]

497. Exactly

With soap you can sanitize you cookware & that would seem logical to have the things necessary to cook wholesome food . Pepsi you just rent and the payoff is obesity and rotten teeth. Is this just a personal value thing?

[Vickers]

50. Yes, but I really wish they wouldn't. (n/t)

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Yes

I don't begrudge people for drinking a soda and thus I don't begrudge low income people for drinking a soda. Coffee and tea are also non-essentials but quite frankly they help me get through the day just like diet soda and regular soda for some people. My tax dollars go to far worse things and in far larger quantities than buying a few non-essential food and drink items for low income people.

[CTyankee]

162. Actually, coffee and tea have some good qualities, which is now being discovered.

Too much is bad but too much of anything can get you into nutritional trouble...

[AzNick]

55. When my family was on food stamp we were not allowed to get soda

And that's in Arizona. We could get orange juice, just as bad, even worse.

[Hannah Bell]

77. oj is not "worse" than soda. being as its a good source of vitamin C & folate, for

starters, & in a fairly unrefined form.

[AzNick]

260. OJ in the US is VERY refined

With lots and lots of sugar added.

[Codeine]

287. Where do you get that?

There is no sugar added to a 100% orange juice.

[Hannah Bell]

305. try reading a label. it's not.. it can't be sold as orange "juice" if it has sugar

added, it has to be sold as "x percent juice" or "orange drink" or something similar.

oj is not "highly refined". highly refined = oh so healthy things like canola oil & soy milk.

[CoffeeCat]

56. It's none of our damn business!

People on food stamps have obviously been through some tough times.

They don't need people treating them like children--and telling them that
they can't have a bottle of Sunkist!

We either give them the food stamps and let them buy what they need--or we slap ourselves
on the wrist for being so insensitive to people who really just need our support and kindness.

[wickerwoman]

63. But the purpose of the food stamp program is to provide nutrition

to people who might otherwise go hungry.

Nobody is telling poor people they can't have a bottle of Sunkist. What they are saying is you can't use foodstamp money to buy your bottle of Sunkist. Buy the Sunkist with your welfare or disability check or your salary or something other than the funds dedicated to making sure your child gets milk and something substantial to eat before school.

The average food stamp benefit is less than $1 per person per meal. Have you tried to put together a nutritionally balanced meal for less than $1? It's a bitch. Now imagine that .25 of that is going for a can of soda which contributes nothing to the nutritional profile of the meal. Could you live on three .75 cent meals a day for any length of time without developing serious malnutrition?

Some people "need" cigarettes or beer or heroin just as much, if not more, than other people need Diet Coke. Are we being unkind and insensitive by not allowing them to spend foodstamp money (again, something dedicated to making sure that they don't die of malnutrition) on things which are not necessary, indeed counterproductive, to their health?

[Freddie Stubbs]

123. It is when our tax dollars are paying for it

I agree that food stamps should be used for what people need. But soda is not "need."

[ensho]

156. agree

nt

[Dorian Gray]

211. My money is being spent on "food stamps"

too... and I say if people want to buy a freaking soda, let them buy a soda. :eyes:

I know that sounds rude, and I don't mean to ridicule you, Freddie, in particular. This whole thread is leaving a nasty taste in my mouth. I personally feel as though it's treating the poor as though they are idiotic and can't make proper decisions regarding food for their families unless some more enlightened organization looks over their purchases.

I think it's condescending and obnoxious.

We need to trust people to do the right thing, and if they short shrift themselves and their families by buying cases of cola instead of milk and 100% fruit juice? That's their family's decision.

[Freddie Stubbs]

245. Those who work and pay taxes will begin to resent supporting those who do not if

they believe that they are subsidizing luxuries like soda, cigarettes, and alcohol. In turn, they may be more likely to elect representatives who are more apt to cut the amount of money which goes to public assistance. Is that what you want?

[Dorian Gray]

263. Not at all....

As far as I am aware, cigarettes and alcohol are not allowed to be bought currently by food stamps.

Comparing cigarettes to food or drink is silly, anyhow. They don't provide any caloric or nutritional sustenance. Alcohol, a beverage, maybe you could consider potentially hypocritical of me to be okay with not allowing to sell through food stamps, but since food stamps often are used to provide food for an entire family, and alcohol is prohibited to anybody in the population under 18.... and it's... you know... alcoholic.... I don't see any problem with not allowing food stamps to purchase alcohol.

Soda is high in calories and it's made with a lot of crap. Yep, it certainly is. But unless we try to legislate to ban the HFCS or the product in general, I don't think you can convince me that this should be made available to those who want to purchase it using food stamps. It is a product that is legally available in this country, regardless of age. You don't have to be 18 or 21 to purchase it, and it can be ingested. There are no health properties to it, but there are none to Hi-C or Kool-Aid, either, and I wouldn't want to see them banned for food stamp purchase.

They are nutritionally WORTHLESS. I know that. I've worked on losing weight for the last three years, and I"m hyper aware of the nutritional value (or non-value) of most foods. And every once in awhile I will have a Ginger Ale (once a month) or a Diet Coke (once a week) because I like it. It's a treat. Would you restrict ice cream or cookies or other treats to the families who must buy those products on food stamps. (We have to give the benefit of the doubt to those who do the purchasing for their families.) I wouldn't. I would trust them to make the proper decisions for their families. Many people don't, though, but it's not my place to impose my nutritional choices on them.

[Bill McBlueState]

270. the division of the population into

"those who work and pay taxes" and "those who do not" doesn't work.

1) Everyone pays taxes, regardless of employment status

2) The cutoff for food stamp eligibility is 200% of the federal poverty level. A large number of food stamp recipients work.

[Hannah Bell]

406. In the hospital, we often use 7-Up-type clear soda to introduce nutrition to people recovering

from flu, etc. It's especially good to get sick kids to take something by mouth.

When I have indigestion, diet soda helps relieve it better than baking soda & water.

Soda makes a nice birthday party punch. You think kids on food stamps shouldn't get parties either?

Who made you the arbiter of need for other adults?

[lumberjack_jeff]

486. None of our business?

Really?

[patrick t. cakes]

57. im currently on food stamps

and i voted no.
i like the program the way it is set up...

but i never drink the crap anyway.

beer on the other hand...lets talk:beer:

[MissMarple]

65. Some people seem to think this about the evil "food police'.

It's not. Food stamps should be about nutrition, about well...food. Not candy, soda, tobacco and alcohol. This thread isn't about policing what people eat or drink, just what food stamps will cover. At this point it's about what we can afford. Christ in a bucket.

Now, should we add medical marijuana as an ingredient for brownies? Actually, I have no argument that I would care to put forth against that point.

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. "Food stamps should be about nutrition". Okay, Officer MissMarple.

[MissMarple]

81. So, if I am in desperate need of a very special caviar I can call you?

And my olive oil, where is my Italian cold pressed olive oil?

Well, if I was on food stamps I wouldn't be looking for olive oil. And the caviar, who am I kidding? A group of us bought it once in college. Overrated.

My point is that food stamps feed the hungry or those who would be hungry without the food stamps. And it's about what we value as a people. As diverse as we are, we still have an identity as a "people". We have one government. We are a people. We, however, have different food tastes, different food habits. Now, if we as a people decide to provide food stamps to folks who need food, should we not expect the purchases to fall under the category of food. Food is something that promotes growth and health. Those are two basic criteria that encompass a great variety of food stuffs. Grocery (food) stores sell many things that do not promote growth and health. If you want to provide people with things that make them "happy", make their taste buds happy but contribute to their health problems, that inhibit and prohibit their children's growth, then we should have a national conversation about that. The current prohibitions on what food stamps can buy seem to be bit arcane in what unhealthy things they prohibit and in what equally unhealthy things they allow. The way I feel, personally, is that the basic definition of "food" should be taken into consideration.

Growing up healthy, being able to reach our individual potentials, learning and thinking clearly, with purpose, these are things that good nutrition does. And doing those things can help us be "happy" far more than a Twinkie and a Mountain Dew. If you want a Twinkie and a Mountain Dew, or a Big Mac and a case of Diet Pepsi...have at. I just don't want to pay for that. Healthy dinner, yes, I do. You will think better, feel better, and grow better. I will pay for that. Because we need you.

And it's the right thing to do.

And as for the Officer MissMarple. I am not police, I am a school teacher.

[cherokeeprogressive]

82. Strange, comparing caviar and cold pressed olive oil to what might only amount to a two liter bottle

of soda. The OP didn't quantify the amount of soda that was to be discussed. How do you know it's more than a single can?

"We, however, have different food tastes, different food habits". Those are the truest words in your post.

[MissMarple]

93. That was a cheap shot.

Eat what you want. Drink what you want. It is my opinion that public money for food stamps should be spent on food. A basic definition of food is that it promotes growth and health. Sodas do not. They deplete health on several levels. As a group, the more we drink sodas the more unhealthy we are. Why should we get together to pay for our collective bad health practices.

People in Appalachia put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles. They don't know how bad that is. It rots the babies' teeth, it contributes to malnutrition that directly leads to lower intellectual and physical development, and dare I add...poor health in general. They don't do well in school...because they can't.

This isn't about you and what you want. Food stamps are about keeping us all healthy and well fed....not about Twinkies, Cheeto's, and sodas for all.

Those should cost you extra because they are extras. If you want them....buy them. Consume them. Sometimes I do. But I have the basics. And the caviar was a joke, as you saw. Regular olive oil is not. It's good for you....in moderation. Corn oil, not so much.

You can nit pick all you want. It will never change the fact that some things are not good for you. And who buys those things are what we are talking about, not whether or not you should have them. I just hope you would make sensible choices most of the time....I'm a mom person, and I care. That may not be worth much much to you, but it is still true.

[backwoodsbob]

99. where do you get this stuff?

*People in Appalachia put Mountain Dew in their babies bottles*

I live here and I don't know a single person who as ever done this.

Can you provide a link please?

[sinkingfeeling]

145. Here's your link. There had to be a million stories about this study.

http://consumerist.com/5152318/mountain-dew-addiction-helps-rot-central-appalachins-teeth

"Good Morning America visited and found they even put it in baby bottles. Some 2-year olds have 12 cavities in their baby teeth."

[cherokeeprogressive]

210. "a million stories about this study." No hyperbowl there.

:eyes:

[PVnRT]

239. So, how about addressing what's actually in the post?

Or is it easier to just nitpick some minor thing and ignore that for which you have no response?

[backwoodsbob]

308. well we can believe some blog post with *they say* in it

but I live in a little town that's about as Central Appalachia as it gets and I have never seen ONE SINGLE PARENT ever do this

[sinkingfeeling]

255. You're right, there were only about 49,300 'hits' on it.

[Electric Monk]

87. I can't buy crack or heroin with food stamps? You're such a nazi!

I hope no emoticon is needed for that...

[MissMarple]

94. You do make me smile!

:+ Thanks.

[CTyankee]

167. Get outta here! How DARE you make sense in this thread! Don't you know that your attitude

threatens my civil liberties?

Dear god. Well, thank you for framing the pubic policy issue that I was trying, but failing, to do so well.

The other point I want to make is about having tax dollars support a billion dollar industry that doesn't give a rat's ass about what shit they push on the public. Some DUers scream bloody murder about government tax breaks to the oil industry but give the soda lobby a great, big kiss...I wonder if they have the ability to stop, take a deep breath, and think this thing through...sigh...

[closeupready]

170. Soda is food. So is candy.

So are forms of alcohol. Tobacco is not.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. Should people care what those who might not be as fortunate as them buy with their food stamps?

Fuck. No.

[Dorian Gray]

212. Yeah....

that's sort of my take.

It's not our business.

[madamesilverspurs]

69. I'm currently on stamps, too.

And I buy soda with them. I also get the healthier foodstuffs, no sweets, no desserts; day-old breads, dented cans, boxes with torn labels. Coffee. Bananas and apples, veggies. Frozen fish because it's cheaper than fresh; meat very rarely.

I don't drink, don't smoke, don't do drugs, and can't dance or play tennis or do any of the things that I used to enjoy; so, a nice glass of soda is about the closest I get to a treat. The carbonation clears the palate and helps to wash away the bitterness of being judged by people who have no clue.

---

[sandnsea]

74. +1,000,000

"The carbonation clears the palate and helps to wash away the bitterness of being judged by people who have no clue."

We need a little fist-bump smilie.

[closeupready]

488. Food terrorist fist-bump smiley?

:rofl: :hi:

[comrade snarky]

85. Savor it with my best wishes

We all need little treats. At my poorest I still drank coffee. Cheep beans to be sure but nothing could beat that warm cup in my hands and the smell of toasted goodness. I might eat a dinner of rice but by god I had that. Helped keep me sane in a bad time.

If it weren't near midnight here I'd raise a mug in toast but I guess this will have to do. :toast:

[Skittles]

92. YOU KNOW IT, MADAME

:thumbsup:

[Dorian Gray]

106. I like your post

and it shows just how much others who want to take away the soda really want to control what people do.

[Hepburn]

128. Amen....

...I have never been on FS ~~ thank gawd ~~ but I understand the remark about clearing the palate. I have allergies and, boy, nothing works like a Diet Coke to make me feel better when I feel all sticky inside.

I hate water, juice and all that other glop because it never accomplishes what needs to be done to make it easier for me to swallow. Diet Coke is best, but anything without sugar and that is carbonated does the trick. Even plain soda water. It has been this way with me since I was a small child. Allergy pills? Yuck...just give me a carbonated, diet drink.

:hi:

[dana_b]

251. you tell 'em!

seriously - I can't believe the judgemental bullcrap on this thread. We were on food stamps a long time ago and my mom did the best she could BUT she did buy koolaid and sugar with those food stamps as well as powderd milk. Oh heavens! How dare her!! She should have been visited by the food stamp police to take them away from her for giving us all a glass of koolaid a day!!

until they experience it, they won't understand.

[enigmatic]

265. best reply in the thread

:thumbsup:

[ThomCat]

423. Oops.

Posted in the wrong place. Sorry.

[mdmc]

496. well played

i figured this thread was worthless. your post proved me wrong..

[JVS]

71. Yes, because the thought of fizzy sugar water being turned into a status symbol by a bunch of...

anus clenchers is beyond pathetic, and that's just what would come to pass.

[Hannah Bell]

75. no, they should only be allowed to buy gruel & vitamin pills & should be publically humiliated

at every opportunity for their "bad food choices".

[IrishBuckeye]

84. OH THE HORROR! Not being able to buy something that is unhealthy!!!

Could you imagine the public humiliation that would occur? People mocking others in the street for drinking vitamin water instead of a drinking a liquid that rots ones teeth away. I mean to not allow soda to be bought with food stamps because it lacks nutrient value and causes health issues? Slippery slop, first Soda and then beer will be banned.

[Hannah Bell]

88. well, i think *everyone* should be held to the same standard then, let's ban *everything* but gruel

& vitamins for *everyone*.

[juno jones]

86. It has to do with the victorian myth of the 'deserving poor'.

The poor cannot be allowed luxury because, as poor people, they are already being judged by gawwd as inadequate sinners. To deserve help, they must be worthy of it, judged pure by the most hypocrital standards of the day. The rich give to charity to expiate their sin (conscience). They do not want poor people to take pleasure in their atonement.

Check out Kellow Chesney's "Victorian Underground" Or Brian Inglis's "Poverty and the Industrial Revolution". We haven't travelled far enough since then and there seems to be a very strong lobby to pull us back there again.

[IrishBuckeye]

142. So let's allow beer to be bought with foodstamps as well, why not? /nm

/nm

[juno jones]

250. I didn't say that.

But I'm guessing you are stressing the hyperbole because you would prefer the poor suffer for being poor.

I'm sure we all deserve it for doing the shitty jobs noone else can be bothered to do. The modern-day untouchables, giving it all up so the middle class can feel superior.

See, I can hyperbole too.

[spoony]

112. Indeed and all purchases should be run by a panel of DUers nt

[closeupready]

489. self-delete

never mind

[Jeep789]

91. Never been on them but I don't see why I should tell

those that have to use the safety-net what to buy with it. I personally hate soda but I can bet that someone wouldn't appreciate some of my purchases either. Why do people feel such a need to dictate others lives?

[Heidi]

96. Yes. I don't believe in punishing people for poverty. (nt)

[Itchinjim]

98. Recently a well dressed young man ahead of me in line paid for a bottle of

Mountain Dew with food stamps. That was annoying. But not nearly as annoying as when he pulled a twenty dollar bill out of his pocket to pay for a handfull of scratch-off lottery tickets. No shame. No shame whatsoever.

[Bluenorthwest]

118. You shame the steal your face

Describe the food stamps, tell us how you knew he was using them and how your psychic powers knew he was not buying the tix for his neighbor. Most states use ATM style cards for 'food stamps' and the only way to know that a person is using them is if one is basically gazing at the keypad, as if they were out to steal pin numbers.
And why would you desire shame out of your fellow citizens? How is any of this your business, and have you noted how much assumption is involved?
One of the most vile posts I have read on DU. By the way.

[Itchinjim]

307. "One of the most vile posts I have ever read on DU"?

Shame on you.

[Amaya]

452. i'm bet you saw this

:eyes:

[Itchinjim]

484. Yes I'm did see it.

:eyes:

[old mark]

100. Sure. People should be free to make choices for themselves,

even (gasp) POOR and UNEMPLOYED people who may be on food stamps. This is paternalistic bullshit.
Voted to rec.

mark

[Greyhound]

101. Wow, just wow. n/t

[eShirl]

102. Is it OK if they buy soda during a heat wave if they have no air conditioning?

How about ginger ale to help settle tummies when the family has the flu?

[CTyankee]

113. I'm for the government offering free bottled water and energy assistance during heat waves

And there's plenty of anti-nausea OTC meds for upset tummies, which people on food stamps should be able to buy (or an alternate government program).

[eShirl]

117. food stamps can't be used for OTC meds, nor are they covered by Medicare or Medicaid

[CTyankee]

That needs to be changed. It is far better to buy generic coke syrup for nausea

than to start a lifetime habit of drinking sugary drinks that lead to obesity and all of the misery it causes people...

[eShirl]

126. If that's the reason, why stop at soda? Ban everything with added sugars.

At least that would be consistent.

[CTyankee]

172. Please think more clearly. We are NOT discussing the issue of banning soda.

This is -- or should be -- a discussion about public policy with regard to government subsidy of the soda products industry in this country.

[eShirl]

182. If that's the reason, why stop at soda? Ban everything with added sugars...

from being able to be purchased with food stamps.

THERE IS THAT BETTER?


I can't believe you it didn't occur to you that I was still talking about food stamps.
That would indeed be a case of me not thinking clearly. My mistake was not not spelling it out clearly for everyone rather than assume they'd know it was implied.

[CTyankee]

214. Good. Let's have the discussion about what products should be given government subsidy

through food stamps. There, is that better?

OK, let's take it from square one. A great deal of policy support when it comes to the basic rationale for taxes being used for public purposes has its overall rationale rooted in the following: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The operative clause is "promote the general welfare." That essentially lays the burden on the government to establish what IS the general welfare. The question we should be asking is not whether this thing or that should receive taxpayers subsidy. We may decide "Yes we will ban all products with added sugar from receiving subsidy through government food stamps" or we may say "We will prevent the subsidy from being used to support an industry, or a subdivision of an industry, whose product has been shown to have a significant adverse effect the health and welfare of our population."

I believe that is where the debate should be centered. That is my opinion on this subject.

[JonLP24]

185. Sure

I drink soda when it's 110+ outside. I'm used to it and I can handle it.

[Dorian Gray]

103. Yes, they should

I don't like soda, but I don't think the government should control what food or drink people can choose from the supermarket if using food stamps. It's not healthy, but how would the government police this?

[elocs]

107. Just what we need--control freak, do-gooder Liberal nannies who think they know what is best,

what is best for poor people on food stamps. How noble. Why stop at soda? Why not come up with a list of forbidden food and beverages that will be forbidden to people on food stamps? Then we could feel particularly self righteous. Or we could simply eliminate choice altogether and simply give people on food stamps only the food that we think is good for them. Wouldn't that be special?

But why stop at just food stamps? Why not put strings and requirements on any government aid that needy people get? Damn, I can't wait until we run the world and make people do what is best for them. That'll teach 'em.

[CTyankee]

111. That was essentially the argument against high taxes on tobacco products. The tobacco lobby LOVED it

And the soda lobby LOVES you too! You are doing their work for them. Keep it up. Gotta keep these guys in the style to which they are accustomed...

[elocs]

191. Wow, what a load of BS.. We don't need people dictating to others exactly what they should

or shouldn't eat. The key word here is "dictating".

Why not put a higher tax on refined sugar, white flour? Vegetarians would certainly like to see a tax on meat. How about all those nasty carbs that cause people to pack on the pounds, don't they deserve a higher tax as well?

Making a comparison with food to tobacco is at best disingenuous. I highly doubt there is a doctor anywhere who would tell a person that they could not at all eat "unhealthy" food in moderation but none would ever tell anyone that they could smoke in moderation.

[CTyankee]

221. Please see my other posts about the rationale inherent in deciding government

policies where the taxpayers money is involved. The Founders saw fit to include the words "to...promote the general welfare" in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. That implies choices are made when developing public policy. In this case, it is a decision about which industry gets taxpayer subsidy and which does not. In such an instance, we would hope it would be decided on scientific data, but alas, we have what is known as the soda lobby. They are truly benefitting by your advocacy to the detriment of the health and yes, the welfare, of other of your fellow Americans with every dollar of your and my taxes. Think it over.

[rd_kent]

248. By that logic, we should stop giving food stamps and just give cash instead.

Then they buy whatever they want.

[Bluenorthwest]

122. People should be free to eat as they wish. Period.

And let's play definitions. What do you mean by soda? Sugar bevvies? Club soda? Stevia sweetened drinks? Or do you simply mean 'anything pleasurable'?

[Life Long Dem]

127. Yeah, gotta pay back that stimulus money one way or another.

Aye?:patriot:

[canoeist52]

129. Government energy tax deduction program is for home energy

saving stuff -not to be used for decorative extras. We can use it for windows, doors, insulation etc. but not for wallpaper and paint as nice as that is.

[Rabrrrrrr]

131. No. Food stamps should be more like WIC, with set things that can be bought.

and should never include soda, Doritos, or other unhealthy toxic garbage. Especially if there are children in the house.

[raccoon]

134. I don't think people who receive Social Security should be allowed to gamble.

If they're gambling, their SS should be reduced/cut off.

:hide:

[Odin2005]

137. Wow, 43% are fucking Food Nazi Nanny-Statists.

I don't want you fucking poor-hating assholes telling me what foods and drinks I can and can't by with my food stamp card! :grr:

[otohara]

195. Fucking Poor Hating?

why is this about hating the poor?

Don't the poor have enough problems without adding rotting teeth, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis and cancer to their already hard life?

Lucky for you, The Coca Cola company loves the poor and will fight tooth and nail to keep the poor, poor and unhealthy. Especially when it comes to kids, boy do they love poor kids in spite of the effects of soda on growing bones....

Coke CEO says it's not Coke making American's fat, it's because they're lazy. As far as damage to teeth, stomach, esophagus, and over all health - I'm sure he has excuses for those also.

[Odin2005]

375. It's about paternalistic nitwits like you who think they can dictate what the poor eat.

It is treating the poor like children or mentally disabled people that can't make their own decisions. It's a mindset that harkens back the the paternalistic attitudes of many well-meaning upper-middle class reformers of 100 years ago

[DainBramaged]

398. When were you made God? And who gives you the right to decide how they live their lives?

[Name removed]

440. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

466. Calling me stupid gets you ignored

dealing with folks like yourself who think that buying Foreign and supporting cheap labor apologists is OK, and calling me out because I happen to BE a member of the UAW and my LIVELIHOOD depends on the sale of Domestic autos isn't being hypocritical at all, it's being an honest, Union supporting patriot.

Goodbye.

[otohara]

476. Let's try this again since you're so damn sensitive

yet so combative with total strangers...

I feel the same way about the Coca Cola, Pepsi companies and their crappy treatment of workers world wide and the environment, not to mention they put out a toxic product that makes everyone who drinks too much of their crap sick in one way or another and fat...as you do about say...Honda.

Sayonara,

Otohara-san

[Dorian Gray]

215. Shocking, isn't it?

[rucky]

139. If you start micromanaging people on public assistance...

you're essentially chipping away at any sense of independence they still have left. I want my tax money to help people in need, with no strings attached. In the long run, that's healthier for them.

[pipi_k]

148. Sometimes too much "freedom" is just an enabler

I was on public assistance for a long time back years ago.

If it weren't for the fact that it was so restrictive, I might have been on it for a lot longer.

I got sick of the restrictions and looking over my shoulder and got up off my ass and did something about it. Took some classes, got a job, and finally felt like a productive and worthwhile, contributing member of society.

Some people don't even want there to be public assistance programs. I disagree with them. But I do feel that public assistance for the able-bodied/sound minded should be an interim thing, not a way of life, and in the meantime there need to be some restrictions in order to make it palatable enough to the people who would just love to do away with it completely, and who would try their best to do so.

[rucky]

159. Isn't poverty a deterrent in and of itself?

In order to have a successful public assistance program, I think you have to build it under the assumption that the recepients want to become self-sufficient.

Let me ask you this: after you decided to "get up off your ass," did you feel you had more options available to you - even though nothing but your attitude really changed? Maybe not, but I'm working under the theory that people need to feel they have options in order to pursue them. Maybe the feeling that you overcame was one of being strapped? Shouldn't an effective public assistance program contribute less to that feeling?

[pipi_k]

197. If poverty itself is such a deterrent...

then why do so many people actually prefer to be homeless?

Yes, a lot of people are homeless, not by their own choice.

But some are homeless (and poor, comparatively speaking) and prefer it. Sometimes being poor has other, different options/benefits.

In fact, there's a local man whom we call "The Hermit" who mostly lives out of his car on the side of the country roads. He has his regular spots. Often we'll go by and he'll just be sitting there. He waves, we wave. He either has, or has access to, a horse that he uses in the winter to get him up and down forest trails to some kind of shack he lives in until spring. He apparently does odd jobs to support his very spartan lifestyle. He looks perfectly content.

As far as whether I felt I had more options available to me once I got a job, yes and no. No matter what we do, we always have to answer to somebody, don't we? On Welfare I had to answer to the social workers...the State...things I could and couldn't do. Forms to fill out...standards to meet.

As an employee I have to answer to my supervisor...his/her supervisor...the owner(s) of the company...the country when I file taxes...

There are always options, I think...just different ones for each situation.

[ourbluenation]

204. ITA - If we keep going down this road, these folks won't even be able to buy a cake for their kids

birthdays because it's not an allowable food product, per the regs. Is that what people really want to see happen? Not me.

[CTyankee]

298. But they could buy nutritious food with their FS and buy the cake with the money they saved.

FS are for basic nutrition to keep the disadvantaged healthy by establishing a floor underneath their real food needs.

[madmom]

141. My son and his family receive food stamps they could eat ....

better than my hubby and I who live on a fixed income (retired). They could eat far better than we do, IF they knew hard to cook something besides prepackaged foods. I taught my son the basics at home, which helps them tremendously, but because wife doesn't know how to cook they eat a lot of boxed dinners which are expensive. This goes right back to my rant about teaching home ec in schools, it only makes sense.

[glen123098]

150. People on food stamps have enough troubles as it is.

Why would anyone want to take away one of the few luxurys that they have. Sure soda is unhealthy, but do you really want the government deciding what is healthy and unhealthy for you?

[CTyankee]

173. Then we should do away with food safety laws and let meat processing plants

(for instance) put bad stuff into our meats to preserve them. Oh, and we shouldn't have workplace safety laws either...too much nanny statism, telling people what they should and shouldn't do. No restrictions on how our vegetables are grown so if you get sick eating tainted spinach, well, at least you didn't have a nanny statist preventing you from your choice of eating poison...

I think you see the reductio ad absurdem that is inherent in your argument...

[glen123098]

176. Ok I see your point there.

Government should make sure that food is at least edible. But people need to be allowed to make bad decisions. No one buys a Snickers bar expecting it to be healthy.

[CTyankee]

181. As I have stated often on this thread, this should be a discussion about public policy.

And to me, this means whether the government should promote a huge industry's product that contributes to the misery of the populace, in terms of their health and well being. It is not about individual choices. It's about how our tax money is spent and who gets it and why. If FS enables you to buy a Snickers bar with your own money, then so be it. I do not believe Snickers bars should be banned, just not supported with government subsidy.

[Statistical]

209. If you can't see the difference is a between rules for everyone and rules for the poor then...

you don't want to see.

Special rules about what meatpacking products the poor are allowed to purchase are equally fascist.

[CTyankee]

217. Oh, now it is "fascist" to promote the general welfare?

And besides, the poor are not prohibited from buying soda if such soda is not given a taxpayer subsidy. They can buy it with the money they save on basic food products.

[rd_kent]

468. IS this about food stamps or luxuries?

Is that the purpose of food stamps? To provide luxuries?

[SoCalDem]

151. if they re name them.. soda is not "food"

Maybe they should be called "edible vouchers".

There's a whole lot of things that I wish tax dollars were not being spent on. I wholeheartedly support helping poor people buy food, but I would like to see some things excluded..

When food stamps came along, soda pop was not a staple"..it was an occasional treat....so were things like potato chips & candy

Food stamps should mirror the WIC program... real food..not junk

What I think food stamps should be for:

unsweetened cereals
non-processed cheeses
milk (not the "grab-it" sizes)
store brand yogurt (not the mini packs with extras)
low-fat cottage cheese (not the mini-packs with fruit)
eggs
butter
dried beans
frozen veggies (no "sauces")
bagged flour
bagged sugar
corn meal
saltine crackers
graham crackers
rice
tortillas (not the pre-cooked/boxed ones)
peanut butter
bread (whole wheat)
chicken special of the day
beef special of the day (sometimes things like London broil are cheaper than hamburger)
produce (expensive specialties could be excluded easily)

The whole purpose of food stamps is to provide NUTRITION to poor people

It should NOT be about getting empty calories into people and mega-money into mega-food corp's bank account.

If kids want cookies, candy, sweet cereal, soda pop, etc, those are treats that the "other" money should be spent on. Most people who use food stamps do not ONLY eat what they have food stamps for.

[glen123098]

152. Wow.

That is some intense Nanny Statism there. Do you not think poor people deserve any luxurys at all?

[SoCalDem]

158. not with food stamps.. what they buy without them is none of my business

but a NUTRITION PROGRAM should be about nutrition..not junkfood

[rd_kent]

469. Foddstamps are for luxuries?

You need to rethink your statement, asshat. Enjoy your stay.

[aikoaiko]

153. No.

WIC constains what people can buy and it works just fine.

If the only "money" you have to spend on food is food stamps, then yes, then its reasoanble that it is relatively healthy food.

[Bill McBlueState]

304. WIC works just fine

if your diet consists of only milk, juice, eggs, and cheese. It's a classic case of the government harming the utility of a program by regulating it too tightly.

[wickerwoman]

324. WIC is a supplemental program.

Everyone who gets WIC also qualifies for food stamps. (Food stamps are up to 200% of the poverty line; WIC is 185% of the poverty line.)

It's only purpose is to provide for the additional nutritional calcium and protein needs of pregnant and breastfeeding women and children under 5.

[aikoaiko]

373. Really? If I couldn't feed mself and my kids this list would be heaven

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2terminal&L=5&L0=Home&L1=Consumer&L2=Basic+Needs&L3=Food+%26+Nutrition&L4=Women%2c+Infants+and+Children+(WIC)+Nutrition+Program&sid=Eeohhs2&b=terminalcontent&f=dph_wic_c_list_food&csid=Eeohhs2

Milk

Type and size specified on check
Fluid milk: Least expensive brand, Fat Free, 1% Lowfat
NO flavored milk or buttermilk

Only when specified on check:
Fluid milk: Least expensive brand, 2% Reduced Fat milk, Whole milk
Evaporated or dry milk: Least expensive brand , Whole, Lowfat or Fat Free
Long-Life milk: Any brand, Whole, Lowfat, or Fat Free
Lactose free milk: Any brand (Example: Lactaid)
Cheese

One package only, up to 16 ounces

Any brand, American, Colby, Cheddar, Monterey Jack, Mozzarella or Muenster
NO deli cheese
NO sliced cheese (except American)
NO string, shredded or imported cheese, cheese food/product/spread, individually wrapped slices, snack packs, or flavored cheese
Eggs

Least expensive brand: Grade A Large brown or white
Peanut Butter

16 to 18 ounce jars
Any brand, Creamy or Chunky
NO flavored, reduced fat, or peanut butter spreads
Dried Peas or Beans

1 pound bag
Any brand or type
Canned Beans

15.5 ounce or 16 ounce cans
Plain, mature beans, peas or lentils
Goya or Store Brand
NO green beans, wax beans or green peas

*NO Organic Milk, Cheese, Eggs, Peanut Butter or Beans allowed.
Juice

100% fruit juice only. Type and size specified on check.
Frozen

11.5 or 12 ounce cans:
Apple: Big Y, Flavorite, Hannaford, IGA, Market Basket, Parade, Red & White,
Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Seneca (red cans, Granny Smith, Country Style), Stop & Shop, White Rose
Grapefruit: Any brand
Grape: Big Y, Hannaford, Seneca, Shaws, Stop & Shop, Shurfine, Welch’s (yellow pull-strip can only)
Mixed blend: Dole 100% juice Pineapple Orange Banana, Pineapple Orange Strawberry, Orange Peach, Mango, Orange Strawberry Banana
Orange: Any brand
Pineapple: Dole, Market Basket, Stop & Shop
Pineapple/Orange: Any brand
White Grape/White Grape blends: Welch’s (yellow pull-strip can only)

64 ounce plastic bottle
100% fruit juice varieties only
Name Brands:

Juicy Juice - any flavor
Langers - Apple, Berry, Grape, Punch, Pineapple, Red Grape, Vegetable, White Grape
Welch’s - Purple Grape, Red Grape, White Grape
Store Brands:

Approved flavors must state: “100% juice” AND

“120% Vitamin C” on the label.
Best Yet, Big Y, Hannaford, IGA, Price Chopper, Market Basket, Stop & Shop, Shaws, Shurfine, White Rose
Cereals

National Brand Cereals:

(Bolded cereals are whole grain)

12.8 ounce boxes or larger, NO single serving packets. These brands only:
Cheerios ( plain, Multi Grain)
Chex (General Mills – Corn, Wheat, Rice, Multi-Bran)
Cream of Wheat (1 minute, 2 ½ minute, 10 minute)
Cream of Wheat Whole Grain - 2 ½ minute
Farina
Grape Nuts
Grape Nut Flakes
Kellogg’s Complete All-Bran Wheat Flakes
Kellogg’s Corn Flakes (plain only)
Kellogg’s Crispix
Kellogg’s Rice Krispies
Kellogg’s Mini Wheats Frosted, bite size
Kellogg’s Mini Wheats Frosted, original
Kellogg’s Special K
Kix
Maltex
Maypo (Maple, Instant, Vermont Style)
Post Banana Nut Crunch
Post Honey Bunches of Oats (Honey Roasted)
Post Honey Bunches of Oats (Almond)
Post Honey Bunches of Oats – Vanilla Bunches
Quaker Instant Grits (original flavor)
Quaker Life (plain)
Quaker Oatmeal Squares (Hint of Brown Sugar)
Total
Wheaties (plain)
Store Brand Cereals:

(Bolded cereals are whole grain)

Bran Flakes: Big Y, Great Value, Hannaford, IGA, Market Basket, Ralston, Red & White, Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Stop & Shop
Corn Flakes: Best Yet, Big Y, Market Basket, Flavorite, Great Value, Hannaford, IGA, Price Chopper, Ralston, Red & White, Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Stop & Shop, White Rose
Frosted Shredded Wheat: Best Yet, Market Basket, Hannaford, Ralston,
Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Stop & Shop
Nutty Nuggets: Great Value, Hannaford, IGA, Market Basket, Price Chopper, Red & White, Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Stop & Shop
Oats & More with Almonds: Hannaford, IGA,
Market Basket, Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Stop & Shop
Oats & More with Honey: Great Value, Hannaford, IGA, Market Basket, Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Stop & Shop
Square-Shaped Corn Cereal/Rice Cereal:
Big Y, Market Basket, Great Value, Hannaford, IGA, Price Chopper, Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Stop & Shop
Square-Shaped Wheat Biscuits: Hannaford, Great Value, Shurfine
Tasteeo’s/Toasted Oats: Best Yet, Big Y, Flavorite, Great Value, Hannaford, IGA, Price Chopper, Market Basket, Ralston, Red & White, Richfood, Shaws, Shurfine, Stop & Shop, White Rose
Fruits & Vegetables:
Fresh Fruits & Vegetables

* Any variety of fresh vegetables and fruits
* Bagged salad mixtures, bagged vegetables
* Whole or cut

NO: White potatoes*, items from the salad bar, party trays, fruit baskets, dried fruit, decorative vegetables and fruits (chilies, garlic on a string, etc), painted pumpkins, nuts, including peanuts, fruit/nut mixtures, herbs, spices, salad dressing, croutons
Frozen Vegetables

* Any brand and size
* Any plain vegetable, plain vegetable mixtures (without white potatoes*)
* Beans of any kind
* Any package type (bag, box)
* With or without salt

NO: white potatoes*, french fries, hash browns, tater tots, other shaped potatoes, vegetables with sauces (cheese sauce, teriyaki sauce, buttered, seasoned, breaded, etc), vegetables mixed with pasta, rice, or any other ingredient, added fat, oil, sugar
Frozen Fruits

* Any brand with no added sugar
* Any plain fruit, plain fruit mixtures

NO: fruits with added sugar, ingredients other than fruit, artificial sweeteners
Canned Vegetables

* Any brand and size
* Any plain vegetable, plain vegetable mixtures (without white potatoes*)
* Any container type (metal, plastic, glass)
* Regular, low sodium

NO: white potatoes*, pickled (sauerkraut), creamed vegetables (including corn), or sauced vegetables, baked beans, pork & beans, and canned or dried beans/peas purchased with your regular WIC check, soups, ketchup, relishes, olives, vegetables with added sugar, fats, oils
Canned Tomato Products

* Any brand and size
* Metal cans only
* Pastes, purees, whole, crushed tomatoes

NO: soups, salsa, sauces (pizza, spaghetti, or tomato), ketchup, stewed and diced tomatoes, added sugars, seasonings, fats, oils
Canned Fruits

* Any brand and size packed in water or juice
* Any plain fruit, plain fruit mixtures (except fruit cocktails)
* Any container type (metal, plastic, glass)
* Applesauce –‘no sugar added’ or ‘unsweetened’ varieties only
* 100% canned pumpkin

NO: fruit cocktails, cranberry sauce, pie fillings, any syrup (heavy, light, ‘naturally light’, extra light, etc.), added sugar (‘lightly sweetened in fruit juice’, etc.) nectar, added salt, fat, oils, products with artificial sweeteners

* White potatoes are any potatoes other than sweet potatoes and orange yams.
Whole Grain Options:
Whole Grain Bread

16 ounce package
Arnold: Stone Ground 100% Whole Wheat Bread, Select Wheat Sandwich Rolls
Gold Medal: Wheat with Flax Bread
Pepperidge Farm: Stone Ground 100% Whole Wheat Bread, Very Thin Slice Soft 100% Whole Wheat Bread, Whole Grain Rye Seeded Bread
Sunbeam: 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Wonder: 100% Soft Whole Wheat Bread
Store Brands: Market Basket Wheat with Flax Bread, Shaws (No Salt Added Bread,) Shaws Wheat with Flax Bread, Stop & Shop Wheat with Flax Bread, Stop & Shop 100% Whole Wheat Bread (No Salt Added)
Tortillas

16 ounce package
Chi-Chi’s, Manny’s, Mission, and Hannaford Soft Corn Tortillas or Whole Wheat Tortillas (package must state 100% whole wheat or corn on front label)
Wraps not allowed
Brown Rice

16 ounce package
Any brand, Regular, Quick or Instant
Soy Options:
Tofu

16 ounce package
Nasoya: Cubed Super Firm Tofu, Firm Tofu, Lite Firm Tofu, Lite Silken Tofu, Soft Tofu
(Organic tofu allowed)
Soy Milk

Pacific Natural Foods Ultra Soy (shelf stable, quart), 8th Continent Original Soymilk (refrigerated, half gallon container), Plain only
Infant Formula

Brand, size and form listed on check
Infant Cereal

8 ounce box
Beech Nut Cereal: Rice, Oatmeal, Barley or Multigrain – plain cereal without fruit or formula
Baby Food - Fruits and Vegetables

Beech Nut – 4 ounce jar
NO DHA PLUS™ allowed
Stage 2 Fruits: ‘Single Fruit’ varieties only: Applesauce, Chiquita Bananas, Pears
Stage 2 Vegetables: ‘Single Vegetable’ varieties only: Butternut Squash, Tender Sweet Carrots, Tender Golden Sweet Potatoes, Tender Young Green Beans, Tender Sweet Peas
Baby Food - Meats

Beech Nut – 2.5 ounce jar
NO DHA PlusTM allowed.
Stage 1: Beef and Beef Broth, Chicken and Chicken Broth, Turkey and Turkey Broth
For Fully Breastfeeding Women Only:*
Tuna

5 ounce can
Any brand, Chunk light packed in water
Pink Salmon

5 or 6 ounce cans
Any brand, Pink Salmon packed in water or oil, skin and bones allowed
Sardines

3.75 ounce can
Any brand, packed in water or oil, skin and bones allowed, flavorings allowed
Bread

24 ounce package
Arnold: Whole Grain Classic 100 % Whole Wheat Bread
Pepperidge Farm: Whole Grain 100% Whole Wheat Bread
Wonder: 100 % Stoneground Whole Wheat Bread

*Items will be specified on WIC check.

[Bill McBlueState]

377. *Items will be specified on WIC check

Those asterisks are all over the place. What does a typical check look like in Massachusetts?

[aikoaiko]

380. I don't know as I've never actually seen one,

but still that is a long list that would be relatively nutritious.

I said NO to the OP because really assistance with food, in my mind, should be about providing nutritious resources. Its not about a treat like soda that offer little or no nutrition.

[Bill McBlueState]

431. When my family was on WIC in Massachusetts,

The checks were almost exclusively for milk or baby formula, juice, eggs, cheese, and cereal.

Now -- That was immensely helpful to my family -- but it shows how easy it is for a major government subsidy of select food industries to be couched as a nutrition program.

Fortunately, public pressure has led to some of the more progressive states funding the purchase of fresh produce and bread. It looks like the Massachusetts WIC program, at least, has made a lot of progress on this in the two years since I participated.

[roody]

154. The fact that they can reveals the real purpose of food stamps.

[ensho]

155. no - soda is snack food, not food to keep one alive

nt

[closeupready]

171. Food in all forms keeps people alive. "Snack food" is a subset of "food". Ergo, soda is food, and

should be allowed.

[ensho]

174. baloney

nt

[closeupready]

179. A very poor imitation of Mortadella. But yes, baloney is food, as well.

n/t

[Dorian Gray]

216. also should be allowed

(Baloney, that is...)

[eShirl]

180. Do you know any Type I diabetics?

Having something sugary on hand for a low blood glucose level emergency can mean the difference between being able to recover on your own, or having to call 911.

Type I diabetes has many complications, including blindness, kidney failure, limb amputations... a result of which, many people with it end up on disability and food stamps.

[wickerwoman]

277. Yes, three.

And they all use bananas or orange juice because when they have soda sitting around on hand, they drink it. And it fucks up their blood sugar and makes them sick.

Nobody is talking about taking fruit or real juice off the list and either of them are a hell of a lot better for diabetics than soda.

[blueamy66]

266. AMEN

[lildreamer316]

157. I'm currently on stamps also.

My husband likes soda, so I get a couple bottles a month..but he doesn't drink very much at all anymore.
We eat well; but I know how to cook. Lots of fresh veggies and fruits; and good meats (chicken; fish; shrimp; some hamburger and sometimes a small steak).

Did you know you can use coupons with food stamps? I think that's cool.

I'm grateful for the freedom to buy what I want. I do attempt to make healthy choices for my family; however. I drink only tea; water and sometimes some organic juices.

[ourbluenation]

207. I was in the same boat as you years ago and the odd can of coke was a simple

pleasure I enjoyed every now and then. My hubby and I were literally, starving college students with a baby. We didn't drink or party, worked hard on our degrees and didn't even want the assistance but back then you couldn't get medical coverage without signing up for the whole shebang. Which meant the social worker told my husband that for our family to qualify for coverage for pre-natal and the birth, he had to quit his job.

Anyways - long story short, we ate healthfully, exercised, were good consumers in terms of shopping with coupons, etc.

If someone told me I couldn't have the odd can of coke I would have punched someone. Mostly because of the attempt to control me. Ewe.

[Ron Green]

271. One could buy the "odd can of Coke" with one's own odd dollar.

The problem is entire families addicted to products derived almost entirely from Big Corn and Big Soy, with dozens of ingredients on the labels. Public money should never subsidize that stuff, either at the farming end or the supermarket end.

[ourbluenation]

378. I just find that a little too big brother for my taste. No thanks. n/t

[Ron Green]

438. I appreciate "1984," but also read "Brave New World." They're both relevant here.

[JitterbugPerfume]

163. they are FOOD stamps

soda is not food

[closeupready]

164. No food product whatsoever should be prohibited, IMO.

If it's food, they get to buy it with food stamps.

[Toucano]

166. This is really quite cultural, I think. I would sooner people buy wine than soft drinks.

When I was a kid and my family was on public assistance, one could not buy soft drinks with food stamps. This was in Michigan, late 70's early 80's.

My cousins in other states could (evidently), and I remember my mother pointing out how terrible their teeth were compared to ours and attributing it to what she called, "Pop" (ah! mid-westernisms!).

I never felt I was being punished or derided because I didn't have a Pepsi®

I am not going to wage a campaign or anything, but I do believe we would be better served by not including soft drinks among the choices available to food stamp recipients.

It isn't a punishment. It just makes sense.

[debbierlus]

281. I would rather have food stamps be expanded to cover diapers & hygiene items

It makes more sense that food stamps cover necessities such as these, and lose the soda and candy which provide zero nutrition and actually is detrimental to health.

And, I am all for taxing these products to make them less appealing to the masses. We have a epidemic with obesity, and I would be for taxing all these types of items and putting the money into free gym memberships, memberships to health food co-ops and nutrition education.

[slackmaster]

178. Other - Only Mexican Coca-Cola made with cane sugar instead of HFCS

It's good for settling an upset stomach.

[TicketyBoo]

184. I didn't vote

because I don't have really strong feelings about it one way or another, but my tendency is to say, "No."

I used to visit a friend regularly. I could always tell when she went back on food stamps (four kids) because she served me Coke. When she was off food stamps, I got iced tea (which I actually prefer). We used to laugh about it. When she brought out the Coke, I'd say, "Oh, I see you are back on food stamps again," and we would both laugh. The plain truth of the matter was, when she was spending her own money, she opted for tea; when the taxpayers were footing the bill, it was soda.

I suspect this little vignette may change a few minds here.

[blueamy66]

187. Stood behind a young couple at Circle K

yesterday buying 2 fudge brownies and a bag of Cheetos with a food stamp card. Yep, it pissed me off.

I'm all for changing the rules on what can be purchased with food stamps.

[Dorian Gray]

218. Why did that piss you off?

[blueamy66]

264. Because I believe

that food stamps are to be used for food, not crap.

[Dorian Gray]

299. I don't use food stamps

never have and hopefully never will. But, I would be a little annoyed if I realized the person behind me in any checkout line was being so nosy as to

a) check out everything I was buying while

b) noting my method of payment then

c) having the nerve to be irritated by my purchases after that invasion of privacy.


Just saying.


(I also realize that I am being rude here, but, as I've stated in other posts, this thread has really aggravated me beyond belief. I believe that there is a HUGE level of self-righteousness that is totally and completely unwarranted.)

[blueamy66]

435. Wasn't being nosy....

It was a Circle K....the counter is visible to many people....I always watch to see what method of payment someone is using...especially when they pay for their "food" with the EBT card and then pay cash for ciggies. Now that is really irritating.

I don't think you're being rude, you're just stating your opinion....just like I am stating mine.

I stand by my statement that one should not be able to buy crap with food stamps. One doesn't need a 1/2 lb. brownie to sustain themselves.

[Gemini Cat]

244. I'm all for one minding one's own business.

[blueamy66]

262. Thanks.

That's good to know.

[eShirl]

189. Some DUers won't be satisfied until the poor are forced to live on K rations.

Or bread & water.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

190. Of Course. And The Amount Of No's Just Prove That So Many Here Are Not Democrats At Heart, But

instead merely noselifting idealistic fools.

[CTyankee]

226. Which political party originated food stamps? Which party has been consistently AGAINST them?

Let's start there...

[PVnRT]

243. OMC is the only REAL MAN Democrat on DU

The rest of us are just latte-sipping Naderite posers out to bring the country down.

[CTyankee]

246. LOL, I wonder what Nader would say to this thread and the arguments in FAVOR

of a government subsidy to the soda industry by "liberals." Now, that's funny...:rofl:

[Chan790]

408. I could care less...

in fact, if my opinion were not already in opposition to his...I'd change my opinion to be in opposition to Ralph Nader's. To say I have as much use for Nader as I have for my appendix would be to overstate his usefulness by at least a factor of 3.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

283. You Said It.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

285. Ummmmm, That's Completely Irrelevant To My Statement.

My statement was only addressing the noselifting idealistic morons who say they're democrats, but are really just nothing more than fools.

[blueamy66]

436. I voted no

and I am in no way a noselifting idealistic fool.

I pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. I recently recieved a small inheritance that is socked away in a savings account. I do not touch it. I work 40+ hours a week. My fiance, who lives with me, works about 60. His paycheck is garnished for child support.

But I am lucky enough to have a job, as is my fiance. And I clip coupons like a madwoman. And I shop the sales. And I cook. And I buy nutiritional foods.

No, I am not idealistic, nor am I a fool. I'm just sick of watching others taking advantage of the system as I work my ass off to support it.

And yeah, I am a Democrat.

[mod mom]

193. Flame away but NO. It should only be used for nutritious foods/drinks not crap

that does harm to one's health.

[Dora]

194. Food stamps are for food.

If it doesn't have nutritive value, then it's not food.

[conscious evolution]

199. Yes.I would also like to see

an allowance for cleaning supplies for the home.
I remeber seeing a study many years ago about why so many poor peoples homes are dirty.It's because they cant afford basic cleaning supplys like pine sol,scrub brushes,mops,soaps,etc etc...

[Sebastian Doyle]

201. And Brita water filters

Since so many here seem to think the poor should drink nothing but water, at least they should be able to filter the chlorine and other nasty shit out of it.

[CTyankee]

249. We should not have "nasty shit" in our water. Not for anybody.

We need a better water policy to go along with a better food policy in this country. We can do better by our government than to have to go out and buy filters to protect us against polluted water...

[Sebastian Doyle]

253. Oh, I agree completely

But that's a whole other thread right there.

[dembotoz]

203. who died and made us god?

in Wisconsin they used to give out commodities.
Whole grain this, heathy that.

Trouble was some folk did not know what to do with it.
How to cook it (if they even had access to a stove).
or even what it was.....
I heard a story about up north they used to give out bags of bulgar.
Wonderful stuff--or so i am told.....

DO WE REALLY WANT TO MICRO MANAGE SOMEONE ELSES LIFE THAT WE EVEN
HAVE A SAY IN WHAT THE HELL THEY EAT?????????

isn't be poor bad enough without some fucking bozo looking over your sholder
at the local grocery store.

[Freddie Stubbs]

229. Not micromanaging lives - - just determining how tax dollars are spent

Those who pay taxes have a vested interest in seeing that the money is not wasted.

[wickerwoman]

291. Exactly! I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

The government has a usually very limited amount of money that it can spend making sure that it's poorest citizens don't get sick or die from malnutrition. Every dollar that one person spends buying Twix bars or Shasta to self-medicate against their depression is a dollar that another family can't spend buying milk or fruit for their kids so they don't collapse from hunger in class.

Food stamps are fully computerized in most states. All you do is plug into a database what they can be used to buy. If someone wants to buy something not on the list, they can do it with their own frickin* money and economize somewhere else. They still have a choice.

We can have a national conversation about what the government can do to help deal with depression amongst the poor, but that is not within the mandate of the foodstamp system.

I'm living on $5-6 a day and it sucks and I would kill for some chocolate but when I feel like crap I go for a walk or talk to my friends or take a hot bath or write all of which are cheaper and healthier than using food to make myself feel better. I've been poor and I've been depressed. What I've never done is expect the taxpayers to pick up the bill for my self-destructive habits.

[Yehonala]

206. No Need To Micromanage

Personally I view food stamps as a means of a buffer until you get on your feet until you get into better times. There's no need to micromanage someone's eating habits while they are down on their luck. Some people are hysterics when they hear of someone down on their luck. We all have a bad run through and we need to understand that bad luck isn't the same as someone who is self destructing.

[sl8]

219. No. I don't think soda helps meet the goal of providing a more nutritious diet.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/pdfs/PL_110-246.pdf

DECLARATION OF POLICY
SEC. 2. ø7 U.S.C. 2011¿ It is hereby declared to be the policy
of Congress, in order to promote the general welfare, to safeguard
the health and well-being of the Nation’s population by raising levels
of nutrition among low-income households. Congress hereby
finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households
contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of
such households. Congress further finds that increased utilization
of food in establishing and maintaining adequate national levels of
nutrition will promote the distribution in a beneficial manner of the
Nation’s agricultural abundance and will strengthen the Nation’s
agricultural economy, as well as result in more orderly marketing
and distribution of foods. To alleviate such hunger and malnutrition,
a supplemental nutrition assistance program is herein authorized
which will permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious
diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food
purchasing power for all eligible households who apply for participation.

[CTyankee]

256. I don't think a lot of people here are old enough to remember the fight for this policy.

It shouldn't be taken for granted.

By the standards of some posters on this thread, the Founders could be called "Nanny staters" because they talked about promoting the general welfare in the Preamble to the Constitution. Outrageous! The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting welfare if the people don't want to be well...

[Barack_America]

223. No, it's not food. Might as well buy alcohol with them.

Same nutritional value.

[Hannah Bell]

407. bull.

[TomPaine76]

224. No

Plus, I'd like to see a pilot program funded to teach food stamp recipients how to prepare more nutritious meals. The social interaction could also help to lead to job leads.

[EFerrari]

227. And miss a chance to screw with poor people? Are you mad?

:)

[CTyankee]

234. Why bother since the soda industry is already doing a great job of screwing their health

and with YOUR tax subsidy, to boot? Hey, they're laughing all the way to the bank on your dime...

[EFerrari]

242. Oh, brother. You know, when you give something to someone else,

it's not yours any more.

That spare change you gave a homeless guy, it's his now.

Those food stamps, they're not mine.

We have really, really terrible @ssed boundaries in this country.

And I promise you that Coke I bought that poor guy gives me much more pleasure than the billions of dollars we fork over to the Pentagram or to our owners on Wall Street without a whimper.

[CTyankee]

252. It is the public policy I am talking about that is paid for with our money.

Why would you even WANT to help the poor downtrodden soda industry? Because in effect you are subsidizing THEM when FS can be used to pay for them. Give a guy as many Cokes as you want but just be clear about the policy for who gets government subsidy and who doesn't. Please think it over a bit more...

[EFerrari]

257. That's a justification for attempting to take choice away from people

who use food stamps. It's their decision to buy that Coke or not, not mine.

[CTyankee]

259. Then you do support tax subsidy for the soda industry? nt

[EFerrari]

313. What utter cr@p. Let's see the list of your expenditures this month.

Or for that matter, a list of the contents of your refrigerator. Then I can consider if I want my federal tax dollars paying for what you have in there. :crazy:

[CTyankee]

351. I don't think I actually asked you to do that, did I?

[Nye Bevan]

290. So it's OK for banks receiving TARP money to squander it on executive bonuses.

It's *their* decision to pay those bonuses, not mine. So no problem.

[WhollyHeretic]

293. So like republicans you can't distinguish the difference between a person and a corporation?

[Nye Bevan]

295. Actually I can. In this case the corporation is Coca-Cola.

You think millions of taxpayer's dollars should go to this corporation so that they can take advantage of poor people buying their non-nutritious, teeth-rotting, overpriced beverages, instead of using the money for healthy and nutritious food. I happen to disagree.

[EFerrari]

312. Strawman. The question isn't about supporting Coca Cola.

The question is about restricting the use of food stamps by people who neither need nor want your paternalism and who can make their own health choices just fine.

This isn't about Coca-Cola but about entitlement on wheels -- yours.

[Nye Bevan]

315. Hmmm. A policy that transfers billions of taxpayer dollars to big corporations

with the result that poor people become less healthy and poor children receive less nourishment? And you're advocating this policy on the basis of some kind of libertarian / "free choice" argument? I thought it was only Republicans who pushed this kind of stuff.

[EFerrari]

335. Nice try. How far will you go to reframe your need to control other people?

LOL

I want a list of everything in YOUR refrigerator, too.

[Nye Bevan]

340. What you want benefits big corporations and harms poor people

What I want makes poor people healthier but Coca-Cola executives less rich.

I am starting to suspect you are an employee or shareholder in one of these companies, which would make your arguments understandable. I am sure Philip Morris executives would love for people to be able to buy cigarettes with food stamps. And I assume you would also be in favor of this, with this not wanting to "control other people" stuff.

[EFerrari]

389. You've never helped anyone by taking away their autonomy

because for some strange reason you think you know better than another human being what is good for them.

And this "benefiting big corporations" argument is crap. Tell me what is in your vehicle and I'll be happy to come up with reasons why you shouldn't be driving on roads I have to pay for or in the insurance pool I have to deal with.

[Nye Bevan]

432. Not sure how we got from taxpayer-funded soda for the poor to "Tell me what is in your vehicle"

but I don't think we are going to agree on this one.

[Dorian Gray]

414. Wait a second....

Is the policy that those using food stamps MUST BUY Coca Cola?

I didn't realize that the POLICY was to transfer billions of dollars to big corporations. I thought the policy was to offer assistance in buying food to those who fall below a certain level of income.

[CTyankee]

316. No, it is about a public policy CHOICE to support big soda through a subsidy.

EIther you are for it or against it. Nothing to do with paternalism or entitlement. Those are strawmen in this argument, IMO.

[EFerrari]

333. Nope. That's your frame. And I'm still waiting for that list

of stuff you have in your refrigerator.

[CTyankee]

344. My refrigerator is NOT the issue.

I support more aid to needy people on FS. I support good nutrition for them, not a subsidy to the soda industry. Take the money away from the soda industry and put it toward more meat, fowl, vegetables and fruit for needy families. It gives them more choices. That is all.

[EFerrari]

388. Oh, yes it is. Because I help pay for your roads, your postal service

your army and your social security. I subsidize your life here in these United States and I have a right to know how you're using the benefits I pay for.

[Gormy Cuss]

379. Nope, it has every to do with paternalism. Do you think the FNS haven't covered this subject?

FNS(USDA)does extensive research on its food programs. In the cite below for example is a reference to a consumption pattern study that demonstrates that SNAP eligible persons do not consume soft drinks at a higher rate than the average for all American and that they consume LESS sugary and salty snacks.

Banning soft drinks may make some people feel good but it would have a number of unintended consequences, one of them being a much higher cost to administer the program.

Read this if you want to see a well considered discussion on the implications of food restrictions for Food Stamps/SNAP:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramOperations/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf

full disclosure: I've worked on FNS research but not on the linked report.

[Dorian Gray]

413. In a nutshelll

Exactly right.

[Lilith Velkor]

367. Coca-Cola makes all generic sodas?

Link, please.

[Nye Bevan]

372. Looks like they have about 45% of the market

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/08/news/companies/softdrinks_sales/index.htm

And I am in awe of the power of their lobbying and public relations skills. They have somehow convinced 56% of DUers that it is right and proper for them to receive billions of dollars from taxpayers in exchange for making poor people less healthy. Now *that's* good PR. The tobacco execs must be green with envy.

[Lilith Velkor]

384. That link does not support your assertion that Coca-Cola makes GENERIC sodas

Jesus, people here don't even fucking read subject lines anymore.

And no, 56% of DUers are not slaves to your Strawman, Inc. They just tend to get more upset about wars and banksters and insurance company boondoggles than whether a poor person drinks a goddamn soda.

[Nye Bevan]

386. Sorry. I guess I misinterpreted the poll question.

I didn't realize that I should read it as "Do you get more upset about wars and banksters and insurance company boondoggles then whether a poor person drinks a goddamn soda". If I had interpreted the question this way then I might well have decided to vote "Yes".

[EFerrari]

310. Try actually READING the subthread. Thanks.

[undeterred]

235. Should people on disability be allowed to drink and smoke?

When stopping those two activities would make their health a whole lot better?

[CTyankee]

254. The question is "should our tax dollars support industries that promote alcoholic and

tobacco products through public subsidy?

[pipi_k]

261. Nobody is saying poor people can't buy soda

They can buy it using real money, not food stamps.

[Jennicut]

236. When water becomes as cheap as soda then we can regulate it for poor people.

I mean really, I buy water and it costs $3.50 here for the flavored and $2.50 for the plain.
Soda can cost as little as 79 cents for the store brand.
People can barely survive on food stamps as it is, I would not be into telling them what they can do with them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

238. "Let them eat cake"?

[rd_kent]

247. Restricting what food stamps will and will not buy is NOT taking away anyones freedom.

There is already a restrictive list of what food stamps can and cannot buy. Would further restricting that list to items that are the most nutritious be legislating nutrition and taking away freedom?

I think the point is, that if the government is going to assist the neediest of us by ensuring that they can afford basic foods, why not make what the government is willing to pay for the MOST nutritious items? Excluding soda, candy, juice "drinks" and other similar items is not, IMO, restricting peoples choices, it is restricting what the government is willing to pay for.

[pipi_k]

267. It's amazing how many people think it is, though...

Like maybe, the cashiers are looking at people using food stamps and totally denying poor people the opportunity of buying soda or fruit drinks AT ALL.

I really don't get it.

That's not happening, won't happen, and nobody is suggesting it happen, but some of the replies in this thread sound like poor people are on the verge of having to buy soda on the Black Market or something.

People can buy what they want, just not with food stamps.

As I pointed out above, people can save a couple of bucks on cleaning products that they have to pay cash for by using baking soda or vinegar which can be bought with food stamps. Then use the buck or two to BUY a bottle of soda if they're that desperate for it.

And cigarettes...food stamps don't pay for them, but how many people on food stamps are buying them...and not just the cheaper brands, either. Not that I begrudge anyone the "right" to smoke, but again...if someone is that desperate for SODA, they can buy a cheaper brand of smokes and then get a bottle or two of soda.

There are all sorts of ways of working around this "problem", but many here don't want to admit there's a solution.

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donheld]

273. Please fire the food police

[JackRiddler]

276. No. They should get cash instead of food stamps.

The food stamp budget pays half the money to sustain a bureaucracy designed to control and humiliate the poor.

For effective poverty relief and a genuine economic stimulus, just give them all of the same money in cash.

This is a budget neutral proposal. Everyone wins.

Brought to you by Justice Cola(tm).

(Justice Cola - For the fizz that progresses!)

[Toucano]

288. DESIGNED to control and humiliate the poor?

You can't be serious.

Do you think the home mortgage credit, child tax credit and student loan programs are part of the same bureaucratic conspiracy?

[JackRiddler]

323. Toss some more straw on the pile, maybe you can get a fire.

[WhollyHeretic]

280. I think people on food stamps need to run every purchase they make by me to make sure I approve

It's my money paying for it after all. They should all thank me after every meal for giving them food. A little groveling wouldn't hurt either. People down on their luck should not be able to enjoy anything.

[Nye Bevan]

282. Lots of people defending Big Soda in this thread.

I am sure Coca-Cola executives are delighted that so many people think taxpayers' money should go to their companies to provide vastly overpriced empty calories to poor people. I would try a more creative approach. Obviously tap water is the cheapest and healthiest beverage so should be used whenever possible. But only when the tap water is of good quality. So allow food stamp recipients to get their tap water tested for free, and if there is a problem (e.g. lead in the water) allow them to buy bottled water (but not soda) with food stamps, and give them assistance with getting their tap water supply fixed. This would be much cheaper and healthier in the long run than saying OK, go buy Dr Pepper.

Another thing food stamp recipients need is a refrigerator. Without this it is hard to store fresh ingredients for making good, nutritious meals. So if a food stamp recipient does not have a refrigerator, or if their refrigerator is broken, they should receive assistance in getting repairs or a replacement.

[Dorian Gray]

415. Big Soda

LOL.

Give me a break.

I think most people are defending the people who make the choices what to buy with the food stamps. If they choose to buy a 2 liter bottle of soda as a part of the grocery purchase.... so what?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

302. It's the responses in threads like these that turn "liberal" into a 4-letter word. (nt)

[rd_kent]

317. LoZoccolo, I see that you have NOT responded to anything here even though you are the OP. WTF???

Nice shitstorm you created, yet not a single response from you.

[flvegan]

319. This thread has not gone well.

[petronius]

325. You should probably just cut-and-paste that to your clipboard,

it's a phrase that could be used on a lot of threads. (Of course, if you post it everywhere it applies, you'll probably get caught in the spam filter...)

:)

[flvegan]

326. It's one of my new catch-phrases.

I try to change them up on each train wreck of a thread around here. heh heh.

[cry baby]

320. voted yes. no need for govt in our bedrooms or kitchens.

[CTyankee]

345. Well, there's a thought for tonight.

G'night folks...

[bobbolink]

348. Of course not. Let's add more control and judgement to people who are surrounded by

control and judgement.

It's the liberal and "progressive" thing to do.

Need I add... :sarcasm:

The superiority trips here are absolutely amazing.

[DainBramaged]

349. And what's next for all of you people who think you are the food police

ban milk eggs and cheese because they have dairy, then ban any snacks because god-forbid the poor should derive one iota of pleasure form the food they are parceled out. And then what, you get your fingers into their food stamps and ban meat because they could have problems years down the road so YOU think you need to protect THEM from themselves now?????


Since when did DU become so Republican? The word Liberal doesn't fit any more you people are trying to determine people's FUTURE and interfere with their lives, but god-forbid they did the same to you.


It is sickening how DU is becoming more and more like Republican Lite. You start with food and what's next?

Never mind, I just don't care flame away. I'm sure one of you will bitch and get this post deleted because you don't want the truth.

[CTyankee]

350. Uh. liberals passed the Food Stamps legislation in 1964, Check your facts.

[DainBramaged]

352. Obviously you dont get it but that's Ok,

it doesn't matter WHO passed the law, the fact remains that as a supposedly progressive community, we are nothing more than a repressive group of crybabies, period.

[CTyankee]

355. I'm sorry but I do not care whether you are so carried away that you are

totally enthralled by the soda industry. I am not. Can we not just say that is where we disagree?

[DainBramaged]

359. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SODA INDUSTRY

it has EVERYTHING to do wit the people here MICROMNANAGING THE LIVES OF OTHERS. And I am so so sorry you don't see that. Your straw man 'soda industry' doesn't fly with me. For a forum that will give up their bodies protesting the right to be Gay or protecting the right to vote or protesting the wars, for you and so many others who think it's OK to dictate how others should live their lives and regulate what they eat is appalling.

What's next, meat, fish, foul, what about ONLY allowing them to drink water and eat rice, that's what they get for being poor????

Go preach to someone else about the dangers of soda pop, the poor need help not lectures.

[CTyankee]

364. Please calm down. That's better...breathe...OK, now...

I would like to INCREASE the amount of aid to needy people on food stamps. I think it would be great if we could give them better food. Are you with me so far? OK?

All right. If we DECREASE the amount of subsidy we give to the soda industry we can INCREASE the amount of subsidy we give in generic food items that actually BENEFIT people! Hey, what a concept!!!!

Simple! Got it??

[Pithlet]

366. So why is it

that you don't think that people on assistance can't or shouldn't be able to do the very thing that the rest of us can do? Go to the grocery store and meal plan with the same choices that we have? You're well meaning. But also patronizing as hell. Oh, it would be so great to give them better food! You don't hear how patronizing that is? Yeah, so some of those tax dollars would be going to the soda industry. BFD. Many of the rest of us are also giving our money to them when we buy soda directly.

So if any of us lose our jobs tomorrow and have to require assistance our choices at the grocery store should suddenly be reduced drastically because we're forced to take assistance? Because we might make choices YOU disagree with and deem unhealthy? I think that's ludicrous. There are better ways to encourage the public at large to eat better.

[CTyankee]

369. Of course, that is one way of looking at it...

[MissMarple]

447. CTyankee, so many are missing the point here, it gives one pause to wonder why.

Poor nutrition and excessive fat and sugar in the diet can impair intellectual as well as physical activity. To suggest that "food stamp" assistance be required to follow the original intent of the law has many here totally wigged out.

The idea that paying from one's own pocket for what is a nonessential to health and growth is a fundamental threat to liberty is so over the top. They ask were does the "control" end? Well, where does the largess end? You and several of us here could go off the deep end on that point and make as little sense as those who believe food assistance should not promote good nutrition. Next they will be saying we don't want them to buy eggs because they might raise cholesterol or have birthday cake. Actually, I think someone already said some things like that.

It could be that we are older and remember when sodas were a rare treat not an everyday "necessity". They were quite expensive and greatly impinged on my parents' food budget. The anecdote above about the friend who only bought coke when she was on food stamps and offered iced tea when she was spending her own money was quite interesting.

What could have been a productive discussion about how to promote good eating habits was thrown under the bus of reactionary hysteria. Some good points were made here, though. We need more discussion so we can get to a more reasonable place on this issue. How you reach a goal is as important as what that goal is. Working with people, conservative, progressive, or reactionary will always be like herding cats.

[CTyankee]

457. Actually, I was not really talking about promoting good eating habits, except in

a secondary way. My whole thesis was about having a coherent national food policy. It was about the ethical implications of having taxpayers subsidize a billion dollar industry that makes a bad product with no redeeming qualities, instead of subsidizing fresh foods. Now it seems that fresh foods are somehow "elitist" and suspect. THat logic I find Orwellian. Do the people opposing my idea really prefer to buy junk food? Do they buy it because of some kind of "solidarity" they have with the poor, without even examining that assumption (do ALL poor people make bad food choices in their minds?). The mere assumption of that idea is crazy.

I do not believe that such people are progressives. I do think they are misinformed and deliberately staying that way because it suits them to appear as champions of the poor and downtrodden, when in reality they are not helping anybody. I knew they were off the deep end when they dissed the Preamble to the United States Constitution in one of my posts.

Still they have a right to their opinion as I do mine and you do yours.

Thank you for sharing your insights. They ARE helpful. We truly do come from another generation where we were taught about the principles of public policy making in something called "civics."

[DainBramaged]

503. Some of you folks need to learn when to stop intefering in people's lives

and this one thread shows how many of you really are fascists. We don't need you people trying to change people's diet, you obviously don't understand poverty or the causes of it, you're ONLY concerned that they don't cost YOU any money.

How disgusting.

[MissMarple]

507. There is a lot of need, there is only so much money. That is the point.

Fine. So you think we should do away with what.... food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food safety laws, credit card regulation....where would you like the "interference" to dive right in for you? No one here wants to take away your coke, cheeto's, and oreos, or your hamburgers, eggs or tofu. It's about who pays for what.

We want you to be healthy, to live a long, happy life with what ever you want. But we have these other folks over here that need a few things, as well, and we can't afford it all.

You have good points. But you are difficult to talk to. We have common goals and we are not enemies. Many, many people use food stamps responsibly, but many do not. Sodas are not the primary problem, but a symptom of a broader issue.

And you are right in that simply saying that putting things on a "do not purchase list" only for food stamp users is an answer to the broader problem.

The problem is a huge health issue that we are subsidizing...and now we will be paying for with a broader public health system.

We need some help.

[ohheckyeah]

353. Meat would be next

in order to save the planet. :eyes:

I'm so sick of these assholes who want to control and micromanage everyone's lives.

[cherokeeprogressive]

354. Fuck it, why stop there? Should people on food stamps be allowed to by the flesh of dead animals?

Think about it, vegans, this is your chance to force the vegetarian issue!

Force the hand of the animal oppressors!

[EFerrari]

391. Or prepared food -- too much sodium. Or sweetened food --

risk of diabetes. Or colored food -- remember red dye #2? That pretty much lets out most meat counters and doesn't fish have a bunch of mercury nowadays? Dairy is high cholesterol so maybe that should be right out. Fruit and vegetables are sprayed will all kinds of poison and organic is too expensive. White bread has no nutrition in it. Food that comes in plastic bags are bad for the environment anyway so forget bread, dried beans, grains, and nuts. Coffee and tea cause stomach ulcers and stain your teeth. That leaves boxed cereal but that stuff is put out by Big Ag that is killing off family farms and introducing GM food into the food chain.

[ThomCat]

455. Yup, that is what I said below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6872010&mesg_id=6880906

Meat and eggs and dairly are incredibly unhealthy. They cause cancer, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and lord knowns how long a list of other things. They MUST be prohibited.

[Jenny_D]

370. I don't know why I'm jumping into this flame war, but here goes...

No, they should not. I've never been on food stamps, but I have been poor. Food stamps should be for necessities only. Soft drinks are not a necessity. Things like toilet paper and tampons ARE, and I think they should be allowed, even though they aren't food.

[toocoolforschool]

374. i can drink what i want! ill pay for my insurance if i need it.

[otohara]

376. If You Need It?

you're kidding right?

[Leftist Agitator]

381. Pop should be illegal.

And marijuana should be the opposite.

[ShadowLiberal]

382. The problem is soda is the cheapest way to get the most drink for your buck

Other then tap water from your house, soda in those 2 liter bottles is probably the cheapest way to buy the most liquids to drink, hence part of the reason for Soda's popularity, and part of why studies have shown that poorer people in the US are actually fatter then richer people. It's because the cheaper foods and drinks that the poor can afford the most of tend to be more fattening foods/drinks.

[ccharles000]

385. yes

[lonestarnot]

387. Yes and cat food too!

[cliffordu]

392. I traded food stamps for vodka. What's the big deal?

Don't be hatin' -

I would have traded YOU for vodka before it was over.

[flvegan]

396. Too many dumbass armchair wanna-be nutritionists in this thread.

Makes my head spin.

Considering the other shit folks can buy with food stamps, why cut soda out? Besides, when you cut it out and a million folks ask why, what the fuck will you tell them? You ready to teach proper nutrition? No, no you aren't. When 80% of your shopping carriage haul is garbage, how do you reach in and grab one item and tell folks tsk tsk tsk for picking it up.

Idiots.

[Chan790]

404. I'm with you on this.

:yourock:

I'm for the truly radical idea of freedom. If people want to buy Twinkies and RC cola...well, I think it's a terrible idea but who made me the arbiter of what people should be allowed to consume?

Can you imagine how unhappy these same people arguing for banning soda from food stamps would be if they suddenly were forced to make food purchases based on the whims of another person who thought they knew best...for example, me?

I'm sorry. No red meat or pork, they cause heart disease. Nope, no poultry either...too high of a risk of food contamination, salmonella and the such. Eggs too. Fish? Mercury levels can be dangerous to developing fetii...so that's right out. Soyfoods are high in estrogens and we really don't know the full effects yet of a diet too high in soy so...look at it this way, you can have all the legumes and nuts you want. No peanuts though, it's the allergy thing. Just too risky.

Frozen and canned veggies have less nutritional-value so you have to buy fresh. Yes, it's more expensive and requires more prep time...just think of all the vitamin C and other good things you're getting though. I'm sorry...juices are high in sugar, you can have water or herbal tea, one glass of fat-free oat milk a day as well. No caffeine, no alcohol, no artificial sweeteners. And most Americans are overweight so you're required to drink a 16 oz serving of Kombucha tea because its probiotics will help you lose weight and maintain a healthy chi to boot. Dessert? What makes you think you deserve dessert?

[Dorian Gray]

416. 100%

Amen to your post.

[ThomCat]

429. If people MUST restrict what is okay for people to buy with FoodStamps

can we demand that they restrict meat and animal products?

Everyone has to learn how to eat healthy, vegan diets, and they'll be helping to save the environment. Yay!

I'm sure the people on this thread pushing for limits on foodstamps wouldn't Possibly have any problem with this.

That's only logical. If you are going to ban soda because it is unhealthy then you have to ban all unhealthy stuff. You can't pick and choose the unhealthy stuff to ban based on whim, or based on whatever the demonized product of the moment happens to be. We have to be reasonable and consistent about this.

Nothing known to cause obesity, so no candy, soda, deserts or treats.
Nothing known to cause cancer and heart disease, so no meats or dairy products.
Nothing known to cause diabetes, so sugary or starchy foods.

How long could this list get?

Do you think they'll still support restricting what people can buy?

[wickerwoman]

472. There's a clear distinction

between "unhealthy" and "no nutritive value whatsoever".

Diet Coke has no vitamins, no minerals, no protein, no healthy fats, no carbs, no calories, no reason to be on a list of things designed to prevent malnutrition.

Many foods that are somewhat "unhealthy" can be worked into an overall healthy diet and no one here is objecting to those foods. Some foods make absolutely no nutritive contributions to a diet and those foods should not be paid for by a program designed to help hungry kids.

[ThomCat]

491. That is a false argument.

Soft drinks provide the following benefits:

The do hydrate you, whether you like how well they do it or not.
They are the cheapest hydration fluids you can buy, which makes them ideal for people on foodstamps.
They can be used when baking or roasting to carmelize foods if they don't contain artificial sweetener. (there are lots of recipes out there than use soft drinks)

The big problem many people have with soft drinks is that they cause Obesity. But if you use that argument, that soft drinks cause a health problem, then you have to star banning other foods that cause health problems.

The argument that soft drinks have no inherent value though just isn't true. The best you can say is that YOU don't feel that they don't have any inherent value. So the answer to that is that YOU shouldn't buy any soft drinks.

[wickerwoman]

492. Sorry, but

there are much cheaper and healthier ways to hydrate yourself (the caffeine in many soft drinks actually dehydrates you because it acts as a diuretic).

Assuming your tap water is unsafe:

You can buy a 20lb bag of ice for $4.00. That melts into 2.4 gallons of water. That makes 307.2 fluid ounces of water or 38.4 8oz glasses of water. That's .11 a glass. (And if you have drinkable tap water it's less than a penny a gallon).

You can get 38 tea bags for 1.63 and make hot or iced tea for .15 a glass. (.04 cents with tap water)

If you want to compare something caloric, buy 2 12oz cans of frozen orange juice, lemonade or fruit punch for $1.50 each and combine with your 2.4 gallons of melted ice water. Makes 41.4 glasses of juice at .17 a glass. (.06 cents with tap water)

Buy a 2 liter bottle of soda for $1.69, divide it into 8 8oz servings and it comes out at .21 a glass. Not too shabby, but certainly not the cheapest "hydration fluid" you could find. And very, very far from the most nutritious which is really the point.

I'm sure reconstituted powdered milk is a lot cheaper too and even regular coffee is probably cheaper, but the math is more involved. I think you get the point anyway.

People aren't using the coke they bought with their food stamps to caramelize seared scallops. There are a handful of gimmick recipes that use Coke. It doesn't change the fact that it adds nothing to the nutritional profile of the foods being prepared and isn't necessary for browning, roasting or caramelizing. Coke is a complete nutritional white-wash which promotes tooth decay, calcium loss and diabetes and has no redeeming features whatsoever. Why is that so hard to just admit?

And given that Coke adds nothing, why should it be on a list of allowable foods intended to ensure that people do not get sick from malnourishment?

[ThomCat]

493. If your tap water is unsafe

how is it safe to make anything with that tap water? Um, Duh?

Expecting poor people to go out and buy ice ever day is ridiculous.

That seems to leave bottled soft drinks again.

[wickerwoman]

494. A 20 pound bag is a week's supply for one person.

You can buy them at the grocery when you buy, um, groceries. Party stores also deliver them.

The higher price is for using melted ice. The lower price is for the parts of the country that have drinkable tap water.

Drinking bottled soft drinks for hydration is only slightly less nuts than drinking sea water. It dehydrates you because it makes you pee more and it interferes with your ability to absorb calcium from your food.

[DainBramaged]

397. Those who voted no are against personal freedom, period

what are you against next? Maybe the poor should use newspaper instead of toilet paper.

[depakid]

403. Puleese

Some (as in those who support public health) think food stamps should provide sustenance and nutrition to families... which sodas clearly don't.

That's the RATIONAL position here.

As opposed to yours and others' emotional one.

[ThomCat]

427. Bullshit.

That is the judgmental, intrusive, busy-body position here.

People on foodstamps used to have to deal with assholes like you all the time, when it was obvious who was using foodstamp vouchers. People like you would come up and start pawing through people's carts demanding to know why they weren't buying generic brands, and why they were buying "luxuries."

It was harassment, and it was humiliating. Foodstamps put and end to it by making the use of foodstamps as invisible as possible. We now swipe a card, and from even a few feet away you can't see that it's not a credit or debit card, so people like you can mind your own damned business.

You think you are being rational, but you're just throwing back to the anti-poor bigotry and abuse that our legislators and foodstamp administrators already fought against. You lost. Get over it and leave people on foodstamps alone.

[Name removed]

400. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

402. YOU Liberals??

Not from around here, are you Sluggo???


Pizza coming get ready, and open wide......

[Maru Kitteh]

409. Rush compliments you on the very fine range of motion and agility in your tongue and lips

He says you suck like no other.

I agree.

[booley]

411. Isn't the goal here to make sure people are not going hungry?

Being on a social program like this is embarrassing enough without treating those people like stupid children.

Not to mention, can we really micromanage people's lives?

Sometimes people just need a vice, even for only a short while. Maybe we should just keep it simple and trust that the vast majority will eat right when they can,

[Dorian Gray]

417. That's exactly it....

those voting "no" are treating those on food stamps as though they are stupid children. It's appalling.

[ThomCat]

426. Foodstamps has been set up so that nobody micromanages

anyone's purchases, and as much as possible nobody even knows you use foodstamps. That was the reason foodstamps went from vouchers to cash cards years ago. Cash cards look like credit/debit cards and people don't see the immediately recognizable vouchers.

In the past, busybodies would see someone using vouchers and start hassling them, accusing them of being freeloaders and demanding why they were buying name brands instead of the cheapest generics with "My Money." The government specifically wanted to protect food stamp recipients from that kind of abuse. The same kind of abuse we are seeing on this thread.

I am very, very glad that our past legislators had far more sense than a lot of the people here.

[BzaDem]

418. I have a question for those who voted "no." Who the hell are you to tell me that soda is not food?

This is not a question that is somehow "open for debate." There is no gray area here. Soda may be harmful to one's health, and it might not be a good idea to drink. But if you don't think soda is food, you are beyond anyone trying to help you see reason.

When I saw that a large part of DU belonged to the anti-vaxer crowd, I was amazed. But the more I read threads like these, the more I realize that I shouldn't be amazed or surprised. There is a non-negligible portion of this board that is just that crazy. Many of the same people promoting anti-vaccine fortune telling are here saying that soda is not food.

As for whether or not food stamps should cover soda, that is certainly a question that is debatable. I mean, after all, there are many people in this country that want to further limit safety net programs for the poor and restrict the choices of people on them (thinking that is indeed their business to make proper choices for those on these programs). I just thought these people were called "Republicans." I guess not.

Aparently, it is within the Democratic mainstream to hold the view that is fine for those well off to drink as much soda as they want, but not poor people. Again, this is a perfectly legitimate point of view. It is just a point of view I did not think I would see represented here. It is not so much the nutritional judgement that is off-base. Rather, it is the idea that it is your judgement should matter AT ALL for people who need food stamps.

[Nye Bevan]

433. There are many people who want to funnel billions of taxpayer money to big corporations

such as Coca-Cola and Pepsico, at the expense of poor people's health and nourishment. I just thought these people were called "Republicans". I guess not.

[BzaDem]

490. No, there aren't many people (if anyone) who what to do what you just described.

After all, allowing food stamps to cover soda does not funnel ONE PENNY of taxpayer money to big corporations (much less billions). It gives people the choice to buy what they want. So if there is any funneling of money going on, it is the consumer making that choice. Not the government. The goverment is simply putting poor people on a more level playing field to make the decision.

The whole idea of restricting choice in the name of preventing "money funneling" is an intellectually bankrupt argument. The government is not writing a check to a corporation. The government is writing a check to the people, who can choose how to spend it (and might then write a check to the corporation). The purpose of this would be to allow poor people to buy soda, not to "enrich big corporations."

It is just like the healthcare debate. If we can't enact a public option, there are actually people here who would rather have the uninsured remain uninsured than "funnel money" to insurance companies (when in reality the subsidies goes directly to the people so they can choose how to insure themselves). Personally, I don't see much difference between someone saying that the uninsured should remain uninsured to prevent the "enriching of corporations" and someone saying that the uninsured should remain uninsured for any other reason (i.e. Republicans).

[WinkyDink]

420. No. The poor should do their civic duty and be role models for others.

[ThomCat]

425. Are you being sarcastic?

Being poor doesn't require any more or any different civic duty than being middle class or being rich.

If anyone is trying to impose some special requirements on poor people just because they are poor, it is because of a hostile attitude towards poor people.

What ever happened to Democrats being people who strive to help the poor, and show compassion? Where has all this arrogant judgment, finger pointing, and class warfare come from? Act like Democrats, damn it! This isn't why democrats created these programs, and it isn't the way democrats structured these programs, so stop trying to fuck with the programs as you were damned republicans!

[coconut22]

428. Why not?

Is this about the soda lady on tv?

[mtnester]

437. Looks around - for a minute there I thought I was lost and on the wrong board

but I think it is rather the other way around, and I am not the one who has lost their way

[Lex]

439. I've decided it is the latter.

And it is sad.

[Electric Monk]

441. Congrats LoZo, mission accomplished. Yet another divisive thread. nt

[Nye Bevan]

451. Yeah LoZo. How *dare* you spark a debate on an internet discussion board

Next time try something noncontroversial like "I'm glad George W Bush is no longer president".

[Electric Monk]

463. Debate? Not so much. Vitriol? Tons. Again, mission accomplished LoZo.

[datasuspect]

443. ronald reagan is masturbating to this thread in hell

[Whisp]

444. what silliness to decided for someone else what they can buy.

I detest soda pop but no way am I going to rip it out of someone's hands who likes it!

what the....

I look at food stamps how I look at when I give money to charities or people on the street. Its my decision to give and it's theirs to do Whatever The Hell They Want With It. Its not mine anymore.

My part is done and I have no say whatsoever and I sure don't want to follow them around judging how they spend it.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

450. another "blame the poor for everything" argument

[rd_kent]

471. Who is blaming the poor?

This is about the best use of tax dollars in regard to food stamps. This discussion is not about people and the choices they make, its about how to best use tax dollars in a program that is needed. Take you finger and sit on it.

[bamacrat]

461. Yes but should have to then buy some milk and vegetables.

Not just soda and chips and pre-made pizzas.

[rd_kent]

470. NOT ONE RESPONSE FROM THE OP. THERE SHOULD BE A RULE>>>>

If you post flamebait and you dont respond, you get banned......

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

474. Nah. They'd probably spill the soda on the carpets in their mansions.

Everybody knows that poor people don't any sense except how to steal from the "good" people.

[TheKentuckian]

479. I don't get why so many stress on the pennies while the dollars are being stolen

via forklifts and helicopters.

Every concern for fraud and waste centers around wringing a nickle out of the least.

Do I consider soda food? Not really but I'm not even minutely concerned if somebody on assistance buys a 2 liter or some teabags, or whatever. Nor do I see any reason to restrict folks from picking up a rotisserie bird for dinner or whatever. I've bought them on sale for the same or less than I could buy a raw one and when you factor in time and energy you've just forced someone to spend more to get less value. This is especially stupid considering you can buy the exact same thing frozen or in the refrigerated section without a fuss except that those products are seldom discounted and usually run equal or more than the comparable deli stuff. I just don't see the value added or any real caring about the people but rather a lame ass talking point.

The whole "area of concern" seems like using need as whip to control people to me.

[Hansel]

480. Should bailed out bank employees be able to buy soda with their pay?

I'm sorry but this is such an asinine question. The rich are constantly being subsidized by tax dollars, but people getting food stamps with a pittance of money are somehow suppose to bow down to the taxpayers because they've fallen on hard times?

When my husband was in the military we had to use food stamps to make ends meet. I don't know if it is still that way, but imagine the insult of putting your life on the line for your country and then being forced to live on food stamps because you are paid so poorly? And to add insult to injury, you now have the those who stand on the sidelines and make no sacrifice for their country telling you what food you can buy.

I remember some redneck beer bellied smelly buffoon in the line in front of me confronting me because I was buying a roast with my food stamps. He said, "it must be nice to be able to afford roast." I responded, "If you were smart you would put back the hamburger and also buy a roast. Because you are only going to get one meal out of the hamburger. I'm going to get at least 5 and probably more meals out of this roast and it's going to cost a lot less than buying enough less healthy hamburger for 5 meals." He turned around and decided to mind his own business.

Don't kid yourself, there are a lot of people on food stamps who have paid their dues but have just fallen on hard times. It might be healthier not to drink soda, but it's none of anyone else's business. How can they regain enough dignity to get back on their feet when they are treated like children.

[walldude]

481. Wall Street and Bankers are stealing billions and you're posting about

food stamps. :rofl: :rofl: Unfuckingbelievable.

[Jenny_D]

482. To clarify....

To me, this isn't about judging the poor or micromanaging what anyone eats. It's just common sense from a public health perspective.

In my state we have a state sales tax, but most groceries are exempt. Certain items ARE still taxed, though -- these include soft drinks, candy, prepared foods (e.g. dinners from the supermarket deli), and I think maybe potato chips.

This doesn't impinge my freedom in any way. I can still buy these things, I just have to pay a little more. I think the tax is fair -- these types of foods are not necessary or even beneficial, and the government needs that money to offset the health expenses of those who eat nothing but that kind of stuff.

It is in society's best interest to provide nutritious foods and the basic necessities of life to the poor. But it is not reasonable for anyone to expect the government to subsidize things that should only be occasional treats, if that. If you really need or want it that badly, you need to come up with the extra money to pay for it. There was a time in my life when I barely had two nickels to rub together. Soft drinks and candy were rare treats. I survived and my health was better off for it.

[Jenny_D]

483. And yes...

I do think Wall Street bankers and bailed-out industries should be subject to even more public scrutiny. Public money should be spent in ways to benefit all of society.

[Forkboy]

502. Typical hit and run trolling from the OP.

[DainBramaged]

504. And never another comment by it either

But the Fascists came out to play in this thread. Tell me, could you survive on rice and water to satisfy the dietary requirements of the pompous assholes in this thread???

:hug:

[Forkboy]

505. I'm going to buy ten tubs of soda and 50 bags of Doritos in their honor.

Then I'm going to trade the rest of my food stamps for booze and cigarettes.

If these fuckbags really cared about their tax dollars being spent wisely they'd be locking arms outside of bomb factories. As they don't have the guts to do that, they turn on the poor instead. Fuck 'em. If they don't like how I spend them they kiss my ass, deeply and passionately. :)

[mrbarber]

506. Wit the tremondous amount of wasted money in this country...

Going to support needless wars and such, I really can't get my panties in a twist over someone purchasing some RC cola.

But maybe that's because I drink cola instead of alchol when I'm depressed or stressed, because it helps me with my alcoholism.

But oh no! That's not healthy!