Soda Is Target of New Assault

apdst said:

No, actually, I'm saying that if you don't like what they're buying, then trim their allowance back, or cut them off, all together.

Click to expand...

Then what exactly are you pissed off about? You're saying that they shouldn't be allowed to buy soda (via a reduction in their food stamps). I'm saying that they shouldn't be allowed to buy soda (via simply not allowing them to do it). You aren't even disagreeing, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

apdst said:

It's the pinnacle of stupidity to say they can't buy a few soft drinks, but can eat all the greasy fried **** they want.

Click to expand...

I'd rather the government not micromanage every aspect of what foods they can and can't buy. But they can at least weed out the easy things like soda, which have literally NO nutritional value and are one of the biggest contributors to obesity.

Kandahar said:

Then what exactly are you pissed off about? You're saying that they shouldn't be allowed to buy soda (via a reduction in their food stamps). I'm saying that they shouldn't be allowed to buy soda (via simply not allowing them to do it). You aren't even disagreeing, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Click to expand...

You want to control people's spending habits for the sake of control. You are opposed to sody-waters, while stamp collectors are buying food stuffs that are far worse, yet you don't want to control those purchases. Why the hypocrisy?

apdst said:

What's going to happen when a checkout line is clogged up with a stamp collector; half of whom's purchase can't be bought with food stamps? The CSM is going to hit the override button on the register, that's what.

Click to expand...

This just isn't how it works in real life. I worked in a rural grocery store 10 years ago. Even then and even there, the system for separating food stamp eligible products from non-food stamp eligible products was instantaneous. Every piece of merchandise is characterized as eligible or ineligible in the store's system. Modifying the system to treat soda as ineligible would require each store to spend maybe 30 seconds changing their database once.

Here's a few questions for all of ya that want to control what people eat/drink for those on foodstamps.

Is it right to control people in this way? Is it right to punish those that are responsible and yet are still in need of help? One example would be those with extreme disabilities. Those that are unable to get a job to support themselves through no fault of their own.

I've heard lots of people say that it is not right to punish those that are good for the misdeeds of the few. And yet here we are in this thread trying to control everyone on foodstamps because of people that happen to abuse the system. Why not fix the system instead of punishing everyone? Banning things does nothing to solve the over all problem that is inherent in the system itself. It is those problems which costs unnecessary expenditure of "your" money. Not soda's. You can try to claim that it is for health reasons and the saving of money in the long run but in reality it is truely about your disdain and feelings of supiority over those less fortunate than you. That is what I get from most of these posts in this thread and others threads that talk about foodstamps. Weather it's true or not I don't really know. But it sure does sound like it.

apdst said:

You want to control people's spending habits for the sake of control. You are opposed to sody-waters, while stamp collectors are buying food stuffs that are far worse, yet you don't want to control those purchases. Why the hypocrisy?

Click to expand...

Since you actually agree with me, and you're just hooting and hollering to be a dick rather than because you actually disagree, I'm gonna cease responding to you.

Kal'Stang said:

Here's a few questions for all of ya that want to control what people eat/drink for those on foodstamps.

Is it right to control people in this way? Is it right to punish those that are responsible and yet are still in need of help? One example would be those with extreme disabilities. Those that are unable to get a job to support themselves through no fault of their own.

I've heard lots of people say that it is not right to punish those that are good for the misdeeds of the few. And yet here we are in this thread trying to control everyone on foodstamps because of people that happen to abuse the system. Why not fix the system instead of punishing everyone? Banning things does nothing to solve the over all problem that is inherent in the system itself. It is those problems which costs unnecessary expenditure of "your" money. Not soda's. You can try to claim that it is for health reasons and the saving of money in the long run but in reality it is truely about your disdain and feelings of supiority over those less fortunate than you. That is what I get from most of these posts in this thread and others threads that talk about foodstamps. Weather it's true or not I don't really know. But it sure does sound like it.

Click to expand...

Modifying the food stamp program so that the funds cannot be used for soda is not a "punishment," IMO. Nobody is proposing cuts in the amount that these people will receive, just that they will no longer be able to spend it on a nutritionally useless product.

RightinNYC said:

Modifying the food stamp program so that the funds cannot be used for soda is not a "punishment," IMO. Nobody is proposing cuts in the amount that these people will receive, just that they will no longer be able to spend it on a nutritionally useless product.

Click to expand...

Wait. Why would it be bad for it to be punishment? In the same fashion that we restricted CEO compensation for TARP recipients, why not restrict what food stamp receivers can buy with them? You get government assistance, you get some restrictions.

If you're on food stamps, I feel like you willingly have given up some freedoms.

obvious Child said:

Wait. Why would it be bad for it to be punishment? In the same fashion that we restricted CEO compensation for TARP recipients, why not restrict what food stamp receivers can buy with them? You get government assistance, you get some restrictions.

If you're on food stamps, I feel like you willingly have given up some freedoms.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not disagreeing at all, I'm just saying I wouldn't necessarily characterize either of those things as a "punishment." Companies could have avoided the limits on CEO pay by rejecting TARP funds. They chose to avail themselves of a government program that was being offered and in doing so, agreed to be bound by some additional restrictions.

Orion said:

Government money should not be used to buy junk food. Also, there needs to be more regulations in general. I don't like government intrusion where it's not necessary, but look at the facts... there is an obesity epidemic. If it were a viral epidemic, there would be all sorts of mandatory procedures put into place to try and stop it; but because it's obesity, something gradual and not instantly life threatening, people are against certain controls.

Stopping the sugary products is only one side of the problem. Obesity represents malnourishment. The body is lacking essential nutrients and so it goes into survival mode, which involves hording calories. Too many people are eating high calorie, nutrient poor foods.

The use of high fructose corn syrup in virtually everything seriously needs regulation. The sugar industry has had way too much of an influence on government policy and now we are seeing serious health effects.

Click to expand...

Survival mode? :lamo

Its about input vs output.

If your a fatass sitting on the cou h eating ringdings all day your body is not obese because of "survival mode" :lamo:


As for hfcs its fructose just another sugar. Personally i avoid it because i don't eat lroccessed foods but its the fatties shoving ring dings down thier gullet thats making them fat, not the ring dings themselves.

RightinNYC said:

I would wager than >99.5% of people in this country have access to "safe" tap water in their homes.

Click to expand...

Depending on the standard we use, you could lose that wager:

All told, more than 62 million Americans have been exposed since 2004 to drinking water that did not meet at least one commonly used government health guideline intended to help protect people from cancer or serious disease, according to an analysis by The Times of more than 19 million drinking-water test results from the District of Columbia and the 45 states that made data available.

In some cases, people have been exposed for years to water that did not meet those guidelines.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/us/17water.html?_r=1

Cutler, Calif. » Over the last decade, the drinking water at thousands of schools across the country has been found to contain unsafe levels of lead, pesticides and dozens of other toxins.

An Associated Press investigation found that contaminants have surfaced at public and private schools in all 50 states -- in small towns and inner cities alike.

But the problem has gone largely unmonitored by the federal government, even as the number of water safety violations has multiplied.

Drinking water unsafe at thousands of schools | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08water.html

RightinNYC said:

New City Move Against Soda - WSJ.com (The link title is different than the article title)

Bloomberg forever.



This topic spurred some outrage when it was discussed as a hypothetical. I'm hoping they get approved so that they can test this out.

Click to expand...

I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.Although I think it is dishonest of the media to make it look like another nanny government sticking its nose into where it does not belong.

I could care less about obesity. I see soda, ice cream, energy drinks, cake, candybars, cookies and all kinds of other similar stuff to be luxury food items.If you are are wanting to use my money to buy food because you are unable to do so on your own then I should have a say in what you should be allowed to buy with it. Why do people seem to have the absurd notion that just because the government takes your money that you shouldn't be able to have a say in how it is spent.

jamesrage said:

I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.Although I think it is dishonest of the media to make it look like another nanny government sticking its nose into where it does not belong.

I could care less about obesity. I see soda, ice cream, energy drinks, cake, candybars, cookies and all kinds of other similar stuff to be luxury food items.If you are are wanting to use my money to buy food because you are unable to do so on your own then I should have a say in what you should be allowed to buy with it. Why do people seem to have the absurd notion that just because the government takes your money that you shouldn't be able to have a say in how it is spent.

Click to expand...

You do have a say. When you go to the voting polls. Beyond that it is up to who was elected. And they have better access to information than you do. Also they must uphold the constitution where the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the majority.

Not everyone that gets on food stamps does so because they want to or because they want a free ride. It is because they actually NEED it. Just because they are poor and need help gives you no right to tell them how to live their life. Thier right to choose is just as valid and as important as is yours.

Besides you have no idea WHAT your money goes towards. You just know that some of the taxes are for foodstamps. For all you know all your money may just go towards building/paving roads. In which case you shouldn't have a say...at least going by your logic.

RightinNYC said:

Modifying the food stamp program so that the funds cannot be used for soda is not a "punishment," IMO. Nobody is proposing cuts in the amount that these people will receive, just that they will no longer be able to spend it on a nutritionally useless product.

Click to expand...

No you're just telling them what they can and cannot have. Much like the old days when a peasant couldn't shoot a deer for food because it was the "Kings Deer". The king was rich and the peasant was poor. You're rich (or at least self suficient enough to do without food stamps) and the peasants are everyone that is on food stamps.

Like I said, you can couch it in health terms all you want. But in the end you are acting just like that King that wouldn't let people shoot "his" deer.

Kal'Stang said:

No you're just telling them what they can and cannot have. Much like the old days when a peasant couldn't shoot a deer for food because it was the "Kings Deer". The king was rich and the peasant was poor. You're rich (or at least self suficient enough to do without food stamps) and the peasants are everyone that is on food stamps.

Like I said, you can couch it in health terms all you want. But in the end you are acting just like that King that wouldn't let people shoot "his" deer.

Click to expand...

No. The purpose of the food stamp program is to alleviate poverty by providing poor people with enough to eat so that we don't have malnourishment in this country. Soda does not do that. It has no nutritional value whatsoever. It is just as wasteful as spending food stamps on, say, a DVD. I assume you're OK with people not being able to spend food stamps on those?

I don't give a crap about Obesity and Diabetes problems. I DO care about people on Food Stamps being forced to use their money more wisely. Your on food stamps for a reason, and if you aren't buying legitimate food with your stamps then you should be taken off of them. Food Stamps are not a gift, they should not be treated as such. They are meant to help you and if you waste them you don't deserve them.

Kandahar said:

Since you actually agree with me, and you're just hooting and hollering to be a dick rather than because you actually disagree, I'm gonna cease responding to you.

Click to expand...

No loss, since your responses are usually filled with name calling and personal attacks.

I warned live on the radio over 5 years ago this and much more is coming because you are stupid and in need of being controlled in every aspect of your daily life.

It's only the beginning.

Taylor said:

I seriously doubt this will have any measurable impact on "obesity and diabetes problems." The crap is dirt cheap, so if people want it, they're going to have it.

I view this as mostly symbolic. I believe it's been shown time and time again that food stamps fail on many levels, trying to encourage people to eat certain things just being one.

Click to expand...

Tap water is even cheaper but they are not drinking that.

If we really really want to stem the tide of the comming epidemic let us put some sort of stop to unwanted sugar in our diets. We are seeing 20 year old people with mature onset diabetes!!

Kandahar said:

No. The purpose of the food stamp program is to alleviate poverty by providing poor people with enough to eat so that we don't have malnourishment in this country. Soda does not do that. It has no nutritional value whatsoever. It is just as wasteful as spending food stamps on, say, a DVD. I assume you're OK with people not being able to spend food stamps on those?

Click to expand...

Alright, you want to limit them to nothing but nutritional food then right? Ok. How about we make it to where they can no longer buy anything that is not good for ya. Salt, red meat, chicken (cause they could fry it..which is bad for ya), potatoes, fish (mercury is bad for ya)....basically make it to where they cannot buy anything except vegetables, tofu, and penuts. Put em on a vegetarian diet. Hows that sound? I'm sure PETA would LOVE that. If you allow anything else then your plea for it being for health reasons is null and void.

Kal'Stang said:

You do have a say. When you go to the voting polls. Beyond that it is up to who was elected. And they have better access to information than you do. Also they must uphold the constitution where the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of the majority.

snip...

Besides you have no idea WHAT your money goes towards. You just know that some of the taxes are for foodstamps. For all you know all your money may just go towards building/paving roads. In which case you shouldn't have a say...at least going by your logic.

Click to expand...

Why do you people have this absurd notion that just because the government takes your money that it is no longer yours or that your should not have a say in how it is spent?

Not everyone that gets on food stamps does so because they want to or because they want a free ride.

Click to expand...

This does not change the fact that welfare, wic, section 8 housing and foodstamps is a helping hand not a gift. Do you understand this fact? Those things are not gifts.

It is because they actually NEED it.

Click to expand...

If they really need it then they should not be spending those foodstamps on soda,cakes,cookies, energy drinks and other similar things.

Just because they are poor and need help gives you no right to tell them how to live their life. Thier right to choose is just as valid and as important as is yours.

Click to expand...

I am not telling them how to live their life. I am telling them that if I give you money to feed yourself then here is what you can and can not spend that money on.

jamesrage said:

Why do you people have this absurd notion that just because the government takes your money that it is no longer yours or that your should not have a say in how it is spent?

Click to expand...

Because 1: it is no longer yours. You pay the government to provide certain services. Like road care, fire departments, police departments, protection from invasion and many many other services. Since this is a large country with millions of people with millions of things to do and many more millions of things that are needed there are bound to be things which you do not like. Get over it. A tax is a part of your bills. Unless the money is in your hands or invested into something that you personally have invested in then the money is no longer yours. Facts of life.

2: As I have already stated you do have some say as to what taxes go towards, at the polling station. Beyond that you have none. This to is a fact of life. Unless of course there is some type of service that millions of people don't know about that tracks thier money specifically that you know about? Then you might have a case.

jamesrage said:

This does not change the fact that welfare, wic, section 8 housing and foodstamps is a helping hand not a gift. Do you understand this fact? Those things are not gifts.

Click to expand...

And if a friends asks for some money for food because they need it and you give it to them do you tell them what they can/cannot buy with it? Or do you just let them buy what they want?

jamesrage said:

If they really need it then they should not be spending those foodstamps on soda,cakes,cookies, energy drinks and other similar things.

Click to expand...

Why? Because they're "treats" or "not nutritional"? Do they not deserve something good in their life also? Or are they too poor to deserve anything good?

jamesrage said:

I am not telling them how to live their life. I am telling them that if I give you money to feed yourself then here is what you can and can not spend that money on.

Click to expand...

Again, do you do the same with a friend when they ask for money for some food? And when you limit what type of food that they can have based off of "nutritional values" then you are expecting them to live by your standards of life. Which means you are telling them how to live their life.

Kal'Stang said:

Alright, you want to limit them to nothing but nutritional food then right? Ok. How about we make it to where they can no longer buy anything that is not good for ya. Salt, red meat, chicken (cause they could fry it..which is bad for ya), potatoes, fish (mercury is bad for ya)....basically make it to where they cannot buy anything except vegetables, tofu, and penuts. Put em on a vegetarian diet. Hows that sound?

Click to expand...

Although I'm not necessarily opposed to limiting food stamps to healthy food, that is much more complicated to micromanage. We can at least eliminate the low-hanging fruit like soda, which is the biggest contributor to obesity and has literally no nutritional content unlike those other things you mentioned.

Kal'Stang said:

I'm sure PETA would LOVE that. If you allow anything else then your plea for it being for health reasons is null and void.

Click to expand...

It's not just for health reasons, it's because soda is outside the scope of the program. Food stamps are intended to alleviate poverty and avoid malnutrition by providing people with enough food to get their nutrients. Spending taxpayer money on products that don't accomplish that goal are a waste of money.

Kandahar said:

Although I'm not necessarily opposed to limiting food stamps to healthy food, that is much more complicated to micromanage. We can at least eliminate the low-hanging fruit like soda, which is the biggest contributor to obesity and has literally no nutritional content unlike those other things you mentioned.

Click to expand...

Actually the biggest contributor to obesity is inactivity. I have suggested before that one rule of getting foodstamps is to look for a job for those that don't have one..this would help fight obesity.

Kandahar said:

It's not just for health reasons, it's because soda is outside the scope of the program. Food stamps are intended to alleviate poverty and avoid malnutrition by providing people with enough food to get their nutrients. Spending taxpayer money on products that don't accomplish that goal are a waste of money.

Click to expand...

Foodstamps was brought into play to avoid people starving to death. Not to avoid malnutrition as you are using the term.

I think it is a good idea. If people can't be responsible for their own health, then if the government is going to supply them with food stamps it should have jurisdiction over what is a good idea and what is not. Instead of buying sodas they need to be buying milk or juice.

Those of us who are paying for our own stuff can buy sodas and gain weight or be unhealthy, if that is what we want. It is our own dime!