Food stamp bills seek to restrict junk food

[The Straight Story]

Food stamp bills seek to restrict junk food
Florida legislation is the latest to prohibit shoppers from buying 'nonstaple, unhealthy foods' with federal aid. It's a trend driven by health concerns but also by tight budgets.

Reporting from Atlanta—
Ronda Storms is a Republican state senator from Florida. She is also a mom who buys the groceries for her family of four.

A few months ago, Storms, 46, started noticing that some fellow shoppers were using federal food stamp money to purchase a lot of unhealthful junk. And it galled her — at a time when Florida was cutting Medicaid reimbursement rates, public school funding and jobs — that people were indulging in sugary, fatty, highly-processed treats on the public dime.

"If we're going to be cutting services across the board," she said, "then people can live without potato chips, without store-bought cookies, without their sodas."

That sense of unfairness, plus a concern about the health of needy children, is the motivation behind a bill Storms sponsored that would prohibit people from purchasing "nonstaple, unhealthy foods" with funds provided by the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

The bill, which was approved 4 to 2 last week by a committee on child and elderly affairs that Storms chairs, is the latest in a flurry of recent statehouse efforts to restrict what shoppers can buy under the federal government's decades-old food stamp program.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-food-stamps-20120130,0,1265987.story

[no_hypocrisy]

1. What if . . .

1. There's no supermarket in the neighborhood that sells fresh meat, poultry, fruits, and vegetables? Where will the Food Stamps buy "healthy food"?

2. The pittance of stipends can only buy "junk food" because "healthy food" costs more?

I taught a kindergarten in the inner city and one kid only ate chips and Pepsi for dinner every night because that was all his family could afford to feed him. Fortunately he ate two full healthy meals in our classroom to offset that "dinner".

[RockaFowler]

2. Republicans are confusing

Why is it BAD when Michelle Obama talks about nutrition, but good when these guys force people to eat what they want them to eat?? Yes there are bad food choices made out there by SOME people, not all. We need more Jamie Olivers out there to teach people to cook nutritious food at reasonable prices.

[geardaddy]

73. +1000

[The Genealogist]

98. Because Michelle Obama wasn't attacking poor people

Republican politicians must push that "Poor people are evil" crap. Poor people must be punished for being poor, with laws that humiliate them and single them out for derision. Michelle Obama, evil librul, doesn't do that.

[Marrah_G]

3. I ring a register at night

Yes- I see alot of things that are probably not the best choices for EBT purchases especially with a supermarket right next door, but frankly it's not my business. They are adults and it's up to them how they spend their resources. Also, not all places have a supermarket accessible in walking distance so their choices are already limited for them.

[blueamy66]

4. I like this bill.

If I work 40+ hours a week, chose not to have children and clip coupons and cannot afford the "extras", why should someone on food stamps be able to buy them?

The entire food stamp program needs to be overhauled.

Shit, let em buy cigarettes and beer......

[Nikia]

8. Why do you assume that they are extras?

Although my family never got food stamps, for a while we were quite poor. We often had cheap potato chips as a side dish, which were cheaper than vegetables. In the same theme, soda is often cheaper than prepared juice. While these aren't the most healthful food substitutions, they are substitutions rather than extras.

[blueamy66]

10. I get your point.

never thought about it that way.....well, yeah, I did think about it that way.....sux all the way around

[joeglow3]

38. I hate the soda argument

Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Water is near free and much healthier than soda. Instead of having soda at 3 meals, have water at 2 and juice at the third. Better yet, have water at all three and take the savings to buy canned vegatables instead of potato chips.

I get much of what you are saying. However, my wife and I have both had weight problems. When we had kids, we realized we owed it to them to NOT force our lifestyle on them. Realizing we could not afford organic produce (or even fresh produce all the time), we went for cheap alternatives that are healthier (i.e. canned vegatables). While it sucked for us (REALLY SUCKED) for a while, our children were introduced to these items early on & actually enjoy them now.

This is where everything becomes complicated. There are a lot of people who could make better choices. However, who are we to dictate what they can and can't do. That said, when we are responsible for paying for the consequences of their poor choices (especially if we can ever get government healthcare), we will have little choice but to influence these good choices.

All in all, it is a clusterfuck with NO real easy answer.

[Aerows]

50. Iced tea is dirt cheap to make

We drank iced tea when I was growing up, and I still drink it now. I like mine unsweetened, and it has plenty of anti-oxidants and none of the other garbage that soft drinks have.

[Gormy Cuss]

60. Water is nowhere near as filling as soda.

The sad fact is that sugary mix is cheap and satisfying. When I was a kid, some mothers in my neighborhood gave their kids sugar sandwiches (one slice of white bread brushed with margarine and covered with sugar, folded over like a taco.) This was a meal when the larder was nearly empty.

Every time food restriction discussions come up here, I point out that the USDA has for decades struggled with how to steer people to more healthful choices but the one consistent thing the experts have refused to do is restrict food choices, and that's because the overwhelming evidence is that restricting food choices is costly for the retailers, which leads to a lower participation rate and that leaves some recipients with fewer or no local shopping sites for foods.

The USDA has instead worked to make better food choices accessible through vehicles like supplemental allotments valid only at farmers' markets (something that also directly benefits USDA's other clients, the farmers.)

[mkultra]

114. so we are held hostage by the food industry?

They will participate regardless of the junk food they are selling. Those sales will be replaced by other foods.

[jwirr]

79. Here is where I agree with you. What many do not know is that there are things that are already

on a list of things you cannot buy with food stamps. I have always wondered why soda pop is not on that list. There is water that can either be bought or from you own taps if it is safe. I also think candies should be on the list. Some cereals also.

As to the areas that do not have access to good stores - I wonder if the little stores they buy at now would not stock healthier food if they could no longer sell junk to EBT users. As to chips that would be harder as meals like a nacho salad include chips.

I have used food stamps for many years and yes, I have bought junk food but only as a suppliment not as main meals. Buy the way many families do not get enough food stamps to provide food for a month and use money of their own to get the extra they need. I do not think I have ever used just food stamps for food.

[mkultra]

113. Which is why the poor have disproportionatly high health problem

Soda, chips, macaroni and cheese, pop tarts, sugary cereals. We eat none of these. We buy simple foods and cook them.

[Goblinmonger]

115. A box of mac and cheese

or, especially, ramen, is far cheaper to make than a meal of fresh fruit and vegetables.

[mkultra]

121. And both of those items are health killers

Which is the exact point of this discussion. In truth, when you shift away from HFCS and sugary foods, the amount of food consumed is reduced.

besides, this discussion is not about forcing people to buy fruits and vegetables, its about limiting the extreme foods on the other end of the spectrum. There are still cheap alternatives toward the healthy side. The cost to the health care system(and us) us just delayed if you encourage the poor to eat junk.

[Goblinmonger]

122. When it is still cheaper to buy junk

those people on a reduced budget are going to buy the junk.

[blueamy66]

33. busybodies?

okay....why don't you give $100 a week out of your paycheck to someone else and let them buy whatthefuckever they want with it? And then you can clip coupons and shop the sales and scrimp on your meat purchases......then get back to me.....

[yellowcanine]

37. That's a bit unfair. She is saying that just because someone is getting public assistance doesn't

give the rest of us the right to micromanage. We don't know the situation. Maybe the poster IS shopping the sales, coupon clipping and scrimping on meat purchases etc. and maybe the SNAP clients are also. Sometimes the cheapest food is what a lot of people consider junk food. Sodas for example are often cheaper than fruit juice. As it is many families on SNAP cannot make it to the end of the month on their allotment. FSNE educators try to educate SNAP families on nutrition, budgeting, etc. but guess what, FSNE grants are some of the most difficult grants to administer because of all the regulations about what the educators can do and can't do - for example, FSNE educators are not supposed to provide classes on managing Type II diabetes because it is "not nutrition education" even though just about everyone who knows anything about it agrees that a big part of managing Type II diabetes is nutrition. Also, there are not nearly enough FSNE grant funds to meet the need for SNAP education, particularly in the large cities where there are a lot of SNAP families. What is needed is more education, not a lot of mandates which are going to be extremely difficult to enforce and will only make it more difficult and more expensive for retailers to participate in SNAP - resulting in even fewer choices for SNAP families and even higher costs for retailers in order to comply with the new regs - costs which would be passed on to all of us in the form of higher food prices.

[msanthrope]

54. Shall I oversee your fiancee's expenditures whilst he is paying back child support via court order?

If your fiancee's dereliction of payment of support caused his ex to get food stamps, should he have to pay both food stamps and the support? I think so.

I can make a pretty good argument that non-payment of child support does more societal damage than soda drinking.

[mkultra]

118. Actually i doubt that. Soda is a pretty serious problem

The Damage done to our society as a whole, and especially to small countries that drink almost exclusively soda, is pretty severe.

I great portion of child support arrearage is due to poor judgments by court and default assignments. If you fail to take into account the lake of accurate equity in that system, your views will be disregarded by the reasonable people who do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States#Deadbeat_parents

[anneboleyn]

92. I agree with your post. I find this urge to control the poor (as if they are animals)

really, really disturbing.

[obamanut2012]

67. I doi resent my tax money offsetting deadbeat parents

Who either refuse to pay their support or shortchange on the support, thus causing the state or Feds to "make up" the gap via SNAP, etc. I do not resent the people who need the support. I also don't give a damn what they buy.

[Starry Messenger]

77. +1000

[xmas74]

107. There are people on the program who spend money on crap

and there are others who shop sales, clip coupons (though in my state you have to pay sales tax on coupons but not on food stamps) and do an overall good job.

We both know that it's about the person and not the program overall.

Oh, and some of the chips could be as part of a lunch. Buy a big bag of chips, split it up into baggies and pack them into school or work lunches. (Cheaper than buying individual bags and of course the bagged lunch is cheaper than a vending machine.) Also, cookies: some schools no longer allow any kind of homemade treats for school parties. (My kid's school tried this but a few of us just ignored them and did as we wanted-homemade goodness!) All kids want to bring a treat to a party. Buying a couple packs of Oreos for each kid to take to their Halloween or Valentine's Day party isn't that much to make a kid smile. No one wants their kid to feel left out.

Of course, if someone just looked in a cart they'd never realize that might be the story.

(Just wanted to add: when my kid was younger her class had a designated snack day. That student was automatically on the list to bring a snack for the entire class. Of course, the snack had to be individually wrapped and a drink also had to be provided. This was not a volunteer thing-every parent had to do this. Now, for someone on food stamps they also have to add juice boxes or Capri Sun and some kind of snack. Not cheap at all.)

[Goblinmonger]

116. I think meat is unhealthy

Should we be able to stop someone from purchasing cheap, shitty, ground beef?

[CreekDog]

126. you aren't giving anybody $100/week out of your paycheck to buy whatever they want

stop lying.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. I agree-

[CTyankee]

57. a better idea would be to subsidize healthy fresh food.

Or give them super SNAP benefits to buy healthier food. Coupons for fresh vegetables and fruits or at least canned w/o sugar for the winter months, sort of like coupons you can clip from food companies.

Wouldn't that be an incentive to eat better?

Of course, we have to address supply issues and education around healthy eating as well...nobody is born knowing the difference between protein, fat and carbohydrates...

[CTyankee]

68. a thornier issue becomes the subsidy we currently give to companies that make the bad

food. If you take the subsidy away from them and switch the subsidy to healthy food, then the companies making the bad food will raise their prices. Now you are in a situation where the poor eating bad stuff all along because it is cheap are forced either to change their eating habits or pay more for the bad food.

What do we do in that situation?

[mkultra]

119. Not really

Human behavior studies consistently show that simple incentives are far less effective than systems that include both a carrot and a stick.

[CTyankee]

123. well, it seems to me that you can those IF we stop subsidizing junk food and switch over

to a subsidy for healthy foods. The junk food manufacturers would raise their prices in response, and there's your stick. Right?

[LeftyMom]

76. Of course you do.

[CreekDog]

88. Could you please give your bitterness a rest for two minutes?

You just ooze contempt for poor people and those receiving child support if you deem that they have something that you don't.

Jeez, if someone is on food stamps, they have less than you. You've posted multiple times that your household makes over 100k here. Nobody on food stamps has anywhere close to those resources coming in.

So whether or not they have Twinkies or Doritos (or whatever stereotype about poor people you're trying to peddle here today), they still have a lower standard of living, less resources and more financial instability than you do.

Jeez, if your hope is that they know they're poor and they don't ever feel like they're living the life that you say you've earned, almost any poor person knows they have less than you. Period.

Some junk food isn't going to change their overall lot or overall level of poverty. In this country, being poor sucks worse than most countries.

How about doing something useful and not using every single post to undermine and criticize anti-poverty programs and support to ex-spouses and child support (both of which mainly support the most impoverished groups in the United States: single mothers with children post-divorce).

You could try doing something useful here, instead of what you have been doing, which is to spend all your posts blasting and blaming the most downtrodden members of our society (and some of that blast is towards children who should NEVER be scapegoated EVER).

And please get over your victimhood. You talk conservative talking points --did you know a big conservative theme is to criticize those who consider themselves victims? Stop complaining that you're a victim when you aren't and do something constructive to make this a better society towards those who don't deserve their lot of poverty and lack of sustenance.

[MissB]

89. + a brazillion

[anneboleyn]

93. My thoughts exactly. Plus infinity.

[obamanut2012]

109. Wow -- terrific post!

[Starry Messenger]

111. You said what I was thinking, but with less swear words.

Thank you for your eloquence.

[Jamastiene]

130. Thank you.

Very well said.

[butterfly77]

131. +1

[JoePhilly]

5. Now THAT is a "Nanny State".

[Spacemom]

6. Because of course

poor people don't deserve cookies.

[yellowcanine]

16. Worse than that. They can have cookies, just not store bought cookies.

If they buy the sugar, flour and oil and make the cookies from scratch then it is ok. This is not about the health of needy children. It is about punishing people for being poor and having to ask for help.

[Avalux]

7. Oh for heaven's sake. People are TOLD to eat sugary, fatty, highly processed foods.

Just watch a few commercials...and healthy foods are too costly or may not be available. We need to look at the way we promote shitty food as a society and change that; provide accesss to fresh foods. But that will never happen. Takes less effort to use a hammer.

[Javaman]

11. +1

exactly right. make healthy food more affordable and there wouldn't be an issue.

[Arkansas Granny]

12. It's not concerns about health that started this. Some people don't think that anyone

receiving food stamps should be able to buy what they decide is a luxury item. They feel that receiving assistance gives someone else the right to tell you what you can eat.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. In a nutshell.

[yellowcanine]

13. Aside from the fact that states don't have the authority to do this, this would be problematic.

SNAP is a Federal Program. The rules are set by USDA and they would have final say in any changes. NYC tried this, the USDA refused to go along.

Secondly, no one agrees on a definition for "junk food".

For example it would be difficult to prohibit sugared soft drinks without outlawing orange juice containing sugar - ironic indeed for Florida.

She talks about cookies and potato chips. Good luck defining those in a way which would only eliminate those. What about sweetened breakfast cereals?

It is fairly simple to have a blanket prohibition of alcohol, cigarettes, etc. - not so easy to start making a list of prohibited foods. This is simply unworkable.

And these people don't give a shit about the health of needy children imo. Not really. What galls me is that the Republicans have the gumption to blather about class warfare every time someone proposes allowing tax cuts for the really wealthy to expire but then they propose shit like this.l

[blueamy66]

34. Why is it unworkable?

WIC does it.....why can't food stamps/EBT?

[yellowcanine]

40. Apples and Oranges. WIC is a fraction of the size of snap and has a very restricted list of

approved items. If a retailer can program cash registers to accept only a list of 4 or 5 types of food it is fairly easy to do. But as noted - there is little consensus on what is "junk food." It could be a very short simple list (which would have little practical effect) or an extremely long complicated list depending on who is doing the defining. It would be extremely difficult to ban everything with added sugar, for example, and it would be hard to ban things processed in a certain way (are you going to allow baked potato chips and ban deep fried potato chips, for example). The people making these proposals are neither retailers nor nutritionists and they have no idea how complicated it would be. Seat of the pants policy is generally bad policy.

[eShirl]

14. Who decides what a nonstaple unhealthy food is? and by by what criteria?

There's a lot of room for interpretation, a lot of subjective calls and grey areas.

[LynneSin]

41. I think there are a few defined things that could be limited

We know there is problem with transfat and HFCS. Heck even things with extremely high sodium content.

You could still buy decent meals and even great tasting snacks just by curbing on those 3 known health problems.

[yellowcanine]

48. Not as easy as you think. Product label codes don't have ingredient labels programmed in....

So checkers would literally have to read ingredient labels. How would you like to get behind a SNAP customer as this was done? There is enough stigma already with SNAP clients, this would add even more.

[FloridaJudy]

65. Ever tried finding cheap food without HFCS?

Even the chicken salad, ramen noodles and bread at my local supermarket have that crap. Yeah, you can find stuff without it, but not on a strict budget.

Not to mention that it would be a nightmare to administer!

[eShirl]

91. Yes, one could, so why not just ban them for everyone?

If it's such a great idea.

[mkultra]

120. That argument assumes that there is no clear way to see any place on the spectrum

while people may quibble about foods that fall in the middle, most reasonable people can easily identify the foods that are clearly unhealthy. Since all judgment is compared to a consensus of the community standards, the slippery slope argument fails in this question.

[rbrnmw]

15. Republicans must want big government

What is with these people? What they really want, is to do away with Food Stamps altogether, that is why they are nit-picking about what people buy with them. If they can demonize the poor and the foods they buy with food stamps they can drum up support to get rid of food stamps altogether. That is their goal, they don't really care what they eat.

[geardaddy]

75. Bingo!

[dembotoz]

17. true bullshit

being on food stamps is bad enough without having some sanctimoneous crusader bitch double checking a shopping cart

[Ron Green]

19. I've got no problem with this.

One way to help people change their eating habits is to fill in "food deserts" with stores that sell real food. Another is to educate people about better food choices. Another is to stop the subsidy of Big Corn and Big Soy to the detriment of bio-diverse farming (and how about getting USDA out of bed with the Food Industry Lobby?) Another is to not use taxpayer money for stuff that's proven to cause disease and poor health.

NOT ONE of these changes will ever happen as a result of the "free market." People simply won't make good food choices against the odds of addictive, empty foods that are easily available and nutritional information that isn't.


I'm always surprised at the libertarians who come out every time there's an issue like this, as if "freedom" is all there is to it. If we leave public policy to the Free Market we get the cycle of food deserts, HFCS, disease and ignorance.

[loyalsister]

20. She was talking about processed meats

Do you have any understanding what kind of difference it is in a budget to buy processed baloney or salami rather than fresh turkey from the deli section?
Do you have a clue what it is like for a working single parent with four kids to try to cook full healthy meals for every breakfast- lunch- dinner? Boxed mac & cheese is a staple because of time and because people have to buy foods that will endure some storage time when they can't go to the grocery store once day or week for that matter.

There is no way to get around all of the logistics of transportation, time, and expense to justify this kind of policy.

[blueamy66]

22. Okay, let me throw this out there....

why have 4 kids if you are a "working single parent"????

This is from an Aunt of 9 who helps them make ends meet....

[bicentennial_baby]

25. Well...

It may be good to keep in mind that not every "working single parent" with 4 kids started that way. Spouse could leave, spouse could die, etc etc. It's not just women who go out and get knocked up for shits and giggles, y'know.

[moriah]

28. I'm seeing this on DU?

What, are they supposed to give their kids away to the State if their husband dies, or stay with an abusive man just because he's a breadwinner?

[msanthrope]

35. Well, above all else, they shouldn't divorce and expect child support.

This particular poster had a legendary thread on last Mother's Day.

Mother's Day, mind you....

About the child support her fiancee was being forced to pay to his ex-wife.

It was epic.

[anneboleyn]

96. Wow. That tells me everything I need to know. No food stamps, no child support...

Strange reading indeed on DU.

[loyalsister]

29. Death and divorce are part of our ugly reality

A lot of single parents don't start out that way.

[blueamy66]

32. true that

but who has 4 kids in this day and age?

[msanthrope]

36. I think that question should be your Mother's Day thread for 2012.

Your 2011 Mother's Day thread was about how your fiancee had to pay child support and was getting shafted.

Your 2012 Mother's Day thread could be about the reproductive choices of poor mothers. I'm looking forward to it.

[obamanut2012]

44. lol

I searched for the 2011 thread, btw. Thanks!

[msanthrope]

55. I just reread that thread...Holy Carp I laughed....

Some of the responses....

[blueamy66]

100. Anyone that searches for old threads has WAYYYYY too much time on their hands.

Get a life or a job or a hobby.

Talk about WOW.

[msanthrope]

112. Some crap you just bookmark. nt

[yellowcanine]

51. "but who has 4 kids in this day and age?" Wow. Just Wow.

Words fail.

[blueamy66]

101. Of words fail, why reply?

?

We have limited resources, a screwed up economy, etc. and people are still popping out kids.

why?

[Fumesucker]

105. US birth rate is below replacement level..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2009 is 2.01 children per woman, which is below the replacement fertility rate of approximately 2.1

If it were not for immigration the US would be shrinking in population.

[moriah]

99. Let's see. Either you are trolling us to get the outraged responses...

... that any self-respecting liberal should have when presented with opinions judging other people's reproductive choices ...

.... or you don't know how to make the Sarcasm smiley ....

... or you actually believe this stuff.

Either way, I don't need the extra rise in blood pressure. Have a great day!

[eShirl]

39. That certainly is a question that should be "thrown out."

[yellowcanine]

125. or "thrown up." Actually it seems that most of the posts by this person were just "thrown out".

As in, let me just put in writing whatever bubbles up.

[yellowcanine]

42. Of course they PLANNED to be a single parent with 4 kids......

Life would be so much easier if we could just get people to make the "right" choice every time, wouldn't it? Including choosing a "faithful good provider" to be the father to our children instead of a loser who disappears and doesn't provide child support. So what is the solution - punish the kids for the bad choices of their parents? Take the kids away and have the taxpayers completely absorb the cost of raising the kids? What is your solution?

[blueamy66]

102. don't have a kid if you cannot afford to raise it

easy enough

the exact reason why I never had one

[Fumesucker]

106. Raise "it"?

[obamanut2012]

43. I was waiting for you to say this

And you did.

What Bicentennial Baby said above.

[Marrah_G]

49. That's pretty fucking rude

When I had my 3 children I never planned on becoming a "single working parent" But I am.... and there wasn't a fucking thing I could do about it.

[yellowcanine]

53. You could have decided right then to undo your "bad choices" from the past (sarcasm).

Seriously, from some of the posts it seems that people think this is somehow the solution. Just take the kids back to the hospital and tell them it was all a big mistake!

[tammywammy]

56. That slut should have just kept her legs shut.

Or you know maybe they weren't a single parent when they had them. Next time you bitch about the child support your boyfriend pays, why not ask him why he didn't just keep his dick in his pants?

[obamanut2012]

58. oh my

[anneboleyn]

97. Plus a million!

[blueamy66]

103. I have asked him that.

got any other questions? And thanks for calling her a slut...saves me some keystrokes

[tammywammy]

124. Your reading comprehension is off

I didn't call anyone a slut. Sad that you resort to such name calling. Btw it takes two to tango, is your boyfriend also a slut? How about those single mom nieces of yours with children, are they sluts?

[FloridaJudy]

59. I'm not sure which ant-choice type irks me more _

The 'you can't have an abortion no matter what' variety, or the "don't have kids unless you're independently wealthy " kind.

I certainly never planned to be an unemployed single mother! But shit happens. Husbands leave, and employers fire, often through no fault of one's own. I never had to apply for AFDC or SNAP, but I came damned close. It's difficult enough deciding what you're going to have to self or give up - the phone? the car? - in order to pay the mortgage and keep the power on without a bunch of busybodies wagging a finger in your face and telling you "Well, you never should have had kids if you can't afford them".

You don't know what lead that person in front of you in the grocery line to where she is right now. Don't judge her until you've been there yourself.

I can't believe I'm reading this kind of right-wing nonsense on a so-called Progressive message board!

[Missy Vixen]

83. They did it just so you'd have to pay for it!

why have 4 kids if you are a "working single parent"????

I'm fairly sure we pay more in taxes than your family does.

It's not my business what someone on food stamps or WIC does with the money they get, especially since I also know ALL those families spend every day trying to push a fucking rock uphill.

[CreekDog]

90. You always post the negative stereotype (w/o regard to it being true) of poor people

At every opportunity.

You clearly don't think much of poor people, especially poor women with children.

Maybe you don't actually share much in common politically with DUers.

Most of us think those in poverty and in need should get more assistance.

Most of us think that those on Food Stamps are already under such duress that, even when they don't make the best choices, our reaction is not in judgment but in sympathy and empathy. Being poor sucks, it's hard, you lack basics, often transportation and time and are tired/hungry often. Most of us have sympathy for the poor and for immigrants.

I honestly think you would get into less arguments and would have more in common if you went over and joined that site that begins with F.R.

There, you will get a lot of support for your posts that say that poor people waste their food stamp resources, or that we have to crack down harder on those who get assistance for fear they'll misuse it.

There you will get more support for your messages about child support being the means where vindictive ex-spouses can live in luxury, leaving their paying ex-husbands in unfair poverty.

Because you seem to find a common theme of disgust with those who live in poverty, who get child support, for immigrants and because DUers are almost universally sympathetic to all the above, you are going to get into endless arguments because you simply look at the world differently than most of us do.

So you might consider that there are places where your ideas will be appreciated. A site full of liberals and Democrats is turning out not to be one of those places. Look at this thread and all the others and you'll see that it's true.

[Goblinmonger]

117. Maybe they weren't a working single parent when they had the kids.

Maybe the other parent died. Maybe the other parent walked out on them and is nowhere to be found. Maybe the other parent abused the shit out of them and they are hiding from that person. Maybe you should get off your high horse and realize that other people have fucking problems and your simple attitude of how to make the poor better is not one that seems to come from understanding their problems.

[CreekDog]

127. We knew you weren't done yet

1. Criticize food stamp program (check!)
2. Make poor people seem like louts and gluttons through stereotypical examples (check!)
3. Peddle stereotype of single mom having too many children, chide them for lack of responsibility (check!)

but your usual litany is longer. it's not Lent yet, but you've omitted the tirade against immigrants and child support.

what gives?

[Capitalocracy]

21. So that's why Hostess is going bankrupt!

And here they go blaming the unions.

[bhikkhu]

23. Sounds reasonable in principle, but I wouldn't want to be the one drawing the line...

I'd be all for not allowing soda, for example, seeing the cause-and-effect there for Diabetes (and a lifetime of disabling sickness), but then do you eliminate all corn syrup products?

I was raised on a healthy diet myself, which I have maintained well, and which I use cooking for my kids. Its not more expensive at all - it just takes a little more time and thought. With that in mind, I don't think just "eliminating the bad" would accomplish anything, unless it were accompanied by education in cooking and good diet. In general, as in many things, the best way to quit something bad is to do something good.

[geomon666]

24. Isn't it bad enough they cut food stamps this year?

We buy cheap processed foods because we get more for the dollar. Do you not fucking get that? Of course not, you're a politician.

[JCMach1]

26. How much is this going to cost businesses to re-program their checker machines?

and/or train their employees.

[jmowreader]

27. It's Ronda Storms. Say no more.

This is the woman who, when she was a county commissioner, wanted to pass a county ordinance calling for anyone convicted of child abuse to be sterilized. She makes Michele Bachmann look sane, and you have to work at that.

[yellowcanine]

45. Lots of thinks SEEM quite reasonable until one starts looking at the details......

And then some truly awful unintended consequences often occur. As I am convinced, would be the case here, for some of the reasons I have given in other posts.

[yellowcanine]

63. False choice..... It is not either/or. We can fight obesity with education AND still treat SNAP

families with respect. Playing word games about needy people's anatomy is disrespectful, don't you think? And just because someone is on SNAP doesn't mean they are obese. Nice broad brush stereotyping there. Maybe they need a Welfare Cadillac to haul themselves around as well?

[yellowcanine]

66. There is a weak correlation between people on SNAP and obesity.

Any scientist can tell you that correlation does not equal causation. It could be that SNAP people are less educated about healthy food choices but taking away some of the unhealthy choices does not mean that magically they are now going to be making healthy choices. You can get fat on peanut butter too and I doubt that anyone is going to strike that off the list.

[Missy Vixen]

84. How clever.

>A more WIDEspread distribution of ASSets.<

Your wit is dazzling. My ass may be fat, but I'm not a bully.

In the meantime, perhaps you can explain how those on food stamps, stretching every dollar to its limit, are going to be able to afford the "healthy" foods you tout. Right after that, you can explain how those living in "food deserts" are expected to obtain the "healthy" foods in the first place.

:crickets:

[BlueIris]

31. Seems like yet another way to punish and degrade those on aid.

Awful.

[Enrique]

46. speaking of junk food

[obamanut2012]

52. Popcorn is a healthy treat

If you lay off the butter!

[TheWraith]

94. Who actually DOES that, though?

Isn't popcorn practically a butter delivery system?

[obamanut2012]

110. I do, now

But popcorn is THE best butter delivery system of all time. Hot salty dripping with butter popcorn.

DAMN YOU, THEWRAITH!!!

[Jennicut]

69. Popcorn is actually on my list of okay foods.

And I am a type 1 diabetic. Low salt, no-butter popcorn that is. It is a whole grain food, so it is not bad for you at all.

[yellowcanine]

71. You can get some tasty no-salt popcorn seasonings - or make your own....

Several different ideas here....

http://tipnut.com/quick-tip-10-popcorn-seasoning-ideas/

[Jennicut]

74. Thanks!

Tasteless popcorn no more!

[ZombieHorde]

72. Is there a greater joy on this Earth than telling others what to do?

Is there anything more satisfying than taking away a poor person's small pleasure?

[yellowcanine]

78. Particularly if you can do it in the guise of some GREATER GOOD

Such as fighting child obesity. My my let the pontification begin!

I grew up in a conservative church where the bishop was always busy telling everyone how to dress and behave. After while we weren't listening to him sufficiently and so he went somewhere else, taking his true sheep with him. Win Win all around. As you said, some people just aren't happy unless they are bossing someone around.

[Missy Vixen]

86. Ooh, yeah

There are some whose entire day is improved by telling someone else who's scrambling to feed their families on ever-shrinking dollars exactly how they're doing it wrong.

I wonder to myself what happens when some of the do-gooders see a cake mix in a poor person's cart for a birthday celebration, or the ingredients to make holiday cookies. How DARE the poor wring one second's enjoyment out of life!

[trackfan]

95. +1

This kind of thing makes me sick.

[AtomicKitten]

81. The GOP sure likes big government telling people how to live their lives.

The assault on the poor is reprehensible.

[ZombieHorde]

87. Exactly. The GOP is a big government party, even though they say the opposite. nt

[bullwinkle428]

82. Um, aren't these the same people that were calling Michelle Obama a food Nazi

for trying to encourage healthier eating habits?

These fuckers can't have it both ways!

[Duer 157099]

85. Fine. As long as the corporations that produce that junk food don't get any tax breaks whatsoever

No subsidies of any kind, no nothing from the government.

Guess that deal falls apart then huh?

[PhoenixAbove]

104. K&R

The busybody privilege in some of these comments is obscene. Obviously these particular monsters have no idea what it's like to be poor.

I am disabled. I qualify for food stamps but a stupid regulation will not let me buy a pre-cooked chicken. It's asinine! There are days that I am literally too tired to cook. If I feel well enough, I may be able to get out of bed to have some cereal... and maybe a frakking cookie or two because it it all I can handle preparing.

My life and what I eat should be none of your business. When I use my food stamp card why don't you nosy busybodies stay the hell away from my foot cart if it bothers you so much.

BTW - for some reason, soda is cheaper than juice and milk where I live. I drink ice tea as a mainstay to combat this but stop beating up poor people because we don't have the same choices as you rich folks. (AND PS: No I shouldn't have to live on water!)

ENOUGH!

[spinbaby]

108. Restriction is the wrong approach

I think that the RIGHT approach, if you really want to improve the diets of the poor, is to throw in extra funds that can only be spent on fresh vegetables or only spent at farmers markets. Don't punish, encourage.

[jsmirman]

129. Is there something wrong with this idea?

it sounds like a pretty good idea.

[Life Long Dem]

128. Everything we put into our mouth is slowly killing us.

It is said that if we didn't need to eat, we would live to 150 years old on average.

[DLevine]

132. Republicans hate poor people.

God forbid poor people should make their own choices as to what they eat. There is no more important issue in this country than making sure poor people have no say in what they put in their own bodies for nourishment. If poor people would just eat what Republicans want them to eat, the world would be a better place. Damn those poor people!