Should You Be Able to Buy Soda With Food Stamps?

[eridani]

Much healthier to nurse your kid at the Olive Garden, n o?

http://www.takepart.com/article/2016/01/05/should-you-be-able-buy-soda-food-stamps?cmpid=tpdaily-eml-2016-01-05

It would seem about time. Scientific evidence linking soda consumption to a variety of serious and potentially fatal health effects, from heart disease and obesity to diabetes, has been mounting for years. Public health experts have decried soda as the single biggest source of empty calories in the American diet, and for all their marketing hype and aggressive lobbying against things like soda taxes, soda makers haven’t even bothered to argue that their liquid candy is remotely good for you.

Instead, they have generally resorted to cynical invocations of liberty and personal freedom, here given a particularly stomach-turning bent as they cast themselves as defenders of the poor. “People using SNAP benefits make the same food-buying decisions as we all do; they don’t need government telling them which aisles they are allowed to go down and how best to serve their families,” the industry’s main lobbying group, the American Beverage Association, said in a statement to Politico. “Allowing government to designate foods as ‘good’ and ‘bad’ would create a food code more complicated and arbitrary than the tax code,” the ABA added. “That would put us on a slippery slope of government intrusion into many decisions that have always been left to the individual to decide.”

Of course, that’s all ridiculous. No one is proposing putting any aisle of the supermarket off-limits to any segment of the population. All Americans, regardless of income or whether they receive food stamps, would still be able to buy soda—they just wouldn’t be able to use their SNAP benefits to do it. With public health care costs associated with diseases linked to higher soda consumption totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars or more, it would seem we, as taxpayers, would have a right to demand an end to what is in effect a huge public subsidy for the soda industry—an industry whose products, not to belabor the point, provide little to nothing in real nutritional value, less even than most any other junk food.

But beyond the loss of an egregious level of taxpayer support, the soda industry is perhaps even more fearful of what it is no doubt starting to see as the writing on the wall. To lump soda in with other items prohibited for purchase with SNAP benefits, such as cigarettes and alcohol, would seem yet another step on the path of pushing soda out of the realm of wholesome, all-American drink in the public mind and further into the category of unhealthy vice.

[CBGLuthier]

1. Soda is poison in a can that has zero nutritional value. The point of SNAP is to feed people

I would support banning the purchase of soda with SNAP. Hell, I would support banning the sale of soda period. Like I said, it's fucking poison.

[el_bryanto]

13. And don't get me started on marijuana - thank goodness they banned that

Fuck freedom anyway - people keep using it badly!

Bryant

[roody]

46. I'd rather buy your dope than your pop.

Mj has redeeming value.

[BlueCaliDem]

253. Exactly! With universal health insurance now becoming more and more widespread,

by allowing our children to drink that poison in a can is unconscionable and detrimental to the health of our future generation and to personal health issues that can run up health care costs.

MJ has zero negative effects (not a user, never have been, but science trumps choice in this case).

[Lizzie Poppet]

93. Allow it...but educate against it.

Yes, there will be plenty who blow off such advice, but I think a lot of folks might choose more wisely how they're spending their limited food budget (SNAP or otherwise) if they knew just how awful soda is for you. I'd bet that's not nearly as well known as it should be, with many people thinking the only thing wrong with (sugared) soda is that it can make you fat.

[davidpdx]

200. I'm all for that

The question would that best be done. I'm not familiar with SNAP. I was on food stamps for a few months about 12 years ago, but can't remember much about it.

[Hortensis]

229. Don't allow it...but educate against it. :)

Even if many would no doubt choose to feel insulted as a result.

Soft drinks are so bad for us, and so abused by so many in such large quantities, that I feel public funding of their purchase is intrinsically dysfunctional. And I'm a lifelong strong liberal who would mostly prefer to let people make their own choices anyway.

A big motive, though, is to eliminate an argument against food stamp programs that is seen as very legitimate by many millions of voters and really gets a lot of them worked up.

Notably, this would be a way to give those conservative voters something they want while not taking away something that recipients need (aside from freedom to spend public funds on soft drinks, of course). Few disagreements over public programs offer a tradeoff this benign.

[anigbrowl]

198. So you should be able to buy a pot rbownie with your SNAP?

Because it seems you think the only options are SNAP or a total ban. I don't favor SNAP for soda because I don't want the government subsidizing the sugar industry on the backs of the poorest people in society. Diabetes fucks up people's lives and costs everyone a fortune.

You want soda, no problem, but the government shouldn't pick up the bill. I think everyone ought to be able to enjoy a beer too, but not with food stamps.

[el_bryanto]

236. "Hell, I would support banning the sale of soda period." This is more what I was responding to. nt

[MH1]

279. I'm all for legalizing pot, but don't think people should be able to use SNAP benefits to pay for it

Likewise I would almost certainly* be against banning soda (how would that work, anyway?) but am open to the concept of taking it off the SNAP-eligible list of foods. Because soda actually isn't a food.



* I'm all ears for someone to come up with a definition that would make legal sense to be "banned". Have zero expectation that will ever happen.

[WinkyDink]

285. Another one who wants to make the poor into role models for the rest of us profligates.

[Art_from_Ark]

2. I don't see anything wrong with a soft drink or two

When I was a kid, an occasional carbonated beverage was a real treat. One or more sodas every day, however, is a different matter....

[murielm99]

4. I agree.

We seldom had pop when I was growing up. It was a treat. I bought it once a month for my kids when they were growing up. My son was the one who whined about how deprived he was. He found out as an adult that he had to watch his weight. The first thing to go was pop.

[cali]

15. We never had soda growing up except for ginger ale when we were sick

As a result, I have never liked it.

[hunter]

184. Yep. Or 7-UP, after extreme sessions of vomiting or diarrhea

I acquired an equal fondness for JELLO in the same fashion, following the surgical removal of various bits and pieces of my own natural anatomy that had inexplicably turned against me.

As a kid my parents were artists with day jobs who had a boatload of children conceived and delivered in religiously insane celebration.

Soda wasn't on the family menu. Food was something bought for the pantry in ten pound sacks or larger, along with some meat we'd often first met alive.

My great grandmas could turn freshly killed fish, chickens, doves, small mammals, etc., into dinner faster than I could comprehend the movement of their hands and knives.

Wonderful childhood memory:

Great grandma thought rabbit would be an excellent Easter Feast.

We ate the Easter Bunny.

[SheilaT]

125. It was the same way when I was growing up.

Soda was an occasional treat. But starting sometime in the 1970's it became a daily drink for the vast majority of people.

I gave up drinking the stuff ten or more years ago. Can't give a precise date, because I started by not buying any more to have on hand at home when I noticed that my youngest child would drink nothing but pop. That would have been about twenty years ago. I still got it regularly whenever I ate out. Then, over time, I stopped getting a soft drink with a meal, and I doubt I have one every six months at this point.

If people still consumed soft drinks as an occasional treat, it wouldn't be so bad. But that's rarely the case any more.

[arikara]

132. Pop was different back then

they used cane sugar. Now they use high fructose corn syrup, and it is not metabolized the same way, not to mention that its GE.
I'm not saying vast quantities of cane sugar is good for you either, but obesity wasn't so prevalent until they started putting HFCS in everything.

Also, as you say, we only had an occasional bottle of pop instead of a daily diet of big gulps. There is the equivalent of 10 tsps of sugar in a 12 0z coke, more than 25 in a big gulp.

[jeff47]

173. Actually, it is metabolized the same way.

Sucrose (cane sugar) is a fructose bonded to a glucose by an oxygen atom. This bond is broken in the stomach, so what hits your intestines for digestion and absorption is 50% glucose, 50% fructose.

HFCS is available in a variety of mixes which are about 50% glucose, 50% fructose. (Corn syrup is 100% glucose. "low" fructose corn syrup is about 30% fructose, which is what makes the ~50% mixtures "high fructose&quot

Frequently when people want to demonize HFCS, they pull a bait-and-switch and discuss the digestion and processing of 100% fructose. They're hoping you think HFCS is fructose instead of a 50-50 mix.

I'm not saying vast quantities of cane sugar is good for you either, but obesity wasn't so prevalent until they started putting HFCS in everything.

Jobs requiring physical labor were also far more prevalent before they started putting HFCS in everything.

Also, as you say, we only had an occasional bottle of pop instead of a daily diet of big gulps.

Using the price for two cans of Coke from my local grocery store, one "Big Gulp" every meal (2 cans) is about $36 per person per week, or about $144 per person per month. Pulling up this handy table reveals that this big gulp claim requires spending about 75% (single person household) to 88% (4 person household) on soda.

It is totally believable that a SNAP family would do that.

[rjsquirrel]

210. Thank you

A rare moment of science amidst the DU woo fest.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

243. The prices at my local stores for 2 litres are about a dollar

and store brand are even less, sometimes 50 cents for a 2 litre. People who drink large quantities probably do not buy single cans at a time. So the cost can be much lower than you suggest.

I'm not saying there is a significant amount of people who drink 3 big gulps worth per day (I think that number is very low), but it doesn't have to be that expensive to do it.

[jeff47]

247. I used the price for a 12-pack, divided by 6.

That way I didn't have to also calculate the conversion from liters to fluid ounces.

Also, 2-liters are significantly more than $1 here. Most sales knock the price down to $1.50.

[rjsquirrel]

209. You know that's BS right?

Sugar is metabolized the same way regardless of its form. Your body doesn't know the difference between HCFS and cane sugar and maple syrup.

Food woo is so common on the left.

[arikara]

258. Oh really

and you're some kind of "right" infiltrator then?

Piss off with your "woo" crap I'm not interested.

[trof]

146. I'm 74. As a kid, a Coke was a rare treat.

I remember going to a school chum's home and finding that they had Cokes in the fridge.
I told my mom that they must be rich.
IMHO Coke and Pepsi have gone WAY overboard in marketing their products.

[WinkyDink]

289. What has that got to do with the OP's topic? Gas, stamps, and eggs were cheaper 3/4 of a centiry ago

too.

[trof]

291. Are you just looking for trouble? jeez

1. This was a comment on Art in Ark's #2 post, not a reply to the OP. That happens here sometimes. Try and keep up, Winky.
2. What's a centiry?
3. Piss. Off.
4. Thank you.

[WinkyDink]

286. What does "a different matter" mean, in the context of the OP's query?

[JI7]

3. yes

[Downwinder]

5. Should you be able to buy meat with food stamps?

[pnwmom]

16. Yes. nt

[underpants]

31. The Beef Council sure makes sure you can.

Those capitalists love them some food stamp money.

[Downwinder]

35. It is a food industry subsidy program.

You can't buy nappies or personal hygiene products with food stamps.

[roody]

47. Yes. Meat has nutritional value.

Pop does not.

[Major Nikon]

159. That's just not true

Non-diet soda contains carbohydrates which are a macronutrient. Certainly soda isn't all that good for you, especially when consumed in excess, but to say it has no nutritional value has no basis in fact.

[ladyVet]

137. You better be careful with that.

There are some here who would like nothing better than to prohibit meat from anyone's diet.

My opinion? People on SNAP should be able to shop the same as anyone else. It's hard enough to swipe that card, without having to worry about answering to some stranger on the internet that thinks they know better than you what to eat.

I've bought sodas, cookies, ice cream, cake mix (even a cake one, from Wal Mart) on rare occasion, and it's nobody's business but mine. We still pay taxes, just as the rest of you do.

Would I like people to make better food choices? Sure. That box of Hamburger Helper, or those frozen dinners aren't good for anyone, nor is the cereal the kids end up with. Rice isn't that good for a lot of people, but it fills you up and it's cheap. Should we have a lottery to pick out what people get to buy?

[Maedhros]

156. Food-shaming food stamp recipients does nobody any good.

It's just a conservative talking point (like Reagan's "welfare queens&quot they use to justify attempts to de-fund such programs.

[Mojorabbit]

255. Exactly nt

[Warren Stupidity]

218. exactly.

Suddenly the nanny state overreach is not ok.

[oberliner]

6. Yes, definitely

The argument against doing so in the OP is ridiculous.

[LuvNewcastle]

7. I think you should be able to buy beer and wine

with food stamps. They have nutritional value and can be beneficial if not consumed in excess. I wouldn't ban soda. Plenty of people only buy soda now and then as a treat for themselves or their kids. It's not really healthy, but it shouldn't cause problems as long as people don't drink it all the time.

We have to let people make their own choices when it comes to diet. We can't stand over people and say, "you're too fat, no candy for you." There will always be people who make bad decisions, but we can't let them ruin it for everyone else. That's collective punishment, and it's fucked up.

[Marrah_G]

8. Poor people do not need to have their lives micromanaged.

Asking for help, for assistance, does not mean turning over your life and choices to people who are sure they know what is right for you. Being poor does not make me a child. I don't buy soda because I think it is a waste of money. Posts like this make me want to go out and buy a few cases just to thumb my nose at you.

[Dorian Gray]

10. This

is exactly how I feel. I think it's obnoxious to say we know better than the people using food stamps what will benefit their families the best.

[Pisces]

19. No one banned poor people from having soda, just not with SNAP dollars. Use your own money as you

would for cigarettes. I think it is reasonable.

[Orrex]

20. If they are allotted SNAP dollars, then that is "their own money"

At present, soda is considered an eligible food, so that's the end of it.

[KittyWampus]

36. and changing the status of soda would be an end to that hence-

a discussion on a Discussion Board.

[Orrex]

45. The discussion is fine.

I object to the scolding and the "I know better" attitude that always shows up in these discussions.

[KittyWampus]

83. when it comes to nutrition, public health and soda, scientists DO know better>

Drinking soda is linked to type 2 diabetes, even if you are not over weight.


http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/07/23/425635400/even-if-youre-lean-1-soda-per-day-ups-your-risk-of-diabetes

[Orrex]

91. Are those scientists here? In this discussion thread? Let them stand and be recognized!

Otherwise, we see a gaggle of preachy scolds who can't wait to demonstrate how much smarter they are than poor people.


The discussion is fine. I object to the patronizing tone so strongly evident here on this progressive discussion board.

[FrodosPet]

130. It is sad how many people who claim to support the working class

Have so much contempt for those of us who are a part of it.

[Dorian Gray]

275. Yep

"You're poor. I think you're too stupid to make good choices for yourself and your family, so I'm going to legislate those choices for you!"

[Dorian Gray]

213. Yeah

This! In a nutshell.

Let adults make their own (reasonable) decisions about what is right for them and their families.

[jen63]

94. Red meat in excess

and especially cheap pork products are also detrimental to health. Where are you going to draw the line? Many families on SNAP can't afford top cuts of meat. They buy what they can afford. Excess carbs and boxed meals are bad for you. Are you cutting off the mac and cheese and spaghetti dinners. Grocery stores in food deserts don't have a lot of variety even if a family wants to cook healthy. I know, I live in one. Your utopia, is for now, unworkable.

[Dorian Gray]

212. It is

I don't drink soda often. But I don't scold my brother, who chooses to have one in front of me. Nor do I think we should scold people who may buy it with SNAP dollars.

If we ban soda all together, let's have that discussion.

For many it's a treat. For some, it's their daily drink (in lieu of water). Yes, that is unhealthy. But should we legislate that for people who get financial help?

[roody]

48. Too bad it is not food.

[Orrex]

52. Too bad that's not up to you to decide.

[Straw Man]

201. In other words ...

No one banned poor people from having soda, just not with SNAP dollars.

... government is saying "We can't force everybody to eat healthy, but we can force you."

[Pisces]

239. Buy what you want, but I agree that SNAP dollars should be spent on nutritious food ( soda does not

qualify) Drink soda until it comes out of your ears. Buy it with your own dollars. SNAP dollars don't let you buy paper goods,
does that mean that the government doesn't want you to use toilet paper??

[Straw Man]

261. How about ice cream? Pop tarts? Candy?

Just how far are you going to intrude into the lives and choices of people who receive public assistance?

SNAP dollars don't let you buy paper goods, does that mean that the government doesn't want you to use toilet paper??

No. It just means that they don't want you to eat it.

[CTyankee]

11. this is an issue on public policy. The whole idea of feeding programs is to keep people

viable, and to do that the program must be dedicated to their health. It goes against good sense to support the government, therefore, supporting something that is, by every measure, bad for people's health. It is not "judgementalism," it is common sense. Limited resources demand that taxpayer money go for healthful food products.

[Marrah_G]

24. Sorry, that is just crap

[ProfessorGAC]

56. Marrah, You Beat Me!

I literally was thinking that very word while reading that post. Then i see your reply, and figure, oh well, all i can do is +1 your post.

[CTyankee]

115. public health measures to help people is "crap"?

what an interesting idea...

[ladyVet]

140. Helping people is fine. We should do more of it.

The problem comes when it's only poor people who are getting lectured about "healthy" things. Rich people are allowed to drink lots of soda and ruin their health, but oh, poor people! Why you want our tax dollars??!?!!11/@?

You want to ban something? Ban all these preservatives, artificial colorings and flavorings, HFCS, MSG and other nasty things (oh, growth hormones and antibiotics!). That would do a world of good for everybody.

[CTyankee]

147. I agree. We should increase cash assistance and just get rid of SNAP. Let people

choose the food they wish to buy, but give them enough to buy them.

Also ban athe bad additives. I agree.

[jwirr]

172. As a stamp user - it is not like it used to be. Food stamps

originally were funny money - specially made for that purpose only. When you used them everyone knew what they were.

Today it is different. We now have the EBT card which is used just like a credit card. No one knows except the clerk. Allowed items are automatically separated from other items and there is no shame anymore. For that reason I disagree that we need to get rid of SNAP. It is a food allowance. Many people who use SNAP do not get any cash allowance.

[etherealtruth]

143. This quote always comes to mind:

“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.”


― Herman Melville

[CTyankee]

149. then I assume you are, one of those above the rest of us who know more than others do

about their suffering.

It must be wonderful to know this about me. You and I have never met, never spoken together, never been exposed to the other's view. Yet you know my objectives so well when it comes to the poor. You must have psychic ability.

Isn't that interesting?

[etherealtruth]

150. Was Mellville wrong?

Your response gives the impression that you have taken offense to his words on a personal level?

Why is the thought of a poor person buying/ drinking soda more offensive that an affluent person buying or drinking soda?

I don't drink it, I don't think its a good idea for anyone to drink it .... but i am no more inclined to think those in poverty need my input than my cohorts.

Everyone needs dietary and nutritional education .... but I won't sit back and think about human beings in poverty any differently than I do those more fortunate

[CTyankee]

153. I have no idea what Melville's quote has to do with me...it is more to pump up your

vanity more than anything else...

I said no such thing as what you impute to me. And I have no idea why you carry this to such an extreme. What makes you think I don't agree with your idea that I won't treat any human beings in poverty any differently than I do those more fortunate...

[etherealtruth]

157. "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

have a wonderful evening

[Orrex]

223. You've attempted this red herring several times here without success

It must be wonderful to know this about me.

No one knows about you because:
1. It's none of our business
2. You haven't disclosed that information
3. It can't be considered relevant here unless you choose to disclose it

Instead, readers are judging you by your hostile, patronizing, preachy declarations about how you've decided that the poor should be slopped by their masters.

[DawgHouse]

152. +1

[jen63]

162. Ha, I just posted

this to my FB wall last week! Right on...

[etherealtruth]

163. :-), it was my sig line here for years ....

It was prompted by one of 'these" threads

[jen63]

168. This thread

is infuriating. I understand!

[Major Nikon]

160. Bring back the government cheese!

[smirkymonkey]

176. I would have to agree with you here.

They need to be buying food that will contribute to theirs and their children's health. That is what a nutritional program is for. If they want to make unhealthy choices, they can use their public assistance dollars for that. I swear, this board has been driving me to the right with this insane left-wing lunacy. And I started out here as an extreme left wing progressive. Some of this crap is just way too illogical.

[nadinbrzezinski]

185. It is also an issue of public policy when apples are MORE expensive than apple sauce

when people have limited resources they are going to buy what keeps them full.

One way to change this is to change how much apples cost versus apple sauce. That is a whole thing that goes with the Agriculture Department.

The same goes for things like cheap sugary cereal versus healthier versions of the same... and I could go on.

[Demit]

59. It's fascinating to me that you would do something you otherwise don't want

to do just so that you can thumb your nose at people. You don't think people need to have their lives micromanaged, but you yourself are evidently a breeze to manipulate.

[kelly1mm]

62. The food stamp program itself is micromanging. If is saying basically that recipients

are too dumb to actually buy food with $XXX of benefits (whether they need all $XXX or not to buy their food) so instead of giving them cash that they can use for food, housing, household supplies etc. the government makes them spend these $ only on food. If the entire program is based on making 'better' decisions than the recipient would limiting the types of food (like soda) that can be bought is certainly consistent.

My wife runs coupon classes at church and many of the students are on food stamps. Many have so much excess benefits that they certainly could better use on non-food items that it boggles the mind. One of my wife's best students uses less than 1/2 of his food stamp benefits each month.

[CTyankee]

126. i agree with that. If the money is available it can just be given in cash benefits.

However, Agribusiness has something to do with SNAP being around I would think...

[lumberjack_jeff]

84. How is the absence of micromanagement working for them?

The reason taxpayers fund food stamps is because poor nutrition is a social problem that causes a cascade of secondary problems including poor education and poor health.

Why allow soda and not cigarettes?

This isn't micromanagement, it's macromanagement. I don't care what you do with your money, but most of us do care what is done with ours.

[Orrex]

95. That's a silly question no matter how many times it's asked

Why allow soda and not cigarettes?

Why allow fresh vegetables and not allow 55-gallon drums full of roofing tar?

The unmistakably obvious answer is that soda is now classified as a food, and cigarettes are not. It's truly that simple, and it's disingenuous to keep asking the question.

This isn't micromanagement, it's macromanagement. I don't care what you do with your money, but most of us do care what is done with ours.

Nonsense. It is absolutely micromanagement, and you spend pennies per year on SNAP, so your indignation is nothing but posturing.

[Major Nikon]

174. A better question would be why juice and not soda

Because both have dubious nutritional value. I think there should be some regulation of what people can and can't do with public assistance, but I don't think managing people's diets in such a manner is all that great of an idea. I can certainly see Republicans calculating what the minimum nutritional requirements are and limiting funding on that basis. They already have cut the funding so low people can barely make it as it is. Do we really want poor people on the Joe Arpaio jailhouse diet?

[lumberjack_jeff]

189. My problem has nothing to do with money.

Failing to manage the program effectively means that its objectives won't be met regardless of funding.

[Major Nikon]

245. I see the objective as far simpler

The food stamp program is intended to spare the poor of the indignity of having to beg in order to stay alive. Prior to social safety nets people actually did manage to die of starvation and many were eating out of trash cans. When it comes to programs like WIC which are actually intended specifically to improve the health and welfare of children, then yes I can see a need to limit the choices available. But as far as food stamps in general I just don't think it's such a great idea to limit choices beyond non-food items.

[lumberjack_jeff]

251. Were that the case, it'd be called SDAP rather than SNAP.

The expected outcome of the program is good nutrition, not 'dignity'.

[Major Nikon]

264. If that's all there was to it the programs would be far different

You wouldn't even necessarily need them at all. People found supplemental nutrition in most trash cans prior to social safety nets. Later there were soup and bread lines and government cheese came after that. At each stage more dignity was introduced.

[lumberjack_jeff]

272. I don't think there's any inherent indignity in eating nutritious foods

nor any particular status advantages to drinking Mountain Dew for breakfast.

... regardless of the relative cost.

[Major Nikon]

273. The indignity is telling people what they can and can't consume

Trying to regulate sugar is a very slippery slope, which goes back to the question of why juice and not soda or hundreds of other things which have questionable nutritional value. I look at soda as liquid candy and I'm quite careful about the amount of crap I put in my body. Sodas for me are a rare thing and I consume less than one per month on average. However, I would not want any governmental entity telling me I could not do so, and in the same respect I wouldn't wish that on the most unfortunate in society.

[davidpdx]

202. True about most of the juices having lots of sugar

The 100% orange juice is expensive here in Korea (I have no idea how much it is in the US anymore.

[Major Nikon]

246. Even without added sweeteners, filtered juices are nutritionally empty

Like sodas they offer very little nutritionally other than simple carbohydrates.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/06/09/319230765/fruit-juice-vs-soda-both-beverages-pack-in-sugar-and-health-risk

[jwirr]

170. Micromanaged. In the early 50s my mother-in-law would

send her daughter to the grocery store. The last thing she would say was "Don't forget the receipt." There was no food stamp program in NW Iowa at that time and they had a "welfare" program that micromanaged everything. You had to prove what food etc. you bought, the rent you paid, children school supplies. Everything.

It always angered me that she was treated like that. She was a good woman who had been deserted by a deadbeat. Left with 4 children to raise. She worked as a telephone operator out of her home and as volunteer to collect clothing for the poor. And everyone in the community thought they had the right to watch and report on her.

This is not what we are working for today. I do not want any stamp user feel like she had to feel every day of her life.

[anigbrowl]

199. That's not the problem

I'd like to just give poor people cash and dispense with the food stamp thing altogether. But as long as it exists, I'd like it to be used for food, instead of subsidizing soda companies. Of course that happens a lot anyway because people buy so much processed food, but nutrition education is a slow difficult process. I'd prefer to see a straight up soda tax but that's politically more difficult and meanwhile a lot of people will get diabetes.

[pnwmom]

9. I don't care about soda. I strongly feel that every state should allow feminine hygiene products

to be purchased with SNAP benefits. They are a necessity, not a luxury, and all the states should recognize this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-kerr/if-you-cant-afford-tampons-what-do-you-do_b_5352396.html

This is a problem that I never thought about until I was 25 years old. While my family had financial struggles, I never lacked the items most women take for granted -- pads and tampons. At 25, I met Shirley, who gently educated me on the impact of poverty on our womanly ways. I learned that women and girls who could not afford these products used rags. And because they did not have a lot of resources for laundry, they either burned or buried the rags.

Several years later, I learned how women who are homeless in urban environments also used rags or simply bled through their clothing until they could throw those items away and get new (donated) clothing. Beyond lacking actual products, they often have no access to a sanitary bathroom or any facility with the privacy to take care of this biological need.

SNIP

When I've shared this information in the past, some people don't believe me. They don't believe that there are thousands of families in Pittsburgh where people don't have an extra $10 to spend on supplies. That there are families for whom reusable products are not viable or sanitary. That people who are exhausted from living in poverty while working can't figure out a workaround.

SNIP

You can't buy these items with SNAP (food stamps). You can sometimes find a sale or a coupon, but you need a bunch of cash on hand to stock up for say six months. Some girls and women have very heavy flows and may use twice as much products as others. Reducing periods because you are poor is not a good reason to take oral contraceptives, which are also not always covered either.

[CTyankee]

12. I am in favor of this. It is common sense to me and I don't know why it isn't public

policy...

[Orrex]

18. That is absolutely 100% correct

And it should IMO be a subsidy across the board for all women, full stop.

[restorefreedom]

22. shameful that this is the situation in 2016

makes me sad and angry

but lets make sure guys can get their viagra!

[roody]

51. I agree. The problem is that food stamps

are an agricultural subsidy.

[tammywammy]

71. Also, donate pads & tampons to shelters

I've read this suggestion (and done so) regarding women's shelters but I would think it would apply to homeless shelters as well.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. As should toothpaste and brushes. n/t

[pnwmom]

89. Yes, you are right. They should. Tampons and pads are a much more significant

cost, however, to most women.

[Bettie]

110. I agree

That is an absolute necessity, expensive, and not something that you can get at a food pantry if you are lucky enough to be near one.

[missingthebigdog]

128. One thing people can do to help

While de-cluttering and downsizing your closet, when you have purses to get rid of, fill them with feminine hygiene supplies, sample sizes of soap, shampoo and hand sanitizer, etc.

You can either donate the filled purses to a local shelter, or give them directly to homeless women you encounter. They are always appreciated.

[pnwmom]

129. Good idea! Thanks!

[qwlauren35]

182. 100% agree.

Sanitary products should be subsidized. And when it comes to making donations to shelters, sanitary products are greatly in demand. I noticed once that sanitary products don't go on sale much. They really have us where they want us.

I am trying to think if there's anything else that I wish you could use SNAP for. Maybe toilet paper.

[pnwmom]

183. Here's an article about that. As another poster mentioned, toothbrushes and toothpaste

should be available to everyone.

I'll probably post about it soon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sue-kerr/10-things-you-cant-buy-with-food-stamps_b_5079780.html

[qwlauren35]

186. It would be truly judgmental

to disagree with anything on that list.

Next time someone asks for food pantry donations, I'm going to give a huge box of pads.

[pnwmom]

188. Yes!

[aikoaiko]

14. The N in SNAP is for Nutrition.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is what we call food stamps these days.

I'd be fine with limiting SNAP to WIC approved foods.

Here is California's approved food list as an example.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/wicworks/Pages/WIC-CAFoodListsDatabase.aspx

[restorefreedom]

21. that is a good list

soda is poison as someone above said. no reason to cover it. if people want that awful stuff, they can still purchase it with non snap funds

[CTyankee]

121. I don't think soda is poison in moderate amounts but I see it in terms of "best use of

public funds in SNAP." If there is only so much money in that program's budget, couldn't you see it in terms of feeding MORE people if we stick to nutritional items. But I also believe in income support so people can make their own choices in so many ways, not just soda.

Whenever we have these arguments I see a kind of super libertarian come out in DUers and the arguments get ridiculous and simply a display of "I am more concerned about the poor than you are." And it's an argument over SODA.

Personally, I think this is a "stand-in" for other issues: some people look for ways of "proving" their superiority over others. It's one of the dumbest arguments I see around here...and there are a lot of them.

[restorefreedom]

127. there certainly are bigger issues

i agree about thhe best use of the funds. snap is, after all, a program to help the poor get access to nutrition. and the poor are already saddled with higher rates of disease and worse outcomes, due to poor nutrition and less access to quality health care. seeing as it is a funded program, i have no problem with the above list being used as a guideline. nobody NEEDS soda. its a waste of money that could buy that family some juice, fresh vegetables, or a sack of brown rice. besides, when people end up in the hospital or ill because of food related disease, (either deficiency or excess), we ALL pay through increased premiums and health costs. its not about being superior in my view, its about providing nutritious food. if people want to make poor choices that lead to illness, that is their right, but they don't have to do it on our collective dime.

i think a team of dieticians should just come up with a list of beneficial foods like the california list, and if a family wants additional items, they can purchase it with their own funds.

just curious, what issue do you think this is standing in for? i actually think access to healthy food is an important and underdiscussed issue.

[CTyankee]

131. It's standing in for "I care more about the poor because the government shouldn't be

telling them how to make their own food decisions." And so we get hung up on soda. It is a pure libertarian argument and as such it has merit. But lecturing you (for instance) on saying juice, fresh vegetables and a sack of brown rice would help the poor and reduce food related disease seems to be important to them. They want to put you down when it seems to me you just want to help. It seems puerile to me.

My judgment on this whole issue is to give more money to the needy to cover food costs instead of dividing a portion and putting it in SNAP. And we can have nutrition programs in schools, for instance, but it should be in ALL schools, not just schools in poor neighborhoods. Nobody is born knowing the difference between good and bad foods for you. But agribusiness has a stake in this so we can't rock the boat there.

Let's just say I'm disappointed in DU when this happens.

Thanks for your input and for your caring...

[uppityperson]

197. I see this as the difference between educating and advocating, and mandating

Provide nutritional education including recipes, advocate for more education as well as living wage jobs. But don't mandate what food stuffs people can buy.

There is a huge difference. One is respectful and acknowledges people's autonomy. The other doesn't.

[restorefreedom]

249. i completely agree that they need more money

if every working person made a living wage, then people could make their own decisions about what to consume. and for those on assistance, we need to give them access to healthy foods. people can junk out their own dime. and sadly, some will not choose juice and soda but will choose only soda. so if that option is eliminated then healthy it is. as for the libertarian point, if people want to have sode they can (although it should have a skull and crossbones on it imo) but not on a program that we are all paying for. if someone wants to argue that point i have no problem with it. freedom on the government dime is not required to be COMPLETELY free. and for soda?? yeesh. i am with you on that one.

and yes on nutrition programs in ALL schools. just because people have money does not mean they are feeding their children well. and big ag....grrrr don't even get me started on their decades of brainwashing in schools and giving school lunches their crappy cast off surplus foods grrrrr. neal barnard should have an ed program in every school about what to eat imo

namaste

[Freddie]

211. No

My daughter was on WIC when her oldest was a baby and the food list was incredibly restrictive (store shelves were labeled with "WIC Approved&quot and the checkout process was a major PITA -- talk about other shoppers knowing your business! Here in PA, WIC covers: milk, baby formula, canned beans, canned tuna, certain cheeses, (some) fresh produce, peanut butter, certain cereals, (some) fruit juice and whole wheat bread. That's it. It's designed so that pregnant women and young children get healthy foods, as a supplement. Trying to feed a family every day from just this list would be impossible.
I also think SNAP should cover toilet paper, feminine hygiene products and diapers.

[aikoaiko]

235. Perhaps the PAWIC approved list has improved since then because it rocks.

There is a lot of variety in this list. Again, the N in SNAP is for nutrition. I don't know anyone who maintains that sodas are nutritious.

https://www.pawic.com/uploads/files/2015_2016%20Food%20List%20English%20FINAL(1).pdf

[Freddie]

271. Good to know, thanks!

That was back in 2010. Since then she's married her "baby daddy", graduated nursing school and had Baby #2. She makes more $$ than either I or her dad now.
Interestingly, it was her pediatrician's office that gave her literature on WIC and how to get it.

[Orrex]

17. Should you be able to buy soda if you claim a mortgage tax credit?

If soda is reclassified as a non-food, then that's the end of it, since other non-foods can't be purchased with SNAP
But until that change is made, then everyone needs to suck it up.

Anyone receive government assistance in any form should absolutely be subject to the same kind of oversight. If you get a mortgage tax credit, or a credit for student loan interest, or a marriage credit, or a dependent credit or whatever, then you should have to demonstrate that the money you spend on soda didn't come directly or indirectly from that credit.

If we're putting ourselves in the business of telling people what they must do with their government assistance, then let's be consistent, because otherwise we're simply beating up on the poor again.

[CTyankee]

27. I don't get that just because we think our limited resources should go to good food

that keep people healthy, that it's the equivalent of beating up on the poor. I truly do not know where that comes from. It doesn't make any sense to me...

[Orrex]

33. Because you're singling out a type of aid given exclusively to the poor

You're not saying "anyone who takes the mortgage tax credit must use it for some judiciously approved purpose;" you're specifically targeting SNAP. Also, there's an inherent, undeniable and (to those who are subjected to it) obviously patronizing tone to such presumed requirements. Now matter how you dress it up, and no matter how you intend it, you are clearly telling them that you know how they should spend their money better than they do.

[CTyankee]

74. I'm not buying the "patronizing' argument.

Frankly, I am not crazy about our tax policies and letting the rich get richer while the poor just get poorer. I support Bernie Sanders and his programs. And my husband is chairman of the Homeless Commission here in New Haven and has been for several years. The issues his commission is dealing with are mind bending and he is constantly fighting to keep those issues front and center, esp. during budget making times, to keep and hopefully increase the budget for the homeless citizens here in New Haven.

What I AM saying is that the underlying reason for feeding programs is to keep people viable. I can't for the life of me understand why soda just HAS to be part of it any more than cigarettes just HAVE to be a part of it. After all, some of the poor do smoke, just like in the rest of the population.

So do you think that cigarettes should also be subsidized for the poor? If not, no matter how you dress it up you are clearly telling them that you know how they should spend their money better than they do.

[Orrex]

88. It's a dog whistle, and you don't hear it because you're not the target of it.

At present, soda is classified as a food. We can debate that, but most of the arguments that apply to soda can apply to other foods as well. You can buy bottled water with SNAP benefits, and water has no nutritional value. You can buy sugar with SNAP benefits, and sugar has no nutritional value. You can even buy bacon with SNAP, despite the recent revelation that bacon is more deadly than smoking.
HOW CAN WE JUSTIFY THIS GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED ATTACK ON PUBLIC HEALTH???

It's patronizing because you're presuming to tell other people how they should feed themselves, and you're doing it under the pretense of concern for their health.

Those who have received SNAP benefits can spot that tone from a mile away.

So do you think that cigarettes should also be subsidized for the poor? If not, no matter how you dress it up you are clearly telling them that you know how they should spend their money better than they do.

That's an incredibly weak analogy, and it undermines your already weak position. Are cigarettes classified as food? No. Therefore they are not relevant to discussions of SNAP benefits.

If soda is declared a nonfood, then it will likewise be irrelevant to such debates, but until you find yourself in authority to make that change, you're simply issuing a patronizing sermon.

[jen63]

98. Seriously,

can I tear my hair out now? Do they want to ban hot dogs, mac and cheese, spaghetti??!! Just as bad, considering those living in poverty eat a ton of those things because it's all they can afford on snap. How about loaves of white bread; absolutely no nutritional value either. Apparently the "soda, bad" people have never been in a grocery in the middle of a food desert. This is a not thinly veiled moral argument and it's sickening. (and patronizing!) Thanks for your comments.

[Orrex]

102. DU has always had a contingent strongly advocating for Dickensian modes of poverty

If your poverty isn't constantly pointed out by righteous know-betters, then how will you ever understand how much society hates you?

[jen63]

105. Oh brother!

There's a "just the staples" comment down thread. I asked if that's how he eats every meal. Makes me sick. The food these poor people CAN"T afford is bad enough; ie: fresh any thing, to bash them for buying what's available to them makes me sick.

[Orrex]

113. If they can't be happy with their daily bowl of gruel, then to heck with them.

[CTyankee]

101. Your sanctimonious bullshit is just nauseating.

I've heard this argument before. You are looking for a fight and I just won't give it to you. You don't know me and yet you presume to call me names.

Find someone else to lecture to about their standards (without, of course, knowing anything about them). You will have to, because, you see, there is this little thing called Full Ignore and that is what you are going to be to me henceforth.

[Orrex]

108. Wait--you're a patronizing blowhard who can't defend her self-righteous preaching?

What a fucking surprise.

Find someone else to lecture to about their standards (without, of course, knowing anything about them).

On the contrary, I know that you're advocating for a cruel and humiliating enforcement of an essential and life-saving government program, and for purposes of this discussion that's all I need to know.

I don't care if you receive SNAP benefits or not, because your position is wrong an insupportable regardless. And if you do receive SNAP benefits, you are free not to purchase soda with them.

You will have to, because, you see, there is this little thing called Full Ignore and that is what you are going to be to me henceforth.

That will be a far greater loss for you than for me.

[Straw Man]

203. Can you truly not see ...

I don't get that just because we think our limited resources should go to good food

that keep people healthy, that it's the equivalent of beating up on the poor. I truly do not know where that comes from. It doesn't make any sense to me...

... the authoritarian paternalism in all this? Shall we make them sing hymns for their gruel while we're at it? It's good for their souls, right?

[whatthehey]

41. Bit different however

Whiule a good case can be made for reducing deductions and exemptions they are different animals from benefits. They simply reduce your tax burden, not give you money collected from other people's tax burdens.

It's the difference between paying a lower interest rate on a loan for having good credit and getting a grant from the bank's charitable endowment.

[Orrex]

44. It was one example of many

Even leaving aside the mortgage credit, we can talk about lots of others.

If you have a federally subsidized student loan, for example, then the same principle applies. Or if you benefit from public works (freeways, bridges) or public services (the FDA, the EPA, the FTC) then you're beholden to the tax dollars of others, and your spending should be subjected to the same scrutiny that we would impose upon SNAP recipients.

[JonLeibowitz]

57. "They simply reduce your tax burden, not give you money collected from other people's tax burdens."

False. Money is fungible and those two are the same thing.

That's a false analogy too.

[LanternWaste]

54. we're allowing nuance, contextual limitations and regulations on a federal program

"then let's be consistent, because otherwise..."

Because otherwise we're allowing nuance, contextual limitations and regulations on a federal program rather than relying on Emerson's hobgoblins.

[bigwillq]

23. Yes (nt)

[Ilsa]

25. I would consider supporting it ONLY if the

SNAP dollars increased to help cover more fresh fruits and vegetables. Produce can be expensive.

[CTyankee]

28. It's a good idea! It would encourage health eating and of course help the farmers...

[Iggo]

26. Yes.

We've covered this...and covered it...and covered it...

[boobooday]

29. Every ban seems to only apply to poor people

Drugs, soda, fancy potatoes, etc.

Such patronizing behavior by the un-poors.

That's why I feel this is a job for education.

[KittyWampus]

30. No, Food Stamps are not 'Charity'. They are given to assist citizens who need help

in meeting their nutritional needs.

Charity is freely given for whatever the recipient wants to do.

So if anyone thinks it important for those needing assistance have some capacity to drink soda, they can donate a case of whatever to their local food bank or to a local family they know.

My own preference would be to eliminate food stamps and have the government hand out whole foods, a crock pot and a small food processor to families in need. A couple bags of beans, dry peas, rice, oil, some onions/carrots/delery/potatoes, cans of tomatoes and a bunch of herbs/spices can feed a family well for a week. Cheaply and easily. The crockpot makes it less time consuming.

This would quickly eliminate the problems of food deserts where decent quality whole foods are not easily come by.

And it soda is required to be reclassified as "non-food" item, then it should be.

[Bettie]

118. I hear this argument all the time

from my Republican in-laws and brothers.

Give the poor bags beans and rice to ensure that they don't clog up the aisles of the grocery stores inhabited by their betters.

Would you like to see them have to report on a certain day to get their bags of beans and rice from the back of a truck after a couple hours wait in line, to make it as humiliating as possible?

And if you have to work during the drop off day, sorry, no food for your family that month.

[jen63]

134. +1000!!

[CTyankee]

135. how about we give more cash assistance in lieu of SNAP and how about every school

(not just those in poor neighborhoods) have courses in health eating.

That way, poor citizens can decide what foods they will purchase and also have nutrition courses, the way we have other Health education courses.

[Bettie]

139. I can go with that

Nutrition is much more than rice and beans, food is much more than simple fuel, it is part of how we live our lives and part of that is having a lot of nutritionally dense foods AND being able to have some things that are simply enjoyable.

I get so angry when people demand that those who have less than they must do suffer every moment.

I do not begrudge anyone the few bucks we pay for social programs.

I do resent paying corporations which are already profiting quite well from my family's taxes.

[ladyVet]

142. Jesus Christ.

A couple bags of beans, dry peas, rice, oil, some onions/carrots/delery/potatoes, cans of tomatoes and a bunch of herbs/spices can feed a family well for a week.

I am without words.

[Bettie]

187. I know, right?

Got to make sure those poor people don't get any ideas that they are like the rest of the population. Got to grind them down a little more.

[Dorian Gray]

214. God forbid

they ever afford a treat to share with the family or food to make for a special occassion. Their bags of beans, rice and potatoes are enough!

[H2O Man]

32. Soda pop, yes;

baking soda, no.

We must have rules.

[jeff47]

34. Yes. Stop trying to browbeat the poor for being poor. (nt)

[KittyWampus]

37. keeping the 'nutrition' in a nutrition program isn't browbeating.

[jeff47]

43. When you're demanding they behave the way you want, it is.

Soda is expensive. SNAP is a tiny amount of money. Your self-righteous concerns are the same as concerns over buying steaks and lobster.

[KittyWampus]

85. Public health advocates and scientists all agree soda leads to type 2 diabetes.

Tax funded Nutrition programs are not charity. They are public assistance with the aim of providing Nutrition.

So I'm not being "self-rigtheous".

Frankly, I think you are.

You want a long list of scientists, doctors and public health advocates who will attest to soda contributing to type 2 diabetes?

How type 2 diabetes is rising in children?

[jeff47]

122. And that still doesn't change that you are browbeating them for being poor.

So I'm not being "self-rigtheous".

I'm not the one demanding other people be forced to change their behavior.

You want a long list of scientists, doctors and public health advocates who will attest to soda contributing to type 2 diabetes?

How about a long list of the price of soda? People relying on SNAP for food are not guzzling large quantities of soda. It's too expensive.

Also, you're assuming all soda contains sugar by tying in type 2 diabetes. That's not true.

[WinkyDink]

290. Yes, let's control the poor even further, because....MY TAXES!! Poverty is bad for the health, too.

[ProfessorGAC]

58. Taking The N Too Literally

The use of the word Nutrition in SNAP is just as likely to be serious as it's likely that it was a clever way to come up with an acronym.

So, i'll consider a calorie program, since far too few calories, no matter the source is called starving.

[NobodyHere]

90. So let's take the N out.

It will now be called the SAP program.

[ProfessorGAC]

96. ok

Then there is no pretense it's about proper nutrition.

Here's why i'm suspicious that was ever the intent. I've worked with people who spent time figuring out proper acronyms for projects. So, if you think about calling this a Food assistance program, SFAP is not a good acronym, because there is no obviously simple pronunciation.

SAP has potentially negative connotations and there is a company by that name.

Add the word nutrition to the acronym and we have a nifty easy to remember acronym. Doesn't mean the program ever had anything to do with proper nutrition.

[Straw Man]

205. You're one step away from an "approved foods list" ...

... for SNAP recipients. If you want to get technical with this, you can rule out about 80% of what you'll find in the average supermarket, with all the white flour, corn syrup, preservatives, etc.

Let's just make life that little bit harder for those who are struggling economically, shall we? It's for their own good ...

[WinkyDink]

287. It is when one wants to ban the poor from simple pleasures available to, say, YOU.

[bhikkhu]

39. Very slippery slope, where many foods are hamrful taken in excess

and, in moderation, are simply food. Think of butter, or whole milk, or fried chicken, or ribs...I don't think the food stamp program should be used to micromanage the diet of people who are poor.

In any case, education on good diet is more beneficial. I'd support it if an educational program came along with it, but then there are more problems. It costs money to educate people, and it costs people time to become educated, and many on the food stamp program are working at their limit as is. .

[hfojvt]

68. I had the same question

Wisconsin, after all, does NOT charge sales tax on food.

However, it DOES charge sales tax on pop.

Well, if pop is not food, then what about potato chips? They are not exactly the height of nutrition.

Then what about pop tarts? Food? Or junk food? What about Captain Crunch cereal?

Well what about the canned pasta I was buying? Some nutrition, but how healthy is it? It says one serving contains 18% of my DV in saturated fat and 600 mg of sodium (25%) and also 9 grams of sugar. That's much, much less than the 46 grams in a can of pop, but still also a whole lot of salt and saturated fat (and other fat, about 30% of the calories come from fat in one of these cans).

Only 11 grams of sugar in a serving of crunchberries. But not nearly as nutritious as generic wheaties (4 grams of sugar, 3 of protein) or Cheerios (1 gram of sugar, 3 of protein).

However, I found that Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa all treat pop as different from food as far as sales taxes go. Missouri and Nebraska do not (yet).

[exboyfil]

40. Food stamps have the odor of paternalism

In for an inch, then a mile. Define what can be purchased or go to a guaranteed income model like what is being tried in Germany. You could cut considerable administrative cost with such an approach.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. I think people on food stamps have the ability to choose for themselves.

They aren't pets.

[kelly1mm]

69. The fact that there are 'food stamps' at all as opposed to unrestricted grants kind

of says the government does not believe they have the ability to choose for themselves.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. I agree. And, I believe that shouldn't be the case.

[femmocrat]

76. I agree with you.

It is paternalistic to tell people what they can and cannot buy to consume.

[TipTok]

49. No...

Limit it only to staple items...

[jen63]

103. Is that how YOU eat every meal?

[TipTok]

111. No, but I purchase my food with my salary...

[jen63]

114. So?

You think that gives you the right to tell others what to eat and drink? You must have major misconceptions about poverty, may I suggest some research?

[TipTok]

116. It's reasonable to have an allowable purchases list...

... for taxpayers funds to get the best value for the dollar.

[jen63]

119. No, it's really not.

This is an issue that isn't as easy to solve as you'd like it to be. Sorry.

[TipTok]

120. No one is suggesting that is the singular solution...

However, it is a common sense step.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that the money is used appropriately and to gain the best value for the taxpayer.

[jen63]

123. What are your other common sense

steps?

[Dorian Gray]

215. I'd love to be that check-out person

Sorry, Ma'am. You're not allowed this food or this food or this food or this food. I'm only doing it for your own good!

[TipTok]

220. Awkward indeed....

I would rather have a bit of self inflicted awkwardness than wasted taxpayers dollars.

If I give my kid $20 to get lunch for himself and his siblings and he blows it on movies and candy for himself instead I'm not going to continue to give that money unless some controls are put in place.4

[Dorian Gray]

221. The problem is

that you are not the SNAP recipient's dad. Paternalism isn't what is called for in this case.

[TipTok]

237. Are you suggesting that oversight of govt funds...

... Is a step too far?

We, the taxpayers, provide those funds for a specific purpose and it is ethically mandated to get the best value.

It isn't just free money.

[Orrex]

248. Garbage

The entire SNAP program is a drop in the bucket compared to any number of extremely wasteful government projects, many (but not all) of them military. Hell, tell the Pentagon to reimburse us for the trillions that they've "lost," and we can fund SNAP well into the next millennium.

Any "fiscal responsibility" argument that begins by cutting public welfare is an open and unambiguous excuse to beat up on the poor. That's true whether it's coming from Sean Hannity or from nominal progressives.

[TipTok]

254. Hardly...

Responsible oversight and restrictions on the program would allow more people to receive the help they need by freeing up valuable funds.

Any argument that starts off with 'Yeah, but so and so does it worse so the thing I care about is fine' is a failure on its face.

Other people commit murder so what's a little arson or theft... right? Give me a break...

[Orrex]

256. Again, garbage.

You're comparing two incomparable crimes and pretending it's the same thing as comparing massive monetary waste to trivial monetary waste.

Any argument that starts off with 'Yeah, but so and so does it worse so the thing I care about is fine' is a failure on its face.

Then it's a good thing that I'm not making that argument. My argument is this: if you claim to be motivated by a desire for fiscal responsibility, but you focus on a drop in the bucket while dismissing an ocean of vanishing money, then it's clear that you don't actually give a shit about waste.


Look, beat up on the poor in whatever fashion makes you feel superior, but don't delude yourself into thinking that you've fooled anyone with your claims of fiscal responsibility. That is a bullshit position drawn straight from the Republican playbook.

[TipTok]

257. I can walk and chew gum at the same time...

Invalid argument remains invalid...

We don't get to ignore every smaller piece of fraud, waste and abuse until every bigger one is taken care of. Strike it down wherever you can otherwise nothing will ever change.

[Orrex]

259. Your bullshit analogy remains bullshit

[TipTok]

260. That is some amazing and logical analysis you have presented there...

Hard hitting stuff...

You could have just saved yourself the time and typed "Nuh uh..."

[Orrex]

262. You have proven yourself unworthy greater effort

Your single-minded focus on beating up the poor has rendered you impervious to reason, so I see no value in dismantling your nonsense when you're simply going to keep beating up on the poor.

[TipTok]

266. You equate accountability and basic fiscal responsibility with 'beating on the poor'?

No wonder the system is such a mess...

[Orrex]

267. Your notion of "accountability and basic fiscal responsiblity" equals beating on the poor.

It's the same garbage mantra parroted by RW talking heads, often while thumping the "bad choices" drum.

And then you blame the "messy system" on the people who are advocating for the poor. That's also typical of RW-types.


You can continue to spout your nonsense, but I'm done with you.

[TipTok]

268. You just haven't adequately explained...

... or even begun to explain why it's acceptable to blindly hand out tax dollars with no restrictions or oversight.

It's a 'messy system' because folks with your mindset just throw money at a problem with no direction or objectives. You have quite a bit in common with those military folks you were on about earlier.

[DLevine]

269. Pssst.......Your right wing is showing.

[Dorian Gray]

276. No

I'm suggesting that oversight to such a degree of people's shopping lists is a step too far.

Micromanaging foods that people buy whether on assistance or not is not going to help people.

I don't feel the need to control people because they need financial assistance.

[DLevine]

222. I see, poor people are just wayward children who

need you to set them straight and put them in their place. WTF.

[cwydro]

50. No.

Water and juice are fine, but no soda.

[exboyfil]

53. On water

No where in the U.S. should the tap water not be suitable for drinking.

[cwydro]

63. Good point!

I use tap water myself.

Are coffee and tea allowed on food stamps? Just curious.

[davidpdx]

204. Most juices are full of sugar as well

Maybe not as much as soda pop, but it's up there. That is unless you are buying pure orange juice.

[Dorian Gray]

216. Yeah

because most juice is healthier than soda.

NOT!

Let's ban juice, too!

[leveymg]

55. Craft Beer is certainly more nutritious than Coke, but it's not available under SNAP.

So, what's the issue?

[ProfessorGAC]

60. Didn't The Egyptian Crafts People. . .

. . .basically subsist on beer and bread to build the pyramids. Not 100%, but both staples. So, you pose a really good question.

[leveymg]

66. Yes, I've heard that recently. Beer also has an advantage over water - less likely to kill you.

Win-win. Better than money.

[Orrex]

64. Water has no nutritional value but can be bought with SNAP

Strictly speaking, the question isn't "should SNAP cover soda purchases?" but rather "should soda be classified as a food?"

If it is reclassified as a nonfood, then that's the end of it. Until it's reclassified that way, then we (all of us, not you) need to back off on the poor-scolding.

[Agnosticsherbet]

61. I people want to buy beverages with zero nutrional benefit, they can use their own funds.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Households CAN use SNAP benefits to 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.

In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.

Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
◾Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
◾Any nonfood items, such as:
◾pet foods
◾soaps, paper products
◾household supplies
◾Vitamins and medicines
◾Food that will be eaten in the store
◾Hot foods

[Faux pas]

65. Noooooooo

Food stamps should be used for Food that has nutritional value. What a concept, huh?

[haele]

67. Yes - just as they should be able to purchase the occasional sweet.

Honestly, soda is not much worse than most juices that are "cheap" - many of which come from China as it is and subject to whatever adulterants or quality of ingredients the manufacturers put in. Even if they can claim there's "10% juice concentrate", I don't trust half the juice on the shelves to be any healthier for me than drinking a glass of tap water in a foreign country that doesn't seem to have a high interest in maintaining public sanitation in poor or rural areas. Not to mention that there are high levels HFGS is in pretty near every juice you find.
The only difference might be the amount of sodium due to the carbonation.
At least most sodas are bottled in the US under Dept. of Ag. regulations, and you've got a better idea of the quality of ingredients.
If you're going to take Sodas off SNAP wholesale because of "health concerns", you should also remove fruit and vegitable juices. Or provide a list of acceptable labels - only 100% juices from brands A,B and C - because there's no real nutritional value to 10% fruit juices and/or uncertain nutritional values from the juices of brand X,Y, and Z.
And do that for all the other foods - no Chef Boy-r-Dee or Kraft Mac-n-Cheese or Fruity-O's cereal.

If you're poor, you don't deserve good food or treats. You should only get certain labels or brands, or maybe just stick flour, beans, milk, government cheese, plain pasta, oatmeal, eggs, fruits and veggies - no matter how much time you may have to prepare food for your family, or how much storage space you have at home.

Haele

[davidpdx]

206. I was making the same point in my reply up thread about juices

[hunter]

70. Why do affluent people think it's their duty to tell impoverished people how to live?

Fuck that.

The affluent people doing the finger wagging are doing more damage to the earth and the human spirit than any person merely surviving from day to day in poverty.

I've got more respect for the family surviving in public housing than the prick living in a mansion overlooking the beach.

sfgate.com

There ought to be some kind of national minimum income and single payer medical.

Make sure everyone has the resources to buy good food, has comfortable secure shelter, good schools, appropriate medical care, opportunities to make their communities a better place, etc., then the rest will sort itself out.

[Orrex]

80. ^^Thread win

[Conch]

92. Further,

Why do people who tend to advocate for smaller, less invasive government have so much to say about how to govern??

[fleur-de-lisa]

100. Best response yet! eom

[jen63]

109. Thank you!

[leftstreet]

124. +1

[Starry Messenger]

274. +1

[Sam_Fields]

73. Then the government will decide you can't buy meat or sugar or whatever.

The vast majority of people that use SNAP use it to provide staples. They are not going to the grocery store every month and buying $200 worth of soda pop. I've been using SNAP for 5 years. I buy ham, chicken, bulk beans, bulk rice and bulk frozen vegetables, one bottle of diet soda and a Twinkie for a treat.
I'm sure that there are a few people that buy nothing but junk food with their SNAP benefits, but so what.

[davidpdx]

207. Here's what would be next off the eligibility list

various things like potato chips, cookies, candy, chocolate, and ice cream.

[Gormy Cuss]

75. Is soda classified as food? Then the answer is yes.

If we want to lobby to change the definition of soda to a controlled substance, then by all means let's do that.

eta: food STAMPS were eliminated years ago.

[niyad]

77. not again. . .I find all the rationalizations for micromanaging poor people coming from a

progressive board to be disgusting.

[DefenseLawyer]

78. Yes.

Poor people are marginalized enough. These initiatives have zero to do with health and everything to do with shaming and demonizing the poor. Let it go.

[catnhatnh]

79. If your argument is a lie you lose...

"Of course, that’s all ridiculous. No one is proposing putting any aisle of the supermarket off-limits to any segment of the population. All Americans, regardless of income or whether they receive food stamps, would still be able to buy soda—they just wouldn’t be able to use their SNAP benefits to do it."

Notice that that is exactly what is proposed-that one more aisle be closed off from SNAP benefits.(Many aisle like health and beauty, paper products, and cleaning supplies are already off limits). And yes-there are in fact people so poor that if soda is disallowed on SNAP, can not buy soda.

That's two lies-the whole piece is puritan bullshit wrapped in the pretty paper of "health concern".

[Iggo]

99. "...puritan bullshit wrapped in the pretty paper of "health concern"."

Exackatackaly.

[betterdemsonly]

81. Not a priority, though I know it is to congress.

Rich people who get bailed out and then demand tax cuts and cuts to schools and other community needs are a much higher priority to me than this.

I would eliminate food stamps and give the working poor a raise to at least 15 an hour, raise the welfare benefit and let them buy what they want like normal people.

[My Good Babushka]

82. This discussion again! I think it should be full cash grants and do away with the stigma

of this whole infantilizing "nutritional assistance program" where people can wring their hands as if they suddenly care what kind of nutrition poor people were getting. If you care so much what poor people eat, if you want them to have the best, then you have to make sure they have ample MONEY. The same way other people eat well.

[Vinca]

87. Would you deny a food stamp recipient a little ginger ale for an upset stomach?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. Why ban soda for poor people only. Why not ban it for the rich?

Is Gin & Tonic nutritious? Rum & Coke? Scotch & Soda?

[shenmue]

104. I'm actually on food stamps

Shut up, snob.

[Bettie]

106. None of my business what people buy with their SNAP benefits

The vast majority of people who get these benefits use it in a way to get the most out of their limited resources.

If they get a soda once in a while, it is none of my affair.

[markpkessinger]

107. Paternalism at its worst!

Poor people are perfectly capable of making their own decisions as to how they use their food stamp allowance. They don't need policing, either by conservatives who think they shouldn't be allowed to buy anything other than cheap, processed starches, or by well-intended liberals who think they need to be their health chaperones!

[CTyankee]

117. OMG...

Last edited Wed Jan 6, 2016, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)

ON EDIT: I am so glad to see now that this has been juried and hidden.

It's hard for me to believe how much ugliness is coming out of people over SODA, fer gawd's sake!

However, I do think it is a good use of time to have a serious discussion about SNAP as a public assistance program. For instance, we could have a serious, respectful discussion about whether we should even have a SNAP in the first place, replacing it with more cash assistance to the needy to assist them in buying their own food. I would support that. It serves the dignity of the individuals on public support programs to make their own food decisions.

[ErikJ]

133. Should they be able to buy booze or cigs with food stamps?

Absolutely not. We dont even have a national dental care.

[DLevine]

136. I really wish people would stop telling poor people

what food they should or should not buy with their snap benefits. It's insulting and condescending.

[ladyVet]

144. It's like walking into a fundie site when people here start talking about the poor.

Do we wish all poor people knew more about nutrition? Of course. We wish all people knew more. There should be classes, and simple recipe cook books handed out with the SNAP card.

But it won't happen, and frankly, our time would be better spent trying to end corporate welfare than worrying about some family splurging on fucking god damned soft drinks.

Some people here...

[gollygee]

138. There was an article all around DU a while back about how people on food stamps

Make better food choices than people not on food stamps. They are doing a better job than the rest of us. It's hard enough being poor, and they go through enough at the checkout lane already. Pop is cheap and not worth the bother. And people working a few jobs sometimes drink caffeinated pop because it's a cheap way to keep them going. Just give the money and let them decide how to use it.

[Bettie]

141. That's becasue when you have very little

you don't have a lot of room to be choosing foods that don't feed everyone for the whole month.

You learn to make that dollar stretch or it's Ramen for the last week of the month.

[Warpy]

155. I live in a poor area.

People using their EBT cards in the grocery line usually make choices I didn't make when I was at my poorest.

So what?

I wish SNAP benefits were higher. Maybe they can be if we put the PENTAGON on a diet.

[Skittles]

145. I like a soda every so often

I imagine people getting food assistance do too

[MissB]

181. Empathy

Can you just go kick some into some folks? You nailed it in two simple sentences.

[madinmaryland]

148. The real question is why are SNAP benefits so low?

We can spend nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars on the military industrial complex, yet we are reduced to arguing about whether or not the neediest of the needy should be able to soda.

Why not double or triple or quadruple the benefits?

As for the food quality and what is or is not considered food, this country's food supply has been absolutely perverted by the Big Food with all the processed crap. It's not just the poorest who are eating it, it is a large portion of the country. Whether it's mac & cheese or soda, they are all processed and much of the country eats the stuff (my family included, and we are not on assistance of any sort).

Let's focus on the real issue (food) and not the financial status of people.

[etherealtruth]

151. ^^^ best answer^^^

[TexasBushwhacker]

161. Because the S stands for Supplemental

It's not intended to cover your whole food budget.

[madinmaryland]

164. You obviously did not read my post...

Do you feel comfortable supporting the MIC to the tune of 3/4 of a trillion dollars A YEAR, rather than assisting and supplementing the impoverished in this country??

Would your "avatar" support this?

[Warpy]

154. Yeah, because infantilizing other people by making their choices for them works SO well

Soda is not illegal. Tap water is better but it gets boring. Tea and coffee are not for children and supermarket "fruit juice" is expensive and loaded with the same HFCS sodas are. Milk is terribly expensive and carries its own list of drawbacks. That leaves beer. While weak ale might be a great choice, it's not something we can get unless we brew it at home every couple of weeks (which is as long as it keeps even if you don't drink it).

If you're poor, you already have few choices simply because choices are something you can't afford. Go ahead and shriek to the skies when you see someone else making a choice you wouldn't make for yourself about how they're poisoning themselves. Just back the fuck off because you don't know what's driving that choice.
.
Shoot, if everybody started to mind their own damned business, this world would be a much better place.

Health articles can be published, of course, just be aware of the weasel words in them like "could" and "may." Also realize they might just be dead wrong. Remember all the health articles praising the benefits of margarine?

That alone should make food Puritans and abusers of the poor think twice about the current flood of pop health articles demonizing soda.

[HassleCat]

158. Where do we draw the line?

Saturated fats? Cheesy puffs? Salted peanuts? Etc. Etc.

[jen63]

166. That was my question

also. All of the filling foods that people living in poverty are able to afford, aren't healthy over the long term. Healthy food is not affordable to families on snap. Then there is the access problem. Even if you scrimp and save to buy it, how do you get to it? My food desert grocery doesn't have a produce or meat dept. It's all prepackaged and you buy what's there or you don't eat.

[jwirr]

165. As a long time user of food stamps I would like to see that

only healthy food could be bought with them. But who is going to decide what is healthy?

You all know that us poor people are not supposed to be able to buy expensive food - soon there will be nothing we can buy.

And in a discussion of this years ago a friend said what if it is a birthday party for your child? Could you buy a cake mix?

[get the red out]

228. You are right

We have so many studies proving so many divergent health claims that it is impossible to know what is best.

The truth is that people have different tolerances for things considered "bad", and needs for other things. I am not "supposed to have" lost 30 lbs on low-carb without harming my "numbers", but I have. Before that though, I was literally addicted to sugar, and though it caused me to gain weight after menopause, my sugar levels were always spot on.

What I consider good food is damned expensive, I love fresh veggies but they don't come cheap, much more expensive than cake mix.

I agree that soda isn't the greatest thing in the grocery store, but that slippery slope could easily get based on the opinions of whoever is in the power to make them.

[Odin2005]

167. Yes, paternalism towards poor people is disgusting.

[Orrex]

225. Holy moly--where have you been?

I haven't seen you in months!

[Odin2005]

226. Busy with life.

[Luciferous]

169. It should be nutritional food, similar to what you can get with WIC. I knew someone on food

stamps that only bought candy and junk food. Their child suffered because they wasted all of their food stamps on crap.

[cpwm17]

195. That shouldn't be allowed.

Candy and junk foods aren't legitimate foods, and certainly not sodas. Food stamps should only be for actual food.

[kentauros]

171. Conditional Compassion

That is: "We'll help you buy food, but only the kinds of foods we think are to your benefit."

You'll see that all over this thread. What you'll see very little of, is the following:

Unlimited Compassion: "Sure, buy whatever you want. And here's full medical to help you when you need it, as well as compassionate agencies to help you out of poverty with bendable rules that don't inadvertently (or purposely) keep you poor."

[ChisolmTrailDem]

175. No, just meat scraps and broccoli stumps. That's it. nt

[firebrand80]

179. And no breakfast, poor people don't need breakfast

[treestar]

177. Yes, I think there is a point

where people want to control the lives of others so much and their excuse is that the people have allegedly screwed up and need to be told what to do. All of these types of things indicate the control freak thing and the need to feel superior.

[CTyankee]

191. Yes, what I see here is a demonstration by the Chronically Morally Outraged and

Mostly Superior to All the Rest of Us...ah, well, some folks gotta feel superior about something in their lives...

[lovemydog]

192. +1

[Orrex]

250. That's nonsense

It's not about me declaring myself morally superior to you. That may or may not be the case, but I'm not interested in addressing it here.

Rather, it's about compassionate progressives calling out the self-righteous dog whistlers who come out in patronizing force every time they smell a chance to beat up on the poor.

[JonathanRackham]

178. In a nutshell no.

An overpriced sugar fix. Actually high fructose corn syrup. If one really wants a sugar drink fix many of the bulk drink mixes are cheaper. Some even have vitamin C. A dollar can really be stretched going that route.

[uppityperson]

180. Of course. Should you be able to buy candy, snacks, meat, processed foods? What about organic as

that costs more?

What an odd question and so many odd responses.

[CTyankee]

193. why wouldn't organic foods be fine re SNAP?

I would assume they would be...

[uppityperson]

196. Because they cost more, are not cost effective. I don't think there should be

limitations, was just trying to come up with some potential other things to limit. Ingredients, nutrition, cost seem to be what some think should be limiting factors.

Organic costs more, often a lot more. If people should not be allowed to buy shrimp, they should not be allowed to buy organic food.

If people should not be allowed to buy low nutritional food like soda, they should not be able to buy candy, rice cakes, white bread as those are low nutritional value also.

And of course processed foods cost more, have high salt, no one should be allowed that.

Only 1 box of salt a year also. No crisco, oil, margarine, butter either as while they have calories, they have little else and people are too fast anyway.

How about a mandatory workout schedule too?

Note: I disagree with all that.

[Person 2713]

190. What about sugared cereal, cake, fruit flavored drinks with mega sugar , salty snacks really why

pick on soda .can you purchase bottled water with SNAP ? What nutritional value is that?
How about nutritional knowledge instead. Who gets to set the standards for what's healthy for SNAP? Which industry is more like it .Corn? Dairy ?
I rarely drink any sodas but I actually agree with the ABA statement to politico

[lovemydog]

194. Should people who are not on food stamps be able to buy soda?

Many of them are taking more taxpayer money than those who are on food stamps.

[merrily]

208. I haven't bought soda in years and don't think anyone should, esp. not anyone

on a strictly limited budget. Purchasing calories that are not only empty, but detrimental, when you have so little to spend is a bad decision.

I also think that, when federal money is involved, the fed should have a say. This, btw, is why I will never understand the portion of the SCOTUS decision on ACA that said the feds could not deny Medicaid money to states that refused to expand Medicaid, and was especially sorry to see Breyer and Kagan concur in that portion of the opinion. Federal money to states, federal rules for spending it.

All that said, I say eff this. Why? Mostly slippery slope and personal liberty and personal dignity grounds. Lines must be drawn somewhere as to how far the feds control human beings and I am fine with drawing them here. Lines must also be drawn as to how much we seek to punish and humiliate people for being poor and I am also fine with drawing them here.

Why did I bother with the beginning of this post? Because my thought process might help convince someone else?

[Lee-Lee]

217. When I was a deputy buying soda with food stamps was a big fraud problem

People would take their benefits and go to Wal-Mart or a grocery store and buy nothing but 12oz cans of soda.

They would then resell that at a discount rate to convenience stores or restaurant. If you ever eat at a small restaurant and they serve the soda in a can there is a distinct possibility that is happening.

We did investigations and busted some of the buyers, but were stonewalled by the people who administered the program for the county and state who didn't want to cooperate with the investigations and were really not interested in even acknowledging that it was a problem. So all that happened is the same people were doing it with their food stamps that were never cut off even though we gave proof of the fraud- they just drove to other counties.

[Warren Stupidity]

219. If we went back to the Poor House system we could monitor and control these sorts of people

in a much more efficient and effective manner. amirite?

[Orrex]

224. Finally, a voice of reason!

[Bettie]

232. And if they're to die

they'd best get on with it and reduce the surplus population!

So, no need for healthcare either.

Debtors prison. Workhouses for those who can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

See, we're solving that budget thing....just let the poor be unpaid workers until they die, most likely from unsafe work conditions, because really, why should we waste resources to ensure safety for the poors? AND with poorhouses/workhouses, they are out of sight, out of mind.

Of course, this is only a tiny portion of the budget and doesn't address, say, corporate welfare, the MIC...but those poors, THEY are the biggest problem.

(I don't know how to add the sarcasm thing...if anyone has any question about if I'm serious about this.)

[hunter]

241. We could contract with the giant food corporations to develop a cheap, nutritious, dry food...

... similar to monkey chow.

People confined to the poor houses and prisons, and people on public assistance, they could eat that.

It is after all about their poor choices.

We mustn't subsidize their poor choices.

.


.


.

[Warren Stupidity]

242. We could just recycle them.

Why waste their carcasses? As they die turn em back into good healthy food!

Soylent Green!

[romanic]

227. Soda Pop isn't healthy or nutrious.

But neither are sugary fruit juices and salty canned Spam - both of which can be bought with food stamps. If you have to prevent people on food stamps or ebt cards from buying soda, then you have to ban other unhealthy items too which really limits what those people can buy. It's just too much of a headache and it's best to just let those on food stamps to buy whatever food items they want.

[CTyankee]

230. what's wrong with just cash assistance and let folks figure out the budget that best suits

them. For instance, there may be a week when you need to stock up a bit more on basics, other weeks you may not, just like anyone else not on public assistance. If they want assistance in planning it all out, that help should be available, too. One of the best tools I learned was budgeting and I started doing it in a very basic way, comparing income to expenses.

[Bettie]

233. Technically, I think that cash assistance and SNAP

come from different "lines" on the budget.

In that case it is all about accounting, which could be fixed, but not without some changes and change comes slowly to the Federal government, since a change to say cash assistance versus the current system would make Republicans just dig in their heels and scream "no" while spinning on their backs like angry toddlers.

My kids are starting high school and I was surprised that there is no "life skills" class there. When I was in HS (early 80's), we had a mandatory one semester class where we learned how to balance a checkbook, manage a simple household budget, and just generally how to navigate the world. It was really scary to see how much more quickly money went out than it came in, but it did help.

[CTyankee]

234. But it can be reassuring when you work it all out. Of course, there can be curve balls

thrown at you that seemingly come from nowhere and that is where lots of people run into trouble. If you don't have an emergency fund -- and such a fund is out of reach for lots of people -- then you can be in dire straits fast. It is why people have to get payday loans at hideous rates of interest.

I taught my adult kids how to budget and they are happier for it. It's a nice skill to have. I wish I had had it earlier than I did...

[Orrex]

244. An emergency fund is a pipe dream luxury for much of the population

For those who aren't even making it check-to-check, an emergency fund is as unattainable as the mythical "six month income cushion" in a savings account.

When you live in poverty, every paycheck is your emergency fund, and every week is an emergency.

[notadmblnd]

231. You know, there is potential for abuse in just about everything

So what are we gonna do? Play nanny goat to anyone less fortunate than us and ban everything for their use that could potentially be abused or maybe invest in teaching people about nutrition and exercising self control?

[CTyankee]

265. everybody should be taught in school about nutrition. Just a straight up course to all students,

in richer as well as poorer schools. It's part of health ed, IMO.

You never know. The kid's family may be well off but serve crap to their kids and those kids should have some idea of what good nutrition is.

[OregonBlue]

238. Many people on food stamps are so broke they can't afford much in the way of

entertainment. They end up buying "treat" food for their kids because it's one thing they can offer them that seems special. I really am tired of people insinuating that poor people are unable to make good decisions. They are no different than the rest of the population. Some people make better life decisions than others. If we start down that road, it will get really nasty, which is exactly what the Teahadists want.

As for banning alcohol and cigarettes and pot, etc., they are not food. If the nation as a whole agrees that soda is not a food, I for one don't consider it food, and should be reclassified, I have no problem with it but don't single out people on food stamps.

[NCTraveler]

240. "Should You Be Able to Buy Soda With Food Stamps?"

Yes.

[TIME TO PANIC]

252. Yes, of course they should.

This is nothing less than poor shaming.

[47of74]

263. What's next, require them to wear pink underwear along with sackcloth and ashes?

This makes me sick. Enough with the poor shaming.

[Le Taz Hot]

270. Yes; however,

I would offer free VOLUNTERY classes on how to shop (sales and coupons) and cook from scratch in order to stretch the food dollars. So many people (food stamps or no) don't know how to cook anymore and it's a skill that can quadruple your buying power. For example, you can buy a roasted chicken, a couple of potatoes, carrots and egg noodles and can make a roast chicken/potato/carrot dinner the first night and chicken noodle soup the second -- all for a cost of under $10.00, 2 dinners for a family of 4. If you're stocked with baking basics you can make a nice wheat bread for about 25 cents.

[liberal N proud]

277. Soda should be a treat.

When I was a kid, we probably had 1 maybe 2 soda's in a week unless we were on vacation, then maybe you could get soda with dinner.

Should it be banned? NO, but it should be limited. If we really wanted to serve the people who need food stamps, we would provide a list of healthy foods that can be purchases sprinkled with a variety of items that can serve as treats.

Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
The WIC food packages provide supplemental foods designed to meet the special nutritional needs of low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, non-breastfeeding postpartum women, infants and children up to five years of age who are at nutritional risk. WIC food packages and nutrition education are the chief means by which WIC affects the dietary quality and habits of participants.

WIC has strict guidelines on what it covers and what is not covered. When participants purchase items using their WIC funds, their orders are scrutinized against a set list.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/about-wic-wic-glance

[DLevine]

278. Why not let everyone make their own food choices?

Unless you're going to limit choices for everyone, I think singling out the poor is disrespecting and infantalizing them. You probably wouldn't want the government choosing your meals for you, and I guarantee you that poor people feel the same.

Fretting over what a poor person eats or drinks is not helping that poor person. I'm poor, and it sucks even without all the condescending shit people constantly throw at us. Individual needs vary, and I believe everyone, even the poor, are entitled to decide what is best for them.

[liberal N proud]

280. The WIC program does not ban anyone from buying specific food or non-food, it only pays for specific

healthy food choices.

The focus of the WIC program is providing healthy food for Women, Infants and Children who are at risk. It is just a model that Food Stamps could follow and while not stopping someone from purchasing soda, it just wouldn't provide the funds for it on the program.

Should a big tub of Cheese Puffs be paid for with food stamp money?

[DLevine]

281. Let's ban sugar. For everyone, of course.

Also fruit drinks that contain mostly sugar. What about candy? Cake mixes? Where does it end?

My grandfather, during his last few months of life, would take sips of ginger ale to help his stomach. We always had some on hand. My late diabetic husband would keep a can of soda or a candy bar with him in case his sugar was low.

The person consuming the food should decide for themselves what is best for them. Is it really too much to ask that poor people be treated like anybody else?

Poor people are no threat to you. Pick on the 1% who are literally destroying the planet.

[liberal N proud]

282. Who said anything about banning anything?

[DLevine]

288. My point is that if soda, sugar, etc, are available for purchase,

people on snap should be able to purchase them with their snap benefits.

[WinkyDink]

284. The poor SHOULD be limited in their choices. Oh, wait......

[WinkyDink]

283. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche! Make the poor behave as we say, not as we do.