The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: okobrien on January 14, 2017, 06:27:06 PM
-
I don't know what to say about this, so I'm just gonna leave it here.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap-soda.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
-
Just run it like WIC and provide basic (veggies/fruits, bread, milk, etc).
-W
-
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
-
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?
-
The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?
Because we're buying it for the poor people, and the not-so-poor people are buying it with their own money. If I'm buying you food, I sort of feel like I have some right to keep you from buying (basically) poison. Especially since my taxes also fund Medicaid.
Don't get me wrong, I think a UBI would really be the way to go. But if we're going to hand out food and hence put conditions on the handouts (you can only buy food with it), then we might as well add the condition that the food not make people sick so we don't also have to pay for more healthcare for them.
-W
-
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay
But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!
-
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?
Agreed that there is not a meaningful difference between consumption levels.
Instead of restricting what SNAP recipients can buy, how about we decrease corporate agriculture subsidies for sugar and increase subsidies for healthy foods. Provide extra benefits or discounts to SNAP receivers when they buy fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Support non-profits that give low-income families basic cookware so they can cook at home. Provide tax breaks for grocery stores located in low-income communities. I would love it if we would use the information provided in the article to pursue these kinds of supportive policies, rather than ones that focus on punishing poor people through restrictive programs.
-
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?
No, we are not forcing them to eat anything. The gov is giving them money to help their nutrition. I see no way that soda helps. They are free to buy all the soda they want, with their own money.
I actually think giving poor people diabetes and heart disease is punishing them. Should we buy their cigarette s too? Poor people smoke more. Let's add those to food stamps too.
-
Because heaven forbid poor people have any pleasures in their life, right?
I drink soda. I eat junk food. I like it. It would be hypocritical of me to expect poor people to eat healthy all the time.
-
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?
I'm with this guy from the article:
David Ludwig, the director of the New Balance Foundation Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital, said the purpose of SNAP was to protect the health and well-being of the nation, not to ensure that poor households had ample access to sugary drinks.
“We have more evidence for the harms of sugary beverages than for any other category of food,” he said, “and yet it tops the list of reimbursed products in SNAP.”
Dr. Ludwig said other government programs had common-sense restrictions. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, and the national school lunch program have strict nutrition standards. Medicare pays for necessary medical procedures but does not reimburse for ones it considers harmful, ineffective or unnecessary. SNAP, Dr. Ludwig said, should be structured similarly.
“No one is suggesting poor people can’t choose what they want to eat,” he said. “But we’re saying let’s not use government benefits to pay for foods that are demonstrably going to undermine public health.”
Your government is not supposed to buy you a soda.
I'll add that cooking skills are probably just as bad as financial skills for a lot of people. It's an area where people would benefit from learning more.
-
Because heaven forbid poor people have any pleasures in their life, right?
I drink soda. I eat junk food. I like it. It would be hypocritical of me to expect poor people to eat healthy all the time.
Right?
-
Yep. If the goal is truly to protect health and nutrition, let's do it. Let's not pad the pockets of the sugar industry on the backs of poor Americans, whose lives will be measurably worse due to poor health.
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
The article clearly showed that both SNAP and non-SNAP households consumed similar levels of surgery drinks. Why should we force poor people to eat healthier than rich people?
Agreed that there is not a meaningful difference between consumption levels.
Instead of restricting what SNAP recipients can buy, how about we decrease corporate agriculture subsidies for sugar and increase subsidies for healthy foods. Provide extra benefits or discounts to SNAP receivers when they buy fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Support non-profits that give low-income families basic cookware so they can cook at home. Provide tax breaks for grocery stores located in low-income communities. I would love it if we would use the information provided in the article to pursue these kinds of supportive policies, rather than ones that focus on punishing poor people through restrictive programs.
Agreed, if the goal is to change behavior and and positively affect public health, there should be invectives for that type of behavior. Otherwise, we would be expecting low income folks to act categorically different than most Americans under the same/similar set of circumstances.
-
Instead of restricting what SNAP recipients can buy, how about we decrease corporate agriculture subsidies for sugar and increase subsidies for healthy foods. Provide extra benefits or discounts to SNAP receivers when they buy fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Support non-profits that give low-income families basic cookware so they can cook at home. Provide tax breaks for grocery stores located in low-income communities. I would love it if we would use the information provided in the article to pursue these kinds of supportive policies, rather than ones that focus on punishing poor people through restrictive programs.
This already exists - if you remember from the original article:
"Mr. Concannon said the U.S.D.A., rather than restricting junk foods, had made incentive programs that encourage nutritious foods a priority. The federal farm bill that designates money for the SNAP program, for example, set aside $100 million for programs that increase the value of food stamps that are used to buy fruits and vegetables at retail stores or farmers’ markets."
Apparently that doesn't work all that well.
-W
-
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay
But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!
I used to drink one, maybe two diet cokes a week. I finally gave up soda because my doctor was nagging me so much to stop drinking diet and go to regular. Multiple doctors told me that.
Is there a reason you think it is healthier?
-
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay
But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!
I used to drink one, maybe two diet cokes a week. I finally gave up soda because my doctor was nagging me so much to stop drinking diet and go to regular. Multiple doctors told me that.
Is there a reason you think it is healthier?
Odd for multiple doctors to have that opinion, given that there's little/no evidence to support it. Has there ever been a single study that found negative health effects from drinking one or two diet cokes a week, which were cured or prevented by switching to one or two regular cokes a week? I have yet to see it.
-
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay
But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!
I used to drink one, maybe two diet cokes a week. I finally gave up soda because my doctor was nagging me so much to stop drinking diet and go to regular. Multiple doctors told me that.
Is there a reason you think it is healthier?
Odd for multiple doctors to have that opinion, given that there's little/no evidence to support it. Has there ever been a single study that found negative health effects from drinking one or two diet cokes a week, which were cured or prevented by switching to one or two regular cokes a week? I have yet to see it.
One or two of anything save rat poison or meth won't hurt you much. If it's "food" of any kind at all you can probably safely eat it a couple times a week unless you have an allergy.
Unfortunately MDs are not biochemists or nutritionists, and they are often horribly misinformed about even pretty basic stuff.
-W
-
Otherwise, we would be expecting low income folks to act categorically different than most Americans under the same/similar set of circumstances.
So what?
-
Otherwise, we would be expecting low income folks to act categorically different than most Americans under the same/similar set of circumstances.
So what?
It's illogical.
-
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.
Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.
-
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.
Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.
How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up. Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.
-
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.
Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.
How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up. Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.
Why stop there? Anyone receiving an ACA subsidy is, in effect, also on the public dole. Recipients should be monitored as necessary, and restricted if their BMI exceeds the healthy threshold. Public money equals public health, even if their buying their own pop.
-
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.
Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.
How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up. Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.
Why stop there? Anyone receiving an ACA subsidy is, in effect, also on the public dole. Recipients should be monitored as necessary, and restricted if their BMI exceeds the healthy threshold. Public money equals public health, even if their buying their own pop.
Genuis. And no doubt best for them.
-
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.
The issue here, however, is that the benefit is *already* restricted. It would probably be better in many ways to just hand out cash. In lieu of that, though, if we're going to restrict what people can buy, we might as well do it right.
-W
-
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.
The issue here, however, is that the benefit is *already* restricted. It would probably be better in many ways to just hand out cash. In lieu of that, though, if we're going to restrict what people can buy, we might as well do it right.
-W
I would disagree. Some restriction may be necessary, even beneficial. But that doesn't mean more is better - while may be ok to say "You need food, here is money that can only be spent on food." I think it is wrong to say "You need food, here is money that can only be spent on brand x whole grain pasta and brand b low-sodium, low sugar sauce to top it." It's not a black/white all or nothing proposition - and in my opinion the more freedom of choice the general population has the better, even accepting there will be downsides.
-
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.
Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.
How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up. Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.
If you could pull this off, i.e. actually have an excellent supply chain of nutritious food that feeds the needy while minimizing waste and market side effects (reselling, stigma, etc.), I'd be all for it.
Heck, I would probably pay for such a service myself. Food is food is food. I don't care if I'm eating the same thing as a million other schmucks today, if the quality and price is better than what I can do myself.
-
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.
Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.
How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up. Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.
Why stop there? Anyone receiving an ACA subsidy is, in effect, also on the public dole. Recipients should be monitored as necessary, and restricted if their BMI exceeds the healthy threshold. Public money equals public health, even if their buying their own pop.
What do you mean by restricted? How would you implement such a scheme?
-
I don't see how restricting unhealthy food choices is bad. Patronizing, sure, but it's ultimately good for them.
Also, it's no wonder people think food stamps are not sufficient to live healthily if they take the price of vegetables at the farmers market as frame of reference. $3.50/pound for tomatoes, give me a break. Food stamps amounts are completely fine for a grown ass adult with a modicum of price discipline. That's what's lacking in this discussion.
How about all food stamps are just traded for pre-packaged groups of perfectly balanced, nutritious, low-cost food? Enough to make one or two varieties of meals per week, to be eaten throughout the week before the next group is picked up. Those poor people don't need choices anyway - this would clearly be best for them.
If you could pull this off, i.e. actually have an excellent supply chain of nutritious food that feeds the needy while minimizing waste and market side effects (reselling, stigma, etc.), I'd be all for it.
Heck, I would probably pay for such a service myself. Food is food is food. I don't care if I'm eating the same thing as a million other schmucks today, if the quality and price is better than what I can do myself.
growingpower.org
-
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.
The issue here, however, is that the benefit is *already* restricted. It would probably be better in many ways to just hand out cash. In lieu of that, though, if we're going to restrict what people can buy, we might as well do it right.
-W
How is handing out cash better? I don't like it because handing out cash means sometimes the kids don't have anything to eat while the mom goes out to party. Or similar scenarios where cash meant for food doesn't feed anyone.
-
So 80℅ of SNAP money is subsidizing beans, rice, meat, fruits, and vegetables? Hooray for that. There is a tiny difference between SNAP recipients and everyone else as far as soda consumption is measured, not sure why these people are losing their shit over it.
-
Just run it like WIC and provide basic (veggies/fruits, bread, milk, etc).
-W
Simplest solution here.
-
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.
The issue here, however, is that the benefit is *already* restricted. It would probably be better in many ways to just hand out cash. In lieu of that, though, if we're going to restrict what people can buy, we might as well do it right.
-W
How is handing out cash better? I don't like it because handing out cash means sometimes the kids don't have anything to eat while the mom goes out to party. Or similar scenarios where cash meant for food doesn't feed anyone.
While I don't mean to speak for Walt specifically, in general the thought of giving 'cash' for benefits gives the recipient the greatest choice and freedom from their benefits. If they choose to not capitalize upon that, they are only hurting themselves.
Not feeding children is a serious thing as well - it's my understanding that in many cases children are removed from homes in which the adults don't provide for them. Food stamps don't have to be turned in, and can even be exchanged with others for cash - it's quite possible to have benefits given out with stipulations don't magically make people perfectly responsible.
-
I tend to agree that it's patronizing and that's bad.
That's rich, white, privileged guilt programming at work. Let's all feel bad that for the people can't feed themselves and we'll to give them a cookie so we can all can feel better about ourselves. Let's just throw some money and run away so we don't have to think about it too much. As if you need soda in your life to be happy or normal. There are plenty of other sweets out there that could be enjoyed. Kids can still have birthday cakes, Kool-aid, etc. etc. etc.
Do you want PepsiCo and Coca-Cola profiting off the SNAP program? A program that's meant to provide nutrition? Who is lobbying to oppose the restrictions? The soft drink makers, duh.
Are you going to show up at your local food pantry to donate cases of Mt. Dew? No, because that's not a good use of your resources and it's stupid.
Anyone who wants to drink sugary drinks on their own dime, enjoy. Don't make the government buy poor people sodas so you can feel better about your own sugar and caffeine addictions. Patronizing.
-
While I don't mean to speak for Walt specifically, in general the thought of giving 'cash' for benefits gives the recipient the greatest choice and freedom from their benefits. If they choose to not capitalize upon that, they are only hurting themselves.
Not feeding children is a serious thing as well - it's my understanding that in many cases children are removed from homes in which the adults don't provide for them. Food stamps don't have to be turned in, and can even be exchanged with others for cash - it's quite possible to have benefits given out with stipulations don't magically make people perfectly responsible.
When you're enrolled in any government support program, you are not free. Freedom always comes from self-determination. The purpose of the USDA SNAP program is not to make beneficiaries feel good about themselves, it is about nutrition -- the acronym is Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Look at this paragraph about the lobby
For years, dozens of cities, states and medical groups have urged changes to SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to help improve nutrition among the 43 million poorest Americans who receive food stamps. Specifically, they have called for restrictions so that food stamps cannot be used to buy junk food or sugary soft drinks.
But the food and beverage industries have spent millions opposing such measures, and the U.S.D.A. has denied every request, saying that selectively banning certain foods would be unfair to food stamp users and create too much red tape.
About the red tape, if WIC runs this way, and with modern technology, it's unlikely that it would be too difficult for SNAP to restrict soda.
-
Beggars can't be choosers
http://susanday.net/beggars-cant-be-choosers/
And while we're at it, let's consider international starvation.
http://www.worldhunger.org/2015-world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/#hunger-number
"About one in eight people, or 13.5 percent of the overall population, remain chronically undernourished in (developing regions)."
#firstworldproblems
Place your concerns of fairness appropriately.
-
I work in public health and I agree that SNAP should not be used for soda and other SSBs. These foods are so terrible for health, I think it makes sense for the govt to specifically avoid paying for them. SNAP recipients can use their other resources to pay for such things if they want, so it’s not like the govt is restricting their access any more than the market restricts lower earners from being unable to buy pricey organic foods. Most SNAP recipients have other funds they use to pay for food, they just don't have enough so the govt steps in and gives them SNAP (the S stands for "supplemental) to make sure they don't go hungry. Sadly, soda is often so cheap, its not like it would be a huge hardship to pay for these with your own funds...whereas milk totally might be. The truth is, most SNAP recipients would probably still buy plenty of soda anyway even with restrictions, the difference is that over the entire population, such restrictions could reduce the amount consumed. It's not like the restrictions would suddenly result in millions of Americans being denied the little pleasure of having a soda a few times a week.
Regulating the payments for processed foods in general is much harder though. Americans of all income levels consume massive quantities of processed foods, so it would be hard to tell where reasonable public health protections end, and moral dietary policing begins. Never mind the fact that the consensus of which processed foods are healthy vs unhealthy vs neutral to health is constantly shifting. Is breakfast cereal okay? What about only "sugary" cereals? How sugary does a cereal have to be to be considered too sugary for SNAP coverage??? Then there is the whole issue of price, with processed foods often being far cheaper and therefore more economical for low income families that use SNAP. It wouldn’t work to simply restrict SNAP to healthy whole foods without increasing the monthly benefit amount, as people could easily end up lacking enough food. Healthy foods won’t matter much if people aren’t able to buy enough of them.
Ideally it would be great if SNAP only covered mostly whole, unprocessed foods and increased the benefit to allow people to buy larger quantities of them. Give generous benefits to cover fresh fruits, veggies, canned and frozen veggies, fish, meat, dairy, eggs, and some dry goods like beans/rice/whole wheat pasta. That would require budget increases though :/
-
WIC costs about $45/person/month (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/25wifyavgfd$.pdf)
SNAP costs about $125/person/month (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program)
$125/month will buy a LOT of veggies, peanut butter, bread, milk, and cheese if you're buying in bulk. Certainly enough to feed one person, as many people on this forum can attest. Our monthly food budget for a family of 4 here (in a HCOL area) hovers around $600, right in that ballpark - and that's just buying mostly at retail.
Hell, you might actually *save* money by converting everything to a limited choices/healthy WIC type system.
-W
-
Regardless if food stamps are supported by taxes I don't give a shit that poor people wouldn't be able to purchase soda using those benefits.
Fuck soda. Like it's some quality of life issue. Please.
-
WIC costs about $45/person/month (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/25wifyavgfd$.pdf)
SNAP costs about $125/person/month (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program)
$125/month will buy a LOT of veggies, peanut butter, bread, milk, and cheese if you're buying in bulk. Certainly enough to feed one person, as many people on this forum can attest. Our monthly food budget for a family of 4 here (in a HCOL area) hovers around $600, right in that ballpark - and that's just buying mostly at retail.
Hell, you might actually *save* money by converting everything to a limited choices/healthy WIC type system.
-W
You are assuming most SNAP recipients will have the ability to buy in bulk and shop sales. Many SNAP recipients live in food deserts (both rural and urban) where grocery stores are limited. They often do not have access to grocery stores at will (to take advantage of sales) or even access to a grocery store period (many people have to shop at bodegas) where fresh food prices are higher. Still others don’t have cars and require public transport or walking…they don’t have the ability to carry 70lbs of food home by foot or bus route. Your assessment also leaves out fish/meat, a category of food that is widely considered to be healthy in reasonable amounts in a diet. Should benefits not be sufficient to cover this pricier category?
We can’t base SNAP benefit amounts on optimistic assumptions (Buy in bulk! Shop sales! Shop around at different locations for the best deals!), we have to base it on the most realistic and plausible scenarios for the group we are trying to serve. Many mustachians here are great at reducing food costs but that is because they have the opportunities to do so in the first place.
-
Those are indeed important issues. My point was that $125/mo is plenty to feed someone basic healthy food if that is your goal. If nobody could use SNAP benefits on soda, I'm betting a few corner stores would start stocking milk and peanut butter...
Meat and fish are luxury items, bluntly. Vegetable based protein (beans, nuts, etc) is just fine. That's what I eat...
-W
-
I realize to some degree this comes down to personal philosophy but I think it is entirely reasonable to say we will help you buy food but it has to offer some nutritional benefit or at least not be harmful. Just as we wont typically give money to a homeless person so that they can go buy malt liquor.
If we are going to help the poor buy items that hurt them just to make them feel better, lets just buy them all meth....
You would have to be careful how you word the law though so as not to open the gates to unintended restrictions in the future. I assume right now you can buy any consumable from a store that isn't a tobacco or alcohol product with food stamps. Do they restrict anything else like candy?
-
I must say that I'm shocked, shocked that a government program isn't working as intended!
Lastly, 20 cents of each dollar was spent on a broad category of junk foods that included “sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.”
Good to see the taxpayer's money isn't being wasted, right?
-
Starting with taking soda off SNAP is a decent baby step. I don't think that restrictions should be too severe. If you look at sugary cereal, it will at least have some vitamins. A soda will have sugar and sodium and that's it. I would not want to restrict orange juice, of course, some things like lemonade might be borderline. But just soda? No reason it should be provided in SNAP.
I would think that something could change, but alas, Indra Nooyi, PepsiCo CEO is now one of Trump's advisors. She also is close to HRC. It may not be a big enough issue to register for change.
-
I realize to some degree this comes down to personal philosophy but I think it is entirely reasonable to say we will help you buy food but it has to offer some nutritional benefit or at least not be harmful. Just as we wont typically give money to a homeless person so that they can go buy malt liquor.
If we are going to help the poor buy items that hurt them just to make them feel better, lets just buy them all meth....
You would have to be careful how you word the law though so as not to open the gates to unintended restrictions in the future. I assume right now you can buy any consumable from a store that isn't a tobacco or alcohol product with food stamps. Do they restrict anything else like candy?
Nope, all the gas stations around here have stickers in their windows saying "We accept EBT." Aside from a basket of bananas and apples by the register, not a single thing in there isn't junk food.
Perhaps it was only my state, but 20 years ago when I worked at a grocery store, food stamps (they were actually paper booklets back then) could only be used for healthy food. It seems to me it was relatively recently the loosened the rules to allow for junk food.
Of course that shaped my philosophy on it greatly, as it was very common for a customer to make two transactions, the first a bunch of staples that were paid for with food stamps, and then the soda,doritos, cartons of cigarettes and cases of beer they paid for with cash. But that's probably a separate discussion.
-
Having spent more than 1/3 of my life in the grocery/convenience store industry I've seen it all. When I started Food Stamps (similar to SNAP, but not exactly the same) were pieces of paper that in order to be verified had to be physically torn out of the booklet that they were issued in, and as the cashier you had to watch the person and verify that the book belonged to the person standing in front of you. THAT SUCKED! It was embarrassing for the people paying for their groceries, and for the cashier. Any and all change was made in $1 equivalent bills and actual non-stamp coinage. Real money.
The scams back then went something like this:
Person A has a drug problem, get on food stamps, sign the book illegibly, in a random amount of scribbling that could be any signature on the block. Trade that book, street value around $75 (Face is $150), for the drugs. First person out. Dealer/drug supplier now has the food stamps. These would change hands in whole book form until they got to the person who was in charge of changing them into cash.
That drill, for the most disciplined of users went like this:
Person B purchases the full book from someone at around street value, sometimes more, sometimes less. Usually this person has nothing to do with the drug industry beyond fencing food stamps. This person will go grocery shopping. Buy enough to make it look legitimate. Bring your total as close to $20 dollars without going UNDER. Say they hit the magic $20.01. They then hand over two $20.00 equiv. bills, and receive 19 $1 equiv bills, plus $0.99 in actual cash. $1 dollar equivs. are not traced, tracked or otherwise paid attention to. You could treat them just like a George Washington. Coin is kept, sorted and then cashed in... for cash of course! Meanwhile, you have your kids, your friends, your co-workers trade you dollar for dollar, converting the food stamps to cash. With the right network, and a little bit of effort, you would end up with $75 dollars +/- of food like products, and the same in cold cash. Rinse and Repeat.
Then we converted to the debit card system! It totally rocks, no more paper means no more coins, no more untraceable 1 dollar bills. Now you have to sell the whole card. And people do. Same prices, forty to fifty cents on the dollar. You can verify the card by calling an 800 number and putting in the card number, no PIN required. No ID Required to use the card. Cashiers are instructed by the government to treat all customers equally. You cannot call out any, ANY customer for their method of payment in a public manner. Pin pads have gotten more intelligent over the last 15 years, to the point now that cashiers don't even need to ask you how you're paying for whatever it is you're buying. You do it all on the PIN pad.
For a while, while managing a grocery store (which takes SNAP, WIC, Debit, Credit (no Diners Club, sorry) and Cash (no checks ever)) we used the "Nutrition Facts" litmus test. The regulations for SNAP benefits are that the food items must have Nutrition Facts on their labels. Most energy drinks were initially produced with Supplement Facts, as the FDA hadn't approved them as Nutritional (which we all know they are not). Of course, over the last few years all of those cans have changed their labels, with FDA approval. This is the reason we currently can't actually have the discussion about removing the Sugar Bombs from the approved food lists. Each and every company has put in the time and effort (read PAID) to be sure that their products conform to the proper food status.
WIC, as it worked from the late 80's until recently, required the verification of signatures and items against physcial paper vouchers and ID cards with specific limits. This is great!
Current methods in Oregon are found at https://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyPeopleFamilies/wic/Pages/shopping.aspx#balance (https://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyPeopleFamilies/wic/Pages/shopping.aspx#balance)
Now we have another card that can be sold. And scuttlebutt from back home says that is exactly what is happening.
The new WIC System could still work for the SNAP program, except for all my computer savvy friends out there in MMM land... Please describe the amount of programming and oversight that would be required of every POS system to be able to control the allotments of actual food tracking. Big Food puts out dozens of new products weekly, all of varying levels of nutrition. How do we properly administer a program of that magnitude. Where are the lines drawn?
Don't get me wrong. I really think the system is broken and needs to be fixed, but it will require a paradigm shift from those at the top... Remember these are the same people who have regulated the dairy industry to the point where Joe Well-Above-Average* can't legally sell milk from his cow directly to a person who wants to drink it in most states. The same regulators that have closed over 95% of the legal slaughter houses in the US. And the same ones who allowed Monsanto to patent DNA. It won't happen. The only thing we can legally do as operators of grocery stores is opt to not sell the products with the highest profit margins, and then hope to stay in business. Sugar, caffeine and carbohydrates are the most addictive substances in the world. Sell them, get the money, stay in business.
And, while staying in business, pay employees enough to pay their bills and get by. The people I worked with every day weren't in debt up to their eyeballs, they just had nothing to show for anything. All while being on SNAP and WIC and what not.
*Who are we kidding, Joe Average only vaguely knows what a cow looks like, and has never seen a live one in person.
-
I would be happy if soda was banned entirely. That shit is no good for anybody.
But i don't think we should be dictating food choices. Food guidelines keep changing. (is margarine bad or good vs butter for example)
Another example: I think WIC makes a good effort but I disagree with WIC guidelines to only allow low fat milk for children 2 yrs and older. I personally think full fat milk is better for my children.
Soda seems like an obviously bad choice... But if folks are eligible for snap I don't mind giving them that choice.
-
Most foods exist somewhere between the two extremes of "highly nutritious" and "zero nutrition, but pleasurable to consume". Soda does not. There is no nutrition in a coca cola or mountain dew, and it does not belong in a nutrition program.
If you want to give people money for them to have fun with, go ahead and do that. Give them a reach around. Fly their kids to Disneyland. I don't care, until you ask me to pay for it, and then it becomes my business.
-
The American public pay for both my food, and my healthcare. Yet there's no silliness about forbidding me pop, or monitoring my choices at the till. What's the practical difference?
-
The American public pay for both my food, and my healthcare. Yet there's no silliness about forbidding me pop, or monitoring my choices at the till. What's the practical difference?
The difference in my opinion is one is a public benefit and one is pay for public service. Quite a difference. Apples and oranges.
I would also add that the obesity epidemic has left the military with a majority population that are unfit to enlist.
Does it make a person's life less if they don't have a soda every week? Is it a slippery slope to argue against the poor having benefits that will allow them to get refined sugar products?
-
Because heaven forbid poor people have any pleasures in their life, right?
I drink soda. I eat junk food. I like it. It would be hypocritical of me to expect poor people to eat healthy all the time.
I hope you're being sarcastic.
First, anyone can eat what they pay for. The issue is what taxpayers pay for.
Second, I don't drink soda or eat junk food. Plenty of people don't. I don't see the relevance of your eating habits and feelings of hypocrisy. People lived for hundreds of thousands of years without them. They live now without them. They have no bearing on happiness and do on health.
I find fresh fruits and vegetables pleasures. I don't have a problem with government programs subsidizing broccoli. You're calling industrial products engineered to addict people pleasures. Kale doesn't cause diabetes or cancer.
-
I really don't understand what you are arguing about. SNAP pays you a set amount of money for food. In order to make that money go further (its not very much, try living off it for a month) you need to buy cheap food. Cheap food is bad food primarily because of our misdirected subsidies. ERGO, poor people eat bad food. IF you want poor people to eat good food with taxpayer money, make good food cheaper OR give them the money they actually need to afford good food.
It doesn't help that poor communities tend to be food deserts with no real grocery stores that sell good food anyway.
-
Instead of restricting what SNAP recipients can buy, how about we decrease corporate agriculture subsidies for sugar and increase subsidies for healthy foods. Provide extra benefits or discounts to SNAP receivers when they buy fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Support non-profits that give low-income families basic cookware so they can cook at home. Provide tax breaks for grocery stores located in low-income communities. I would love it if we would use the information provided in the article to pursue these kinds of supportive policies, rather than ones that focus on punishing poor people through restrictive programs.
This already exists - if you remember from the original article:
"Mr. Concannon said the U.S.D.A., rather than restricting junk foods, had made incentive programs that encourage nutritious foods a priority. The federal farm bill that designates money for the SNAP program, for example, set aside $100 million for programs that increase the value of food stamps that are used to buy fruits and vegetables at retail stores or farmers’ markets."
Apparently that doesn't work all that well.
-W
I have seen this at ONE farmer's market and not at all in ANY of the grocery stores. My bet is that it is not being done well. I think people would use it, if they had access and knowledge.
-
It's worse than that....
The federal government is laughably, hilariously, ridiculously inept when it comes to food, policy, and subsidies.
Even the NYT has figured it out http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html
We taxpayers have paid to support cheesier Domino pizza and Taco Bell quesadillas, while at the same time issuing 'warnings about fat' and subsidizing various pet programs such as Ms Obama's 'Lets Move' program. It's one giant rotten CF. Drain the swamp. Time for it to end.
-
Just run it like WIC and provide basic (veggies/fruits, bread, milk, etc).
-W
Simplest solution here.
There are major issues with WIC including additional time required to get through based on needing to pay for everything with each check. Food stamp cards are faster.
-
Instead of restricting what SNAP recipients can buy, how about we decrease corporate agriculture subsidies for sugar and increase subsidies for healthy foods. Provide extra benefits or discounts to SNAP receivers when they buy fruits, vegetables, or whole grains. Support non-profits that give low-income families basic cookware so they can cook at home. Provide tax breaks for grocery stores located in low-income communities. I would love it if we would use the information provided in the article to pursue these kinds of supportive policies, rather than ones that focus on punishing poor people through restrictive programs.
This already exists - if you remember from the original article:
"Mr. Concannon said the U.S.D.A., rather than restricting junk foods, had made incentive programs that encourage nutritious foods a priority. The federal farm bill that designates money for the SNAP program, for example, set aside $100 million for programs that increase the value of food stamps that are used to buy fruits and vegetables at retail stores or farmers’ markets."
Apparently that doesn't work all that well.
-W
I have seen this at ONE farmer's market and not at all in ANY of the grocery stores. My bet is that it is not being done well. I think people would use it, if they had access and knowledge.
Also, go to any location with a high density of SNAP recipients and try find a farmer's market or even a quality grocery store.
-
I really don't understand what you are arguing about. SNAP pays you a set amount of money for food. In order to make that money go further (its not very much, try living off it for a month) you need to buy cheap food. Cheap food is bad food primarily because of our misdirected subsidies. ERGO, poor people eat bad food. IF you want poor people to eat good food with taxpayer money, make good food cheaper OR give them the money they actually need to afford good food.
It doesn't help that poor communities tend to be food deserts with no real grocery stores that sell good food anyway.
Tap water is cheaper than bottled water or soda. (unless you live in Flint)
-
I really don't understand what you are arguing about. SNAP pays you a set amount of money for food. In order to make that money go further (its not very much, try living off it for a month) you need to buy cheap food. Cheap food is bad food primarily because of our misdirected subsidies. ERGO, poor people eat bad food. IF you want poor people to eat good food with taxpayer money, make good food cheaper OR give them the money they actually need to afford good food.
It doesn't help that poor communities tend to be food deserts with no real grocery stores that sell good food anyway.
Tap water is cheaper than bottled water or soda. (unless you live in Flint)
or one of the 16 other major cities that have elevated pollutants in their water that hasn't received the same amount of national attention as Flint or St. Joseph, LA.
Soda is not healthy and if you want to address that issue, fine. If you want to address the SNAP program, fine. To conflate the two however is narrowing your focus too much on the poor and ignoring the larger issues.
-
I just don't think that trying to solve public health problems by targeting one specific group in this way is effective. It feels good to some people to limit soda in this way, but it will backfire and people see it as penalizing the poor and they just rebel against this sort of thing. We taxed smoking, told people how bad it was for them etc... but it wasn't until smoking became anti-social by keeping it out of public spaces that it really declined, and even that took years before really taking hold. I'm not sure what the corollary is for drinking sugary drinks, (maybe banning it from fast food restaurants or convenience stores, or perhaps putting the sodas next to the cigarettes and scratch tickets) but I do know that my kids generation is less likely to drink soda than I was.
-
I'd be fine with having folks pick up "government cheese" and powdered milk and bags of beans. Heck, give them peanut butter, too and canned vegetables/fruits at government run stores.
-
Having spent more than 1/3 of my life in the grocery/convenience store industry I've seen it all.
...
Person A has a drug problem ... Dealer/drug supplier now has the food stamps.
...
Then we converted to the debit card system! It totally rocks, no more paper means no more coins, no more untraceable 1 dollar bills. Now you have to sell the whole card. And people do. Same prices, forty to fifty cents on the dollar. You can verify the card by calling an 800 number and putting in the card number, no PIN required. No ID Required to use the card. Cashiers are instructed by the government to treat all customers equally. You cannot call out any, ANY customer for their method of payment in a public manner.
WIC, as it worked from the late 80's until recently, required the verification of signatures and items against physcial paper vouchers and ID cards with specific limits. This is great! ... Now we have another card that can be sold. And scuttlebutt from back home says that is exactly what is happening.
I have a family member who's owned convenience stores and worked in grocery for much of his life. He has talked about all the exact same things here and more - people paying for X dollars on SNAP, then having a second huge grocery cart with $200 in alcohol and other crap they pay for in cash (never credit, as cash is untraceable), while talking on their $650 iPhone Plus and wearing $1000+ worth of fancy clothes and jewelry and driving home in a Lexus.
Any handout program is going to have waste and the better the program, the most extravagant the waste. It's going to be even worse as we march towards single-payer with gauranteed health benefits because now the few remaining honest tax payers are on the hook for not only the junk food and alcohol that SNAP abusers buy, but also paying for their healthcare too.
-
I'd be fine with having folks pick up "government cheese" and powdered milk and bags of beans. Heck, give them peanut butter, too and canned vegetables/fruits at government run stores.
I think I'm OK with that too! :) And actually my military friends say government cheese is great for mac/cheese.
-
A substantial body research, across countries, and going back decades shows that the most effective form of social supports -- whether for food, housing, or general income -- are cash transfers with few restrictions. Direct subsidies like these are the most effective way to minimize the need for bureaucratic program administration, address short-term needs, and improve long-term outcomes.
And yet, most Americans hate the idea of cash transfers with few restrictions. In their hearts, Americans are still Puritan busybodies and it drives them nuts to think that their precious tax dollars are being used to pay for things they don't approve of! They would rather pay the same amount of tax to support a cumbersome bureaucracy that administers a byzantine set of restrictions and gives actual people less money than support a more efficient system of cash transfers that has a bit more waste but is more cost effective overall.
I know what you're thinking, "but I don't support cash transfers OR cumbersome bureaucracy!" Sorry, that is a real-world choice that needs to be made, because SNAP (and TANF and Section 8) aren't going anywhere, the funding levels might change but they aren't going away, so it's best for us all to find the system that works best, and the one that has shown to work best is cash transfers.
And yeah, we all have an uncle's daughter's boyfriend's stepfather's nephew, we know that receives welfare and also has a fancy car. This means nothing. We shouldn't be making policy decisions that affect millions of people based on the individual experiences of a few.
-
Post the research!
-
Here is a decent non-academic article (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/) summarizing the benefits of cash transfers.
Here is another lay article (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-02-28/cash-better-than-food-stamps-in-helping-poor-commentary-by-edward-glaeser) that summarizes the benefits of cash transfers, this one focusing specifically about food supports.
A more academic view of the economics behind cash transfers. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1816041?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
A summary of some recent academic research (http://www.cgdev.org/blog/can-cash-do-better-kind-aid-lets-find-out) supporting the effectiveness of cash.
Another study (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.6.2.195) about how cash transfers improve long-term outcomes better than in-kind ones.
You get the picture. Tons of other research out there about the effectiveness of cash, both conditional and unconditional, versus in-kind transfers. Search for articles with those terms and you'll find lots more.
-
I'd be fine with having folks pick up "government cheese" and powdered milk and bags of beans. Heck, give them peanut butter, too and canned vegetables/fruits at government run stores.
The Commodities Program does exist in some places... (that said, I did grow up on an Indian Reservation)
And let me tell you, they give more food that most folks can eat in a month... better too. Ground bison (not beef), frozen chicken, fresh veggies and fruits, milk (fresh and powdered), cheese, eggs (fresh and powdered) and more. Hell, a lot of it got donated to the food bank pretty regularly, because the CP recipients had an over-abundance.
-
I really don't understand what you are arguing about. SNAP pays you a set amount of money for food. In order to make that money go further (its not very much, try living off it for a month) you need to buy cheap food. Cheap food is bad food primarily because of our misdirected subsidies. ERGO, poor people eat bad food. IF you want poor people to eat good food with taxpayer money, make good food cheaper OR give them the money they actually need to afford good food.
It doesn't help that poor communities tend to be food deserts with no real grocery stores that sell good food anyway.
Tap water is cheaper than bottled water or soda. (unless you live in Flint)
or one of the 16 other major cities that have elevated pollutants in their water that hasn't received the same amount of national attention as Flint or St. Joseph, LA.
Soda is not healthy and if you want to address that issue, fine. If you want to address the SNAP program, fine. To conflate the two however is narrowing your focus too much on the poor and ignoring the larger issues.
Fixed it for you.
Ok, ok. Instead, lets fix our fresh water supplies and change subsidies. Make refined sugar something you have as a treat instead of a diet staple. But we all know that's not going to happen anytime soon.
-
If a person receives $200 in benefits, and spends $20 on soda, we could be giving them $180 without any negative impact on their ability to feed themselves. Seems like that's a no-brainer.
-
Here is a decent non-academic article (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/) summarizing the benefits of cash transfers.
Here is another lay article (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-02-28/cash-better-than-food-stamps-in-helping-poor-commentary-by-edward-glaeser) that summarizes the benefits of cash transfers, this one focusing specifically about food supports.
A more academic view of the economics behind cash transfers. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/1816041?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
A summary of some recent academic research (http://www.cgdev.org/blog/can-cash-do-better-kind-aid-lets-find-out) supporting the effectiveness of cash.
Another study (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.6.2.195) about how cash transfers improve long-term outcomes better than in-kind ones.
You get the picture. Tons of other research out there about the effectiveness of cash, both conditional and unconditional, versus in-kind transfers. Search for articles with those terms and you'll find lots more.
Thank you for posting this.
-
Relevant joke: http://www.theonion.com/article/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldnt-be-in-p-35922?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing (http://www.theonion.com/article/woman-a-leading-authority-on-what-shouldnt-be-in-p-35922?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing)
-
The other thing people forget about with the whole "no convenience foods for poor people" shtick, is that often this demographic has extremely poor kitchen infrastructure.
No fridge, no stove/oven. Maybe just a hot plate. Shitty landlords that don't provide appliances or fix broken stuff. Electricity turned off, so even if they have a fridge it isn't running. Pest problems prevent stocking up on dry goods.
What the fuck are they supposed to do?
A disabled friend just got on the section 8 special disabled wait list that is supposed to be shorter than if you aren't disabled. The last time they opened the list was 8 years ago.
So yay for her. It took 8 years (and counting- could be 18+ months still) but she'll finally have an apartment with minimal amenities.
But, sure, just not buying soda is the answer to all the poor people problems.
Soda is awful but we are talking a tiny part of a much bigger problem. Sure we could chip away at soda but how about we put energy towards the fundamental underlying problem instead?
-
The other thing people forget about with the whole "no convenience foods for poor people" shtick, is that often this demographic has extremely poor kitchen infrastructure.
Absolutely agree. Along with food deserts, problems with transporting food home if you don't have transportation, the price of healthier foods etc. etc.
But say we decide we want to get rid of soda et al. One rule change. Easy. Done. Move on to next problem. You can't say that something is a problem and well, there are bigger problems, so we're going to ignore it. What's the moral argument against no soda with SNAP?
-
Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.
What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).
So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.
I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.
-
Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.
What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).
So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.
I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.
It doesn't piss me off. Why is it rightful to be pissed?
Just for juxtaposition, I mentioned before that most of my food, all of my housing, and all of my medical care is provided by the American tax payer. No one suggests my food choices be monitored, and correctly shamed. I suppose there's the argument that I'm providing a service in return for my socialized care, but eh. Brass tacks are: SNAPy and I both get an allowance for food, and that my diabetic amputations and dialysis are going to cost just as much as a SNAPy's. Chances are my medical care will cost more, because I'm tearing my body up in pursuit of all this marvelous and moral industry.
Seems like the hue and cry is ultimately, as someone upthread mentioned, puritanical. Heaven forfend we witness the poor having any sort of pleasure, instead of licking at our Calvinistic boots. Complex social problems can't be solved by banning soda. But solving the complex social problem will probably cause soda to fall out of favour.
-
I just wish people would stop focusing on controlling other people's behavior, and focus on their own. Circles of control and all that. I know that what prompts me to change my bad habits is never shame, or people crawling up my ass to watch me or judge me, it's people who I like being a good example to follow. Inspire people with your actions, don't tear them down. That is actually what I like about this blog. It isn't the shaming or face punch aspect, it is turning frugality into a positive force for good in the world, giving a motivation and message that makes it seem less like a sacrifice and more like making it a personal connection to your values.
-
Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.
What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).
So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.
I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.
It doesn't piss me off. Why is it rightful to be pissed?
Just for juxtaposition, I mentioned before that most of my food, all of my housing, and all of my medical care is provided by the American tax payer. No one suggests my food choices be monitored, and correctly shamed. I suppose there's the argument that I'm providing a service in return for my socialized care, but eh. Brass tacks are: SNAPy and I both get an allowance for food, and that my diabetic amputations and dialysis are going to cost just as much as a SNAPy's. Chances are my medical care will cost more, because I'm tearing my body up in pursuit of all this marvelous and moral industry.
Seems like the hue and cry is ultimately, as someone upthread mentioned, puritanical. Heaven forfend we witness the poor having any sort of pleasure, instead of licking at our Calvinistic boots. Complex social problems can't be solved by banning soda. But solving the complex social problem will probably cause soda to fall out of favour.
I'm not sure I understand your statement that all your expenses are paid by taxpayers. It was unclear as to how. Would you like to share?
-
I urge everyone to read the actual research that the clickbaity New York Times article is referencing.
You can access it here. (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf)
A couple of salient points from the research that are not addressed in the NYT article:
- From the section "Data Caveats and Limitations": "The majority of stores from which the data came would be classified as grocery stores, supermarkets, and combination food and drug stores...Purchases made at other SNAP-authorized retailers or other venues (e.g., farmers markets) were not included in these data." Reading on you find out that this limits the data to approximately 80% of SNAP expenditures, leaving out data from foods purchased at some, presumably, healthier places like farmer's markets.
- From the "Key Findings" section: "There were no major differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households, no matter how the data were categorized."
- Also from the "Key Findings" section: "Less healthy food items were common purchases for both SNAP and non-SNAP households. Expenditures were greater for sweetened beverages compared to all milk for both groups, as well.
The U.S. is an unhealthy place. That is true for those families who receive SNAP and those that don't. Policies that impact the entire population (e.g., subsidies for healthy foods, taxes for unhealthy one) will be much more effective in addressing this problem than food restrictions that specifically single out SNAP receivers.
-
Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.
What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).
So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.
I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.
It doesn't piss me off. Why is it rightful to be pissed?
Just for juxtaposition, I mentioned before that most of my food, all of my housing, and all of my medical care is provided by the American tax payer. No one suggests my food choices be monitored, and correctly shamed. I suppose there's the argument that I'm providing a service in return for my socialized care, but eh. Brass tacks are: SNAPy and I both get an allowance for food, and that my diabetic amputations and dialysis are going to cost just as much as a SNAPy's. Chances are my medical care will cost more, because I'm tearing my body up in pursuit of all this marvelous and moral industry.
Seems like the hue and cry is ultimately, as someone upthread mentioned, puritanical. Heaven forfend we witness the poor having any sort of pleasure, instead of licking at our Calvinistic boots. Complex social problems can't be solved by banning soda. But solving the complex social problem will probably cause soda to fall out of favour.
I'm not sure I understand your statement that all your expenses are paid by taxpayers. It was unclear as to how. Would you like to share?
Sure. I'm in the Military. I've been living at the expense of The People for 12 years. At this point, chances are pretty high I'll obtain that magic 20 year goal, and then live for another 20-30 years on my pension without any work at all.
-
That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization. Spend your earnings the way you want.
-
The other thing people forget about with the whole "no convenience foods for poor people" shtick, is that often this demographic has extremely poor kitchen infrastructure.
Absolutely agree. Along with food deserts, problems with transporting food home if you don't have transportation, the price of healthier foods etc. etc.
But say we decide we want to get rid of soda et al. One rule change. Easy. Done. Move on to next problem. You can't say that something is a problem and well, there are bigger problems, so we're going to ignore it. What's the moral argument against no soda with SNAP?
It is not moral but logistical, how do we differentiate soda from other drinks (say sparkling water/grape juice) for the computer to decide that SNAP users can use their card for it understanding that grocery store computers are not the most up to date. And also, given that we know limitations don't seem to benefit anyone and that SNAP users are not drinking more soda than others, the question becomes is it really worth the effort and money to do this adjustment. I have not seen anything sufficient to say yes.
-
I have a family member who's owned convenience stores and worked in grocery for much of his life. He has talked about all the exact same things here and more - people paying for X dollars on SNAP, then having a second huge grocery cart with $200 in alcohol and other crap they pay for in cash (never credit, as cash is untraceable), while talking on their $650 iPhone Plus and wearing $1000+ worth of fancy clothes and jewelry and driving home in a Lexus.
This sounds like the fake welfare queen stereotypes that went around in the Reagan era and are perpetuated by Fox News. I would need to see pictures as it seems like if it has happened it would be a minuscule number. I grew up in a poor area during the Reagan/HW Bush era and never once saw what you are describing. Of course no iPhones then, but still.
-
That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization. Spend your earnings the way you want.
That's how you see it, but I don't fully share that outlook. Did I really, really earn 50 years of harassment-free pop purchasing, for 20 years of work? Possibly. Possibly not. What about the dude who worked 30 years at low paid labor, wrecked himself physically, and now relies on SNAP and Medicare? Shouldn't he get the same elder status I'll be given?
I guess I see too many nuances to be in favour of a unilateral crack down. The reason behind the proposed restriction just seems punitive, couched in some words about health. We don't have to agree, and I'm not demanding you rebut, just giving my viewpoint. Feel free to respond if you want conversation.
-
That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization. Spend your earnings the way you want.
Do you know how SNAP works and who it actually serves? It's a short term, small entitlement to help people during times of unexpected duress. It requires recipients to reapply every 3 to 6 months. Most recipients use the program for an average of 1 to 3 years. Only 10% of SNAP recipients receive other forms of welfare.
Most SNAP recipients have work histories -- indeed, SNAP is one of the most important programs for helping people who become unexpectedly unemployed -- and have paid in taxes into the system that administers SNAP. Now they are on the receiving end, rightfully taking advantage of supports that they themselves contributed to at an earlier point in time.
-
That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization. Spend your earnings the way you want.
Well then how about me? I have been gainfully unemployed for the 25 years I've been married to a service member and you will pay for my health and wellbeing for hopefully another 40 or 50 years.
I think the "hard" feelings about welfare and snap are based on thoughts on generational poverty. Fortunately, a lot of people need only temporary help and as such strange restrictions on soda seems like overkill- an unnecessary burden on governance
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I urge everyone to read the actual research that the clickbaity New York Times article is referencing.
You can access it here. (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/SNAPFoodsTypicallyPurchased.pdf)
A couple of salient points from the research that are not addressed in the NYT article:
- From the section "Data Caveats and Limitations": "The majority of stores from which the data came would be classified as grocery stores, supermarkets, and combination food and drug stores...Purchases made at other SNAP-authorized retailers or other venues (e.g., farmers markets) were not included in these data." Reading on you find out that this limits the data to approximately 80% of SNAP expenditures, leaving out data from foods purchased at some, presumably, healthier places like farmer's markets.
- From the "Key Findings" section: "There were no major differences in the expenditure patterns of SNAP and non-SNAP households, no matter how the data were categorized."
- Also from the "Key Findings" section: "Less healthy food items were common purchases for both SNAP and non-SNAP households. Expenditures were greater for sweetened beverages compared to all milk for both groups, as well.
The U.S. is an unhealthy place. That is true for those families who receive SNAP and those that don't. Policies that impact the entire population (e.g., subsidies for healthy foods, taxes for unhealthy one) will be much more effective in addressing this problem than food restrictions that specifically single out SNAP receivers.
Agree. The U.S. (everywhere?) is full of people focused on short term thinking. It's why I'm supportive of SS and Medicare and SNAP and other forms of aid. As much as we'd love for people to change their behavior, we know full well that they won't. If you eliminate SS, no one will save for retirement, but they will starve. If you eliminate Medicare in favor of vouchers, people won't make up for this by saving to accommodate an extra 24k/year in health insurance spending. And, this study shows that short term thinking is abundant throughout the population and our food choices, and that giving people aid doesn't matter one way or another to help them eat better. Hell, it's why we are all HERE instead of, just in any old echo chamber of the internet. We are a small slice of the population that is interested in changing behavior. It's why MMM is a whole philosophy that links healthy eating and behaviors and ecological concern as part of the mindset that leads to better choices and outcomes. We are the forum for all the kids who didn't eat the marshmallow. Most people at the marshmallow, including poor people on SNAP and your asshole neighbor with the RV and boat who can't make his mortgage payment.
-
That was my first guess -- you've earned your pay and benefits, which is different from charity via the government or private organization. Spend your earnings the way you want.
That's how you see it, but I don't fully share that outlook. Did I really, really earn 50 years of harassment-free pop purchasing, for 20 years of work? Possibly. Possibly not. What about the dude who worked 30 years at low paid labor, wrecked himself physically, and now relies on SNAP and Medicare? Shouldn't he get the same elder status I'll be given?
I guess I see too many nuances to be in favour of a unilateral crack down. The reason behind the proposed restriction just seems punitive, couched in some words about health. We don't have to agree, and I'm not demanding you rebut, just giving my viewpoint. Feel free to respond if you want conversation.
A thoughtful and articulate response.
-
I just wish people would stop focusing on controlling other people's behavior, and focus on their own. Circles of control and all that. I know that what prompts me to change my bad habits is never shame, or people crawling up my ass to watch me or judge me, it's people who I like being a good example to follow. Inspire people with your actions, don't tear them down. That is actually what I like about this blog. It isn't the shaming or face punch aspect, it is turning frugality into a positive force for good in the world, giving a motivation and message that makes it seem less like a sacrifice and more like making it a personal connection to your values.
I understand my circle of influence. If the powers that be decide they want to get rid of SNAPs soda purchasing power I wont care. If they somehow can't change rules for this, I understand my inability to do anything about it and probably wont care. But I still wouldn't view a rule change for soda and sugar as an ethical problem.
But still, fuck soda. Just another problem we wont be able to solve in at least the next four years, or until PPG gets impeached. I don't see food subsidies or the junk food industry changing anytime soon.
-
But still, fuck soda. Just another problem we wont be able to solve in at least the next four years, or until PPG gets impeached. I don't see food subsidies or the junk food industry changing anytime soon.
Wow... is this a "Thanks Trump" for the soda industry? Before inauguration even. Really, I'm impressed. :D
-
I would be happy if soda was banned entirely. That shit is no good for anybody.
But i don't think we should be dictating food choices. Food guidelines keep changing. (is margarine bad or good vs butter for example)
Another example: I think WIC makes a good effort but I disagree with WIC guidelines to only allow low fat milk for children 2 yrs and older. I personally think full fat milk is better for my children.
Soda seems like an obviously bad choice... But if folks are eligible for snap I don't mind giving them that choice.
How did prohibition turn out for you guys? :)
Full fat is milk is the recommendation here too for kids. For adults I reckon the difference is not all that large between full and low fat. It's not going to make a differenceif the rest of the person's diet is rubbish.
-
How did prohibition turn out for you guys? :)
Too soon, brah.
-
But still, fuck soda. Just another problem we wont be able to solve in at least the next four years, or until PPG gets impeached. I don't see food subsidies or the junk food industry changing anytime soon.
Wow... is this a "Thanks Trump" for the soda industry? Before inauguration even. Really, I'm impressed. :D
Just a general "nothing to benefit anybody but the top with those in office now" type of thing.
-
We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect. If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?
-
We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect. If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?
Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.
-
We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect. If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?
Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.
Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health? I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit. Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.
-
We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect. If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?
Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.
Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health? I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit. Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.
I think it's a lot more about what's considered socially acceptable.
We sell water in a bottle, that technically also has zero nutritional benefit, huge waste of money, but is socially acceptable.
Beer on the other hand is socially accepted but as a common luxury.
- Employee goes for a beer after a hard day of work, no one questions his choice of terrible taste.
- Father is unemployed and living off of life savings throws back a couple beers everyday at home: socially unacceptable!
Different example,
If a person lived nutritionally well and healthy and cheaply on a daily multi vitamin and loaf of bread and sugar water, would you still be against it?
They need to live, and they meet those needs. Why do they need to meet those needs under your specific conditions in regards to what is healthy for them?
-
I think it's a lot more about what's considered socially acceptable.
We sell water in a bottle, that technically also has zero nutritional benefit, huge waste of money, but is socially acceptable.
Water is required for many bodily functions. If somebody doesn't get any of it, they could die fairly quickly. I agree bottled water is a huge waste of money and is socially acceptable.
Beer on the other hand is socially accepted but as a common luxury.
- Employee goes for a beer after a hard day of work, no one questions his choice of terrible taste.
- Father is unemployed and living off of life savings throws back a couple beers everyday at home: socially unacceptable!
I don't have a problem with either of those scenarios - and there are a lot of "unemployed" retired folks here who enjoy drinking beer that would probably agree with me.
Different example,
If a person lived nutritionally well and healthy and cheaply on a daily multi vitamin and loaf of bread and sugar water, would you still be against it?
If a hypothetical person could be healthy eating those things would I still be against SNAP covering soda? Yes, of course. I'm not sure what your point is here.
They need to live, and they meet those needs. Why do they need to meet those needs under your specific conditions in regards to what is healthy for them?
I'm not arguing that we should create a system where it is restricted. SNAP is already set up that way. You can only buy things that someone has determined to be "food", with many exclusions. You can't buy hot food, you can't use it at restaurants, you can't buy alcohol, or tobacco. You also can't do many wonderful things with it, like buy gardening supplies, or donate it to charity. You can't buy pet food, or medicine, soap, or toilet paper. People still buy and consume those items of course, using money from savings, work, unemployment insurance, etc. SNAP is supposed to be a stop-gap to prevent people from starving, essentially, and I don't believe that buying and drinking soda's meaningfully contributes towards that goal.
-
Both sides are right in these ongoing welfare debates. Do poor people often make bad choices at the expense of taxpayers? Yes. Is overall spending on welfare a relative drop in the federal or state budget bucket compared to other giant programs like defense, and is it difficult or questionable to control what poor people can spend on? Yes.
What is generally lost in the debate is the perception that bad spending habits by people on welfare creates. Who doesn't get pissed when they see a welfare recipient loading up a cart with junk food and soda, just like the Onion article lampoons? It's like loaning money to your family member in need, then they go out and buy a big screen TV. It pisses you off, rightfully so (if you care about getting paid back).
So even if curbing the purchase of soda for welfare recipients really has no practical effect on reducing the budget or improving public health -- because there will always be people who make poor choices -- there may be benefit in just eliminating the extremely poor perception it creates for all the welfare recipients who do not abuse the system or make poor choices. That is, prohibit the purchase of soda so that people stop getting worked up over it and maligning welfare recipients. Everyone wins.
I'll bet all the welfare money spent on soda by all the recipients in a year or maybe in a decade wouldn't match the cost of even a single F-35 fighter jet. But yet, it's aggravating to observe waste of taxpayer money in any form, so get rid of it.
It doesn't piss me off. Why is it rightful to be pissed?
Just for juxtaposition, I mentioned before that most of my food, all of my housing, and all of my medical care is provided by the American tax payer. No one suggests my food choices be monitored, and correctly shamed. I suppose there's the argument that I'm providing a service in return for my socialized care, but eh. Brass tacks are: SNAPy and I both get an allowance for food, and that my diabetic amputations and dialysis are going to cost just as much as a SNAPy's. Chances are my medical care will cost more, because I'm tearing my body up in pursuit of all this marvelous and moral industry.
Seems like the hue and cry is ultimately, as someone upthread mentioned, puritanical. Heaven forfend we witness the poor having any sort of pleasure, instead of licking at our Calvinistic boots. Complex social problems can't be solved by banning soda. But solving the complex social problem will probably cause soda to fall out of favour.
I assume, however, that you are subject to the military's height/ weight and physical fitness requirements, no? Which at least may control your choices.
-
We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect. If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?
Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.
Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health? I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit. Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.
I the point isn't that soda is a health food. It's that restricting people's choices is bad as a general practice, and that programs that seek to do this are no more successful at cultivating good habits or successful outcomes than programs that dole out support with few strings attached.
-
We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect. If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?
Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.
Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health? I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit. Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.
I the point isn't that soda is a health food. It's that restricting people's choices is bad as a general practice, and that programs that seek to do this are no more successful at cultivating good habits or successful outcomes than programs that dole out support with few strings attached.
Well, the point for me is exactly that soda isn't healthy, and isn't food at all. Sure, restricting choice for people is bad as a general practice, but I'm not sure that it applies to the problem at hand. I'm still not hearing an argument to convince me why restricting non-food items from SNAP is a bad idea.
Here's an interesting TED talk about choice. Unsure if it would actually apply to soda and SNAP, but interesting nonetheless:
https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose (https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose)
I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)
-
I have a family member who's owned convenience stores and worked in grocery for much of his life. He has talked about all the exact same things here and more - people paying for X dollars on SNAP, then having a second huge grocery cart with $200 in alcohol and other crap they pay for in cash (never credit, as cash is untraceable), while talking on their $650 iPhone Plus and wearing $1000+ worth of fancy clothes and jewelry and driving home in a Lexus.
This sounds like the fake welfare queen stereotypes that went around in the Reagan era and are perpetuated by Fox News. I would need to see pictures as it seems like if it has happened it would be a minuscule number. I grew up in a poor area during the Reagan/HW Bush era and never once saw what you are describing. Of course no iPhones then, but still.
No amont of anecdotal evidence will convince you, just as a small amount of anecdotal evidence confirms my bias, as you would say.
Last week my friend drove a couple of kids from the projects home from school. They wanted her to stop at the grocery store to buy bottled water for their mother since that is the only kind of water she will drink.
In my city we have great tap water, it wins awards for taste.
But no matter, the woman living in public housng can somehow afford bottled water. Oh wait, I guess that is because she pays $12/month rent. She has low rent payments because the taxpayers fund her housIng.
We are AWEsOME!
-
If I'm filling out an application for SNAP then I'm voluntarily looking for help with my grocery bill. Why would I be offended that the help had restrictions and I wasn't allowed to buy junk food with it? Makes sense to me. If SNAP exists because some people can't afford to feed themselves and their families healthy food, then it should be used for healthy food. What's the point of it if it's not used for that?
On the other hand, the S stands for supplemental. People will buy soda anyway. They have access to other cash. They're going to find the $2 for Coke one way or another. So then it comes down to the principle of the issue, right? We're not really stopping people from buying junk food if we restrict food stamps.
And let's face it, the more restrictions, the more expensive the program becomes to administer. So if the cost of SNAP goes up because there's additional monitoring and regulations, but we accomplish absolutely no net benefit whatsoever other than patting ourselves on the back for the principle of the thing, then who the F cares if SNAP is being used to buy a Coke?
-
We already restrict people from buying beer/wine with SNAP benefits, even though there are many studies that correlate moderate alcohol intake with increased health benefits and life expectancy. Soda has the opposite effect. If we are already dictating that they can't have a beer, then why get up in arms about soda?
Because pure individual health is not the only problem with alcohol. Soda is hardly the enemy worth fighting through this program.
Is alcohol restricted as a matter of promoting health? I thought it was restricted because it provides no nutritional benefit. Soda, of course, also provides no nutritional benefit, which is my primary argument against it being covered under SNAP.
I the point isn't that soda is a health food. It's that restricting people's choices is bad as a general practice, and that programs that seek to do this are no more successful at cultivating good habits or successful outcomes than programs that dole out support with few strings attached.
Well, the point for me is exactly that soda isn't healthy, and isn't food at all. Sure, restricting choice for people is bad as a general practice, but I'm not sure that it applies to the problem at hand. I'm still not hearing an argument to convince me why restricting non-food items from SNAP is a bad idea.
Here's an interesting TED talk about choice. Unsure if it would actually apply to soda and SNAP, but interesting nonetheless:
https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose (https://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_choosing_what_to_choose)
I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)
Coffee is not food, how many people also want to ban that from SNAP? How would you feel if someone tried to keep your coffee from you? I don't personally drink coffee, I drink soda for the caffeine instead. If for some reason I needed to go on food stamps, I'd be buying soda because it helps me work.
-
Isn't there just a master list of barcodes that are allowed or disallowed that the stores pull from a centralized location regularly? I don't really see how adding or removing a couple UPCs to a system adds any real complexity.
-
Isn't there just a master list of barcodes that are allowed or disallowed that the stores pull from a centralized location regularly? I don't really see how adding or removing a couple UPCs to a system adds any real complexity.
No, there really is not. The cashier is suppose to know if the item is acceptable, and some, very few large grocery stores will tag grocery items vs non, but that is up to the store. For example, you can buy seeds with SNAP. Is that food, well according to SNAP yes but according to most people no. Same with bottled water, it is food because there may be a need for it. It would cost more to set up a system like you think exists.
-
Isn't there just a master list of barcodes that are allowed or disallowed that the stores pull from a centralized location regularly? I don't really see how adding or removing a couple UPCs to a system adds any real complexity.
Also, new items come and go from grocery stores on a daily basis. If there was a master list, food producers would need to apply to the administration to get their item on the list. Meanwhile, items on the list would need to be periodically reviewed to ensure they still meet the restrictions of SNAP. Simply creating and maintaining such a list would be a monumental and expensive bureaucratic task.
-
I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)
Coffee is not food, how many people also want to ban that from SNAP? How would you feel if someone tried to keep your coffee from you? I don't personally drink coffee, I drink soda for the caffeine instead. If for some reason I needed to go on food stamps, I'd be buying soda because it helps me work.
I don't drink coffee. Not sure I would feel bad about not allowing that either. Did you know that you can buy K cups with food stamps? Talk about another thing that should be banned, a la bottled water, outright for the pollution they cause.
-
I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)
Coffee is not food, how many people also want to ban that from SNAP? How would you feel if someone tried to keep your coffee from you? I don't personally drink coffee, I drink soda for the caffeine instead. If for some reason I needed to go on food stamps, I'd be buying soda because it helps me work.
I don't drink coffee. Not sure I would feel bad about not allowing that either. Did you know that you can buy K cups with food stamps? Talk about another thing that should be banned, a la bottled water, outright for the pollution they cause.
I'm sure the people of Flint and other cities with water problems should be allowed bottled water even on food stamps. There are too many situations which cannot be planned for without a large fiscal outlay that make certain options useful. Because we are not going to get a large enough benefit for the fiscal outlay, I don't think it is worth cutting things from food stamps.
-
Step 1. Pay for soda
Step 2. Pay for dialysis
Step 3. Pay for amputation
Step 4. Pay for ICU stay
But who pays for the coffin? Just drink diet soda damnit!
I used to drink one, maybe two diet cokes a week. I finally gave up soda because my doctor was nagging me so much to stop drinking diet and go to regular. Multiple doctors told me that.
Is there a reason you think it is healthier?
Odd for multiple doctors to have that opinion, given that there's little/no evidence to support it. Has there ever been a single study that found negative health effects from drinking one or two diet cokes a week, which were cured or prevented by switching to one or two regular cokes a week? I have yet to see it.
One or two of anything save rat poison or meth won't hurt you much. If it's "food" of any kind at all you can probably safely eat it a couple times a week unless you have an allergy.
Unfortunately MDs are not biochemists or nutritionists, and they are often horribly misinformed about even pretty basic stuff.
-W
Oooh! I know a little about this topic. Indigestible foods (like artificial sweeteners but also fibers) often can be fermented (eaten) by the bacteria in our gut. Our gut microbiome is really, really complicated and the number of organisms in it outnumbers the number of human cells in our own body. We are learning more and more about the roles they have evolved to play in our bodies. While we don't yet know what a "good" gut looks like, there is at least one measure, basically a high ratio of bacteria in one genus to those of another, which seems "bad" because people with metabolic syndrome (diabetes and the like) have it. It is hard to measure the effect of foods on our gut microbiota because you would have to control everything that the subjects ate. They can do this with farm animals and rats, and in rats it seems that artificial sweeteners alter this ratio towards the bad, "metabolic syndrome"-y direction. This might be because it is utilized more by the "bad" bacteria which leads them to outcompete the good ones.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/
(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/artificial-sweeteners-may-change-our-gut-bacteria-in-dangerous-ways/)
So yeah... I would hold off on drinking diet cokes, because back when they concluded artificial sweeteners were safe, looking at the gut microbiome wasn't even a thing yet. It's still going to be a matter of time before we see recent research become part of common medical advice, and doctors can't be expected to keep up with all of that. My opinion is that you can't get "something for nothing" in your food choices.
-
I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)
Coffee is not food, how many people also want to ban that from SNAP? How would you feel if someone tried to keep your coffee from you? I don't personally drink coffee, I drink soda for the caffeine instead. If for some reason I needed to go on food stamps, I'd be buying soda because it helps me work.
I don't drink coffee. Not sure I would feel bad about not allowing that either. Did you know that you can buy K cups with food stamps? Talk about another thing that should be banned, a la bottled water, outright for the pollution they cause.
I'm sure the people of Flint and other cities with water problems should be allowed bottled water even on food stamps. There are too many situations which cannot be planned for without a large fiscal outlay that make certain options useful. Because we are not going to get a large enough benefit for the fiscal outlay, I don't think it is worth cutting things from food stamps.
Well, sure, who could argue against Flint and bottled water? But doesn't change the idea about soda. It actually points to collecting and spending tax to improve our infrastructure. Flint is embarrassing on so many levels living in a rich country like the United States.
On a side note about soda though...when I was on the ship, somehow they got JP-5 (jet fuel) in the potable water....the showers smelled like a gas station.
Anyway, I drank soda for the rest of the cruise. Probably was chronically dehydrated.
-
I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)
Coffee is not food, how many people also want to ban that from SNAP? How would you feel if someone tried to keep your coffee from you? I don't personally drink coffee, I drink soda for the caffeine instead. If for some reason I needed to go on food stamps, I'd be buying soda because it helps me work.
I don't drink coffee. Not sure I would feel bad about not allowing that either. Did you know that you can buy K cups with food stamps? Talk about another thing that should be banned, a la bottled water, outright for the pollution they cause.
Yes, now SNAP should combat pollution. If that is the goal of the program, then I suppose a budget increase would make sense. If we expand the program from "temporarily assist low income people on acquiring food" to "force participants to eat only healthy food with minimal environmental impacts" there would need to be some changes.
-
I'll double down: Fuck soda. Smiley face :)
Coffee is not food, how many people also want to ban that from SNAP? How would you feel if someone tried to keep your coffee from you? I don't personally drink coffee, I drink soda for the caffeine instead. If for some reason I needed to go on food stamps, I'd be buying soda because it helps me work.
I don't drink coffee. Not sure I would feel bad about not allowing that either. Did you know that you can buy K cups with food stamps? Talk about another thing that should be banned, a la bottled water, outright for the pollution they cause.
Yes, now SNAP should combat pollution. If that is the goal of the program, then I suppose a budget increase would make sense. If we expand the program from "temporarily assist low income people on acquiring food" to "force participants to eat only healthy food with minimal environmental impacts" there would need to be some changes.
Sorry that was your take from my aside. But now that you mention it, why not institute more sustainability programs into that too? Great idea.
-
Sorry that was your take from my aside. But now that you mention it, why not institute more sustainability programs into that too? Great idea.
I've got no problem with that. Hopefully the program will force persons to plant trees to off-set some of their carbon usage, and encourage low income persons to increase the energy efficiency of their homes and reduce fossil fuel use overall. No reason not to.
-
Folks have been bringing up examples of non-soda items in their arguments against excluding soda. Here, and other places, some common ones are:
- Coffee
- Tea
- Bottled Water
- Prime Rib
- Lobster
Each of those is very different than soda, and the arguments for and against their inclusion are different. Soda is uniquely bad for reasons which have been discussed here already. It is such a known problem that governments around the world have tried to curtail consumption. I believe it was New York that tried to limit soda sizes, and France very recently banned free-refills on soda.
Soda is a pure vice, with massive negative consequences on the individual and societal level, and no positive offset. "But if feels nice when I drink it!" is the only reason to support it's consumption, is that correct? Certainly people can spend unrestricted dollars on whatever they want, .. SNAP is restricted funds as a stop-gap to prevent starvation or nutritional deficiency, and I just don't see how soda works to achieve that goal.
-
Folks have been bringing up examples of non-soda items in their arguments against excluding soda. Here, and other places, some common ones are:
- Coffee
- Tea
- Bottled Water
- Prime Rib
- Lobster
Each of those is very different than soda, and the arguments for and against their inclusion are different. Soda is uniquely bad for reasons which have been discussed here already. It is such a known problem that governments around the world have tried to curtail consumption. I believe it was New York that tried to limit soda sizes, and France very recently banned free-refills on soda.
Soda is a pure vice, with massive negative consequences on the individual and societal level, and no positive offset. "But if feels nice when I drink it!" is the only reason to support it's consumption, is that correct? Certainly people can spend unrestricted dollars on whatever they want, .. SNAP is restricted funds as a stop-gap to prevent starvation or nutritional deficiency, and I just don't see how soda works to achieve that goal.
Soda can be an effective source of carb-equivilents during a hypoglycemic event. There are a non-zero number of positive uses for it.
-
Soda can be an effective source of carb-equivilents during a hypoglycemic event. There are a non-zero number of positive uses for it.
Yes, true. But one could also eat a banana. I think you're reaching.
-
Soda can be an effective source of carb-equivilents during a hypoglycemic event. There are a non-zero number of positive uses for it.
Yes, true. But one could also eat a banana. I think you're reaching.
Bananas don't stay fresh for long periods of time. Having them available for emergency 'what-ifs' could be difficult.
(I carry glucose tablets, but our office actually has soda stocked specifically for this reason as part of their emergency plan. The office manager would ahve to rotate bananas much more frequently than she has to rotate sodas.)
-
To clarify my point regarding bananas: although soda can be used for acute hypoglycemia it's not enough of an argument for me that SNAP should allow soda. There are a lot of things one can use for some low blood sugar.
All I'm saying is that I still have not heard an argument that would convince me that SNAP should allow soda.
If the rule doesn't change it wont be the end of the world, but I still think soda is no good.
-
To clarify my point regarding bananas: although soda can be used for acute hypoglycemia it's not enough of an argument for me that SNAP should allow soda. There are a lot of things one can use for some low blood sugar.
All I'm saying is that I still have not heard an argument that would convince me that SNAP should allow soda.
If the rule doesn't change it wont be the end of the world, but I still think soda is no good.
Because there would be an increase cost for a non-sufficient benefit.
-
I see this along the same lines as the experiment where some states tried drug-testing their welfare recipients. The drug testing ended up costing taxpayers more money than it saved.
-
To clarify my point regarding bananas: although soda can be used for acute hypoglycemia it's not enough of an argument for me that SNAP should allow soda. There are a lot of things one can use for some low blood sugar.
All I'm saying is that I still have not heard an argument that would convince me that SNAP should allow soda.
If the rule doesn't change it wont be the end of the world, but I still think soda is no good.
Because there would be an increase cost for a non-sufficient benefit.
That argument has already been brought up. It was not deemed sufficient.
-
Folks have been bringing up examples of non-soda items in their arguments against excluding soda. Here, and other places, some common ones are:
- Coffee
- Tea
- Bottled Water
- Prime Rib
- Lobster
Each of those is very different than soda, and the arguments for and against their inclusion are different. Soda is uniquely bad for reasons which have been discussed here already. It is such a known problem that governments around the world have tried to curtail consumption. I believe it was New York that tried to limit soda sizes, and France very recently banned free-refills on soda.
Soda is a pure vice, with massive negative consequences on the individual and societal level, and no positive offset. "But if feels nice when I drink it!" is the only reason to support it's consumption, is that correct? Certainly people can spend unrestricted dollars on whatever they want, .. SNAP is restricted funds as a stop-gap to prevent starvation or nutritional deficiency, and I just don't see how soda works to achieve that goal.
Soda can be an effective source of carb-equivilents during a hypoglycemic event. There are a non-zero number of positive uses for it.
Damn-it, another reason to hate diabetes!
I would argue that this specific use of soda is as a medication, not as a food (there is some overlap there, but the intent is clearly to manage a medical condition). Medicine is not covered by SNAP at this time.
-
Isn't there just a master list of barcodes that are allowed or disallowed that the stores pull from a centralized location regularly? I don't really see how adding or removing a couple UPCs to a system adds any real complexity.
No, there really is not. The cashier is suppose to know if the item is acceptable, and some, very few large grocery stores will tag grocery items vs non, but that is up to the store. For example, you can buy seeds with SNAP. Is that food, well according to SNAP yes but according to most people no. Same with bottled water, it is food because there may be a need for it. It would cost more to set up a system like you think exists.
All the stores around here have computerized systems. They track which items are taxable and which are not - I've discovered there's some pretty arcane definitions of what is food (not taxed). Salted peanuts and honey are not taxed, but honey roasted peanuts ARE taxed. Apparently candy is excluded from the tax exempt status of food, and honey roasted peanuts are on the list of candy items. It's clearly coded on my receipt.
Another set of arcane rules grocery stores have programmed in their register systems here: bottle deposits. Pop and beer bottles have a deposit charged at checkout, but other bottles like juice do not. Before the proliferation of energy drinks and bottled water, the distinction was codified as "carbonated beverages" required a deposit. So the odd can of iced tea or lemonade in a variety case of pop had no deposit, while all the otherwise identical cans of pop were charged a deposit. When water bottles became a growing problem, a deposit was added to them, even though they are clearly not carbonated. Confused yet? The grocery store scanner isn't - it is programmed to handle deposits and taxes properly.
I haven't used SNAP, but I'd have to guess that eligible for SNAP is merely another code applied to items in every grocery store here, reflected on the receipt.
-
Yeah I have a hard time believing that cashiers are supposed to know what's SNAP eligible and what isn't, when every store already has a system to compute tax depending on the item category.
Willing to be proven wrong, if somebody can find an authoritative source.
-
Yeah I have a hard time believing that cashiers are supposed to know what's SNAP eligible and what isn't, when every store already has a system to compute tax depending on the item category.
Willing to be proven wrong, if somebody can find an authoritative source.
Umm, self-checkouts? I scan the item, the system does the rest. I don't think about whether I need to add taxes or deposits or sale discounts, they are automatic.
Of course, I seem to be the beta tester for our Aldi on Sunday mornings when the new sales go into place. Nearly every week I find some discount that didn't go thru automatically. The cashier gets on her walkie talkie to tell a manager to fix it in the computer. It's usually a local price change - discount on overstocked item almost out of date.
-
Just another reason taking money from some people by force and giving it to others is never a good idea.
Now, tax payers want to judge and say "no you can't get soda"
Well had they been given money, they wouldn't be drinking tax paid for soda :(
-
Just another reason taking money from some people by force and giving it to others is never a good idea.
Now, tax payers want to judge and say "no you can't get soda"
Well had they been given money, they wouldn't be drinking tax paid for soda :(
I don't consider taxes the equivalent to robbery. Just think soda's awful.
-
Yeah I have a hard time believing that cashiers are supposed to know what's SNAP eligible and what isn't, when every store already has a system to compute tax depending on the item category.
Willing to be proven wrong, if somebody can find an authoritative source.
Yes, I think Gin's information may be a little bit outdated. How else would EBT card users go through self-check out?