GOP wants to ban foodstamp-purchased junk food

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Often not because it's where they would prefer to end up, but because it's the option that's less horrifying than the others. Now, that's just part of life, and we've all dealt with it at some point in some form or another. But to dismiss it as "People choose where they end up" willfully ignores numerous factors that go into that decision, and is simply callous in how it disregards how painful that decision making process can be.

Not really. I merely expect people to deal with those painful choices, just as I did.

Okay, literally nobody is saying that people shouldn't deal with those painful choices. That's not even a topic of discussion. The discussion revolves around what sort of assistance a civilized society (or at least a society with aspirations of being civilized) should provide to people who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances.

And never, EVER assume that when people are going to have the resources, tools, or be in the circumstances to deal with their painful choices "just as you did". Your situation was a unique one, whatever it may have been, as was mine, as are theirs.

[Gauthier]

To...where? Where are you going to find a place to live if you don't have a job or money? Unless you have friends or relatives who are willing to take you on as a charity case while you're looking to get your life back on track, your only realistic choice is to look for work where you are, and apply for food assistance so that you can keep yourself fed while looking. So, yes, you kind of have to live in San Francisco if you don't want to be homeless in a strange city.

Jesus, your fetishistic take on self-sufficiency borders on the psychopathic in nature, in that if causes you to become detached from reality.

Really, you would rather they depend on the forced charity of strangers over that of family and friends, and to buy luxuries with that forced charity? I would not say my take on self-sufficiency is the one disconnected from reality.

Again, the "luxuries" are often way cheaper than the "necessities". And forget about the "necessities" if you're in a food desert. This inability of yours to imagine the lot of people in situations that aren't yours is almost sociopathic.

[Big Jim P]

Not really. I merely expect people to deal with those painful choices, just as I did.

Okay, literally nobody is saying that people shouldn't deal with those painful choices. That's not even a topic of discussion. The discussion revolves around what sort of assistance a civilized society (or at least a society with aspirations of being civilized) should provide to people who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances.

And never, EVER assume that when people are going to have the resources, tools, or be in the circumstances to deal with their painful choices "just as you did". Your situation was a unique one, whatever it may have been, as was mine, as are theirs.

Actually, the discussion is about whether or not said assistance should be used to buy luxuries as opposed to necessities.

[Big Jim P]

Really, you would rather they depend on the forced charity of strangers over that of family and friends, and to buy luxuries with that forced charity? I would not say my take on self-sufficiency is the one disconnected from reality.

Again, the "luxuries" are often way cheaper than the "necessities". And forget about the "necessities" if you're in a food desert. This inability of yours to imagine the lot of people in situations that aren't yours is almost sociopathic.

I was in the same situation and have no trouble imagining others in the same situation. I worked my way out of it. So can they.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Okay, literally nobody is saying that people shouldn't deal with those painful choices. That's not even a topic of discussion. The discussion revolves around what sort of assistance a civilized society (or at least a society with aspirations of being civilized) should provide to people who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances.

And never, EVER assume that when people are going to have the resources, tools, or be in the circumstances to deal with their painful choices "just as you did". Your situation was a unique one, whatever it may have been, as was mine, as are theirs.

Actually, the discussion is about whether or not said assistance should be used to buy luxuries as opposed to necessities.

Right. The luxuries. Like "junk food". So you still haven't answered the following, unless I somehow missed your reply:

As someone wheo was raised in poverty (and knows it all too well) and worked his way out of it, I will say that United Angkoria is right. Junk food is a luxury.

Life's a bitch. Suck it up and drive on.

Define "junk food". Don''t just give examples, but define it.

[Gauthier]

Again, the "luxuries" are often way cheaper than the "necessities". And forget about the "necessities" if you're in a food desert. This inability of yours to imagine the lot of people in situations that aren't yours is almost sociopathic.

I was in the same situation and have no trouble imagining others in the same situation. I worked my way out of it. So can they.

And you assume everyone is in the exact same situation you were in. That's the first thing wrong.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Again, the "luxuries" are often way cheaper than the "necessities". And forget about the "necessities" if you're in a food desert. This inability of yours to imagine the lot of people in situations that aren't yours is almost sociopathic.

I was in the same situation and have no trouble imagining others in the same situation. I worked my way out of it. So can they.

And never, EVER assume that when people are going to have the resources, tools, or be in the circumstances to deal with their painful choices "just as you did". Your situation was a unique one, whatever it may have been, as was mine, as are theirs.

[Big Jim P]

Actually, the discussion is about whether or not said assistance should be used to buy luxuries as opposed to necessities.

Right. The luxuries. Like "junk food". So you still haven't answered the following, unless I somehow missed your reply:

Junk food would be any food intended as snacks. I would however prefer that the definition be set by a nutritionist.

[Big Jim P]

I was in the same situation and have no trouble imagining others in the same situation. I worked my way out of it. So can they.

And never, EVER assume that when people are going to have the resources, tools, or be in the circumstances to deal with their painful choices "just as you did". Your situation was a unique one, whatever it may have been, as was mine, as are theirs.

Then they can find their own unique way out of their situation. Just like I did.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Right. The luxuries. Like "junk food". So you still haven't answered the following, unless I somehow missed your reply:

Junk food would be any food intended as snacks. I would however prefer that the definition be set by a nutritionist.

Snacks. So, almonds? Fruit? Those are okay, right? I just bought those for my wife, and I'd hate to think that I was contributing to poor dietary habits for her.

How about potato chips? Well, those are greasy and high-calorie. But baked ones? Are those okay?

Candy bars, no. But granola bars? Those are healthy, right? Except for the ones that have more sugar than a candy bar.

Oh, what about trail mix? Peanuts and raisins are okay. But what if they have M&Ms mixed in?

Well, here's one that nobody can argue with: Naked Juice. Except, wait, it has more sugar than three Krispy Kreme donuts.

But you're right. Hand it over to the nutritionists, no two of whom agree on anything regarding a proper diet, since this isn't an exact science. I'm sure that months upon months of wrangling and compromises won't lead to a complex bureaucracy, mass confusion among both shoppers and retailers, issues regarding exceptions not being made for those with food allergies (a major problem with WIC), and the inability of those who live in food deserts to be able to shop for the only food that they're allowed to buy now. But tough shit, right? So what if this actually ends up costing more, and causes more problems than it solves?

[Gauthier]

Then they can find their own unique way out of their situation. Just like I did.

A testimonial fallacy, even if you aren't a celebrity.

[Big Jim P]

Junk food would be any food intended as snacks. I would however prefer that the definition be set by a nutritionist.

Snacks. So, almonds? Fruit? Those are okay, right? I just bought those for my wife, and I'd hate to think that I was contributing to poor dietary habits for her.

How about potato chips? Well, those are greasy and high-calorie. But baked ones? Are those okay?

Candy bars, no. But granola bars? Those are healthy, right? Except for the ones that have more sugar than a candy bar.

Oh, what about trail mix? Peanuts and raisins are okay. But what if they have M&Ms mixed in?

Well, here's one that nobody can argue with: Naked Juice. Except, wait, it has more sugar than three Krispy Kreme donuts.

But you're right. Hand it over to the nutritionists, no two of whom agree on anything regarding a proper diet, since this isn't an exact science. I'm sure that months upon months of wrangling and compromises won't lead to a complex bureaucracy, mass confusion among both shoppers and retailers, issues regarding exceptions not being made for those with food allergies (a major problem with WIC), and the inability of those who live in food deserts to be able to shop for the only food that they're allowed to buy now. But tough shit, right? So what if this actually ends up costing more, and causes more problems than it solves?

I agree that there should be exceptions made for food allergies. As for food-deserts, how far does one need to live from a grocery store to be considered to be living in a food desert?

[Big Jim P]

Then they can find their own unique way out of their situation. Just like I did.

A testimonial fallacy, even if you aren't a celebrity.

I know where I started, I know where I am at, and I know what it took to get here. If that is unacceptable as a debate tactic, then so be it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Then they can find their own unique way out of their situation. Just like I did.

"My problem was that I was on the streets. However, there was a decent shelter run by the city, and I managed to get a bed one night, stayed there, and with the help of a social worker, I was able to get a job and my own place."

"My problem was that I was raised by a father who sexually abused me on a weekly basis, and a mother who beat me when I told her. I was scared to go to the authorities, so I ran away at age 15, and since I was too young to get a job without my parents permission, and didn't know about any programs in my area, I became a convenient target for a pimp, who was the only one to show me any kindness. He sold me for two years in increasingly degrading circumstances, then tossed me out when the crack he'd addicted me to in order to maintain more control over me caused my teeth to fall out. I was arrested for possession and prostitution on several occasions, meaning that with a record, I was unable to find a job in this economy. Now I'm suffering from a wide range of psychological problems, but whenever I go to county mental health services, they tell me that there's no appointment open for three months. I'm not convinced that I'll be alive in three months."

"My problem is that people say that I'm a paranoid schizophrenic, but I know that the real problem is that the demons scream at me so much that I can't function."

"My problem is that I screwed up badly when I was younger, and have felonies on my record. I can't get a job that pays more than minimum wage, which isn't enough to survive out here, and I don't have the cash to move, which means that I'm going to have to break the law again in order to make enough money to get me out of this situation...but I don't want to do that."

"My problem is that I fell sick without insurance at my last job, so they fired me for not showing up. Now I'm too sick to look for work, and the landlord turned me out on the street. The county gives me some medication, but I need constant care and treatment if I'm going to get better."

You know what would actually help these people?

Comprehensive social services. Ones that take their individual stories and issues into account, and help them to find the tools in order to get to wherever they need to go in life. Not harsh judgment, not a shrug of the shoulders, and certainly not that sanctimonious idea that if one person can make it out of a bad situation on his own, then all people can do so.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Snacks. So, almonds? Fruit? Those are okay, right? I just bought those for my wife, and I'd hate to think that I was contributing to poor dietary habits for her.

How about potato chips? Well, those are greasy and high-calorie. But baked ones? Are those okay?

Candy bars, no. But granola bars? Those are healthy, right? Except for the ones that have more sugar than a candy bar.

Oh, what about trail mix? Peanuts and raisins are okay. But what if they have M&Ms mixed in?

Well, here's one that nobody can argue with: Naked Juice. Except, wait, it has more sugar than three Krispy Kreme donuts.

But you're right. Hand it over to the nutritionists, no two of whom agree on anything regarding a proper diet, since this isn't an exact science. I'm sure that months upon months of wrangling and compromises won't lead to a complex bureaucracy, mass confusion among both shoppers and retailers, issues regarding exceptions not being made for those with food allergies (a major problem with WIC), and the inability of those who live in food deserts to be able to shop for the only food that they're allowed to buy now. But tough shit, right? So what if this actually ends up costing more, and causes more problems than it solves?

I agree that there should be exceptions made for food allergies. As for food-deserts, how far does one need to live from a grocery store to be considered to be living in a food desert?

Literally the first thing that I found on Google.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/f ... jVzrsbUnh4

EDIT: Also, what about EVERYTHING ELSE I MENTIONED?

[Saiwania]

Actually, the discussion is about whether or not said assistance should be used to buy luxuries as opposed to necessities.

I'm inclined to say yes, because the money is still being spent on food and it is not like a food stamp recipient gets any more money once their food stamp budget for the month is depleted. The money spent still goes back into the economy, all allowing food "luxuries" would do is give some financial freedom to low income people and empower them to freely make their own shopping decisions which is a good thing.

It is not getting a special privilege, it is just being able to buy the food they want like anyone else.

[Sibirsky]

Junk food is a luxury, not an essential.

That's why it's so much cheaper.

Do you even know, the definition of the word luxury?

[Sibirsky]

Junk food is a luxury, not an essential.

Because junk food is monolithic as fuck and it's not like it's a cheap, easy way to quell one's hunger or anything.

Someone here doesn't understand poverty.

There is no need to understand poverty to understand prices

A slight need to understand math.

The McDonald's dollar menu, for example. If that does not say luxury, compared to $50 steaks, I don't know what does.

[Big Jim P]

I agree that there should be exceptions made for food allergies. As for food-deserts, how far does one need to live from a grocery store to be considered to be living in a food desert?

Literally the first thing that I found on Google.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/f ... jVzrsbUnh4

EDIT: Also, what about EVERYTHING ELSE I MENTIONED?

For the shortcomings you mentioned, nutritionists are still better qualified than I to define junk food. That covers the list of foods you presented as well.

The solution to food deserts, and restrictions on what can be bought with food stamps: government run food banks, placed as needed.

The only solution as far as cost is concerned, is the elimination of the program altogether.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Literally the first thing that I found on Google.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/f ... jVzrsbUnh4

EDIT: Also, what about EVERYTHING ELSE I MENTIONED?

For the shortcomings you mentioned, nutritionists are still better qualified than I to define junk food. That covers the list of foods you presented as well.

The solution to food deserts, and restrictions on what can be bought with food stamps: government run food banks, placed as needed.

The only solution as far as cost is concerned, is the elimination of the program altogether.

Nutritionists are not better qualified, as that would indicate that there is a set group of standards to be educated on. There isn't. Combine the confusion, conflict, and compromises I mentioned earlier with the inevitable food industry lobbying, and I can absolutely guarantee you that the standards that they come out with will make absolutely no practical sense whatsoever.

How much will these food banks cost when you consider the massive number of food deserts all over the United States? How will they be kept supplied? Will they be open as long as supermarkets so that working people will be able to pick up food on their way home from work, or will they close at 5 like most government offices? Will they have a wide selection of fresh fruits and vegetables like supermarkets do, or will they mostly be stocked with the wilting castoffs seen in most privately run food banks?

Elimination of the program altogether...,how in the world will the inevitable enormous spike in crime be a solution in terms of costs?

[Big Jim P]

For the shortcomings you mentioned, nutritionists are still better qualified than I to define junk food. That covers the list of foods you presented as well.

The solution to food deserts, and restrictions on what can be bought with food stamps: government run food banks, placed as needed.

The only solution as far as cost is concerned, is the elimination of the program altogether.

Nutritionists are not better qualified, as that would indicate that there is a set group of standards to be educated on. There isn't. Combine the confusion, conflict, and compromises I mentioned earlier with the inevitable food industry lobbying, and I can absolutely guarantee you that the standards that they come out with will make absolutely no practical sense whatsoever.

How much will these food banks cost when you consider the massive number of food deserts all over the United States? How will they be kept supplied? Will they be open as long as supermarkets so that working people will be able to pick up food on their way home from work, or will they close at 5 like most government offices? Will they have a wide selection of fresh fruits and vegetables like supermarkets do, or will they mostly be stocked with the wilting castoffs seen in most privately run food banks?

Elimination of the program altogether...,how in the world will the inevitable enormous spike in crime be a solution in terms of costs?

How do you know there would be the spike in crime?

As for nutritionists, what other option is there? My definition? Yours? The governments (who during the Regan years tried to define ketchup as a vegetable )?

I would suggest that the food banks be run like grocery stores (even providing for people who can to pay cash, easing some of the cost, and allowing people to intentionally shop there if they wished to support the system). They would be supplied as any other grocery store and keep the same hours.

[Grenartia]

If you're in San Francisco and lose your job, how are you going to be able to afford to move elsewhere (including transportation, deposit, first month's/last month's rent, and assorted other expenses IF you can find a landlord willing to rent to an unemployed tenant) if you're in a position to have to apply for food stamps?

Now, about that budget....

Still, no one is forced to live in SF.

If you have no money to move elsewhere, you kind of ARE forced to live there.

Jim, in case you missed it:

Dollar General has more than just sandwiches, chips, and snack cakes.

Edit: again, it comes down to choice.

But not much better. At least not the one near where I live. Hell, about the cheapest thing there is ramen, but its not very filling. With what I just listed, you get the best bang for your buck.

Except that if you live in San Francisco, lose your job, and cannot afford to move due to having lost your job, then yes: you are forced by circumstance to live in San Francisco. What are the alternatives? Leaving all of your stuff behind and hopping a train like a 1920s hobo?

1. That is an option, 2. although these days you would probably use Greyhound.

1. Too fucking dangerous, not to mention the people who run said trains don't look too kindly on it.

2. You must be fucking joking. You honestly fucking think that somebody who can barely afford to eat food can afford a bus ticket?

Lets be honest here, the people proposing this aren't actually interested in the well being of low income people. This is more about punishing them for being poor than helping any. It is quite like the people who believe that prison rape isn't worth addressing, because the victims in question are prisoners who deserve to be punished for being in prison in the first place.

All this is, is a desire to punish poor people for their low status driven by a lack of empathy. The poor don't "deserve" the freedom to buy whatever food they want within their budget, as other people are able to. Instead, they should be treated as second class citizens whose lives need to be micromanaged based off the assumption that the poor are inherently irresponsible or deserve their lot in life.

That is the mindset so far as I can tell, and I've concluded that people need to move past that. It does more harm than good in the long run.

Pretty much.

RIP Nail. Hit on the head.

Poor or rich, people choose where they end up.

Often not because it's where they would prefer to end up, but because it's the option that's less horrifying than the others. Now, that's just part of life, and we've all dealt with it at some point in some form or another. But to dismiss it as "People choose where they end up" willfully ignores numerous factors that go into that decision, and is simply callous in how it disregards how painful that decision making process can be.

Exactly. Just because somebody has to choose the least of many evils does not at all mean they are or should be satisfied with it, nor prevented from trying to improve their lot.

Again, the "luxuries" are often way cheaper than the "necessities". And forget about the "necessities" if you're in a food desert. This inability of yours to imagine the lot of people in situations that aren't yours is almost sociopathic.

I was in the same situation and have no trouble imagining others in the same situation. I worked my way out of it. So can they.

Not always. You got lucky. You got some sort of lucky break that allowed you to pull yourself out of the tar pit. Maybe somebody actually managed to fucking notice your hard work, and rewarded you for it. Maybe somebody else's mistake or charity meant you managed to save a little each month, and save up to snowball your way out of whatever situation you were in. I honestly don't know. But the fact remains: SOMEHOW. YOU. GOT. FUCKING. LUCKY.

[Gauthier]

How do you know there would be the spike in crime?

When faced with the prospect of starvation piled on top of whatever predicaments they have, how many people will accept it and just wait to die?

I would suggest that the food banks be run like grocery stores (even providing for people who can to pay cash, easing some of the cost, and allowing people to intentionally shop there if they wished to support the system). They would be supplied as any other grocery store and keep the same hours.

So in other words, a nationalized chain of supermarkets. That'll surely get wholehearted support from the Republican Party, all of them.

[Big Jim P]

How do you know there would be the spike in crime?

When faced with the prospect of starvation piled on top of whatever predicaments they have, how many people will accept it and just wait to die?

I would suggest that the food banks be run like grocery stores (even providing for people who can to pay cash, easing some of the cost, and allowing people to intentionally shop there if they wished to support the system). They would be supplied as any other grocery store and keep the same hours.

So in other words, a nationalized chain of supermarkets. That'll surely get wholehearted support from the Republican Party, all of them.

You have a point concerning crime.

As for what the Republicans want, they, like everyone else on the planet, have to make a choice: Personal freedom or Government control.

[Big Jim P]

Still, no one is forced to live in SF.

If you have no money to move elsewhere, you kind of ARE forced to live there.

Dollar General has more than just sandwiches, chips, and snack cakes.

Edit: again, it comes down to choice.

But not much better. At least not the one near where I live. Hell, about the cheapest thing there is ramen, but its not very filling. With what I just listed, you get the best bang for your buck.

1. That is an option, 2. although these days you would probably use Greyhound.

1. Too fucking dangerous, not to mention the people who run said trains don't look too kindly on it.

2. You must be fucking joking. You honestly fucking think that somebody who can barely afford to eat food can afford a bus ticket?

Lets be honest here, the people proposing this aren't actually interested in the well being of low income people. This is more about punishing them for being poor than helping any. It is quite like the people who believe that prison rape isn't worth addressing, because the victims in question are prisoners who deserve to be punished for being in prison in the first place.

All this is, is a desire to punish poor people for their low status driven by a lack of empathy. The poor don't "deserve" the freedom to buy whatever food they want within their budget, as other people are able to. Instead, they should be treated as second class citizens whose lives need to be micromanaged based off the assumption that the poor are inherently irresponsible or deserve their lot in life.

That is the mindset so far as I can tell, and I've concluded that people need to move past that. It does more harm than good in the long run.

Pretty much.

RIP Nail. Hit on the head.

Often not because it's where they would prefer to end up, but because it's the option that's less horrifying than the others. Now, that's just part of life, and we've all dealt with it at some point in some form or another. But to dismiss it as "People choose where they end up" willfully ignores numerous factors that go into that decision, and is simply callous in how it disregards how painful that decision making process can be.

Exactly. Just because somebody has to choose the least of many evils does not at all mean they are or should be satisfied with it, nor prevented from trying to improve their lot.

I was in the same situation and have no trouble imagining others in the same situation. I worked my way out of it. So can they.

Not always. You got lucky. You got some sort of lucky break that allowed you to pull yourself out of the tar pit. Maybe somebody actually managed to fucking notice your hard work, and rewarded you for it. Maybe somebody else's mistake or charity meant you managed to save a little each month, and save up to snowball your way out of whatever situation you were in. I honestly don't know. But the fact remains: SOMEHOW. YOU. GOT. FUCKING. LUCKY.

I did not get lucky. I worked to get where I am.