GOP wants to ban foodstamp-purchased junk food

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A better society would...you do see where this is going, right?

I seem to see the starting point. It's a circle, isn't it?

More like an infinite series of nesting dolls, but circle will do.

[Saiwania]

As opposed to being treated like children and being treated as too irresponsible to handle the freedom to improve their lot in life?

It isn't freedom to be told what food you are and aren't allowed to buy. That is just demeaning.

But to be clear, I'm no champion of the lower classes. I don't know what their lifestyles are like, but I imagine that it sucks. It is only relatively recently, that I've decided to stop attacking welfare programs when my criticism was proven wrong or misguided more often than not.

I don't think it is too much to ask to allow food stamps to be used for any type of food. That would still be fulfilling the intended purpose of SNAP while still allowing for some financial freedom. It is still a paltry budget to work with on a monthly basis, so it is not like those people will go out to eat at a restaurant everyday. Only one trip to a diner would eat up 25%+ of their food budget of $200 for the whole month.

How is someone supposed to learn how to spend wisely if they aren't allowed to spend poorly and experience a consequence of that? Welfare or food stamps still suck compared to a minimum wage job or better, so most people aren't going to be content to stay on food stamps indefinitely.

So if I happen to fall below a certain income level, should I not be allowed to purchase or enjoy the occasional $1 sundae from McDonalds?

[Lemanrussland]

Everyone can if they learn the difference between luxuries and necessities.

Create a sample budget for $14 a day for San Francisco.

I can't find great data for San Francisco in particular, but here is a monthly budget for the United States, assuming a monthly average SNAP benefit of $133.41 (http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.htm), and using average US retail food prices (http://www.bls.gov/ro3/apwe.htm).

Uncooked white long grain rice - 50 pounds ($36.05) (~29,600 calories, assuming around 592 calories in a pound cooked)
Uncooked dried beans, any type - 25 pounds ($35.45) (~37,500 calories, assuming 1,500 calories in a pound)
Uncooked whole chicken - 25 pounds ($37.10) (~11,250 calories, assuming 60 percent of a whole chicken's weight is in meat parts -- method of preparation, the different meats of the chicken and so on cause variations in the caloric content, I'm assuming an average of 750 calories per pound of meat, which is on the conservative side)
Money reserve for seasonings, oil, misc. foods - $24.81
Total calories - 78,350 / ~2,612 a day

I have not accounted for the cost of water, which I'm assuming you're probably going to get from the tap (on average, that's about $2.00 per 1,000 gallons)

I mean, it's doable, but this diet would probably be quite bland (preparing the foods in different ways and combinations would only go so far, you would need to buy small amounts of vegetables and other foods to increase variety), and the nutrition is not that great. If you're a diabetic or glucose intolerant, this budget wouldn't work.

If you bought this stuff only when it's on sale, you could probably do better. Another disadvantage of this budget is the large labor requirement for preparing the meals. This could be alleviated by preparing large portions and saving them in your fridge. You would need access to cooking facilities in order to make this work, a slow cooker and portable electric cooktop could work if you don't have anything to cook with.

If you do demanding physical work and are a young adult male, this won't provide enough calories (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/U ... yTable.pdf), you would need to buy more stuff (which would start making your monthly reserve very thin). Another option is getting some food at a food pantry to supplement this.

[Big Jim P]

As opposed to being treated like children and being treated as too irresponsible to handle the freedom to improve their lot in life?

It isn't freedom to be told what food you are and aren't allowed to buy. That is just demeaning.

But to be clear, I'm no champion of the lower classes. I don't know what their lifestyles are like, but I imagine that it sucks. It is only relatively recently, that I've decided to stop attacking welfare programs when my criticism was proven wrong or misguided more often than not.

I don't think it is too much to ask to allow food stamps to be used for any type of food. That would still be fulfilling the intended purpose of SNAP while still allowing for some financial freedom. It is still a paltry budget to work with on a monthly basis, so it is not like those people will go out to eat at a restaurant everyday. Only one trip to a diner would eat up 25%+ of their food budget of $200 for the whole month.

How is someone supposed to learn how to spend wisely if they aren't allowed to spend poorly and experience a consequence of that? Welfare or food stamps still suck compared to a minimum wage job or better, so most people aren't going to be content to stay on food stamps indefinitely.

So if I happen to fall below a certain income level, should I not be allowed to purchase or enjoy the occasional $1 sundae from McDonalds?

Not on food stamps. You can't use them at restaurants.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It isn't freedom to be told what food you are and aren't allowed to buy. That is just demeaning.

But to be clear, I'm no champion of the lower classes. I don't know what their lifestyles are like, but I imagine that it sucks. It is only relatively recently, that I've decided to stop attacking welfare programs when my criticism was proven wrong or misguided more often than not.

I don't think it is too much to ask to allow food stamps to be used for any type of food. That would still be fulfilling the intended purpose of SNAP while still allowing for some financial freedom. It is still a paltry budget to work with on a monthly basis, so it is not like those people will go out to eat at a restaurant everyday. Only one trip to a diner would eat up 25%+ of their food budget of $200 for the whole month.

How is someone supposed to learn how to spend wisely if they aren't allowed to spend poorly and experience a consequence of that? Welfare or food stamps still suck compared to a minimum wage job or better, so most people aren't going to be content to stay on food stamps indefinitely.

So if I happen to fall below a certain income level, should I not be allowed to purchase or enjoy the occasional $1 sundae from McDonalds?

Not on food stamps. You can't use them at restaurants.

Actually, more and more fast food places are accepting EBT cards, at least for the cash part of the payment. Obviously the food stamps are a no-go. In California, though, there's a pilot program that provides an exception, especially for homeless people.

[Saiwania]

Not on food stamps. You can't use them at restaurants.

What about fast food? That is usually the cheapest and lowest common denominator when it comes to served food.
In Florida, the following restaurants apparently allow the use of food stamps: KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Papa Murphy's Pizza.

[Lordieth]

Honestly, I'd be ok with this if it just covered cakes, biscuits, sweets and chocolate. Confectionery, basically. Empty calories. However, ready meals can be considered unhealthy, however at least they're cheap and nutritious.

I'd much prefer a carrot and stick approach to it. Instead of stamps having just a monetary value, the food type itself also provides a saving or additional cost. So fruits and vegetables would say, gain a 10% discount, whereas cakes would incur a 20% cost in stamps. Instead of forcing people to eat this, or eat that, give them incentives to decide for themselves.

I know it's basically the same principle, however if you really are interested in getting the most for your money, then being full surely has to be a better option than buying junk and going hungry, right? I think such a system should be based around refined sugar content, rather than fat. A lot of ready meals are high in fat, but are also nutritious. All the high refined sugar foods are almost entirely empty calorie junk.

[Big Jim P]

Not on food stamps. You can't use them at restaurants.

What about fast food? That is usually the cheapest and lowest common denominator when it comes to served food.

Fast food places are restaurants.

The actual restriction is on prepared foods.

Edit: I stand corrected.

[Big Jim P]

Not on food stamps. You can't use them at restaurants.

Actually, more and more fast food places are accepting EBT cards, at least for the cash part of the payment. Obviously the food stamps are a no-go. In California, though, there's a pilot program that provides an exception, especially for homeless people.

I didn't know this.

And this DEFINITELY goes to far.

[Dyakovo]

Not on food stamps. You can't use them at restaurants.

Actually, more and more fast food places are accepting EBT cards, at least for the cash part of the payment. Obviously the food stamps are a no-go. In California, though, there's a pilot program that provides an exception, especially for homeless people.

[citation needed]

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Actually, more and more fast food places are accepting EBT cards, at least for the cash part of the payment. Obviously the food stamps are a no-go. In California, though, there's a pilot program that provides an exception, especially for homeless people.

I didn't know this.

And this DEFINITELY goes to far.

Actually, it makes some sense, especially for homeless individuals, who don't have a place to prepare food, and for people who are working long shifts and may not have the energy to do so.

[Big Jim P]

I didn't know this.

And this DEFINITELY goes to far.

Actually, it makes some sense, especially for homeless individuals, who don't have a place to prepare food, and for people who are working long shifts and may not have the energy to do so.

While those just above the qualifying income can't go out to eat at all?

[Saiwania]

I didn't know this. And this DEFINITELY goes to far.

What if I were to say that the businesses which accept food stamps actually want those customers? After all, it is money.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Actually, it makes some sense, especially for homeless individuals, who don't have a place to prepare food, and for people who are working long shifts and may not have the energy to do so.

While those just above the qualifying income can't go out to eat at all?

If they're just above the qualifying income, then they can afford it as much as the people who are getting the stamps. The amount that you get lessens with the amount that you earn.

[Big Jim P]

While those just above the qualifying income can't go out to eat at all?

If they're just above the qualifying income, then they can afford it as much as the people who are getting the stamps. The amount that you get lessens with the amount that you earn.

Well, we just argued the point around one level of luxury, I am not going to rehash the whole damn thing just because the level of luxury has increased.

Shit like this is why the slippery slope argument exists in the first place.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If they're just above the qualifying income, then they can afford it as much as the people who are getting the stamps. The amount that you get lessens with the amount that you earn.

Well, we just argued the point around one level of luxury, I am not going to rehash the whole damn thing just because the level of luxury has increased.

Shit like this is why the slippery slope argument exists in the first place.

Fair enough.

It's actually been quite enjoyable having this discussion with you, and I'd like to quit while we're both ahead. Have a good evening.

[Big Jim P]

Well, we just argued the point around one level of luxury, I am not going to rehash the whole damn thing just because the level of luxury has increased.

Shit like this is why the slippery slope argument exists in the first place.

Fair enough.

It's actually been quite enjoyable having this discussion with you, and I'd like to quit while we're both ahead. Have a good evening.

Agreed. Good morning.

[Natair]

No, you're not.

If you were a libertarian, you'd be an advocate of socially-guaranteed income equality and opposed to capitalism altogether, because capitalism is a fundamentally authoritarian mode of socioeconomic organization. Libertarianism is and always has been communist and anti-capitalist in orientation.

So tell me--why do you hate freedom so much? Is it because the authoritarian ruling class promised you a boon in exchange for your loyal and slavish service?

Please spare us the left-wing bullshit. People who call themselves Libertarians simply don't buy into your conspiratorialist world view. And neither do I. I'm not a libertarian myself, but their ideology and world view is a lot closer to my own than yours is.

Sarcasm ----> *

Your head -->O

While those just above the qualifying income can't go out to eat at all?

If they're just above the qualifying income, then they can afford it as much as the people who are getting the stamps. The amount that you get lessens with the amount that you earn.

Makes sense, but how much is the gap between what they make vs. what they get?

[Trackeendy]

I certainly like the idea, but he has to realize that healthy food costs more than junk food

[Llamalandia]

Yep, more labor freed up to find or create productive jobs elsewhere, heck give the plants to toyota or honda nd let them run them, they seem to know how to make quality affordable cars that americans actualy want to buy.

Actually as I recall Ford never got a bail out check. So atleast one American car company knows how to run a business.

Quite true, i believe i originally mentioned gm and chrysler specifically in an earlier post so yeah sorry for any confusion there.

[Sibator]

Sarcasm ----> *

Your head -->O

(You know me only person you know that is on NS, this is my new nation)

Bluth actually believes that, he's been here a while, he wasn't being sarcastic.

[Llamalandia]

[/spoiler]



this plus the defense of your friends and neighbors at least to me seemed like a rebuttal to at least some implied charge that people were calling everyone on welfare uneducated, stupid jerks. But hey if I read too much into it then my apologies.

But let me ask you this shold people be able to buy whatever they watn with snap? Alcohol, tobacco etc. really and you wouldn't ahve a problem with that? I mean besides isn't there already an obesity epidemic in this country? michelle has pushed iniatives to clean up food in public schools (including ridculous calorie restrictions) are you opposed to that program as well?

Why are you trying to deflect this onto the school lunch program? I understand that you're trying to make some sort of larger point regarding use of taxpayer funds, but it's an obvious attempt to distract from the fact that this is a simply terrible idea, for reasons that I've already stated.

And yes, you were essentially calling them uneducated and unintelligent, in that this entire proposal assumes that they can't make healthy decisions for themselves. But you didn't call them jerks. You seem to see them as children, and children aren't jerks, they're simply immature and need watching over by responsible adults such as yourself, am I right?

Well, I never said that they were unecducated or unintellignet either (though barring other disabilities you'd think well educated and intelligent peopel wouled be able to find good jobs). That said, I'm not really deflecting anything, for me this whole issue is about big govt all the way around. The fact that snap exists is big govt, the fact that feds subsidies distort the price of food is big govt, the fact that the feds are trying to micromanage school lunches is big govt (though I admit i don't have too much issue with the school lunch program as children are generally innocent in life), the fact that Republicans are micromanaging snap now is also big govt. What Im saying is that by in large my opinions on the matter are at least consistent, I would wonder if yours are as well?
As to whether or not they neee someone to watch over them and care for them, that seems somewhat self-evident given that they can't even provide food for themselves.

But you are avoiding my question, how do you feel about federal micromanagement of school lunch programs are you ok with that (keep in mind were talking even at the high school level).

[Shaggai]

Please spare us the left-wing bullshit. People who call themselves Libertarians simply don't buy into your conspiratorialist world view. And neither do I. I'm not a libertarian myself, but their ideology and world view is a lot closer to my own than yours is.

Sarcasm ----> *

Your head -->O

Nope. Bluth is in no way sarcastic. He does have an extremely good point though, if you can get him to explain it.

[Libertarian California]

A better solution would be to gradually phase in healthier foods.

[Neutraligon]

A better solution would be to gradually phase in healthier foods.

What do you mean phase in?