Thursday, January 18, 2018

Bloomberg: Food Stamps Should Be Spent on Food

If they ever finish arguing about immigration and the budget, members of Congress can be expected to turn to food stamps, which conservative Republicans want to cut and Democrats don't. For their own sake and to promote public health, both sides might want to focus on a simple reform that deserves bipartisan support: Require that food stamps be used for food. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, households receiving federal food-stamp benefits spend more money on soft drinks than on any other grocery item. Overall, they devote 9.3 percent of their food budgets to "sweetened beverages," which include sodas and iced teas, compared to 7.1 percent for households that don't receive benefits. The government estimates that beneficiaries spend $608.7 million a year on soft drinks and an additional $110 million on juices.

More

Because low-income shoppers typically use their own money to supplement government benefits, it's impossible to know precisely how much the $74-billion Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is subsidizing soda consumption. But even a modest amount is too much.

Comments

It will be interesting to see how this suggestion is received, when Dr. Andrew Eschenbach made this recommendation under President Bush in 2007 he was denounced by a number of liberals as being "racist" and "out of touch."

Makes sense to me that soft drinks should be excluded from SNAP, people would be a lot healthier if they couldn't get them for free.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-17 08:12 PM

"The government estimates that beneficiaries spend $608.7 million a year on soft drinks and an additional $110 million on juices."

Does that include orange juice and apple juice? A lot of kids drink apple juice, which although high in sugar, is still better than soda. A lot of adults drink orange juice. You can buy a lower in sugar variety.

If you want to police food stamp choices, why stop at soft drinks? Why not ban cookies and other desserts, also snack food like chips and pretzels. Come to think of it. A lot of cereal isn't that good for you. Neither are frozen pizzas.

#2 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-17 08:34 PM

Reasonable reforms should be seriously considered and this seems to me like a reasonable reform.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-17 08:52 PM

#2 Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-17 08:59 PM

Soft drinks are the worst for anybody.

No reason to include them in this program. It's ridiculous they ever were.

#5 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-17 09:08 PM

#5 Soda, in general, yes. Not just the sugary kind.

#6 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-17 09:22 PM

"No reason to include them in this program. It's ridiculous they ever were."

Can/do they have the ability to say what good items you're allowed to buy?

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-17 10:04 PM

It would be interesting if they forced people on food stamps to eat healthy and cook.

What if they had a Blue Apron service for food stamps?

#8 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-17 10:05 PM

Makes sense to me that soft drinks should be excluded from SNAP, people would be a lot healthier if they couldn't get them for free.

Whenever a Democrat does something to discourage soft drink consumption, even for schoolchildren, right wingers call it the "nanny state run amok."

But with food stamps right wingers like to tell the poor what to do.

I think anybody who doesn't think food stamps should be used on soda should quit drinking soda themselves. The argument against the poor drinking soda is just as valid for everybody else. These drinks are terrible for us.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2018-01-17 10:25 PM

7

I don't know.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-17 10:27 PM

foodstamps should be triple the amounts and include hygiene products and medicine....and a rent stipend.

#11 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-17 10:49 PM

Lots of people don't drink soft drinks for health reasons. I don't smoke either and I rarely drink. Water is good for you. My kids drink water or milk.

I don't find it punitive.

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-17 11:23 PM

I agree with #11

#13 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-17 11:23 PM

I don't find it punitive.

Around 5 years ago, we stopped keeping soft drinks or chips at home. We got used to them being gone a lot faster than I thought we might.

I think soda and chips makes your brain crave soda and chips. Take them away and your brain eventually stops wanting them. It's probably a carbohydrate thing.

#14 | Posted by rcade at 2018-01-17 11:31 PM

I think anybody who doesn't think food stamps should be used on soda should quit drinking soda themselves. The argument against the poor drinking soda is just as valid for everybody else. These drinks are terrible for us.

#9 | Posted by rcade at 2018-01-17 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do what??? You're crapping me. You can buy sodas with food stamps??? Really???

#15 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-18 03:41 AM

Makes sense to me that soft drinks should be excluded from SNAP, people would be a lot healthier if they couldn't get them for free.
Whenever a Democrat does something to discourage soft drink consumption, even for schoolchildren, right wingers call it the "nanny state run amok."
But with food stamps right wingers like to tell the poor what to do.
I think anybody who doesn't think food stamps should be used on soda should quit drinking soda themselves. The argument against the poor drinking soda is just as valid for everybody else. These drinks are terrible for us.

#9 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2018-01-17 10:25 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY 1

Big difference with what you do with money earned versus taking money that should be used to feed a family and blowing any of it on non non-nutritional foods. Why is it every time something makes total sense a liberal comes along to argue it. Liberals cities have taxed the hell out of soda and you all were all for it now we try to stop food stamp recipients from spending the free cash on it and you all say government shouldn't do it so why did they get away with taxing the hell out of it?

#16 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-01-18 11:39 AM

The reason they drink so much sugar drinks may be that they don't get enough money to buy enough real food so they substitute with something that seems to stave off hunger.

#17 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-18 12:45 PM

or the --------- they're trapped in cause psychological damages.
then you got everybody else having a coke,..no reason they can't, too.
how about a bag of sugar or red meat...or jelly...or coffee?

#18 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-18 01:01 PM

Keep going. They should only be allowed to buy non-processed organic whole foods. No meats, dairy or eggs, just a vegan diet. Gotta check all the boxes.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-18 01:05 PM

#16
"free" is the wrong word, sorry you don't get that.
UBI now. level the playing field; scrap Citizens United, etc,

#20 | Posted by ichiro at 2018-01-18 01:07 PM

We haven't cracked down on the poor enough. Why should they buy any drinks at all? Tea bags only. Drink tap water (except in Flint).

#21 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 01:11 PM

Makes sense to me that soft drinks should be excluded from SNAP, people would be a lot healthier if they couldn't get them for free.

#1 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER

Actually it was the Soft Drink lobby that blocked it. It wasn't just one side.

In addition, it's not "For Free." Food stamps spent on soda means that's money that can't be spent elsewhere since food stamps never cover all the food for a family.

#22 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 01:15 PM

Since I don't drink soft drinks, I can see living without them, but under the "sweetened beverages" category they also list juices (I assume that would include lemonade) and sweetened ice teas. That doesn't leave much cold to drink except milk and water.

#23 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 01:26 PM

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, households receiving federal food-stamp benefits spend more money on soft drinks than on any other grocery item.

Pepsico will have some money to throw around to make sure this continues.

#24 | Posted by 726 at 2018-01-18 01:27 PM

Liberals cities have taxed the hell out of soda - #16 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-01-18 11:39 AM

Since liberal cities look to garner so much income off of Soda Taxes, and Food Stamps are sold Tax Free, could it be the loss of income that is really driving this desire to eliminate sugary drinks from Food Stamp coverage with 'health' as a safe cover-story?

#25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-18 01:32 PM

One of the tenets of consumer economies is consumer choice is beneficial to the economy.

So, this comes down your political thinking.

Should EBT be guided by the principles of an economic stimulus program or a public health program?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 01:46 PM

Plenty of choice. There's multiple brands of water in every grocery store.

#27 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-18 01:49 PM

"spend more money on soft drinks than on any other grocery item. Overall, they devote 9.3 percent of their food budgets to "sweetened beverages," which include sodas and iced teas"

stopping that won't happen......for one, Coke is Warren Buffett's second biggest holding

#28 | Posted by Maverick at 2018-01-18 01:57 PM

"Plenty of choice. There's multiple brands of water in every grocery store."

Then the outcry will be: They are spending billions of dollars on water. Water!

#29 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 02:17 PM

I think what blew my mind the most was finding out that food stamps would pay for energy drinks at the gas station near me a few years ago. I thought that was definitely something that would be on the NO list.

#30 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-01-18 02:28 PM

Liberals cities have taxed the hell out of soda - #16 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-01-18 11:39 AM
Since liberal cities look to garner so much income off of Soda Taxes, and Food Stamps are sold Tax Free, could it be the loss of income that is really driving this desire to eliminate sugary drinks from Food Stamp coverage with 'health' as a safe cover-story?
#25 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Only if you are a moron and really really bad at math.

Also SNAP doesn't cover taxes associated with food purchases.

#31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 02:36 PM

"spend more money on soft drinks than on any other grocery item. Overall, they devote 9.3 percent of their food budgets to "sweetened beverages," which include sodas and iced teas"
stopping that won't happen......for one, Coke is Warren Buffett's second biggest holding

#28 | POSTED BY MAVERICK

Another math genius here.

Do you have any idea how little food stamp money is spent on coke? Or how food stamps actually work?

#32 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 02:39 PM

"Only if you are a moron and really really bad at math."

He's a Trump supporter no doubt.

Not knowing how the world works is their core competency.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 02:45 PM

What do the lobbyist representing the soda companies want? That's all that really matters, isn't it? All of you are just bickering to each other. Our government doesn't care what we think on subjects like this.

#34 | Posted by memyselfini at 2018-01-18 02:49 PM

The reason they drink so much sugar drinks may be that they don't get enough money to buy enough real food so they substitute with something that seems to stave off hunger.

#17 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2018-01-18 12:45 PM

That is ane argument that has been thrown around forever but is belied by the fact that SNAP recipients are more likely to be obese than poor who do not receive SNAP and higher income Americans:

Food stamp recipients are more likely to be obese than the general population, according to new research from the federal government.

Most Americans are heavier than they should be, of course, but a U.S. Department of Agriculture study delving into National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2007 through 2010 found Americans on food stamps were more likely to be obese than other groups -- including people who didn't receive benefits even though they were poor enough to qualify.

Forty percent of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program beneficiaries were obese during those years, the study found, compared with 32 percent of poor people who didn't get SNAP benefits and 30 percent of higher-income Americans.

No one who gets SNAP should be "starving" and at least 40% of SNAP recipients are getting plenty of calories.

Food Stamp Recipients More Likely To Be Obese, Study Finds

A 2013 Duke study showed that healthcare spending in the US for obese people (Body Mass Index (BMI) of greather than 33) are more than double compared to people with a healthy BMI of 19 and 60% more than "merely" overweight people (BMI of 25). Extrapolating that out, if obesity levels were to drop to merely overweight by even 20% we could shave hundreds of billions of dollars off the $3T that is spent in the US on healthcare every year.

Health Care Costs Steadily Increase With Body Mass

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 03:28 PM

"Food Stamp Recipients More Likely To Be Obese, Study Finds"

The article states:

"(A USDA paper released in March suggested restricting SNAP purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages wouldn't be an effective way to limit their intake.)"

But when I clicked on the link, the paper did not come up. I wonder if the Trump Administration is taking down studies they don't like throughout federal government websites?

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 03:59 PM

It will be ironic if the country moves to eliminate sodas as a food stamp purchase under an overweight POTUS who chugs the stuff all day long and even has a red button to summon a Diet Coke carrying servant to his side.

#37 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 04:03 PM

"I think anybody who doesn't think food stamps should be used on soda should quit drinking soda themselves. The argument against the poor drinking soda is just as valid for everybody else. These drinks are terrible for us."

SO for those of us who drink or smoke on occasion, should we feel bad for not advocating that SNAP cover these items as well?

"I think what blew my mind the most was finding out that food stamps would pay for energy drinks at the gas station near me a few years ago. I thought that was definitely something that would be on the NO list."

Here in Louisiana, there are restaurants...fry shacks mostly...that advertise heavily on their willingness to take EBT.

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 04:04 PM

"It will be ironic if the country moves to eliminate sodas as a food stamp purchase under an overweight POTUS who chugs the stuff all day long and even has a red button to summon a Diet Coke carrying servant to his side."

It's a little different when coke is being bought by the ward of the state with taxpayer money then when it's being purchased with money that didn't come from the taxpayers. SNAP is a hand-out to the grocery industry. If the intent were to provide healthy food products, the government would have to deliver it to those in need themselves. Otherwise, they're going to making bad food decisions, along with all the other decisions that have left them unable to care for themselves.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 04:07 PM

Drinking tons of Diet Coke hasn't hurt Trump. He's in great health according to his doctor. Kind of hard to tell someone not to drink the stuff when they'll just think, "If it's good enough for POTUS, it's good enough for me." Same goes for all the fast food he eats.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 04:12 PM

"Here in Louisiana, there are restaurants...fry shacks mostly...that advertise heavily on their willingness to take EBT."

That must be a state thing. I'm pretty sure in NY you can't use food stamps in restaurants.

#41 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-01-18 04:14 PM

#41 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY

Here in Idaho you cannot use them to purchase "ready to eat" foods like fried chicken at the deli section in Winco (at least last I was aware of, things could have changed like the energy drink thing I posted above.)

#42 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2018-01-18 05:05 PM

I floated the no soda with food stamps idea on the net years ago.

People reacted like I had just kicked a heroin needle out of their junkie arm.

FTR juice give you a beer belly but it's still better than soda.

#43 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-18 05:36 PM

#35

As if sugared drinks are not related to obesity.

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Have you ever been right about anything? Ever? Even once?

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2018-01-18 06:12 PM

"Food Stamp Recipients More Likely To Be Obese, Study Finds"

More likely to live in food deserts as well. Go figure.
images.search.yahoo.com

#45 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 06:18 PM

44

what is he wrong about in his 35?

Is it that it's so obviously true what he posted that bothers you?

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 06:19 PM

from #17......."may be that"

well, are you saying it is or it isn't?

#47 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 06:20 PM

45

that image shows food deserts....is it comparing it directly to obesity rates? I would think at least some of that overlaps but how much?

#48 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 06:22 PM

#44

That is exactly my point, but you are so desperate to finally prove me wrong about something that your reading comprehension is abysmal.

#46

That's why he is the King of the DRtards.

#49 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 06:26 PM

"what is he wrong about in his 35?"

Well, for one...
...at least 40% of SNAP recipients are getting plenty of calories.

Calories aren't the problem; nutrition is. Harvard and Johns Hopkins have recently come to the conclusion we've all known: 100 calories of almonds is different than 100 calories of potato chips. When healthful food is hard to find--say, when one lives in a food desert--other options are used.

The bride works for a gleaning charity; they get millions of pounds of fresh vegetables to over 250 food service groups in our area each year. The most common reaction is joy; pantries rarely get fresh produce, meaning recipients rarely get the most healthful food out there.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 06:28 PM

"that image shows food deserts....is it comparing it directly to obesity rates? I would think at least some of that overlaps but how much?"

Frankly, they look almost one and the same.
images.search.yahoo.com

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 06:29 PM

But when I clicked on the link, the paper did not come up. I wonder if the Trump Administration is taking down studies they don't like throughout federal government websites?

#36 | POSTED BY GAL_TUESDAY AT 2018-01-18 03:59 PM

I didn't think you were a conspiracy theorist Gal, here is your link: Restricting Sugar-Sweetened Beverages From SNAP Purchases Not Likely To Lower Consumption

#52 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 06:32 PM

Calories aren't the problem; nutrition is.

I don't disagree, but for the obese, calorie reduction is a necessary first step, regardless of type. Eliminating even one sugar soda a day will drop caloric intake by over 100 calories.

#53 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 06:37 PM

"I don't disagree, but for the obese, calorie reduction is a necessary first step, regardless of type."

Not true at all. Non-processed foods are the key; they produce fullness. Again, 100 calories of almonds does not do the same thing to the body as 100 calories of potato chips.

There used to be a belief that X number of calories = 1 lb. I knew that was BS when I realized if I'd substituted water for every cocktail I'd ever had...

...I'd have a negative weight.

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 06:41 PM

"More likely to live in food deserts as well. Go figure."

No grocery stores within a mile?

Is this where you get in to how it's harmful for the obese to walk?

Jeez, if they did walk, they probably could eat the potato chips and drink the Pepsis

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 06:54 PM

"for the obese, calorie reduction is a necessary first step"

Who says it has to be the first step?
That's just magical thinking, by you.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 06:54 PM

We are talking past each other, most MD's who study obesity would disagree with you regarding necessary first steps for weight reduction of the obese and morbidly obese. The initial goal is to get their BMI below 33. While changing the quality of food choices should happen immediately, the initial recommendations for obese or morbidly obese treatment are a reduction of 100-200 calories a day until a full nutrition/exercise/lifestyle plan is in place.

Moving to non-processed foods is a necessary part of such a plan, but most people who are obese are not going to easily switch their food choices.

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 06:56 PM

Danforth, so where are you going with that?

Food deserts are a major cause of obesity?

#58 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 06:56 PM

"No grocery stores within a mile?

Is this where you get in to how it's harmful for the obese to walk?"

It's where he gets in they won't walk a mile for raw ingredients they don't know how to cook when the Burger King up the block provides prepared meals and takes EBT.

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 06:57 PM

I don't live in a food desert and I'm frickin surrounded by fatties.

#60 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 06:58 PM

"Food deserts are a major cause of obesity?"

Close enough.
Food deserts are synonymous with poverty.
Poverty is synonymous with poorer health.
Obesity is synonymous with poorer health.

Big grocery stores don't do well in poor neighborhoods. The Invisible Hand wants there to be food deserts. Who are we to argue with Capitalism!

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 07:03 PM

Hot food can't be bought with food stamps.

#62 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-18 07:04 PM

"I don't live in a food desert and I'm frickin surrounded by fatties."

I believe you.
Because you live in Corn Fed Country.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 07:05 PM

Then produce a map of corn fed folk counties.

#64 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 07:09 PM

They don't have the term "cornfed" in your part of America?

That reminds me of how those little cockroaches everyone calls "German cockroaches" are called "Italian cockroaches" in Germany.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 07:15 PM

Obesity is not caused by accidentally eating too many calories.
The problem is that there is a desire to eat too many calories that exceeds the desire to maintain a normal body weight.
The desire to eat is influenced by what you eat. The gut biome can stimulate appetite if you eat too many carbohydrates, which is why zero carb diets work so well initially. They kill off part of the gut carb eating biome that stimulates appetite, allowing people to reduce calorie intact without feeling hungry. They can then lose weight without 'will power'.

Simply telling people to reduce caloric intake or avoid junk food rarely works. You can eat healthy whole foods and still become obese.
Bread and rice are as bad as French fries for appetite stimulation. Fix your appetite by cutting carbs will allow you to lose weight and keep it off.

I study Obesity and its impact on cardiovascular, kidney, metabolic diseases including type II and some speculate type III diabetes (dementia).

Back on topic, if junk food helped people lose weight, would those complaining about food stamps insist they be used for junk food? No, because most of the complaints are from people that want to punish recipients, much more than showing concern for their health.

#66 | Posted by bored at 2018-01-18 07:20 PM

I know problems like obesity aren't solved or even addressed easily.

It's simple but yet very complex on a large scale across the country.

But the deflections and excuses for it are troublesome

It's not about making bad choices.....rather it's someone else's fault

Grocery store is too far
Soda is available
Fast food is available
It's the corns fault
Corporations fault
Farmers fault

Geez.....every poor and fat unemployed person has someone else to blame.

Nobody but nobody but nobody is to blame for their choices

Again, I get the environmental challenges but they aren't insurmountable challenges.

Diet and exercise is not impossible.

#67 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 08:01 PM

#67 You should venture into the stores on the East side of KC. You would not believe it, but many of the excuses are true.

#68 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-18 08:08 PM

"It's where he gets in they won't walk a mile for raw ingredients they don't know how to cook when the Burger King up the block provides prepared meals and takes EBT."

So it's where he defends their laziness and their right to be lazy?

It's not like cooking is some form of high science or black magic.

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 08:10 PM

"Food deserts are synonymous with poverty."

I would submit that if there were a demand for fresh veggies in these areas, there would be someone there to meet that demand. But like the rest of your examples, the root cause is the lack of ability to engage in good decision making. And if someone else is funding your bade decisions, there's not really any incentive to make good ones.

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 08:13 PM

68

Which excuses? I ranted a little there.....

#71 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 08:15 PM

"Hot food can't be bought with food stamps."

If I was smart enough to figure out how to post pics here, I'd happily take pcitures of the two fry shacks I pass each morning with big, colorful signs announcing that they take EBT.

"Back on topic, if junk food helped people lose weight, would those complaining about food stamps insist they be used for junk food?"

Cigarettes are a pretty solid weight-loss tool. Should we start covering those with EBT? Maybe offset the fatness caused by living in a food desert where your only food source is burgers or friend chicken?

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 08:16 PM

#71 these were true in the neighborhood I went into. I wanted to take a picture but thought it would come of the wrong way.

Grocery store is too far
Soda is available
Fast food is available
Corporations fault

#73 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-18 08:31 PM

"Diet and exercise is not impossible."

The people working three or four jobs are spending their off time sleeping. The maintenance guy in my building works four jobs and takes his 15 minutes to sleep in his truck.

Stay in school kids.

#74 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-18 08:33 PM

Start at 1:15.

www.youtube.com

It's not a lot different from the reality of fat belts.

I've seen them in kansas and I've heard they're also in maryland.

whole swaths of America where almost everyone is obese.

#75 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-18 08:47 PM

"Grocery store is too far"

My parents lived on a farm in Idaho. The closest grocery store was around 13 miles away.

Was that too far away?

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 08:52 PM

"The people working three or four jobs are spending their off time sleeping."

Statistically speaking, lower income earners have substantially more (around 20%) leisure time than higher income earners.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 08:53 PM

Oh, and you could cut these obese poor people a check for virtually any amount of money...it's not going to drive them to make better decisions. If anything, they would just add a few more bad habits...since they could now afford it.

#78 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-18 08:56 PM

Should we consider granting a year of free gym membership to any who will leave SNAP?

#79 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-18 09:00 PM

"The maintenance guy in my building works four jobs and takes his 15 minutes to sleep in his truck. "

Is he obese?

#80 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:00 PM

And......and is he poor?

#81 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:01 PM

He is.

#82 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-18 09:13 PM

He is also counting on Donald to save him

#83 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-18 09:13 PM

"He is also counting on Donald to save him"

Wish we had a sad flag.

#84 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-18 09:16 PM

He works 4 jobs and sleeps 15 minutes.

He sounds like a slave.

Saw photos of them.......none of them were fat.

#85 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:16 PM

"I would submit that if there were a demand for fresh veggies in these areas, there would be someone there to meet that demand."

I would submit that the stores are drawn to places where they can charge more money and earn more profits for the same fresh veggies.
It's called capitalism, you should look into it sometime.

Oh, and when the stores leave, the restrictive covenants on the lease prevent another grocer from moving in.
This was actually on the radio the other day, Marketplace Weekend I think.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:19 PM

"It's not about making bad choices.....rather it's someone else's fault"

Why give people bad choices to make?
Why have candy bar and soda vending machines in public schools, for example?
Because of budget cuts, and the schools make up the money by selling ------ food to kids.
You got a problem with that?

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:20 PM

"Diet and exercise is not impossible."

So then. Why are you surround by fatties?

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:21 PM

"You got a problem with that?"

Yes

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:23 PM

"Oh, and you could cut these obese poor people a check for virtually any amount of money...it's not going to drive them to make better decisions. If anything, they would just add a few more bad habits...since they could now afford it.
#78 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER"

Cool story bro, now do rich people.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:24 PM

"You got a problem with that?"
"Yes"

You got a solution for that?

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:24 PM

"Why are you surround by fatties?"

Apathy and choices?

#92 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:24 PM

BTW,

I know plenty of middle class and wealthy fatties.

None of the excuses mentioned above work for them.

#93 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:26 PM

"Apathy and choices?"

So you're surrounded by people who don't care, except when they do, they make bad decisions.
Do you mind explaining why you stay there, or is it the same all over?
Is it like being a big fish in a small pond for you?
(Big fish, not fat fish...)

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:26 PM

"None of the excuses mentioned above work for them."

Why would the excuses for the poor be the same as the excuses for the middle class?

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:27 PM

Why do they have to be different?

#96 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:28 PM

"Do you mind explaining why you stay there"

Same all over I guess and the presence of fatties isn't the end of the world.

#97 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:29 PM

Well, middle class people don't live in food deserts, for starters.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:29 PM

"But like the rest of your examples, the root cause is the lack of ability to engage in good decision making."

The decision to close a less-profitable grocery store in a poor neighborhood is good decision making.
So is the restrictive covenant on the lease, preventing the competition from coming in and serving those customers.
From a business point of view.

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:31 PM

Gotta check out for a bit.....sorrry. I will return.

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 09:32 PM

"So it's where he defends their laziness and their right to be lazy?"

Laziness doesn't need a defense. Work smarter, not harder. Or does that only apply to a select few?

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:34 PM

"Well, middle class people don't live in food deserts, for starters."

Link?

#102 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 10:01 PM

"Eliminating even one sugar soda a day will drop caloric intake by over 100 calories."

Eliminating ALL worthless calories should be the goal. Frankly, I don't disagree with Gal upthread: why not restrict other crap too, like Lunchables?

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 10:03 PM

Do they offer lunchables at schools? My kids have taken them but didn't know they were offered at schools.

#104 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-18 10:17 PM

I ate canned ravioli from Aldi tonight. All this talk about awful food got me hungry.

#105 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-18 10:43 PM

"Do they offer lunchables at schools? "

Gawd, I hope not.

But if you're restricting what can be bought with SNAP dollars, and crappy food is the enemy....

#106 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 11:43 PM

"Well, middle class people don't live in food deserts, for starters."

"Link?"

Look it up yourself. Or don't. Moving on:

Middle class people have to buy food, which results in different menu chooces and nutrition habits than what is available for purchase via EBT.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 12:06 AM

Oh, and when the stores leave, the restrictive covenants on the lease prevent another grocer from moving in.
This was actually on the radio the other day, Marketplace Weekend I think.

A lot of times that is actually because the store that closed has breached the lease by leaving before the term is over. While the landlord has a duty to mitigate their damages by leasing the building out to a new tenant, there is often a restrictive covenant in the lease that prevents that. The purpose of that covenant is to protect the tenant from the Landlord evicting them or not renewing their lease because they have found someone who will pay more during their tenancy. If the tenant goes under and walks away from the lease, the covenant prevents mitigation until the lease can be terminated by a court judgment.

#108 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-19 12:37 AM

"The purpose of that covenant is to protect the tenant"

The road to food islands is paved with good intentions.

#109 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 02:44 AM

No one should starve in this country, least of all children, who should all receive a healthy school meal, free, once a day. Like catholic school, the same for all the children. At the same time if you want to live on Coke and Cheetos, you should be on your own.

I have long suspected that, unlike social security and medicare, the cost of deciding who gets what welfare benefits exceeds the benefits the poor actually receive. At the same time the Government stores certain foodstuffs like grain, powdered milk, cheese, etc...

why not open free stores for healthy foods otherwise being subsidized storage for price stabilization? No questions asked, if you want it, you can have it, but its tea, not coffee, flour, powdered milk, sugar and salt, but not frozen burritos and pizza, let alone frozen mud pies. Canned vegetables.. a person can live well on beans and rice. A cup of noodles is a real dollar stretcher and a luxury compared to Top Ramon.

#110 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-19 06:02 AM

You'll get your government approved gruel and like it! Top dietary scientists to formulate a food pellet with the exact nutrient and caloric content needed for an average person. One government approved food for all! Thus Purina Poor People Chow was born.

#111 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-19 07:53 AM

You'll get your government approved gruel and like it! Top dietary scientists to formulate a food pellet with the exact nutrient and caloric content needed for an average person. One government approved food for all! Thus Purina Poor People Chow was born.

#112 | Posted by visitor_ at 2018-01-19 07:53 AM

They gripe because the government provides food stamps and then they gripe that the government wants to regulate what people can get with the food stamps. They talk out of both sides of their hiney. SMDH They just like to whine I suppose.

#113 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-01-19 08:02 AM

I was in line at Publix last week. As God is my witness the lady in front of me had a bakery ordered cake ($24.99), 11 packages of cheese/meat trays, 6 slices Salami, 6 slices cheese, 6 Melba toast rounds ($2.99 each), one liter coke, one liter diet coke and one liter of Sprite. As the cashier engaged her in conversation I and the 2 people behind me learned she was buying food for an office party and people were reimbursing her, dividing the total. And she used to EBT card to pay for that.

On a side note EBT cards don't have chips. So of you see someone swiping a card odds are very good it's an EBT card.

#114 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2018-01-19 08:21 AM

"Look it up yourself. Or don't. Moving on:"

Exactly. HAHA.

"Middle class people have to buy food, which results in different menu chooces and nutrition habits than what is available for purchase via EBT."

So, it's my fault. Got it.

I give them the free money to buy food but the Choices are limited so that's the excuse for them being being fat.

Keep working hard to make excuses for people who cannot exercise or ever make a rational choice With what they put into their bodies.

#115 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-19 08:41 AM

#114 did you offer to help pay?

#116 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-19 08:42 AM

"why not open free stores for healthy foods otherwise being subsidized storage for price stabilization?"

Wouldn't that be humiliating?

#117 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-19 08:47 AM

"I would submit that the stores are drawn to places where they can charge more money and earn more profits for the same fresh veggies.
It's called capitalism, you should look into it sometime."

And...you'd be wrong again. See Wal-Mart.

"Oh, and when the stores leave, the restrictive covenants on the lease prevent another grocer from moving in. This was actually on the radio the other day, Marketplace Weekend I think."

If you're assertion is that this is a result of government interference in the markets, I'm in agreement that governments shouldn't be interfering in a way that prohibits willing sellers from bringing their goods to willing buyers.

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 08:48 AM

"Cool story bro, now do rich people."

By the virtue of the fact that they're not wards of the state...they've shown themselves capable of making good on the most important life decisions.

"Well, middle class people don't live in food deserts, for starters."

Sure they do. The more exclusive the neighborhood, the less likely you are to find a grocery store on a corner. The closest grocery store to the River Oaks Country Club in Houston is 1.8 miles away. Which means it lies squarely in a food desert.

This is fun.

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 08:57 AM

...signs announcing that they take EBT.

Doesn't mean they take SNAP. There are different benefits all on the same card.

#120 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-01-19 08:57 AM

...they've shown themselves capable of making good on the most important life decisions.
#119 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Mostly the decision of who their parents and family were going to be. Also, the decision not to be molested as a child, and the decision not to get a drastic disease. All great decisions.

#121 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-01-19 09:00 AM

"The closest grocery store to the River Oaks Country Club in Houston is 1.8 miles away. "

And do folks in that circle all have cars? Oh...they do.

Got it.

Do you understand the definition of "food desert", or are you playing Humpty Dumpty?

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-19 09:01 AM

"Why not open free stores for healthy foods otherwise being subsidized storage for price stabilization?"

Have you ever heard of "government cheese?" Years ago, what you're suggesting is exactly what the government did. Hand out cheese, butter, powdered milk, etc. It was before my time, but my someone told me it was very good quality as well.

If the government was interested in providing healthy meals, they'd follow your advice. But the fact is that SNAP is a handout to the grocery industry operating under the guise of charity. You're not likely to see changes, because the biggest lobbyists in favor of SNAP aren't progressives concerned about children getting the right food, but rather grocery concers who like the fact that the government is sending billions in tax dollars their way.

#123 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 09:04 AM

#114.

My wife worked with a lady who used to buy EBT benefits at .$50 on the dollar. The card holder buys $100 worth of food, she would give them $50 for it.

#124 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 09:06 AM

"Do you understand the definition of "food desert", or are you playing Humpty Dumpty?"

I think so...I was using your definition.

#125 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 09:06 AM

#123 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Ain't Capitalism grand?

#126 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-01-19 09:21 AM

#124 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Back in the 80s, when they had physical food stamps, I used to buy weed with mine.

#127 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2018-01-19 09:22 AM

"Ain't Capitalism grand?"

More like, aren't free markets grand.

#128 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 09:55 AM

"I was using your definition."

No grocery, and no transportation? Or just no grocery?

And have you considered how having a car allows larger purchases per visit, vs only what she can carry?
And have you considered how getting the same food home takes multiple visits, meaning much more time?
And have you considered how perishables vs. preserved foods would be viewed differently under these circumstances?

#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-19 10:07 AM

Average McDonalds "Value" Menu:

Grilled Onion Cheddar Burger $1.00
McDouble $1.39
McChicken $1.29
BBQ Ranch Burger $1.00
Cheeseburger $1.00
Double Cheeseburger $1.69
Daily Double $1.99
Bacon McDouble $2.00
4 Pc. Chicken McNuggets $1.99
20 Pc. Chicken McNuggets $5.00
Parfait $1.00
Side Salad $1.59
3 Cookies $1.00
Cone $1.00
Apple Slices 2 Bags $1.00

Salads:
Southwest Salad $4.79
Bacon Ranch Salad $4.59

www.fastfoodmenuprices.com

#130 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-19 10:16 AM

Sure they do. The more exclusive the neighborhood, the less likely you are to find a grocery store on a corner. The closest grocery store to the River Oaks Country Club in Houston is 1.8 miles away. Which means it lies squarely in a food desert.
This is fun.

#119 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-19 08:57 AM | FLAG:

You are counting from the country club. That's located in the furthest back part of the neighborhood. Many River Oak neighborhood homes are about 700 feet from Whole Foods on the East side of it, and the same distance to Central Market on the West end of it.

#131 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 11:34 AM

#130 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-01-19 10:16 AM | FLAG:

Very high volume items are cheaper than laughably low volume items?

Shocked. Shocked I tell you.

#132 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 11:36 AM

"Middle class people have to buy food, which results in different menu chooces and nutrition habits than what is available for purchase via EBT."

"So, it's my fault. Got it."

Your fault? Why??

#133 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 11:49 AM

"Keep working hard to make excuses for people who cannot exercise or ever make a rational choice With what they put into their bodies."

Since when is "explaining why people are the way they are" the same as "making excuses for people?"

Eberly: Joe is fat
Snoofy: Joe eats like ----.
Eberly: Stop making excuses for Joe!

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 11:54 AM

"But the fact is that SNAP is a handout to the grocery industry operating under the guise of charity."

Because that's what it takes to get small government conservatives to go along with it. And big government liberals are okay with handouts, for both the poor and the corporate side. This is called compromise.

If it were up to me, I'd mobilize the National Guard and set up mobile kitchens. But nobody would make any money off that, so my solution is ill suited to our money-making paradigm of governance.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 11:59 AM

"But the fact is that SNAP is a handout to the grocery industry operating under the guise of charity."
Because that's what it takes to get small government conservatives to go along with it. And big government liberals are okay with handouts, for both the poor and the corporate side. This is called compromise.
If it were up to me, I'd mobilize the National Guard and set up mobile kitchens. But nobody would make any money off that, so my solution is ill suited to our money-making paradigm of governance.

#135 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That would actually be ridiculously expensive.

#136 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-19 12:08 PM

"That's located in the furthest back part of the neighborhood. Many River Oak neighborhood homes are about 700 feet from Whole Foods on the East side of it, and the same distance to Central Market on the West end of it."

Totally true...but the point is a centroid. There are houses that are closer to Central Market or Kroger, but there are also many that are not. And like most comparable neighborhoods, the closer you are to the clubhouse, the more expensive the home.

"Because that's what it takes to get small government conservatives to go along with it. And big government liberals are okay with handouts, for both the poor and the corporate side. This is called compromise."

Yeah...I don't think you're going to find small government conservatives that support things like this. That'll be your big gov types...both conservative and progressive.

"If it were up to me, I'd mobilize the National Guard and set up mobile kitchens."

That would be an option, maybe even a cost saving option...if you were to eliminate SNAP as a means of providing funding.

"But nobody would make any money off that, so my solution is ill suited to our money-making paradigm of governance."

No money is being made via SNAP...only transferred from one party to another.

#137 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 12:17 PM

It would be interesting if they could get dieticians to create a food stamp menu with delicious cheap easy to cook nutritious freezable meals.

#138 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-19 12:21 PM

Totally true...but the point is a centroid.

#137 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-19 12:17 PM | FLAG:

No. It's the Northernmost point of the triangle. It's actually the furthest point in River Oaks you could pick from any grocery store.

#139 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 12:38 PM

Also, I just pulled up Uber Eats. I clicked on "Healthy". First option: McDonalds.

Too damn funny.

#140 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 12:38 PM

Also SNAP doesn't cover taxes associated with food purchases. - #31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 02:36 PM

Why would you refute something by saying the same thing I'd just said : Food Stamps are sold Tax Free - #25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-18 01:32 PM
Look, there are a lot of easier ways to communicate to us that you don't actually read or understand the comments you reply to.

#141 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-19 12:38 PM

Totally true...but the point is a centroid.
#137 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2018-01-19 12:17 PM | FLAG:

I think maybe the NW corner homes on Buffalo Bayou may be the furthest away from any grocery store, but no, River Oaks isn't a food desert. Most of the homes are walking distance from 2 high end grocery stores.

#142 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 12:40 PM

Also SNAP doesn't cover taxes associated with food purchases. - #31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 02:36 PM
Why would you refute something by saying the same thing I'd just said : Food Stamps are sold Tax Free - #25 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-18 01:32 PM
Look, there are a lot of easier ways to communicate to us that you don't actually read or understand the comments you reply to.
#141 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

That's not the same thing. And what does "Food stamps are sold tax free" even mean? Please put a little more thought into your writing.

#143 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-19 12:51 PM

Only if you are a moron and really really bad at math. - #31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 02:36 PM

Ah yes, the old 'I can't refute a comment, so I'm going to call you names' posting we've all come to expect.
When people of lower IQ have their views challenged in ways they can't refute, they react by getting violent, abusive, and engage in childish name calling - #315 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-30 07:09 PM

#144 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-19 12:51 PM

Only if you are a moron and really really bad at math. - #31 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 02:36 PM
Ah yes, the old 'I can't refute a comment, so I'm going to call you names' posting we've all come to expect.
When people of lower IQ have their views challenged in ways they can't refute, they react by getting violent, abusive, and engage in childish name calling - #315 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-10-30 07:09 PM
#144 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Sometimes when someone calls you a moron, it's because you are a moron. Your posts back up my assessment.

#145 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-19 01:06 PM

"Very high volume items are cheaper than laughably low volume items?"

More to the point, lousy nutrition is cheaper than the healthy stuff.

#146 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-19 01:08 PM

"Since when is "explaining why people are the way they are" the same as "making excuses for people?"

since always when it's folks like you making the excuses.

Eberly: Joe is fat
Snoofy: Joe has to travel more than a mile to a store
Eberly: Stop making excuses for Joe!

ft

#147 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-19 01:15 PM

#143

What are you guys even arguing about?

SNAP licensed retailers may not charge state or local sales tax on SNAP purchases. This does NOT mean that food items that are subject to sales tax (e.g. soft drinks, snack foods, etc) are ineligible. Eligible items that are subject to sales tax may still be purchased with SNAP benefits. Sales tax, however, cannot be
charged when SNAP is used to make the purchase.
Seems pretty clear to me, unlike either of your posts.

Important Notice to Retailers

#148 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-19 01:25 PM

More to the point, lousy nutrition is cheaper than the healthy stuff.

#146 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2018-01-19 01:08 PM | FLAG:

You just managed to murder your own point. You're listing a 410 calorie "bacon ranch" salad as healthy. That's worse than most of the value menu items, and only 30 less than the bacon mcdouble. Even the other salad is as bad or worse than some of those value menu items. The calorie count on McDonalds burgers doesn't skyrocket until you hit the non-value item, "gourmet" crap they're shilling, like a pico quac burger.

#149 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 01:32 PM

That salad somehow even manages to be worse than the simple (and delicious) avacado on toast's 390 calories.

#150 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 01:33 PM

Things purchased with Food Stamps are not subject to paying any associated taxes. Food Stamp (purchases [my error on the wording]) are made tax free.

#151 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-01-19 01:54 PM

I haven't read the entire thread but I get the impression that the folks who are all for restricting SNAP usage are the same folks who bitched up a storm over Michelle Obama's healthy lunch initiative.

#152 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-19 02:19 PM

Snoofy: Joe has to travel more than a mile to a store
Eberly: Stop making excuses for Joe!

Where's the excuse?

Here's what's happening: you're looking to blame them for being fat.

I'm simply stating that they are fat. I'm neither blaming, nor excusing.

But since you're a blamer, you interpret statements of fact as excuses.

Eberly: Those immigrants didn't learn English
Snoofy: They didn't need to, to get by in their community.
Eberly: Stop making excuses for them!

Clearly it's not good to be fat, but blaming fat people for being fat doesn't make them less fat.

When you're interested in having a conversation about what society can do to help them be healthier, you'll stop the childish blame games. Ball blaming does is give you an excuse to say it's not your problem. Which isn't a solution, it's a cop-out.

#153 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 02:29 PM

of COURSE, many dems agree. As do I.

Too bad a recent democrat president, or say...his WIFE...didn't recently advocate for something similar, only to get roundly ridiculed.
Because if that did happen, with the cries of "SNAP reform" coming out, it would be the height of hypocrisy, eh?

#154 | Posted by e1g1 at 2018-01-19 04:37 PM

"No. It's the Northernmost point of the triangle. It's actually the furthest point in River Oaks you could pick from any grocery store."

And there are no houses anywhere in the vicinity? You can't see any homes from the clubhouse?

#155 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 04:56 PM

"I think maybe the NW corner homes on Buffalo Bayou may be the furthest away from any grocery store, but no, River Oaks isn't a food desert. Most of the homes are walking distance from 2 high end grocery stores."

The provided definition of a "food desert" (per Danforth) is a dwelling that does not have a grocery store within a mile...and there are plenty of those in river oaks. The Central Market is an old favorite of mine, BTW.

#156 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 04:58 PM

"I haven't read the entire thread but I get the impression that the folks who are all for restricting SNAP usage are the same folks who bitched up a storm over Michelle Obama's healthy lunch initiative."

Not really. There's a difference between spending your own money on unhealthy options, and spending taxpayer money on the same.

If I let my kids determine how the grocery budget is spent, I'm going to have a houseful of pop tarts, Lunchables, Macaroni and Cheese, fruit juice, New York Strip (rare), and Caesar Salad. Because they buy what they like to eat...not what's good for them.

Many poor people are like that too.

#157 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 05:03 PM

"Clearly it's not good to be fat, but blaming fat people for being fat doesn't make them less fat."

Nor does taking money from the taxpayer and giving it to them in a manner that explicitly leads to them being fat.

As a side, we military service members lose our benefits if we get too fat. It just costs the taxpayers too much money. I'm not sure why a similar threshold couldn't be established for wards of the state.

#158 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-19 05:05 PM

"Nor does taking money from the taxpayer and giving it to them in a manner that explicitly leads to them being fat."

That is good for profits though. So, it isn't all bad. Profits are good, right?

"As a side, we military service members lose our benefits if we get too fat."

No, you lose your job. Your benefits like your pension and VA health care don't care how fat you are.

#159 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 05:09 PM

"There's a difference between spending your own money on unhealthy options, and spending taxpayer money on the same."

What's the difference?

It's not the food itself, so what?

#160 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 05:11 PM

Snoofy pretty much nailed it way back on #63.

This is Corn Country USA.

For people that are pro-restrictions, ask yourself a few questions. Would it work? How much are you willing to pay for enforcement?

The pathway to a thinner America is in the corn subsidies, not SNAP restrictions. Our white bread is cake to the rest of the world, a dessert food.

#161 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 05:12 PM

"Our white bread is cake to the rest of the world."

Oh, I think I see the problem now.

America's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was designed by Marie Antoinette.

#162 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 05:31 PM

"Where's the excuse?"

Every time you comment on this thread.

Call it an excuse, deflection or whatever you want.

You have not nor will you blame any of this on bad choices.

Let it go. You think it's corporations and well....everybody else's fault people make poor diet and exercise choices. Not the people actually making the choices.

It's obvious for everyone to see.

Wear it proud.

#163 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-19 07:02 PM

"How much are you willing to pay for enforcement?"

You think it costs a lot to have food stamps not buy soda?

They've already got a setting so that recipients can't buy alcohol or hot food.

#164 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-19 07:06 PM

"For people that are pro-restrictions, ask yourself a few questions. Would it work? How much are you willing to pay for enforcement?"

Agreed. Enforcement is a slippery slope.

I'm not about a bunch of law and order on this issue.

I just find it fascinating that we excuse away these choices. I recognize that challenges exist but they are challenges......not barriers.

#165 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-19 07:10 PM

"You think it costs a lot to have food stamps not buy soda?"

So, not a lot is what you're saying. If so then I agree.

#166 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-19 07:11 PM

"I just find it fascinating that we excuse away these choices."

Look who's in the White House.
Fit as a fiddle, no excuses needed!

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 07:17 PM

America's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was designed by Marie Antoinette.

#162 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-01-19 05:31 PM |

Definitely her fault. She built the sugar lobby.

#168 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 07:23 PM

"challenges......not barriers"

Challenges that you fail become barriers.

The challenge was to get them to not be so fat. You yelled at them to not be fat, but they are still fat. Your plan to make them not so fat has hit a barrier.

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 07:27 PM

So, not a lot is what you're saying. If so then I agree.

It would be a matter of computer programing and paper pushing plus cost benefit analysis.

#170 | Posted by Tor at 2018-01-19 08:12 PM

"You have not nor will you blame any of this on bad choices."

I won't, because blaming people for making bad choices doesn't do anything to solve the problems created by those bad choices.

Snoofy: "Hey, I got AIDS from unprotected sex with your mom's son."
Eberly: "Yeah, well that's your own dumb fault."
Snoofy: "Excellent point. Thanks to you, I'm cured!"

#171 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 08:16 PM

"I haven't read the entire thread but I get the impression that the folks who are all for restricting SNAP usage are the same folks who bitched up a storm over Michelle Obama's healthy lunch initiative."

Coincidentally, the same people said a citywide ban on large sodas was fascism.

#172 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-19 08:24 PM

I don't feel like I'm properly -------- on the poor correctly unless I can laugh derisively while drinking an 800 calorie frappacino in a place where 240 calorie soda servings are banned.

#173 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-01-19 08:45 PM

Not really. There's a difference between spending your own money on unhealthy options, and spending taxpayer money on the same.

How does this address the point?

Kids should be allowed to eat ---- if they so choose simply because it's their own money? Schools should therefore just serve unhealthy slop?

#174 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-19 11:36 PM

Coincidentally, the same people said a citywide ban on large sodas was fascism.

#172 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I already know their issue with it.

They think they're "paying for it".

Because in their minds they really are that big and important.

#175 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-19 11:38 PM

"I won't, because blaming people for making bad choices doesn't do anything to solve the problems created by those bad choices."

What a lie.

You blame trump voters for .........choosing to vote for trump.

#176 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-19 11:49 PM

"Your plan to make them not so fat has hit a barrier."

Another lie.

I have stated no plan.

#177 | Posted by eberly at 2018-01-19 11:51 PM

You pay taxes and the government does stuff with the money. Some of what they do you will like. Some of what they do you will not like. The stuff you like may not be the same stuff I like and vice versa. I don't get a line-item veto, and neither do you. I'd rather spend my tax money on food stamps than aircraft carriers. I'd also rather not judge those in need (that I "be not judged"). The fraud in assistance programs lies more often with the provider of whatever is being purchased than the poor person who is merely the vehicle for transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporations who also just got a big tax break from the "conservatives", demonstrating that they have more influence on policy than voters do. Food stamp money doesn't go to poor people, it goes to agri-business and retailers. It just goes through the poor, not to them.

#179 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-01-20 12:25 PM

"I don't feel like I'm properly -------- on the poor correctly unless I can laugh derisively while drinking an 800 calorie frappacino in a place where 240 calorie soda servings are banned."

Where exactly is the -------- in this scenario? You're poisoning yourself, to spite the poor, who can't afford to?

#180 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-20 02:57 PM

"I have stated no plan."

You have no stated much of anything, Eberly.

#181 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-20 02:58 PM

"You blame trump voters for .........choosing to vote for trump. "

That's a tautology. That's like saying I blame water for being wet.

#182 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-20 03:00 PM

"Your plan to make them not so fat has hit a barrier."

"Another lie.
I have stated no plan."

So then. What's the upside of blaming them? What is your motivation for blaming them?

Is it to... make you feel better about yourself?

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-20 03:01 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Trump's 'Russia Hoax' Turns Out to Be Very Real (102 comments)

A 'Mass Shooting Generation' Cries Out for Change (66 comments)

The Trump Administration's Internal War Over Veteran's Health Care (51 comments)

U.S. National Security Adviser Says Russia Meddling Now Undeniable (39 comments)

President's Personal Attorney Broke NDA, Stormy's Lawyer Says (29 comments)

American Pleads Guilty in Mueller's Russia Probe (26 comments)

A White House Budget Fit for the King of Debt (23 comments)

Economists Fear Trump is Nuking the Economy (15 comments)