Food stamps and chocolate.

[Mr. Socko]

As you all know, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of MN devised a plan a year ago to limit what people can buy on food stamps here in Minnesota. Under the new proposal, people using food stamps won't be allowed to buy pop, candy, and junk food. All this is to improve the eating habits of individuals using food stamps. The story can be found here.

Here's where my problem lies. I remember as a kid that my parents used food stamps to buy chocolate and candy and cake (as well as food) for my brother, my sister, and I. They couldn't afford to buy this luxury with their own money. We were happy when they would come home with candy purchased from food stamps. It was the one thing that made us all happy.

I can understand that we all should have better eating habits, but why should people who can't afford candy or food be forced to have those restrictions placed on them? Why restrict people to certain foods when they are on government assistance? Why take the joy away from poor kids?

I don't agree with this plan at all. I hope this plan fizzles in the Minnesota Legislature.

Let the children have the little happiness that they have. Don't take it away from them.

[Deja Q]

1. Quite, but it's interesting how only one man has spoken up about

the $4 bil deficit:

John Gunyou.

Amongst other things, he's said that Minnesota did not inherit the deficit. It was self inflicted. City Pages' article "Tim Pawlenty's New Deal" also points this fact out, though with a lot more detail. And did the rich help pay for the $4 billion shortfall, that was created by 5 years of steady tax breaks for them? Nope. They got off scott-free while everybody else paid the bill. And the price to them was unfairly high.

He also wants to enact TABOR and other policies that will shatter state government and public schools. We'll become as pathetic as Colorado and Texas.

Neoconservatives - not a damn one of those fuckers is any good, though they freely wreak their havoc beind a shroud of angellic "We must deal with this together" attitudes. x(

[Mr. Socko]

3. They're all assholes. I hate every one of them Republican fuckers.

Sigh. I miss Paul Wellstone. At least he cared about the children and everyone else in this state. :cry:

[Paradise]

39. i miss him, too.

:cry: he did, and 'they' are. let's have another :donut: together.

[Nobody]

33. WILL shatter public education?

Already shattered.

At Super Tuesday's caucus in my precinct, one of the teachers stood up and told us about how her school had no heat.

No heat. In Minnesota. In winter. How are those kids going to keep their minds on their schoolwork when they're shivering in a drafty unheated classroom?

[whathappened]

2. these king

shit cops in dc are getting ready to make it a crime to be fat , was watching cspan and they were talking about the way people are eating , and it was said if fat people can't do this on there own , we may have to make a law to stop them from eating junk food , lol , these asses have got to be stopped cold in there tracks , it is none of there buisness what we eat , what we smoke and how we live our lifes

[Mr. Socko]

4. Amen to that!

Stay out of my life! I'll eat what I want, when I want, and everything else.

[BradCKY]

26. But

edit, don't feel like arguing Nay did it for me :)

[bearfartinthewoods]

53. where was all this outrage when they decided to tax smokers into quiting?

ya can't buy cigs with foodstamps either.

[BiggJawn]

5. Chocolate can make you feel better.

So Pawlenty doesn't want people buying Chocolate. how about sugar? Cocoa? Guess Tim's never been in a place where a bit of chocky was all that kept you from putting your head in the oven, eh?

He must think it's a giggle a minute, being poor and on assistance.
Hope he gets to find out.

[Mr. Socko]

6. The new proposal states that NO junk food can be purchased...

using government assistance. That includes sugar and cocoa. Potato chips aren't going to be banned, though.

[BiggJawn]

36. So the criteria seems to be "Does it Taste GOOD?"

If I want to make the kids some hot chocolate, or bake brownies, or if i like sugar in my coffee, I'm screwed, but I can but greasy chips?

Sounds like academic nanny-staters (Mallard Fillmore's arch-nemisis) are in the drivers seat.

[amazona]

80. sugar and cocoa aren't junk food

Sugar is a basic ingredient and one of the cheapest. You can't bake anything without sugar. Even cornbread and yeast breads require at least a bit of sugar. Are we to deny the poor bread? Cocoa is another important basic ingredient needed for baking many traditional items. This is insane. Starvation kills faster than obesity does -- if we deny the poor food, we are choosing to kill them.

[mikehiggins]

187. If sugar and cocoa are not exempted, and there is no reason that

they should be, I have a great recipe my mother handed down for making hard candy from those two ingredients and a little butter.

Bathtub candy! Screw the prohibitionists!

[DemBones DemBones]

199. Ban sugar and cocoa but allow potato chips? Well, FUDGE!!!

Why shouldn't poor people be able to make fudge, brownies, hot chocolate, etc.? I admit fudge is truly decadent but brownies and hot chocolate have some nutritional value from eggs and milk, respectively.

The chip makers obviously have a good lobbyist.

[fujiyama]

266. Remember...

Frito Lay (I think they are the biggest potato chip manufacturer), is owned by Pepsi.

I'm sure they give a lot of money to various politicians.

[justgamma]

7. Agree.

About 30 years ago, my hubby got laid off and I was very pregnant,we went on food stamps. Those were the days when you had to show up at a certain time and stand in line for hours. After a couple of fainting spells, you got to hand over your cash to purchase the amount they told you that you had to. It cost us his whole unemployment check plus a few dollars extra to buy them. It was the only way I could have bought the kids any treats.

[Nay]

8. I have to disagree, Mr. Socko. Allow me to get up on my soapbox.

Food stamps should be used for nutritious items only, for what I hope are very obvious reasons -- medical, financial and ethical.

As a society, we all have the responsibility to see that the less fortunate do not suffer from hunger or lack of shelter, etc. Society is not obligated to buy you cakes and cookies, just as it is not obligated to house you in a mansion with a servant, or provide you with a new Mercedes so you can get to work.

Society is also ethically obligated to feed you nutritious food, since it is acting in loco parentis for as long as it takes for you to get on your feet again. Parents are ethically obligated to feed you correctly for health reasons and so is society, as long as you are eating on society's dime.

As a society, we also have the responsibility to encourage everyone to be a contributing member if it is at all possible. Part of that encouragement certainly may be to suggest to you that you learn to make your own cookies and cakes out of the flour, sugar, oatmeal, raisins, and oil that you have purchased with your food stamps! Another part of that training is to instill the idea that you, as a person who temporarily needs food aid, are entitled to that food aid -- BUT THAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WASTE THAT FOOD AID ON JUNK because there are others like you who are hungry, and feeding YOU candy deprives the society of funds that could be used to provide basic foods for them. In other words, stop thinking just of yourself for once. Take just what you need and no more, ESPECIALLY if you are getting it from your benevolent fellow Americans. I am an absolutely, full-blown left wing radical and have been for all my life, and I never can understand why some people find this type of food stamp restriction so horrible.

I realize I am an old bag (53), but as far as candy goes, when I was a kid all the neighborhood kids earned their own candy money by returning deposit bottles and running small errands for neighbors. it wasn't because we were poor, either (some of us were, some of us weren't). Our parents would be AGHAST at the idea that they owed us candy or cookies or that such treats were necessary to our happiness. Even my 21-year-old son would laugh hysterically at this bizarre idea. When those treats appeared (rarely), they were appreciated fully and were not taken for granted. And this is part of the problem with both adults and children today -- they truly are spoiled. Spoiled to the point of thinking they are owed such luxuries as cookies and candy, or beer and cigarettes, or cars and trendy clothes. Or that any of this stuff brings 'happiness.' Stop listening to all the ads on the tube! Frankly, it's pathetic.

[Kimber Scott]

10. Point very well made.

I agree 100%.

[Mr. Socko]

11. How is giving kids chocolate spoiling them?

As I kid, I hardly got anything. The little chocolate my parents came home with for us was all we got. Why rob that from the kids? Who are we to tell people what they can or can't eat?

Do you work at a government job? If you do, then I can tell you what you can and can't eat. After all...it's the taxpayers who pay the salaries and wages of government workers, isn't it? Same principle.

[Nay]

13. Please reread my post, Mr. Socko.

I didn't say that giving kids chocolate spoiled them. I said that kids who expected chocolate as their due were spoiled. There is a difference.

As a private citizen, I have no right to tell anyone what they can and cannot eat. As a taxpayer, I am obligated to buy nutritious food for those who cannot feed themselves, for the financial, medical and ethical reasons as I outlined in my first post.

I see no valid comparison between having a government job and being a food aid recipient. A government worker is earning his/her money by trading work for a salary. They are entitled to do with their earned money whatever they please, as any other worker is entitled. A food aid recipient, by definition, is doing no work to feed himself, so restrictions are in order, for the ethical, medical and financial reasons I outlined in my first post.

[Pithlet]

15. Who are you

Oompa Loompa? ;) Seriously, there is hardly an epidemic of tooth decay among food stamp recipients because they only buy candy. Legislation that takes away their ability to give their kids a little bit of sweets in the face of the complete and utter lack of an actual problem strikes me as a mean spirited attempt to punish people for being poor. It won't kill them to have the occasional chocolate bar, and the mental health value to a kid in a poor situation of that chocolate bar is worth a little bit of extra toothpaste, and the occasional food stamp.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. It might be mean-spirited but it's also realistic

The poor have no inalienable right to junk food. They have a right to food and this would ensure that they feed their children something better than junk.

[Pithlet]

58. So

Like I said in another post, do we ban all things that are solely for enjoyment for anyone receiving public assistance? Do we ban them from buying toys or going to the movies? After all, those aren't entitlements either, and displace money that could be going towards things that the public has deemed appropriate. I understand that some who propose this do so out of a genuine concern. But I do think the political push for this stems from other motives.

Unless there is this huge epidemic of welfare recipients blowing all their benefits on non-essential stuff, and I've never seen anything that suggests that, I don't see the need for a push for this. I think education on better nutrition, that reaches out to ALL people, is a better approach. The poor care for their children no more or no less than anyone else.

[Muddleoftheroad]

61. We aren't banning anything

All we are doing is saying that PUBLIC funds should be spent on necessities. If they acquired those other things by other means, that is not our decision.

This proposal is intended to prevent people from feeding poor children mountains of glop because it is easy.

[Pithlet]

63. No one in this thread

has posted any evidence that food stamps are being abused in order to feed children nothing but candy bars and ice cream. Those who do so are going to do that whether food stamps are restricted or not. The problem doesn't come from food stamps allowing such purchases, it comes from a lack of education about nutrition, something that is a problem all across the socioeconomic spectrum, combined with not enough time or resources to prepare more nutritious meals.

There is a prevailing attitude that the poor are somehow less than everyone else. That they overwhelmingly lack character, intelligence, and common sense. Otherwise, they wouldn't be poor. I think a push towards such restrictions plays right into that attitude. I don't think such restrictions will help poor children at all; it only reinforces the idea that those who happen to need a helping hand are somehow a sub-class to be dictated to and controlled, because they lack the common sense to feed themselves or their children correctly.

There are other, less patronizing and restrictive ways to deal with children being fed a poor diet.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Been poor

And not that long ago. I've lived it and seen it first-hand. Parents do indeed take the easy way, just as yuppie parents do because they work too much to take time out to cook.

But the difference is this: we as a society are paying for the food in the first case. As such, we have a right and obligation to ensure children are properly cared for with the money we allot.

[Pithlet]

69. I understand your point

I just don't know that our obligation becomes any more direct just because the parents are on assistance than it is with any other parents. While I've never been poor, I've been close to people who are, and they don't blow their food stamps on junk. They do get the occasional treat, however. I don't know that targeting people on assistance and judging their eating habits when the need arises and restricting them by dictating what they eat is the way to go about it.

I don't think my judgment and ability to parent and feed my kids right suddenly disappears if I have to go on assistance, something that more and more of us are getting closer to since Bush has been in office.

I do understand where you are coming from, though. It is vitally important that children are properly cared for and get the right nutrition, and I think that poor diet is becoming a bigger issue all the time. Something definitely needs to be done about that.

[sydneycarton]

104. I think it's those who have the gold make the rules

It's the taxpayer money. We don't mind paying to help feed the less fortunate, but we are not obligated to supply them with candy, pies etc. If they have enough food stamp money left over to buy all this, then they are receiving too much. It is our money after all. Not theirs.

Mike

[camero]

111. Hello

Just give your $5 to me then. Which is about how much you contribute to food stamps.

[kimchi]

279. Well said, Pithlet.

That is exactly what I wanted to say, only you did it much better.

[drewb]

110. We have to stop meeting like this...

Every time Muddle, every time....

We agree on everything but I/P....

I may dump my washing machince and put the moves on you... LOL... J/K...

Give them carrots, not cupcakes...

:loveya:

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jus_the_facts]

213. seems so....the comments made in this thread alone is enough....

....to make me wanna projectile :puke:

[JohnLocke]

283. (Sigh)

[bearfartinthewoods]

68. who are we? we are the people buying the food.

and there is a big difference between earning a government paycheck for your labor and getting a government grant for nothing. to imply that there is no difference is insulting to government employees.

[Mr. Socko]

70. The comparison was...

the govt. gives out food stamps to people, which is paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers also pay for government employees. So, my point is, if the govt. tells people on food stamps what to eat, then, since we taxpayers pay govt. wages and salaries, shouldn't we be able to tell the govt. employees what to eat? It's the same principle. If the govt. tries telling the poor what to eat on welfare, then why shouldn't I tell govt. employees what to eat?

That was the comparison.

[bearfartinthewoods]

75. it is not the same principal

in one case, it's a gift in the other, it's wage in exchange for labor. there is a big difference.

[Speed8098]

265. A Gift?!?!?!?!

I can see that you have never had to experience the humiliation of depending on the government to feed your family.

Food stamps are ANYTHING but a gift. It is humiliating to have to gravel to some case worker who looks at you with contempt, just because you are there.

You hang your head in your community every time one of your neighbors is behind you in the checkout line.

I know, I've been there.

Fortunately for me, I was lucky enough to find a job within a few months.

No alcohol, no cigarettes, fine. No candy or other treats, Bullshit.

It's not the kids fault that their government looks out for the fat cats before they look out for the poor.

[Pithlet]

12. I'm not sure I agree.

I have a hard time with looking at people poor enough to need assistance as somehow childlike, and the taxpayers are the parents. Surely, no one should be wasting all of their food stamps on junk. Just how often does that happen? Is that just another "welfare queen" type of myth? I'm certainly not going to encourage ANYONE to make their goodies from scratch, if I don't even do that myself. Most people on welfare now work as well, sometimes more than one job. Where would they find the time? Life would be pretty miserable for me if I couldn't have the occasional treat, and I am far from poor. I understand your point, but I think everyone should buy more nutritious foods, rich or poor, public assistance or not. There should be a push for everyone to make better food choices, and not just the poor who are on assistance.

Just where do we draw the line in telling them what they can and can't have? Do we cross processed foods off the list? Then their stamps wouldn't stretch as far, and they may not have the time to prepare such foods on a regular basis.

[Nay]

16. I know what you are saying, Pithlet, but I still stand by my

reasoning. As a taxpayer, I feel we have those ethical obligations. It is irrelevant whether the recipients are 'childlike' or not. Some are, some aren't. But they are in a 'childlike' position of having to rely on others for food, which will automatically make them subject to restrictions, just as those of us who have jobs are subject to restrictions of all kinds as well. And I still maintain that the recipients themselves have an ethical obligation to realize that others are as bad off as they are, and that is why their food stamps cannot be used for frivolous foods. They have an obligation not just to taxpayers, but to other poor people.

As for the working poor with two jobs, I have a very hard time believing they can't buy themselves a chocolate bar once in a while with their own cash. Food stamps should not be used for that.

As far as food prep, come on, folks, it just isn't that time consuming with a little forethought. How much time does it take to heat a can of vegetables and make a tuna sandwich on whole wheat bread?? Or microwave a piece of fresh chicken?

I agree with you that everyone, not just the poor, should be encouraged to eat healthier food, but again, this is not relevant to what we are discussing. We are discussing what obligations we, as a society, have toward those who cannot feed themselves sufficiently. One of the things we are not obligated to provide is junk food, for the reasons I outlined in my first post.

[Pithlet]

57. It is relevant.

I agree with you that everyone, not just the poor, should be encouraged to eat healthier food, but again, this is not relevant to what we are discussing.

But it is relevant. You are proposing that we treat people differently because they are getting public assistance. I agree that people on public assistance shouldn't blow all of their food stamps on junk. However, banning all foods deemed non-nutritious (by whom, by the way?) goes too far. Do we start banning all things that feel good to people receiving assistance? They can no longer buy toys, or go to the movies, because after all, that is money being displaced that could go to clothes and shelter? Do we start setting up government stores, and telling them they can only shop here, for products that the taxpayers have deemed appropriate?

It is one thing to care about the poor, which I believe is your motivation, not mean spiritedness. But, I think we can go overboard. Unless there is a huge problem with a vast majority of welfare recipients buying only candy, and I haven't seen any studies that point in that direction, I think it is overstepping.

[maggrwaggr]

17. the trouble with your argument

as my econ professor in college pointed out to my class ....

it doesn't matter if foodstamps are "allowed" to be for alcohol, cookies, or sushi.

If people want to buy those things, they will. If they get foodstamps, they'll use the foodstamps to buy the booze and cookies and then use other money to buy a big mac at mickey D's or whatever.

Or they'll do the reverse. Whatever the case, you simply can't control what people decide to buy as long as they have both money AND foodstamps.

You might as well just give 'em money.

[Nay]

21. I do see your point.

And in fact I made the same point in an earlier post when I said that it was hard for me to believe that a working poor person getting food stamps couldn't buy a candy bar once in a while with his own paycheck cash. And I think that's OK.

But you have to admit that, barring fraud, a person with $10 in cash and $10 in junk-food-restricted food stamps can't buy $20 worth of booze and candy. He can buy $10 worth of junk and $10 worth of good food. And this is what society should be aiming for. Your college prof is wrong there.

[mopinko]

78. food stamps are not stamps any more

for this very reason. you get an debit-type link card, so you can't just swap your stamps for cash.

[indigo32]

I'm not sure I agree with this statement

or the premise of your post

"As a society, we also have the responsibility to encourage everyone to be a contributing member if it is at all possible. "

I'm assuming you are considering the Gov (which hands out food stamps) as a proxy for society. I don't think thats what the Governments in the business to do. Personally if I wanted them taking those sorts of actions I'd say first on their list would be to do FAR more than they currently do to encourage good parenthood (and that means a whole lot more than what they buy for their kids too eat). Just my two cents.

[Lindacooks]

23. Nope, you're wrong

This is simply a mean-spirited Repuke attack on the working poor. All Pawl-ass-enty and his cruel little group want to do is to impose 'morals' on people who are 'stupid or lazy enough to be poor', which is honestly what they think.

This is just another way to humiliate those who aren't born with silver spoons in their mouths. And by the way, what exactly are we doing to 'help' improve the diets of people not on food stamps? Will there be an outcry when we place a high tax on junk food?

I hate everything that asshole does. I hate the way he looks, the sound of his voice, and every single thing he stands for.

This is the same kind of thinking that I've heard people say about poor kids and Christmas; that they should get mittens and scarves and coats. For God's sake, allow people a little enjoyment, will you?

[Eric J in MN]

27. The point is that the poor should be able to make their own

The point is that the poor should be able to make their own decisions about what to eat.

Nobody chooses to be dependent on food stamps.

Nor is it harmful to eat a moderate amount of chocolate.

Let the food stamp recipients decide.

[BradCKY]

29. The problem

Is that they are paying with everybody elses money. The government has an obligation to give you what you NEED to get by when you are down on your luck (ex. Healthcare, Food Stamps).

It doesn't have any obligation to use taxpayer money to give you what you WANT at everybody else's expense.

[bread_and_roses]

43. Many food stamp recipients work

so it is THEIR money too. So people are to be policed as to what they eat because we allow employers to pay poverty-level wages? Or are we going to exempt working food stamp recipients from this legislation and only apply it to those lazy slugs who are too disabled to work? Or who can't find work because the US has lost millions of jobs over the past three years?

I would think the legislature could find better ways to spend its' time than policing what people eat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. If they work

Then they can use their surplus funds for junk food. If they have no surplus, then they couldn't afford junk food in the first place.

[bread_and_roses]

54. What gives anyone else the right

to legislate what people eat? It is an invasion of privacy that is unconscionable.

(edit for personal pronoun)

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Paying for it

That gives us the right. We are not legislating what they eat. We are legislating what we will pay for.

[SiobhanClancy]

62. Well,we're paying for the military too...

and that doesn't give us any say in where they are deployed. Taxpayers pay for a great many things and have no say in how our money is spent...other than at the voting booth. Anyway,I am as much a taxpayer as those who want to implement such restrictions...maybe I feel that I want my money spent on chocolate( I actually feel that life without chocolate is bleak indeed). It's paternalistic to presume to tell people what they should eat. There are many more important misuses of MY money that could be addressed,rather than this sort of thing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Yes it does, through our elected officials

And the same goes here. If those elected officials set limits on how this money is used, that is within their purview.

[bread_and_roses]

72. We already legislate that food stamps

cannot be used for alcohol, tobacco, or imported products. Your point is correct, in that we are legislating what we will pay for, and I was incorrect in terming it legislating what people eat. So a precedent is established in that an imported product can be "food" and still be unavailable with food stamps.

However, this legislation presumes that "we" who do not need food stamps are somehow entitled to control how "they" who do need them make personal choices about how to best use their resources to provide for themselves and their families. I cannot imagine any justification for such intrusion into personal decisions. Food Stamps are provided in order to buy food; surely what people eat is a personal and private decision. Will this legislation exempt jello and ginger ale from the "junk food" category? Both are often quite legitimately given to sick children. What next, we will legislate that a mother receiving welfare can use $2 of her cash grant to buy her child a pair of socks but not hair ties?

To say that "we" pay for it presumes that people who receive food stamps are not sometimes themselves contributing to "the pot" from which the money comes, which would not be accurate. It presumes that "we" know better than "they" what "they" should eat - a problematic assumption, since "we" are not in the position of trying to fill up our children's bellies on insufficient resources. It presumes that people are only entitled to "our" charity under "our" conditions, an outmoded concept in a world where there are simply not enough living wage jobs - or any jobs - to allow everyone to support themselves.

During the Nixon years, the idea of a guaranteed minimum National Income was actually floated - an idea that would obviate the need for a lot of welfare bureaucracy. How far we have come.

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. "We" collectively do pay for them

That does not exclude the folks who use the food stamp program. We all pay. And, collectively, we have decided what can be and what cannot be covered.

And no, that is NOT a personal decision. A totally unrestricted program would enable a food stamp user to buy caviar and champagne one day and starve their kids the other days of the month.

Thankfully, though the concept of a guaranteed income was considered, it was not enacted.

[bread_and_roses]

91. I wouldn't be so thankful

it actually solves a lot of problems. Including legislators sitting around worrying how people spend their paltry food stamps while the world goes to hell in a handbasket.

There are already laws against starving your children; we don't need food stamps restrictions to prevent their families from starving them. In fact, most of the food problem in many families recieving food stamps boils down to simply not enough of it. Collectively "we" seem to be spending more time worrrying about the fact that someone might buy too many chips with their food stamps than we are with the beggarly levels of assistance provided by programs like "welfare" and food stamps.

The food stamp program itself is a holdover from paternalistic welfare theory and should be scrapped anyway. But as long as we have it, I hope most of "us" have both more sense and more regard for the basic dignity of individuals to enact such a misguided, reactionary law.

[drewb]

112. What gives you the right to take my money and give it to them???

Invasion of privacy.... PLEASE....

When you get your hands out of my pockets you can go stuff your face with whatever you like...

:loveya:

[camero]

113. Did you get a grant or loan to go to college?

Then get your hands out of my pocket.

[drewb]

116. Paid my loan back in full there hotshot...

n/t

:loveya:

[camero]

118. You still took my money.

Pay your own damn way to college hotshot.

[drewb]

119. Actually the Army paid most of it back to you there Hotshot...

Student Loan Repayment Program...

It's a beautiful thing...

I earned that money through hard work and doing things I would have rather not done...

The net result is that you got your money back ace...

:loveya:

[camero]

120. You took it in the first place

What's the matter? Can't support yourself?

[drewb]

121. No, I guess not...

I need a nanny state to coddle me from cradle to grave...

Would you be my nanny state????

:loveya:

:pals:

[camero]

123. I am your nanny state

Since I paid for your education.

[drewb]

124. Did I ever thank you for that?

Can I suck at your teat now?

:loveya:

[camero]

125. Get the point?

Everybody pays, everybody plays.

[drewb]

126. What is the point?

I think it got lost about 10 posts ago...

I don't think people should be able to buy whatever they want with foodstamps, apparently you think the should...

Is that it?

:loveya:

[camero]

127. How about

It's not just your money. Ever consider that?

[jus_the_facts]

122. Tell THAT to CORPORATE WELFARE recipients BUB.......

....THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE BIGGEST HAND IN YOUR POCKET! :eyes:

[bread_and_roses]

139. What????

So people who can't or can't find work - and their children - can just starve? Like in Victorian England? They can die in the streets?

Did you go to school? Do you drive on the roads, have sewers and running water in your town, have garbage pick up? You pay for all that yourself? And police and firefighters? Do you plan to buy a house someday and expect a mortage deduction on your taxes?

There is such a thing as community, not to mention common humanity. Not to mention that we have structural poverty and unemployment and systemic racism in this country, all of which affect a person's ability to support him/herself.

Get off your high horse and join the human race.

[camero]

140. Psst

Check the profile. :)

[jus_the_facts]

103. Well.................. what about CORPORATE WELFARE....................

<It doesn't have any obligation to use taxpayer money to give you what you WANT at everybody else's expense.>

......this is EXACTLY what is bein' done with taxpayer money where corporations are concerned....yet you NEVER hear about THAT....CEO's are disgustingly wealthy yet they NEEEEEEEED tax loopholes and flat out GIVEN complete tax exemptions to locate in certain areas....the ignorance in this thread is truly outer limits! :puke:

[camero]

109. OK, from now on

No more weapons will be bought at my expense. (Since it's my responsibility to protect myself)

No more Rich people will get SS. I pay SS taxes.

No more businesses will get government money of any type. (This includes private contracting) Let the government hire employees for road building, health care, etc.

No more will upper middle class people get college money. Hey, it's my tax money. I didn't get any grants to go to school.

Should I go on?

[drewb]

114. Sounds good to me! You sound like a LIBERTARIAN!!!

LOL!!!

ME TOO!

:loveya:

[camero]

115. HA

You don't see sarcasm too well do you?

[drewb]

117. Better than you apparently...

n/t

:loveya:

[Deja Q]

28. I am compelled to agree with your statement

Food stamps should be used for nutritious items only, for what I hope are very obvious reasons -- medical, financial and ethical.

As a society, we all have the responsibility to see that the less fortunate do not suffer from hunger or lack of shelter, etc. Society is not obligated to buy you cakes and cookies, just as it is not obligated to house you in a mansion with a servant, or provide you with a new Mercedes so you can get to work.

Society is also ethically obligated to feed you nutritious food, since it is acting in loco parentis for as long as it takes for you to get on your feet again. Parents are ethically obligated to feed you correctly for health reasons and so is society, as long as you are eating on society's dime.

As a society, we also have the responsibility to encourage everyone to be a contributing member if it is at all possible. Part of that encouragement certainly may be to suggest to you that you learn to make your own cookies and cakes out of the flour, sugar, oatmeal, raisins, and oil that you have purchased with your food stamps!


I dunno, in some ways: American society is about the individual, not of the society. That's why repukes hate public assistance (unless it's for a large, ubiquitous corporation). A repuke saying "encourage everyone to be a contributing member (of society)" is nothing more than a kettle of cattle cack. Especially when corporations weed out people with unethical personality profile tests. They don't look at a person's history, they just look at the damn computer report. This is but one tiny example of their hatred of a society where all contribute.

[Nay]

32. I agree that a Repuke saying this has ulterior motives, and

would like to get rid of food stamps altogether. I would like to get rid of food stamps, too, by forcing corporations to pay a goddamn living wage, by encouraging workers to join up in unions so they have bargaining power, and by having national healthcare and other amenities. But I was addressing the stand-alone IDEA of whether or not there should be junk-food restictions on food stamps. I think there should be.

[Nobody]

35. That's a good point

We taxpayers are paying for companies like Wal Mart and other low wage companies to pay unlivable wages. We subsidize those wages with food stamps, heat share (which I contributed to when I had a good job, now gone along with several other IT positions), section 8 housing, etc.

When politicians like Norm Coleman (the non-Senator from MN, Rubber Stamp Republican) brag about creating jobs, there wasn't a lot of attention paid to what kind of jobs and where they came from. Normie's job creation was just a transfer of jobs to one city when a facility in another city closed.

I don't begrudge a parent buying their kid a treat once in a while on food stamps. You can't live on rice and ramen noodles alone as I did when I was unemployed for over a year and a half.

Tim Pawlenty is one of those people who probably did see a birthday cake being purchased. Or a candy bar. Or a two-liter bottle of pop. His contempt for the poor is palpable and he is in the pocket of the Minnesota Taxpayers League, a group of people dedicated to eliminating every piece of evidence that we are a civilized state. He's trying to get the state to cut off funding for public transportation because he claims "no one uses it". I'd like to see that guy build his own freeway system. but I digress.

Whether the food stamp users are buying caviar or a lifetime supply of ramen noodles is not going to change the underlying attitude of hostility to the poor.

I do think caviar shouldn't be an eligible food (luxury item, and you don't get enough to make a meal of) but pop? Pop is cheap. Go to any restaurant and see how little you pay for pop as compared to a 25 cent tea bag and hot water. Most places charge at least 1.25 for a cup of tea. You get refills on the pop, not on the tea in most places unless you ask.

Like you, I'd like to see the need for subsidies eliminated. I'd like to start by requiring living wages from all companies that receive tax breaks from the state.

[kayell]

34. What an incredibly patronizing attitude!

Having been in the position of needing food stamps at one time in the past, and having had to deal with people who seemed to think that turned me into a de facto child, my main wish for you is that you soon have to experience the same sort of treatment you are advocating for other adults.

[bleedingheart]

46. what about a birthday cake? I was at the store recently and

a mother was buying a birthday cake for a child with foodstamps...should we punish the child for being poor?

[Lorien]

48. I agree with one minor exception

In recent years it has been discovered that eating 1 oz of dark (NOT milk) chocolate a day can significantly ADD to a persons health, since high cocoa content is a very powerful antioxidant. One physician on Oprah recently stated that eating 1 OZ a day could add 2-3 years to the average person's lifespan (sounds far fetched, but I've actually heard this from several sources. It would also help explain why Europeans are generally healthier than Americans; they have always preferred dark chocolate over milk chocolate). Another "luxury" food that food stamps should cover; wild caught salmon. It's one of the most nutritious foods on earth (along with broccoli, spinach, pumpkin and blueberries)and can stave off a whole host of ailments that can be very costly to society.

My parents were just like yours, Nay. In fact, my mother grew up Mennonite, which meant that there were no "treats" outside of those received on Christmas, Easter, and birthdays (Mennonites are like Amish with electricity). She never would have wasted what little money we had on junk food and soda!But we didn't miss that stuff, because we didn't have a TV that was telling us how much we "deserved" it! This whole idea that goodies bring happiness has led to a alienated,angry, and cocooning society that drives monster SUVs to keep up with the Jones' while binging on McDonald's because they feel that a.) they deserve to and b.) they're too busy working and buying useless crap to fix a real meal! America is 4% of the world's population, eating up 24% of her resources, and all we've gotten from it is environmental illnesses, war, and the highest rate of anti-depressant use in the world. Enough is enough!

[bearfartinthewoods]

56. totally on the mark.

i grew up with the occasional need for assistance which at that time was cans of spam and blocks of unsliced american cheese. we must make sure people don't go hungry..beyond that, have adequit nutrition but the food stamp system is ripe with the possibility of abuse. i know it's supposed to be some sort of sign of freeperhood if a person notes what is in the cart of people on public assistance but i say bull.

we do a lot of work with the people who come to the shelter to teach them smart ahopping. often, they have some odd predudices concerning store brands, for instnace. we can teach them how to extend their food buying power by 30% by cutting up their own chickens and buying
ingredients instead of convience foods and other stategies that can keep them within a budget.

restrictions against junk food are a good idea.

[mopinko]

71. another old bag

"I am an absolutely, full-blown left wing radical and have been for all my life, and I never can understand why some people find this type of food stamp restriction so horrible."
yup
sorry, call me a freeper, whatever. assisting in people's self destruction is not what i want my tax dollars to do. so many food stores in low income areas carry way more junk food than healthy food. disallowing these foods will help to correct this. i cannot see contributing to people's medical problems which i will later pay to treat.

[amazona]

82. sugar is not the same thing as candy

Candy has sugar in it, true. But if the proposal is banning the purchase of a very basic ingredient to cooking like granular white sugar, it is simply insane and inhumane. Not to mention more expensive in the end -- when you can't afford enough calories to live, sugar is the cheapest way to get those calories fast. Fat has already gone through the roof price-wise -- price cheese, butter, olive oil, or any quality oil. Sometimes sugar is the only cheap choice. I realize I'm repeating myself here but people die in months or years of starvation. They die (if they die at all) in decades of obesity. Denying people food is not the way to fight obesity.

I have an income in the high four figures and can't get food stamps. It is already very, very difficult to qualify. The welfare queen stories are just that, stories. If someone is getting food stamps, I am satisfied that they are in serious need. We are trying to prevent people from starving to death here.

By the way, were you aware that many home-baked cookies, cakes, pies, and bread are more expensive than the ones prepared in the grocery store? Many studies have confirmed this, but you can check it for yourself by buying the ingredients and baking home-made. I do bake home-made but because it's a link to tradition not because it's the cheapest possible choice.

The politician who proposed this is a rich idiot who never stepped foot in a grocery store or had to plan a meal -- that is my guess!

[aquart]

9. Chocolate is a health food. Recent studies prove it.

[bemildred]

14. Indeed, good for the heart. nt

[Ksec]

18. You can call the food stamp 800 number in India.....

I heard that yesterday. Could they not employ a few Americans to take those jobs?

[Elwood P Dowd]

19. The first step

in the process of eliminating food stamps. The camel has to first get his head in the tent. Eventually, the whole body will take over the tent and eat the food stamp program. More money for the fat cats to play with.

Now if the sugar and junk food lobbies give the political mafia enough money, they will take a 180 and order food stamp recipients to buy candy and junk food.

[Ksec]

20. Food Stamps are a corporate subsidy

I doubt they will do away with it since it enables and allows them to pay shit wages

[Elwood P Dowd]

25. I forgot about that.

Wal Mart (and many others) wouldn't be too happy.

So many programs are under attack, you just assume, "Oh no, here we go again".

[sandnsea]

89. Yeah, CocaCola will stop this

In its tracks. No way are these corporations going to go without their share of the food subsidy. That allows them to pay shit wages to put people on food stamps in the first place.

[MrPrax]

22. Some People Here Never MIss Meals

Some of these posts here made me check to see if I was on DU and not Freeperland...

Jeez...so when exactly did it become fashionable to tell poor people what they can and can't eat SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY GET STATE RELIEF?

So some folks must get food relief...
-- food stamps were devised largely because it was thought that giving poor people MONEY to begin with, would encourage them to 'fill in the blank' evils
-- now paternalism in the form of state fiat suggests we administer the 'poor' simply because they asked for assistence

By all means, their strip them of their self-worth, autonomy and ability to make their own decisions SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DON"T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PURCHASE FOOD <<--this is poverty by definition>>

Now let's not discuss the MUCH tougher question as to WHY in a wealthy society people have to get food stamps, because to do so might force us to reconsider our own complicity in the economic oppression of our fellow citizens.

[Nay]

30. Again, I fail to see how requiring food stamps to be used for

nutritious foods 'strips them of their self-worth, autonomy, etc." There are thousands upon thousands of decent foods in a grocery, so it's not like we are simply shoving bowls of gruel through the bars. Get a grip, you guys! What is the matter with you?

I don't believe in demonization of the poor, but I don't believe in deification of the poor, either! Geeeez.

As far as missing a meal, I missed many as a child when my father broke his back at work and was fired for having the temerity to get hurt on the job. No welfare back then, my chickies. How would you like it to go to the hospital to see your father, and have the other patients in the ward give you their hospital food because they could see you were hungry? Did you think maybe we felt a little "stripped of our self-worth" then? Would you like poor people to be subjected to that today, instead of the oh-so-horrible junk food restrictions on food stamps??

So yes, I still think allowing junk food to be bought with food stamps is FRIVOLOUS, WASTEFUL, PRIDEFUL, SINFUL, SELFISH, THOUGHTLESS, SOULLESS, UNETHICAL, GREEDY, and GRASPING.

And as far as discussing the real reason we have so many poor people and how complicit everyone is in THAT, well, we can start a discussion any time. But that isn't what THIS thread was about.

[philosophie_en_rose]

37. Open your eyes, then.

I work with a lot of children whose families are poor. They are lucky to get a birthday cake or some Peeps at easter. People should be allowed to make choices without the government deciding that poor people should have bran muffins on their birthday. Kids need fat. There are varying nutritional needs. Starving children still need salad, but an occasional cookie is actually beneficial.

Playing Big Brother at the grocery store is an insult to poor people, because it assumes that they are too stupid to purchase their own food. If the government is truly concerned, then maybe they should promote healthy eating across the board (rich people are fat too), so that people can make better choices. Banning foods is a band-aid "solution."

It is a matter of survival to buy the cheapest available food. I don't know where you live, but it is very expensive to buy healthy foods where I live. There are local farms that don't charge a lot, but they don't take food stamps either. The only option is to go to a grocery store, where the cheapest food is store brand garbage.

I have said this before and will no doubt have to say this again. The poor are under attack no matter what they choose. Either welfare queens eating granola, salad, and steak or fat slobs that are too stupid to choose their own foods. Again, this is not a matter of choosing what to eat. It's choosing to eat. It's choosing to feed your kids all month or not.

Any food can be unhealthy. Too many carbs can be unhealthy. Too much meat can be unhealthy. Artificial ingredients can be unhealthy. Basically, food can be unhealthy. :sarcasm: Let's just stop eating altogether:/sarcasm:

[Madrone]

107. NOBODY is lucky to get Peeps. EVER.

:puke:

[bread_and_roses]

42. And since when do we legislate frivolity...

...waste, pride, sin, selfishness, thoughtlessness, soul-ness, ethics, greed, and graspingness in the area of personal consumption?

This is nothing but another distraction from the lack of living wage jobs or even ANY jobs. Another distraction from facing the fact that if there are no jobs for people that we have the choice of permitting US citizens to live in third world conditions (as they already do in our inner cities) or providing adequate safety nets that can be used with dignity and without surrendering ordinary rights.

And by the way, the candy bar that one person buys with food stamps does not deny another poor person in need of food stamps an apple. Food Stamps eligibility is based on income; if I am eligible, I will receive them whether others receiving them are buying healthy food or not. Nor, except by the most stringent budgeting and a family food-police-person do food stamps provide enough food for a month - and even then, probably at some cost to optimum nutrition. And healthy eating is expensive.

This is simply, as others have stated, more demonetization and humiliation of the poor.

[JohnLocke]

285. We legislate frivolity when we're the ones paying for it (nt).

[Pithlet]

59. It is statements like these

So yes, I still think allowing junk food to be bought with food stamps is FRIVOLOUS, WASTEFUL, PRIDEFUL, SINFUL, SELFISH, THOUGHTLESS, SOULLESS, UNETHICAL, GREEDY, and GRASPING.

that get to the heart of why I'm against such restrictions. No one is deifying the poor here; they are acknowledging that the poor are human beings that don't deserve more judgment heaped upon them simply because they are poor. Sinful? Please. Why don't we just make them live under 24 hour observation to make sure that they aren't doing something that is greedy and sinful. Unethical? It's candy, for crying out loud. It is no more greedy or sinful for a poor person to enjoy a snickers bar than it is for me. I do not believe it is grasping to treat poor people like we would treat anyone else. Let's work on education for ALL people on proper nutrition, and not institute patronizing and demoralizing legislation aimed at the poor.

[dmr]

86. Thank you Pithlet for addressing that sentence.

I have absolutely no problem with parents purchasing a bag of cookies for their children or for themselves for that matter. If they want a Snickers bar, so what!

No one has provided any statistics that the Food Stamp Program is abuse in this way. Of all the concerns of wasted money in this country, this should be the least of our concerns. But it's so much easier to be pious with our tax dollars where the poor has entered the picture.

I was poor as a child and have seen very poor days as an adult. I have also grocery shopped with my own money on many occasions for families that had little or no money. Each time, I have always included treats for the kids. That's what it's all about, the kids. How can I deny them something that can bring a smile to their faces? It has nothing to do with those who didn't have treats when they were kids. It has nothing to do with being sinful, prideful, soulless or whatever words was used up-thread. To deny a little pleasure that has not been proven abusive with my tax dollars would be cold hearted and soulless.

The next thing you know, we'll see hot dogs, white bread, frozen french fries, and sugared cereals banned.

Let's demoralize, limit and legislate the abuse with the corporate world's welfare. Leave cookies and candy alone since it has not been proven to be abusive.

[amazona]

83. who decides what is junk food?

There are people apparently even right here on DU who think sugar and cocoa are junk food, when these are basic foods used for thousands of years. For almost two decades, it was believed that butter and eggs were junk foods; now we know that it was the "safe" margarine full of trans fats that are causing so many heart diseases.

We don't know enough about how diet affects health to make these decisions for other people.

It's funny how people can demonize a chocolate bar yet somehow the armed services throughout the world are well aware that this "candy" is a critical part of any survival kit.

[tobius]

24. Love this post! Don't punish the children! LOL!

the same people who are for vouchers for hot fudge sundaes are protesting the govt sponsored "food groups" because they are a conspiracy to give people clogged arteries, berating school officials because they have pepsi vending machines, and want to be able to sue jacqueinthbocks because their ass is too big. Please stop! I'm laughing so hard I might wake up my daughter.

[REP]

31. Poor = Stupid?

It seems that the governer seems to think those who need foodstamps are also in need of a stern paternal hand to guide them away from evil foods - for their own good. Thank the saintly Mr P for trying to save those misguided fools from themselves who might indulge in a bit of chocolate and thus ensure that they would never be able to rejoin the lucky ducky working class as full participants. God knows that being dependent on the government for support is a non-stop luxury ride; it's time to end the chocolate abuses of this privileged class!

Jesus fucking wept. Who the fuck does this self-righteous piece of shit think he is? Want to improve the health of those who need foodstamps to make ends meet? Provide them with affordable health care and prescriptions, and raise the state's minimum wage. Doing those things, however, takes more balls than saying "no more goodies for poor people!"

[juajen]

49. How good of you to take the words right out of my mouth

Thank you, thank you, thank you. To you who think the poor should be even more humiliated, I have one thing to say. KARMA IS A BITCH!

[bread_and_roses]

96. Amen n/t

[MidwestMomma]

38. I hope this plan fizzles too

This part of the article sums it all up for me:

"Last year, Human Services Commissioner Kevin Goodno said the idea came from listening to complaints that people in the grocery check-out lines were buying pricey snacks with their food support debit cards.

In an interview Thursday, Gomez took a different tack, describing the idea as part of a larger public health battle against obesity."

So last year, it was about people complaining about 'poor' people eating 'pricey snacks' but now they decided that sounded petty so they're spinning it as concern for public health.

Give me a break. This is all about those people that stand in line behind people using food stamps and feel that they can judge every item in that person's basket because, after all, they as taxpayers are buying those groceries.

Why stop at candy and pop? Why are people on food stamps allowed to buy name brand foods? Generic is cheaper. Why should they be allowed the luxury of using Heinz ketchup when there is a cheaper alternative. And what about cuts of meat....Should people on food stamps be limited to stew cuts and hamburger only?

It's humiliating enough to use food stamps for some people. To have to stand in line and have the checker go through your food and tell you, no, not this one, etc just makes it worse.

I'll end with the Clash, "Know Your Rights"

And number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Investigation, humiliation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation

[MrPrax]

44. Right Said...

The charity process is already humilitating enough in our society...to empower the grocery clerk to play 'social worker' is a little much.

But that is our system--it's funny about the politics of 'food' in our society.
Employers won't pay hourly workers for their lunch or EVEN give them lunch--
Charities won't give you a 'free meal' unless you sing for Jesus

These are strange attitudes when compared to other cultures and religions in the world--food is never subject of this triumphantism of the 'have' and 'have-not'

Strange indeed we don't give food stamps or even 'charity' from a food bank unless we have taken their last quarter...only then when we are assured they are not an competitor (or even equal) that we give them 'food money' as the Late Great Joe Strummer says...

[Paradise]

40. that's mean. n/t

[Bertha Venation]

41. There's no way to force people to be good parents.

I tend to agree, Mr. Socko, and I think I even recently said here on DU that food stamps be allowed to be used only for REAL FOOD. But such a requirement isn't realistic. Undoubtedly a lot of people on food stamps haven't the facilities for cooking, so prepared & processed foods are probably all they can prepare. I'm thinking of the ground-down, tenement-dwelling poor who, if they're lucky, have a hot plate in their one-room apartments. Maybe some of them have a neighbor who's REALLY lucky and has a microwave they can borrow.

Like a lot of us, I grew up on food stamps. For my family, they weren't a temporary measure during hard times. Until I moved out at age sixteen, I don't ever remember anyone using cash to buy food.

My mother and stepfather were, to put it bluntly, fucking pathetic excuses for parents in this regard. The only fresh fruit & vegetables I remember having as a child were corn on the cob and watermelon & strawberries. I was nineteen and walking through a grocery store when I had a freaking epiphany in the produce section: "I can have fresh broccoli if I want it . . . ." and the thought completely bowled me over.

Cookies, cheetos, tv dinners, bologna sandwiches, canned stew and spaghetti -- were the norm for us. They had absolutely no discipline, and no interest in feeding their children well: they bought what they wanted to eat and that's what we ate. I only remember my mother cooking two things, and one was a pot of hamburger, instant rice, and canned tomatoes & corn.

Some parents are going to be lousy parents no matter what the government says, and some of the poor can't prepare raw & fresh ingredients. I don't think it would be wise to put a "no junk food" restriction on food stamps.

[yankeedem]

45. Though not allowing food stamps to be used for "Junk"

Is something that on its surface makes sense, it is part of a growing trend on the part of government to take away choices from the poor. It is the government saying that the poor are not smart enough to make informed decisions, so we are going to make them for you.

We've seen this happen with reproductive rights and birth control benefits for the poor. Now some would do this with their food. Minnesota would be better guided to spend effort educating everybody on how to make a nutritious market basket, and then let the recipients of benefits make up their own minds.

[bleedingheart]

There are loads of "rich" people who are one paycheck away from

disaster who buy crap with their money...they buy junk food and toys and acessories they don't need...why not have the state mandate that they put money away for a rainy day?? Oh but wait that would infringe on personal choice... and we only reserve the right to do that to the poor.

[LincolnMcGrath]

52. You can say that again!

:evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[bleedingheart]

55. I did and I didn't even know it!

[bearfartinthewoods]

81. you answered your own question....it's their money

erned and therefore theirs without restrictions.

[bleedingheart]

98. but those who are on public assistance have also in many

cases contributed their tax money to others...in essence they are getting back what they put in...

so its still their money...

[bleedingheart]

47. There are loads of "rich" people who are one paycheck away from

disaster who buy crap with their money...they buy junk food and toys and acessories they don't need...why not have the state mandate that they put money away for a rainy day?? Oh but wait that would infringe on personal choice... and we only reserve the right to do that to the poor.

[wellstone dem]

66. It is hell to be poor and shopping

I've had people tell me about going to stores in other neighborhoods because of things people say if they use FS.

I've had people tell me they wear their worst looking clothes (note not necessarily the one's they paid the least for) because store clerks make comments about how people can dress nice and have food stamps. (The nice clothes were one's they'd gotten free from Catholic Charities)

A friend told me about a time she was in line at a grocery store. The woman in front of her was using food stamps. A woman behind my friend said loudly, "It must be nice to have food stamps to buy ice cream bars." The food stamp user turned around and said, "It sure is nice to have food stamps and buy ice cream bars...and tonight when your kids are at the football game, you think of my kids at home, because we can't afford to take them. And tomorrow when you are at the movie theater or at the mall, you think of my kids--at home because we can't afford to go out. And on Sunday, when you get home from Sunday brunch or some other activity, please think of my kids--because that's when we are eating those ice cream bars, it's the only treat they will have this weekend."

We don't ever know the full story. I've heard food stamp users criticized for buying steak, chips, candy. But we don't know. Has the family ate beans and rice to save enough to buy steak to celebrate an 10 year anniversary--a big enough accomplishment even if one has money. We don't know if it is a child's birthday. We don't know if a family is celebrating the new job that means the family won't be eligible for food stamps anymore. We just don't know, but because folks don't have money, we feel free to judge.

Being poor is rotten enough without having to put up with the rest of us judging them and judging their decisions. If junk food is so bad, outlaw it. Of course, this may be the ultimate penalty for being rich--outlaw junk food only for the poor. Soon, only the poor will be left.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Why not go all the way & say food stamps are only valid for fresh veggies?

Or you could make them only good for bulk foods... or why not just eliminate foods stamps and make those loafers get jobs? :wtf:

[bread_and_roses]

73. LOL, right

...let's prohibit processed foods too, or fruit out of season...or wait, canned fruit has sugar, get rid of it too. Actually, your tongue in cheek has more than a bit of truth...at the price of fresh fruits and vegitables, that's about all they'll be able to buy. There won't be any FS left for anything else...I guess they can use all that extra cash for meat and do without soap. Then we can condemn them for stinking too.

[Mr. Socko]

74. I can't believe some of the posts I see here.

Some of you are FOR telling the poor what to eat and buy with their food stamps. I am in complete shock.

This story means a lot to me because I know how hard it was for my parents to get us food on the table when we were on government assistance. Days would go buy where all I would eat is Jello-O for breakfast, some pasty-rice stuff for lunch, and some cheap canned vegetables and canned hash for supper. We never did get junk food that often on food stamps. We were lucky to get junk food twice a month.

Now, some of you want to regulate what the poor eat because you pay a small fraction of taxes that go to the poor. If you want to regulate what the poor eat because you pay the taxes, then why don't you call up Donald Rumsfeld and tell him that you want the military out of Iraq now and go into Haiti or something because you pay the taxes there. After all, you do pay the taxes that support the military, right? If you think that you have a right to push around the poor, then go ahead, by all means, push around the army. Let's see how far it would get you. Same principle.

Instead of worrying about what kinds of foods the poor are eating, we should be worrying about more important issues, like bringing jobs to an area with high poverty so they can get off the govt. assistance. Or worrying about how billions of our tax dollars are being used overseas.

Just lay off the poor. They have a hard enough time as is.

[dawn]

77. Great post!

I totally agree. People only seem to care about the use of their tax dollars when the money goes to help others. I never see the outrage that their tax dollars are used to fund our wars overseas.

[amazona]

84. you are right NT

.

[camero]

92. I agree

The thoughts of posts like that go like this.

"I paid my obligatory $X for the roads so I own all the roads"

Bullshit, just pure bullshit.

[northofdenali]

76. Agree with you. Even our local Food Bank boxes

usually have a "treat" or two in the family boxes. Education on what you can do with less and on healthy eating is one thing; telling you what you CANNOT eat is pure government control. The repukes are trying to take over, body AND mind.

[jus_the_facts]

79. WHAT ABOUT CORPORATE WELFARE.....WHY DON'T YOU....

....START TRYIN' TO TELL THE ONES WHO'RE REALLY RIPPIN' YOU OFF HOW THEY SHOULD SPEND THE MONEY THEY TAKE FROM YOU...they fact of the matter is JUNK food goes a lot further than nutritious food does by the dollar..and it's GODDAMN ADDICTIVE AS they've chemically enhanced the garbage to keep you craving it....LAY OFF THE P0OR AND START THINKIN' MORE ABOUT THE CORPORATE GIVEAWAYS OF YOU TAX DOLLARS.....THAT'S A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM THAN WHAT THE POOR FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS ARE EATIN'! :puke:

.....on edit....and it's the CORPORATIONS WHO'VE LEARNED HOW TO MANIPULATE THE FOOD SUPPLY AND MAKE THE PROFITS THEY DO FROM KEEPIN' US ADDICTED TO THEIR PRODUCTS...SO IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A *poor* PEOPLE PROBLEM IT'S THE CORPORATIONS WHO DESERVE THE ANGER AND HOSTILITY SHOWN BY SOME IN THIS THREAD!!! :eyes:

[Mr. Socko]

87. Amen to that.

Healthy alternatives are much more expensive than junk foods. As a college student, I would know. One can buy 12 can case of pop for $3.33, but at the same time, a healthy alternative like juice, can go for $5 for the same amount or more. Or, consider a box of Hostess brownies. They cost $1 for a box. They also make an excellent snack. Now, take something like fruits and veggies. They go for a helluva lot more expensive. A box of clementine oranges can go for $5.99 a box! Or how about bananas? They go for .49 cents a pound!

[jus_the_facts]

88. it never ceases to amaze me how some just can't see the BIGGER picture..

......and still wanna blame the the victims of the corporate agenda instead of the ones who're perpetrating it......*SIGH* :evilfrown:

[camero]

95. Good point

I would say that small brains just can't comprehend large numbers.

Pathetic isn't it?

[jus_the_facts]

105. Thank you kindly sir....

...and yes it's quite pathetic....I'm a lowly high school grad yet I can SEE what's goin' on....doesn't take a rocket scientist! :hi:

[camero]

108. You're quite welcome

Same here. I always wonder where the same outrage is when the Upper Class gets caught getting money from gov't.

edit: I am also just a high school grad.

[jus_the_facts]

128. Yeah me too...guess it's because the upper class is more DESERVING....

.....at least from some of the responses in this thread that's my observation....seems ignorance and prejudices know NO bounds...and will continue to divide us regardless! x(

[camero]

129. Unfortunately

You're quite right about that. Maybe we'll grow up someday. :(

[camero]

90. Some of these posts make me sick

Great. Let's just deny jelly beans to a child who takes insulin. To those who don't know, jelly beans and candy are the "emergency stash" to keep you from dying from low blood sugar.

[bleedingheart]

100. I agree some of the posts here are heartless

hopefully they never have to be judged by others someday..

[camero]

102. Oh I'm sure they will

Everyone becomes disabled at some point. Just one example.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. Gee, what is that comment a straw Easter bunny?

Come on. You are trying to think up the most ridiculous criticisms for this. The goal here is to limit the crap that some families are feeding their kids and that we are paying for.

[camero]

133. Ever consider the possibility?

I didn't think so.

[jus_the_facts]

142. you'd be better serving the PEOPLE if you limited the CORPORATIONS.....

.....who have made the CRAP so cheap and the nutritious stuff more expensive....THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM REALLY IS....keep pickin' on the poor...one day they might EAT YOU! :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

146. That is silly

I don't want to start taxing junk food extra. We already have enough sin taxes as it is.

[camero]

148. Now that is a strawman argument

Set em up. Knock em down.

Sounds like the Antoinettes just changed their tune to "let em eat grapes".

[Muddleoftheroad]

155. The post said go after the corporations

Whatever you do to them, we will pay for.

[camero]

157. Yes, go after the corps

When that happens "we" make out better.

[Muddleoftheroad]

160. How?

[camero]

164. We've had this argument before

When you limit the power of the corps you reduce the disparity of wealth. Money is also a limited resource.

Yes, it is about a re-distribution of income. Because nothing is ours. It is our creators.

[Muddleoftheroad]

166. Nothing is ours?

I beg to differ. If you try to enter my property and take something that is mine, you will find out how wrong you are.

Again, HOW do you plan to do this?

[camero]

170. Nothing

You can't sell what isn't yours. Now I quite remember that you said you believed in God.

Now if you believe in God, you would have to come to the conclusion that the things he or she created are his or hers and not yours.

Everything that is made comes from the earth. Hence it belongs to the one that made it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

175. I'm guessing you are NOT a lawyer

Ultimately, God has claim on everything IMHO. In the interim, we do indeed own property and that is the law of the land.

[camero]

178. Why would I want to be a lawyer

When I can be a good person. :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

180. LOL

On THAT we can agree.

[jus_the_facts]

203. WE ALREADY *ARE* PAYING FOR WHAT THE CORPORATIONS DO....

....WHAT PLAENT HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING ON ALL YOUR LIFE? ARE YOU'RE TOO BLIND AS TO WHAT CORPORATE AMERICA HAS DONE TO FUCK UP THIS WORLD ALREADY??

[jus_the_facts]

150. I didn't say anything about taxing junk food....

:wtf: did you even READ my post? :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

159. Yes I did

You talked about going after corporations. Whatever you do to them, will come back to us. You talked about "cheap" junk food, which strongly implies you want to raise the price on it.

If that is not your plan, what is?

[jus_the_facts]

195. it sure as hell isn't mandating what the poor can and cannot eat.....

.....<whatever you do to corporations will come back on us>

...YEAH THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THIS COUNTRY IN THE MESS IT'S IN...BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT THE POWERFUL NOT THE PEOPLE...it's the corporations who need to be regulated...not poor people on food stamps!!

I meant that junk food is MUCH cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables...besides most all processed foods are JUNK and have chemicals added to them that make them addictive....all processed foods are combinations of additives and chemicals.... ALL our food is contaminated and JUNK anyway....read right here on DU about the high levels of JET FUEL found in LETTUCE AND DAIRY PRODUCTS NOW!!!!!!!

So this is a mute arguement anyway because the CORPORATIONS HAVE FUCKED US ALL REGARDLESS!!! :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

204. Junk food is cheap because it is cheap to make

Other food is more expensive because, drumroll please, it costs MORE to make.

Yes, all food is contaminated. The world is contaminated. I guess it would be sooooooooo much better if we were once again a hunter/gatherer society?

Food today is leaps and bounds better than any time in civilized history. No, it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot safer than much of the crap people ate in the past.

[jus_the_facts]

209. you are just WRONG....all the way around.....

....it's been polluted by corporations with their chemicals and additives and it's NOT safer than it was in the past...it's what's causing more problems than it's solving healthwise....it DOESN'T COST MORE TO MAKE HEALTHY FOOD...THEY'RE PAYING FARMERS TO..DRUMROLL PLEASE....NOT....PLANT CROPS ANYMORE....and have genetically moderated and fucked up what seed IS being planted!!! Your agruements are beyond pathetic! :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

212. Yeah, that's why Americans all die in their teens

From the deadly food.

Oops, my bad. We all keep living longer and longer.

Food isn't safer than it was in the past? Read up on the Middle Ages and why the spice trade was so important. It wasn't to make the food taste better, it was to mask the fact that much of the meat was rotten.

As for the seed, mankind has manipulated crops and tried to breed new crops and better ones for probably thousands of years.

You appear to be on an organic food kick and that is fine. Organic food would be covered under the foodstamp program so that should make you happy.

[jus_the_facts]

219. it was more to do with WATER conditions than food.....

.....and I'm NOT on an organic kick...I'm on an ANTI-CORPORTATE KICK...which you seem to like to totally ignore as any cause of anything but making our lives sooooo much better....they're the ones who're taking all your tax money and WASTING it...not the poor on food stamps!

[Muddleoftheroad]

224. It has to do with lots of things

Better food. Better clothes. Better shelter. Better medical care. Better water. Better working conditions. Etc.

As for corporations, I am merely trying to stay on topic. The topic here is food stamps, not corporations.

[jus_the_facts]

240. yeah and there wouldn't even be such a thing as food stamps.....

...if corporations hadn't made the FARMERS poor in the first place...and a LOT of these people who're now having to receive food stamps aren't being PAID enough by these same companies to afford quality food for their families...and are bein' SCREWED over doubly when they go shopping because the choices they have are being contolled and manipulated by the same companies.

[JohnLocke]

284. They're not mutually exclusive.

One can believe both that the neoconservative corporatists are misusing public funds and simultaneously believe that the government shouldn't subsidize junk food.

Just my two cents.

[DrWeird]

93. God, what a bunch of assholes.

A bunch of fucking Ebenezer Scrooges, present company included.

Why don't they just hand out pills that contain the exact amount of nutrients needed to survive? They can take it when they burn their one lump of coal.

[bread_and_roses]

94. Axes to grind and hot buttons

Food is a primal need. And any "issue" involving food will generate passionate response. Reading this thread (which has now become too long for my creaky computer to handle) it sure looks to me like personal demons are being exorcised via the stomachs of "the poor."

"My tax $" a nurse I worked with used to say anytime she thought someone was misusing any form of aide. The fact that one person might misuse a $ of aide invalidated a whole program for her. As others above said, this misguided proposal is simply another attempt to demean people who are forced to access aide, and to generate a false sense that we can assure that such aide will be used "wisely." I find some of the comments here infinitely depressing on a "progressive" board. Providing safety nets "a gift?" "We" pay so "we" get to control the very food people will buy with our meagre and insufficient "gift" of food stamps. Trash the whole program and give people the money. "The poor" don't need "us" to tell them how to feed their children or themselves.

Our economy requires a large pool of disposable labor. We refuse as a nation to assure that jobs pay a living wage. And then we demean and treat with contempt those who pay for those policies.

[Djinn]

97. They'd have to stop buying almost anything

from the perspective of most people outside the US almost EVERYTHING in US grocery stores is junk - about 70% of packaged foods are contaminated by GE products and there's added salt/fat/sugar in almost everything.

Are sugary cereals junk food?, is bread packed with sugar junk food?

[Mr. Socko]

99. Good point.

Just where are they gonna draw the line? Or are they gonna ban all foods with more than 1 gram of sugar?

What a bunch of assholes we have here running Minnesota. :grr:

[Mr. Socko]

101. I'm gonna say this again:

I wish Paul Wellstone was here running the state again. I miss him. :cry:

[wellstone dem]

134. I agree :cry:

Amen, Amen, again I say Amen.

[Mairead]

106. Particularly as chocolate is actually a beneficial food!

When consumed in moderation, of course.

[MidwestMomma]

130. After reading through this thread

I've come to the conclusion the it appears that many feel that because 'we' the not-poor are paying for the poor's food, the 'we' should get to decide what they eat.

Well, I want them to have candy and treats....how come my vote doesn't count for something? Why do the people who want to restrict things ALWAYS get to decide things? We're always bitching on this board about the bush admin restricting our personal freedoms and intruding in our private lifes via the Patriot Act but we have NO PROBLEM with the government restricting the poor.

Oh, but I forgot, the poor have no rights. They gave them up when they made the decision to be poor. :eyes:

My problem is that I don't see 'the poor' as a separate segment of society. I'm more of a 'there but for the grace of God goes I' kind of person. You know, 'he ain't heavy, he's my brother'. Therefore, call me crazy, but I feel that the poor rights are MY rights.

Guess most people would call me a bleedhearting liberal. Too bad thats starting to be a dirty word even in the Democratic Party.

[jus_the_facts]

131. I hear you and I agree....

:)

[Muddleoftheroad]

135. Again, been poor

I've seen it close up. And this is a silly ass argument. I am concerned that parents -- poor and rich -- feed their kids correctly. But I can't and won't try to mandate that. However, we can and should restrict what OUR tax dollars pay for.

The poor have the same rights as you and I. They get to vote.

[MidwestMomma]

136. Your right, they are OUR tax dollars

You don't want to pay for treats for the poor but I do. I'm entitled to say what I want OUR tax dollars to go for same as you. You're not going to change my mind by calling my argument 'silly ass'. Good try though.

[Muddleoftheroad]

147. Not YOUR argument, this WHOLE argument

There is no inalienable right to chocolate or Tasty Kakes or Gummi Bears or whatever.

When money is scarce, you should focus on NECESSITIES, not luxury items.

[SOteric]

151. So...

should we restrict their ability to buy books, because those are available though the library. Should we ask those attempting to buy books to provide proof of an income level? Should we restrict the purchase of television and music to those who can prove they're not on public assistance, those are certainly not necessities in life. How about cars, - can we pass some legislation about the types and kinds of cars they're allowed to buy?

Do you know what a Totalitarian is? This is how we get there.

If you believe that the poor should focus on necessities, fine. How about instead of restrictions and making access to what feeds human need, -how about if we instead focus on the volunteer efforts and programs alreay in place that teach nutrition, budgeting and childrearing guidance at every level of society.

It's a little choice we make to restrict individual access today that leads to pervasive restrictions on individual choice tomorrow. Taxpayers should have no voice in the eating habits of individuals, even those on welfare and public assistance.

[Muddleoftheroad]

154. Talk about straw

We give the poor money for food and shelter -- the essentials of life. That money should be spent on food and shelter.

Other money they have, they can spend as they wish because it is not taxpayer funded.

I am happy to both teach people about nutrition AND fix the stupid number of servings information on food products. That will only partially fix the problem.

But ultimately, when you agree to take public funds, you agree to rules set down for them.

[camero]

162. Ok Muddle, let's go with your rules

From now on, you can't drive out of your home state. Since you don't pay the taxes of other states and are using "other people's" roads.

You also can't get police help in other states since you don't pay for their salaries either.

You also can't get a ride in thier ambulances when you get in an accident since you don't pay those taxes either.

Get the point?

[Muddleoftheroad]

165. Ah, more silly distractions

First off, we all contribute dollars to the federal government which in turn distributes them to states. So your "examples" aren't worth the lack of paper they aren't printed on.

Now, back to the real point. Government has the right AND obligation to promote the general welfare. It can do that by limiting how the food stamp money is used. It can and has done this for some time.

[camero]

167. and if you restrict one person's freedom

You then give the green light to restrict others. It goes right in line with what you are saying here. You are saying if someone else pays your way then you have to do what they tell you. So what would you do if that actually was the law?

I would say that keeping people housed, fed, and clothed is also promoting the "general welfare".

[Muddleoftheroad]

171. No freedoms are absolute

And we restrict freedoms all the time. We limit how fast we can drive or how old you have to be to drink or vote. Heck, we even limit your ability to kill yourself. (It is a crime.)

I am saying that if you agree to take the money, you accept the strings that are attached. You don't have to take the money. I've known too many unemployed people in the last year who qualified for welfare after their benefits ran out, but they didn't take it. It was a choice and they were too proud.

[camero]

172. Oh now I see what you are saying

It is actually the rulers that give us our freedom and not the other way around, ok, got ya.

[Muddleoftheroad]

176. You are not good at putting words in my mouth

WE make those decisions. We the people.

[camero]

181. Yep

And others here don't want to tell others how to spend their assistance. What problem do you have with that? It's not just your money.

[Muddleoftheroad]

185. But some of it IS my money

And I have a problem with that. That's why we vote.

[camero]

188. ok, here's your five bucks back

Now I would like the thousands back that they took from me to kill others, how bout that?

[Muddleoftheroad]

190. It doesn't work that way

We never really get anything back the government takes.

[camero]

191. I must bow to the mighty king

He who hath fed me and protected me. :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

193. I only have two kings I acknowledge

The first is God. The second is my avatar.

You can bow to any you wish.

[camero]

196. and you shun them both

Remember, nothing is yours. It is all of ours and noones.

[Muddleoftheroad]

200. I don't shun either

And again, your concept of property is almost humorously naive.

No one I know is a true Christlike figure who will give every dime to the poor and count on the charity of others.

[camero]

202. You don't know me that well then.

:)

[FlaGranny]

278. A couple of posts above,

you said that we DID get back from the government, roads, ambulance services, etc.

[camero]

177. oh and BTW

You've just opened the door to resticting freedom of movement. Yeah, there is no freedom of movement in the Constitution. It doesn't say it literally. <sarcasm>

[Muddleoftheroad]

179. We have already done that

Again, no freedoms are absolute. You can't fly through restricted air space. You can't trespass on military installations. You can't enter private property without permission.

Movement IS restricted.

[camero]

183. Then you can't drive out of state.

Stop using other's tax money. They have to pave them roads you know. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

186. That's not the law

Or didn't you notice.

[camero]

189. The door is certainly open

If they decided it was.

[Muddleoftheroad]

192. The door is always open

Maryland installed a toll facility on I-95 right before the Delaware line. It's about $5. If you can't pay it, you can't use it.

D.C. has shut down numerous streets and monuments for safety concerns.

I have seen roads restricted to local traffic only.

So what?

[camero]

194. So you would choose to keep people out of the whole state?

And not have a way around?

[Muddleoftheroad]

197. Huh?

That was very vague.

[camero]

201. Precisely

isn't everything? :)

[bearfartinthewoods]

264. example...the wick program has restrictions

whichb target the money to healthier foods. are people here saying thats a bad thing?

[Pithlet]

168. Well

I think it could be taken even further and argued that if they spend their own money on non-essential stuff, then maybe they wouldn't need the food stamps. That would be the justification of restricting what they can buy, period, whether it be with taxpayer money or not. Silly, ultimately meaningless restrictions (who draws the list of what foods are acceptable, anyway?), aside from being paternalistic and intrusive, won't work anyway.

What is wrong with what was suggested; that we use education to help them learn how to make those food choices for themselves? After all, many won't be on food stamps forever. If they could be taught to make those food choices themselves, then they can carry that with them even when they're self sufficient. Merely saying "You can't have this, this, or this" is only bound to make some resentful, if anything.

For many people, there is no "agreeing". They don't have a choice. It's take the assistance or starve. I refuse to look at them as someone I have to dictate their lives to simply because they use a small percentage of tax dollars to live. Treating them as simpletons who cannot make their own food choices only serves to knock them down a peg, and is demoralizing. I don't believe they deserve such treatment because they get assistance, and I do not.

[SOteric]

169. If I borrow money, or accept a gift

from my father, or from my friend, neither of them is entitled to tell me the details of how to spend it.

I do not see how making the poor subject to greater restrictions is of any benefit to them or to society. In fact it is a detriment. It separates those who are on public assistance to a distinct class of persons who lose priviledge and rights. Once one group is separated for restriction of choice and priviledges, it is no great stretch to restrict others.

Even a hard working, nutrition-savvy person on food coupons shouldn't have the right to drown her sorrows over a broken heart in a pint of Ben & Jerry's? That Vietnamese family down the street where both mum and dad work shouldn't be allowed to buy their 4 children rice candy for Tet?

[Muddleoftheroad]

174. Not so

If you borrow money to build a house, the bank can hold you to that action. It is a contract. So is this. If you take the foodstamps, you accept the limitations.

However, a hard working, nutrition-savvy person on food coupons would also be earning other money that could be then spent on a pint of Ben & Jerry's. Equally, that Vietnamese family down the street where both mum and dad work would have cash to buy their 4 children rice candy for Tet.

The important thing here is that the money we give them would be used for necessities.

[SOteric]

206. I disagree, again.

If I borrow money to build a house, the bank can indeed hold me to that action. But it cannot tell me how to decorate my home and this is a closer analogy to what you suggest than simply holding me accountable for repayment in a timely fashion.

The issue that they may or may not (and really quite likely not) have other monies at their avail isn't relevant or pertinent. It is not within the purview of the U.S. government to tell individuals, - even individuals on public assistance how to conduct their lives. Not to tell them with whom to have relations, not to tell them what to eat and how often, not to tell them for whom to vote.

The important thing here is that the right to self-determination we deny any class, subgroup or special segment of the population (other than for legal reasons) is a sure and certain path to the erosion of self-determination.

[Muddleoftheroad]

208. This is not a loan

It is a grant of money to pay for NECESSITIES. Candy is not a necessity. Ergo, no candy.

If you wish the grant of money, you must abide by the rules stipulated. It is really quite simple.

[SOteric]

220. However you paint it, it is refusing the right of self-determination

and removing perfectly legal choices from the option set of a subgroup of people.

We do not have to tell them they can't have treats, we have not done so, and I see no valid reason to begin to do so and a host of valid reasons to avoid doing so.

You apparently have no regard for your own right of self-determination, or you would not be in such a hurry to start the process of depriving some small segment of the population of theirs.

And Mr. MuddleoftheRoad, I would argue that many of these things are necessities. A small sugary treat often feeds the spirit and nutures the human soul.

[Muddleoftheroad]

225. You would argue it, you would be wrong

Candy is not a necessity of life. It is a luxury, plain and simple. As many here are quick to point out, the soul is not the purview of the U.S. government. Only the body is.

That subgroup -- poor folks -- still has options. I am not urging we make candy illegal. I am merely saying we should not pay for it.

I am not depriving anyone of anything. I am simply saying I don't want to pay for it.

What next? Mandatory conjugal visits for the lonely? Of course, taxpayer provided.

[camero]

229. I want my sugar now.

That's making quite a stretch don't you think? :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

236. People have different needs

Some need candy and some need company. What, are you suddenly heartless and unaware of the needs of the poor who are lonely and destitute and can't find anyone to take care of their physical needs?

[SOteric]

237. No, I'm not wrong.

Not about the importance of a few small rewards in life and not about the greater statement the deprivation you push for makes in a society.

The body is not the purview of the US government, and it shouldn't ever become so.

I'm perfectly well aware of what you're saying and it's abominable that you feel you should have any say in the self-determination, the eating habits or any other personal habits of any individual whether any part of your tax dollars pay for it or not.

My participation in your little festival to honour your almighty pocketbook over human dignity is at an end. It's late and you're obviously not interested in doing more than repeating the same points ad nauseum.

[Muddleoftheroad]

241. The welfare of the body

and the body politic are both the purview of government.

The welfare of the soul is up to each of us.

Remember, we are talking about people in need. It is the role of the government to ensure those NEEDS are met. Providing for the desires for candy, color TV, cable, DVD players, fancy cars and even fancier places to live is NOT the realm of the government.

It is indeed late. I think I will have some personally purchased candy and go to bed.

[DS1]

282. Holy Classic Slippery Slope Argumentative Fallacy Batman!

So now we've gone from a Snickers™ bar to Luxury Housing and 6.1 THX Certified 60" Plasma TV Surround Sound :eyes:

If your dollar is so important to you, why don't you spend thirty seconds leafing through the 2004 Federal Budget and see where it's really going.

[Pithlet]

247. Dignity

That is really the core issue, here. Being on public assistance is injurious enough to one's dignity, what with the popular opinion that those on it are lazy and lacking in character. Let's just add to the glares at the checkout counter the indignity of being told that a particular food item is not on the allowable list, because it wasn't deemed by those "above them" as a necessity. The poor are demonized enough as it is.

[Muddleoftheroad]

249. Dignity, thy name is Snickers!

Yes, life is tough, but I am far from willing to give every poor person a dignity allowance that lets them buy cool stuff so they can feel better. Hell, I hardly have enough cash to do that for myself.

[Pithlet]

254. Even this bleeding heart

would draw the line somewhere. Obviously we can't go buying everyone whatever their heart desires. That I can agree on. I just don't think a snickers bar is worth the big brouhaha. It's not as if you and I are the only ones paying for it. Most on assistance contribute to the tax base as well. Many of them eventually get off the dole and contribute even more to the tax base.

[Muddleoftheroad]

256. Somewhere in that process

they can buy all the candy they can afford.

In the meantime, the point I have been tirelessly trying to make is that this is about NEEDS not WANTS or DESIRES. The government is obliged to help those in need survive, have food and shelter. It is not obliged to deliver up whatever people wish.

[Pithlet]

259. I see your point

I just don't know that items that are routinely sold in a grocery store are on the same level as cars, CDs or expensive clothes. I don't think you should be able to use public assistance directly to buy those things. I just don't see food that might be a little higher on the FDA pyramid as an extravagantly luxurious enough to warrant such an intrusion into their lives. Let them make their own food choices when shopping the pig. These laws do nothing but feed into the greedy and selfish attitudes that many, mainly on the right, have. As far as tax dollar waste, I would put this on the level of a hangnail, as opposed to a brain tumor on the aggravation scale.

[JohnLocke]

286. Funniest post of the night.

:thumbsup:

[Pithlet]

158. Well said.

If you believe that the poor should focus on necessities, fine. How about instead of restrictions and making access to what feeds human need, -how about if we instead focus on the volunteer efforts and programs alreay in place that teach nutrition, budgeting and childrearing guidance at every level of society.

This would probably do more to help families than any restrictions. For those who truly care about the poor, and don't want to just savor their power as a taxpayer over those less fortunate, it's a win/win situation, because we all benefit.

[Muddleoftheroad]

161. I like the idea of combining the two

Because, trust me, a lot of folks won't pay any attention to your nutrition classes.

[Pithlet]

173. Well, if any do ignore them, then that is sad.

But why punish the others who do not? I just don't think restricting their food choices is going to do anything but make them feel resentful, and those who maybe would have listened might not be so inclined to. I sure wouldn't, if I were patronized in such a manner. I'd tell them to shove their classes. The "we know what is good for you" mentality turns a lot of people off, and it has nothing to do with being poor. No one likes it. Of course, I already know how to feed my family a nutritious meal. And that includes the occasional treat. I know that knowledge or inclination won't magically disappear if I happen to need assistance in the future. I'm sure there are many like me who are already on it now.

[Muddleoftheroad]

182. We aren't PUNISHING anyone

We are setting limits on how the foodstamps can be used.

If people resent that, well, too bad. They are not being forced to take the food stamps.

[Pithlet]

198. It's not about punishing.

That wasn't my point.

If you mean that no one is holding a gun to their head, then no, no one is forcing them. But, some don't have a choice, so it isn't a matter of force. I guess I could choose to never eat another meal again, because, after all, no one is forcing me. But, do I really have a choice? If I want to live, I gotta eat.

Aside from coming across as patronizing and condescending to those being dictated to, focusing so narrowly on restrictions that do nothing to actually help anyone, and in fact would probably add to the cost of the programs, seems ridiculous. You made the point yourself. They can use their own money to buy junk. So, how are they being helped? It seems to me that, for some, it is more sour grapes about having to buy that candy bar with their hard earned money, than anything else. It seems silly and unnecessary to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

205. It should be relatively cheap to enforce

Simply adding the foods to the list that is NOT approved by grocers.

Again, if they NEED the food, then they don't NEED candy and junk. This is about necessities, not luxuries.

[camero]

207. Yep let em eat grapes

The i can bitch about them eating grapes when they go to the hospital from pesticide poisoning. :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

210. Yes, grapes are fine

Or other fruit or vegetables, etc. And, perhaps in those nutrition classes, somebody can teach the poor to wash the fruit prior to eating it to limit pesticide intake.

[camero]

211. That doesn't get it all out

Damn them poor, eating pesticides. :) What are we gonna do with them?
:D

[Muddleoftheroad]

214. The same thing everybody else does

Eat them and move on with life. Or not eat and starve.

It's a simple equation.

[camero]

215. and they eat eggs too.

Which clogg the arteries and send health care costs up which I pay for. What are we ever gonna do? :D You do realize what I'm saying don't you?

[Muddleoftheroad]

227. Eggs are not junk however

And actually have nutritional uses. Candy is junk. That you defend taxpayers paying for it is amazing.

[camero]

230. In your opinion

To some of us it is a lifesaver.

[Muddleoftheroad]

234. Lifesavers as lifesavers

Perhaps you should do commercials.

[camero]

235. Actually they are

They've saved my life quite a few times. Not a bad idea. :)

[allalone]

261. hey!

they can't eat grapes. Haven't you ever heard of Cesar Chavez and the Farm Workers Union?

[Pithlet]

216. It would cost money.

Someone has to change the database. Then the stores would have to change their computers. Is it really worth it to implement such a system to appease those who are resentful of the fact that those who are on assistance can make their own grocery list?

I understand that they need food. I understand that ANYONE, regardless of income, would benefit from making wiser choices at the grocery store. I don't think that being on assistance automatically makes someone a moron. What is the point of passing a law that will do nothing to help them nutritionally?

I do believe that you have good intentions being for such a law. You and I both agree that no one need candy and junk from a nutritional standpoint. But, I do not think that is the case with many people, including some here in this thread. And I don't think that is really what is behind this law. Many who would back such a law would do so for political gain, appeasing to their base, who begrudge their tax dollars going to food stamps. You can't eliminate food stamps completely, but you can play to the "poor are lazy and stupid crowd" just the same. That wouldn't matter so much to me if I thought that this would actually do some good for those on assistance.

[camero]

217. I gave him an example

Of someone who would need candy but he didn't listen. :) Oh well, you can't win em all. :D

[Pithlet]

221. Yes, that is true

Although I would hope the powers that be would write in an exception for people who do. But, you never know, because I don't think the intentions are really pure with the politicians who are pushing for something like this. And it just doesn't help anyone. I think there are solutions that would be far more beneficial, not just to those who are on food stamps, but everyone. But, I guess there are too many people, particularly those who would vote for politicians with Rs next to their name into office, who would begrudge someone a candy bar. If it weren't so sad, it would be laughable, really.

[camero]

222. You're right.

I couldn't agree more.

[Muddleoftheroad]

228. I am sure they could still get candy

If medically necessary. LOL

[camero]

233. Should I get a note?

If I would have to collect disabiltity and food stamps and get candy?

[Muddleoftheroad]

238. Ask Epstein for note

(If you are under 35 or never watch TVLand, this comment will likely go over your head.)

[camero]

239. oh,oh oh

No I got it. But I do love exposing hypocracy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

242. I see disagreement in the thread

No hypocrisy.

[camero]

244. I see Orwellian doublespeak

In the thread.

[Muddleoftheroad]

245. Perhaps you are reading one of the generic anti-corporate posts

That don't even vaguely relate to the topic at hand.

[jus_the_facts]

246. you're not only BLIND but selfish too....

....you must work for MONSANTO! :D

[camero]

250. They hate us for our freedoms

Our freedom to buy candy on public assistance. With that I say goodnight.

[Muddleoftheroad]

253. Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker

and you can't buy that on public assistance either.

Brother can you spare a _________________ ?

A. Dime
B. Bag of Peanut M&Ms
C. A 40 of malt liquor
D. A hooker for lonely guy on public assistance
E. None of the above

[Pithlet]

255. Muddle

You are in rare form, tonight, I must say.

[Muddleoftheroad]

257. Thanks

I think it is the exhaustion taking over. This was entertaining however.

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SiobhanClancy]

137. Your argument is no better...

You say we can and should restrict these things...other people say we can but should not. Hopefully people will vote against this type of paternalism,or at least vote out the elected officials who propose it. My taxes are used for much worse things than buying poor people candy,and I would certainly question the wisdom of these brilliant minds who want to ban chocolate but allow potato chips.

[Muddleoftheroad]

149. I love both, but I would ban both from food stamps

Kids eat too much crap as it is. We shouldn't underwrite it with our tax dollars.

[jus_the_facts]

152. then why not go after the corporations who FLOOD the stores with crap.....

....instead of affordable nutritious food...instead of mandating what you think the poor should eat?

[Muddleoftheroad]

156. Again, because that is not being solely paid for by tax dollars

[jus_the_facts]

223. corporate welfare IS being paid soley with tax dollars.......

....and they're the ones who're rippin' YOU off much more than any food stamp recipient.

[camero]

226. Yep

Seems the R's keep tripping over dollars to pick up nickles don't they?

[Muddleoftheroad]

231. That's not what this thread is about

Perhaps you should backtrack a bit.

[jus_the_facts]

243. oh but it IS exactly what this thread is about......

....for if corporations hadn't made FARMERS poor in the first place there would be NO such thing as food stamps!

[Muddleoftheroad]

248. Ah, the Law of Similarity

Didn't alchemists try to use that to turn lead to gold?

Using the same concept, this thread is about the Civil War (history leading to this point in time); slavery (another example of the Man keeping the poor down); the Garden of Eden (if only mankind had stayed in the garden, there would be no need for food stamps) and virtually every topic in the history of mankind.

Or you could just stay on topic about food stamps and feed your pet peeve about corporations in an anti-corporate thread.

[jus_the_facts]

251. NO IT'S CALLED *REALITY*....which obviously you can't handle....

:eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

258. I lived the reality of being poor

We were too damn proud to take public assistance. But that didn't stop us from getting out of a bad neighborhood by living as an extended family in a crappy house in a crappier neighborhood. And trust me, we didn't waste money on candy or cars or DVD players or drugs or 40s of malt liquor.

Poverty is about NEED. The need for food. The need for a safe place to live. The need for a job.

The wants and desires are for people who have enough that they have something to spare.

[jus_the_facts]

260. bein' poor sure didn't teach you how to be unselfish......

...only to feel self-rightious and indignant so spare me the lecture on how you were so disenfranchised!

[Muddleoftheroad]

267. It is not selfish to be practical

Funds to aid the poor are based on need, not wants. It is not the job of the government to provide luxuries to those in need.

[jus_the_facts]

272. tell that to the Corporate WELFARE recipients in the LAP of LUXURY....

....who aren't IN NEED of ANYTHING who're much less deserving of DIME of TAXPAYER MONEY...MUCH LESS A TWINKIE OR CANDY BAR!!

You can try to deny this isn't relevent to this topic all you like but the facts speak for themselves...THE GOV'T BENDS OVER BACKWARDS TO HELP THE VERY ONES WHO ARE NOT ONLY NOT IN NEED BUT DON'T OFFER ENOUGH SALARIES OR ENOUGH JOBS TO THESE VERY PEOPLE THAT *ARE* IN NEED.....WITH YOUR LOGIC....CEO'S ARE SO MUCH MORE DESERVING THAN A PERSON WHO NEEDS A MEASLY PAYIN' JOB FROM THEIR COPORATION TO FEED THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN!!!!!

[BritishHuman]

263. They're not your tax dollars.

IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY.

You paid it to the government for police service, fire service, roads, and yes, welfare programs, among other things. When you buy a candy bar and hand over the cash to the shopkeeper, it's not your money any more.

Stop thinking it's still your money. That's a Republican talking point to get people to vote for slashing social services. We all want the government to spend its money wisely, but it IS the government's money.

[Muddleoftheroad]

268. Yes, it IS my money

And your money. And his money. And her money. And we all get to vote on how it is used.

[jus_the_facts]

274. Guess you haven't noticed OUR VOTES haven't COUNTED......

....for a loooong time....as the congress has been MAJORITY repuke and doesn't represent the MAJORITY of views expressed in this thread or on DU as a whole....remember what you've said here as the time is coming where you'll have to EAT YOUR WORDS as it's very likely YOU'LL be starving and begging for a job and a measly little candy bar before you know it!

[BritishHuman]

276. A devastating rebuttal.

Truly I am cowed and chastised. How could I not have foreseen that my argument could never stand against such a powerful debater as yourself.
Cogent and concise, the rhetorical supports are knocked out from under my position by a mighty barrage of logic and facts. How can I possibly hope to defend my stance?

Wait! I am inspired by your skills to marshall a counter-counter-argument almost as brilliant as your own!



Is not. Is not is not is not.




Take that, sir!

[Muddleoftheroad]

288. It was such an obvious truism

That it didn't call for anything more than that.

[jus_the_facts]

289. What you're advocating in this thread SIR is an INCREASE in food stamp...

.....payments because the price of nutritious food is HIGHER than JUNK food....so by doing what YOU think is WISE...will only TAKE more of your TAX money....besides Hostess and Nabisco wouldn't allow this to EVER get through! Otherwise you could just put a bullet in the heads of the food stamp recipients and completley do away with the problem altogether...since MONEY is more important to you than compassion!!

[Pithlet]

184. I just don't understand

the magical ability of tax dollars to confer power back to the people who pay them in such a manor as to control an individual's food choices. I mean, it's not as if the people on assistance don't contribute in many ways. Most now work, and pay some payroll taxes. They also pay sales taxes. So, it's not as if it's a free ride for them, anyway. And most of the jobs they work are service jobs, which most of us benefit from. I mean, someone has to do the crappy low paying jobs, or life would suck for all of us. "But, no, they can't have that candy bar on my dime, dammit!" It's ludicrous.

[fire1234]

138. As i re

I remeber taking a neighbor to buy candy at krogers. She bought to bags a paid for it at the register with what i belive to a WIC card. I didnt know she could do that. But the kicker was it was for Halloween to give to the other kids.

[MidwestMomma]

141. I hope you turned her in?

You know there is a 'WIC' tips hotline, don't you? If you call and they go to the person's house and find candy or cookies or pop, you get to keep all of it! Better luck next time.

[fire1234]

143. i wasn't mad

I just thought it was kinda weird to be giving trick or treats courtesy of the wic. Believe me I understand when people have it rough. I just thought she at least would of kept the candy for her kids.

[bread_and_roses]

144. You cannot buy candy with a WIC "card"

WIC provides for specified foods: x gallons of milk or formula, x amount of cheese ($value specified), x boxes of cereal (brands specified).

[jsw_81]

145. I don't see why the poor shouldn't be allowed at least some candy

What's wrong with that?

[Pithlet]

153. Because those of us who have more money

just naturally have better sense. People who are poor are too stupid to make food choices for themselves. If they're going to accept a handout, they'd better take what us hard working taxpayers give them, and suck it up. It's our hard earned money, damn it! We make more money than they do, so we know better. I just love the power being a good American taxpayer gives me over those less fortunate. I love to judge others who are beneath me! It's fun. You should try it, too.. </sarcasm>

[allalone]

218. being poor

my dad was a kid during the depression (the one in the 30's, you know the big one). He was the one who had to stand in line to get food from the church for his family. His dad was killed at work when he was 9. He was so ashamed he would go back home through the alley so his friends wouldn't see him. My mom had to wear clothes from charities. At one point she had to wear someone's old high heels with the heels cut off. No, they didn't live in Dickens London, but in Chicago. These experiences colored their lives forever. Is this what you mean-spirited types would like to see again? Please sir, can I have some more?

[jus_the_facts]

232. amazing isn't it.....

....how easily it is for some to disregard all we've tried to accomplish with having any rights....and they keep towin' that corporate line till the end of time...it'll be like it was before the depression soon...everybody workin' for the owners off all the mega corporations and payin' what pennies they get right back to 'em at the COMPANY store...even their children having to work too just to keep the family alive....it's all gonna be like that again I guess since supposedly intelligent progressives feel as they've expressed in this thread!!

WELCOME TO DU!! :hi: ...sorry to have to welcome you in a thread such as this one though!! *heavy sickened sighs* x(

[allalone]

252. thanx for the welcome

this has been the most distressing thread I've on. Man, hard to deal. Afunny thing about people, when something bad happens, we fall all over ourselves sending money, food, clothes, giving blood to help. So if it happens to poor people do some of you say "oh poor people? it;s their own fault. tough luck" Americans are usually very generous nice people. I drove cross country last summer on I90. I only met 1 grouch the whole trip. He told me I was too old for my Winnie the Pooh t-shirt. America is still out there believe it or not. We just need to take it back for the people.

[jus_the_facts]

262. Yep...we've got a real tough row to plow.....

....and then some...you're most welcome...glad to have you aboard....this particular kind of thread makes me think there's no hope...but I won't give up as there's just too much at stake...at least most of us on here see the bigger picture and only a few idiots refuse to look at it!! :pals:

[Muddleoftheroad]

269. Intelligent debate

Yeah, of course, anyone who dares disagree with you is an "idiot" because they are not so enlightened as to want their government to fund luxuries for the poor.

[jus_the_facts]

273. seems you're the one who refuses to accept the REALITY...

....of who and what are really the CAUSE of anyone being on food stamps to begin with!

[Muddleoftheroad]

275. For the 12th time or so

That is not the topic here. The topic is how those food stamps are used.

[jus_the_facts]

277. and for at least a HUNDRED or so times......

.....you've been proven WRONG...regardless of your unwillingness to SEE it!

[Muddleoftheroad]

281. You haven't proven squat

You have gone off topic a bunch, but that is your choice to do so.

[jus_the_facts]

287. Oh but you've proven VOLUMES....nothing worth squat.....except.....

....quite alot about the views you support!

[Nobody]

270. Some of the people who can't afford to eat without food stamps

include our enlisted troops. The Bush regime cut combat pay for the soldiers serving in Iraq and veteran medical benefits to the tune of over 200 million dollars.

Unless you're an officer, you don't make enough to live on. And that was BEFORE the pay cuts.

[Mr. Socko]

280. Wow. A lot of responses on this topic.

Thanks all for sharing your points of view on this touchy subject. There are a lot of good points and responses made, and to that, I thank you.

The whole theme of this post for me is this: Just leave the poor alone. Help them any way you can, but don't tell them what to eat or purchase with their money/food stamps. No one tells us what to eat, right? So why should we be telling them? We aren't their mommies.

I'm gonna continue to help the poor any way I can, so that they can be happy for once instead of miserable. I will continue to donate food and/or toys to the children. I will continue to donate money to them whenever I can. I encourage you all to do the same. (I'm not saying none of you contribue, I'm just encouraging you all to continue to support.) Thank you.