LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   No Coke for you NY! (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=205598)

mimartin 10-07-2010 11:05 AM

No Coke for you NY!
 
http://www.3click.tv/mp4//Seinfeld/s...ata/304175.jpg
NO COKE FOR YOU!

New York Asks to Bar Use of Food Stamps to Buy Sodas - The New York Times

Driving in the car the morning at first I did not notice the car was on AM radio until I heard the awful sound of Glen Beck. Before hitting the button, I heard him bemoaning New York City’s request to the United States Department of Agriculture to restrict the purchase of soda and other sugared drinks with food stamps. The request is for two years to study the effects this ban would have.

Sounds like an actual good idea to me. It does not mean someone cannot purchase a Coke. It just says they cannot purchase a Coke with government money. Not always, but most likely a food stamp recipient would not be able to afford health insurance, so why add to the governments expense further by buying a unhealthy choice in drinks. If anything, I believe the request does not go far enough it limiting the unhealthy choices we all make while grocery shopping. Not saying people should not be allowed to purchase what they want, just saying there should be limits when using government funds. I don’t want anyone to go hungry, but that does not mean they should be able to use government funds to purchase a diet of soda and ice cream.

http://www-movieline-com.vimg.net/im...ameron_alt.jpg

Of course, since this is a Michael Bloomberg’s proposal, Glen Beck is against it (I wonder if he has any soft drink sponsors for his show?) Beck says this is a sign of government trying to take over. I say Beck is an idiot; the government should have some oversight in how our tax money is spent. Beck is also worried that this will make the lines longer at the stores because checkers will have to void out soft drinks purchased with food stamps, again I say Beck is an idiot, there are items already listed prohibited from food stamp purchases.

What do you think should, like Glen Beck obliviously believes, should food stamp recipients be allowed to purchase whatever they want or should the government limit these purchases?

Darth InSidious 10-07-2010 11:46 AM

Food stamps are an infringement of my liberty to watch people starve to death in the street. :mad:

jrrtoken 10-07-2010 11:58 AM

Since Beck seems to have a penchant for holding shares in PepsiCo, I say we make food stamps applicable to saltine crackers and ketchup packets, to reduce overhead.

Salzella 10-07-2010 11:58 AM

I believe in anything Glenn Beck opposes because that usually makes it a decent idea. So; yes.

Sabretooth 10-07-2010 12:28 PM

I didn't even know they had food stamps in America. Sounds too commusocialist, IMO.

DISCLAIMER: I only voted in this poll because I like multicoloured candy bars.

mimartin 10-07-2010 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabretooth (Post 2751511)
I didn't even know they had food stamps in America. Sounds too commusocialist, IMO.

Using the far right talking head logic -- I guess that makes Beck a commusocialist since he supports soft drinks for food stamp recipients. :)

Sabretooth 10-07-2010 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2751515)
Using the far right talking head logic -- I guess that makes Beck a commusocialist since he supports soft drinks for food stamp recipients. :)

Don't you be using logic on Mr. Beck now, that would be just plain insulting.

Rtas Vadum 10-07-2010 01:15 PM

Why is soda the first thing they mention? I mean, unless it is already true(and if it is, then I think it makes sense), why didn't they go for alcoholic products, rather than soda? But soda can make you fat(even though if you are, soda isn't the only reason).

And they have to go for the "Think of the Children" bit in the article. You'd think the parents would want to be concerned first, rather than the teachers at school, or the local Government.

mimartin 10-07-2010 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rtas Vadum (Post 2751523)
Why is soda the first thing they mention? I mean, unless it is already true(and if it is, then I think it makes sense), why didn't they go for alcoholic products, rather than soda? But soda can make you fat(even though if you are, soda isn't the only reason).
.

Because food stamp recipients cannot buy alcoholic with food stamps now, so it makes no sense to restrict something that is already restricted. ;)


Quote:

Originally Posted by USDA
Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:

Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco;
Any nonfood items, such as:

-- pet foods;
-- soaps, paper products; and
-- household supplies.
Vitamins and medicines.

Food that will be eaten in the store.

Hot foods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USDA
Eligible Food Items
Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:

Foods for the household to eat, such as:
-- breads and cereals;
-- fruits and vegetables;
-- meats, fish and poultry; and
-- dairy products.
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.


In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by USDA
Additional Information

“Junk Food” & Luxury Items
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.


Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items

Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:

Report -- Implications of Restricting the use of
Food Stamp Benefits


Energy Drinks
When considering the eligibility of energy drinks, and other branded products, the primary determinant is the type of product label chosen by the manufacturer to conform to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines:


Energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods
Energy drinks that have a supplement facts label are classified by the FDA as supplements, and are therefore not eligible


Live Animals
Live animals may not be purchased with SNAP benefits.


Pumpkins, Holiday Gift Baskets, and Special Occasion Cakes
Pumpkins are edible and eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. However, inedible gourds and pumpkins that are used solely for ornamental purposes are not eligible items.

Gift baskets that contain both food and non-food items, are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits if the value of the non-food items exceeds 50 percent of the purchase price.

Items such as birthday and other special occasion cakes are eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits as long as the value of non-edible decorations does not exceed 50 percent of the purchase price of the cake.

USDA Website

Tommycat 10-07-2010 08:32 PM

I dunno why he would be against it. I mean it actually might encourage those "lazy" people to go out and get a job so they can have their sodas.

Q 10-07-2010 09:46 PM

I guess that the government should have a say in what flows through the nipple.

mimartin 10-08-2010 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommycat (Post 2751575)
I dunno why he would be against it. I mean it actually might encourage those "lazy" people to go out and get a job so they can have their sodas.

Just want to be clear, not all those on food stamps are "lazy." Some have worked their entire life to support themselves and their families only to be kicked to the side by the current economic downturn.

I have a cousin that works about 38 hours a week (she would work more, but the company only allows employees to work less than 40 hours in order to prevent the extension of benefits.). A barely over minimum wage job does not provide the income necessary to support a family of four. Before someone bemoans lazy and having children just to get more money from the government, when she had the children she was married and had to the income to support everyone comfortably. Problem is death does not provide income and the dead do not pay child support.

Tommycat 10-14-2010 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2751654)
Just want to be clear, not all those on food stamps are "lazy." Some have worked their entire life to support themselves and their families only to be kicked to the side by the current economic downturn.

I have a cousin that works about 38 hours a week (she would work more, but the company only allows employees to work less than 40 hours in order to prevent the extension of benefits.). A barely over minimum wage job does not provide the income necessary to support a family of four. Before someone bemoans lazy and having children just to get more money from the government, when she had the children she was married and had to the income to support everyone comfortably. Problem is death does not provide income and the dead do not pay child support.

Sorry, the sarcasm didn't show through very well. When talking about THIS economy, where not having a job(or even being underemployed as so many are right now) is not a matter of choice, I would NEVER assume that someone is lazy because they do not have a job. Are there some that are out of work because they are lazy? Sure. Are there some that game the system? Yup. Do I automatically think that everyone who is on Welfare is lazy? ABSOLUTELY NOT! I was being a bit silly in that the common perception of people like Beck is that those that are on foodstamps are just lazy

urluckyday 10-18-2010 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin (Post 2751497)
the government should have some oversight in how our tax money is spent.

Believe me, they have plenty of oversight over how our tax money is spent...I don't think a few cans of soda are gonna bankrupt the county. Who cares what they buy with food stamps? The government doesn't tell you what you CAN and CAN'T buy with welfare money. I agree with Beck.

Q 10-18-2010 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urluckyday (Post 2752732)
Who cares what they buy with food stamps? The government doesn't tell you what you CAN and CAN'T buy with welfare money.

But it's our money. You wouldn't care if it was spent on hookers and blow?

Tommycat 10-18-2010 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Q (Post 2752737)
But it's our money. You wouldn't care if it was spent on hookers and blow?

Stimulates the economy that way too:D

mimartin 10-18-2010 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urluckyday (Post 2752732)
Believe me, they have plenty of oversight over how our tax money is spent...I don't think a few cans of soda are gonna bankrupt the county. Who cares what they buy with food stamps? The government doesn't tell you what you CAN and CAN'T buy with welfare money. I agree with Beck.

If it was just a few cans of soda, then I would agree with you. However, we are also paying for the health care cost.

Q 10-18-2010 10:32 PM

I see it this way:
When you go to the bank to get a loan, they're going to ask you what the money's for. You're going to be far more likely to get the loan if your answer is along the lines of "food and other essentials" than you would if it was "hookers and blow".

Ping 10-19-2010 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Q (Post 2752752)
I see it this way:
When you go to the bank to get a loan, they're going to ask you what the money's for. You're going to be far more likely to get the loan if your answer is along the lines of "food and other essentials" than you would if it was "hookers and blow".

Well, that kind of goes without saying.

Blix 10-19-2010 07:28 PM

I rarely drink soda anymore anyway so I am indifferent on the matter, silk all the way baby!

Darth Avlectus 10-19-2010 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ping (Post 2752845)
Well, that kind of goes without saying.

Ah sense of humor these days. :rolleyes: (hint hint)


Aaaaaanyway...

Depends on the situation. Long as it is possible to be independent of the government, the government can put whatever conditions it wants on what it doles out. Not sure I agree with it. Though I'm not on any kind of government assistance for anything so I am not sure what all I have to say about it. *Hopes nobody realizes I'm paying for classes at a lowly community college and not some prestigious look-down-your-nose university. Oh wai--* Far as I care... Besides, there's always someone who will spare some extra bucks for busy work because these people will never do certain tasks.

If it wasn't possible to be independent of government, well, then we'd probably be having bigger issues to deal with anyways... Like how to become less of a statist country and having to wrest control from the would be elite.

Just so long as my required-by-law government health care doesn't go all PMS for the once in a while naughty snack. :dev9:

Tommycat 10-20-2010 12:40 AM

Okay, serious answer:
I think it is well within the right of the government to regulate what people are allowed to buy with money it doles out. When I worked for Circle K we were given the option of having our gas paid for, or mileage paid. I chose mileage. BUT if I had gone for having my gas paid for, I would have had to use Circle K gas(not something I wanted in my gas tank lol).


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.