if my tax dollar is paying for it, they should not be splurging. they should get the bare minimum nutrition needed and nothing more.

6/5/2014 8:35:17 PM

Ha where does that logic end?

As a teacher, your entire life is funded by tax dollars, do the tax payers get to dictate how you spend your money?

As aN attendant of a public college, your tuition only covers 1/3 of your education, you'll be indebted to the people, mostly tax payers, that paid the other 2/3 for years to come. Why are you watching Netflix on your hd tv, drinking your fancy sodas, when you owe the public so much money for educating you? You need to be paying back your gov funded student loans.

Public assitance is inherent to any organized society. It's one of the 2 main reasons our ancestors organized into a social collective rather than remained nomadic, subsistence tribes. You're a broken and diseased member of society for trying to lord over your fellow peers just because they may partake in one of the core the benefits of living in a society.

[Edited on June 5, 2014 at 8:47 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2014 8:46:42 PM

Helping pay Smath's salary with my tax dollars and helping someone afford an iPhone that can't pay for basic food items without assistance are two completely different things.

6/5/2014 9:29:21 PM

100% of Americans rely on the American government, and thus tax payer dollars, for their livelihood.

Why should American citizens who choose 1 form of assistance be told what to buy and not to buy, but other american citizens not have this restriction, when we all rely on the public good?

Are you suggesting the government should have an approved list of phones people can purchase? If it was an Android device would it be okay?

It just seems this distaste for poor people with smart phones (a very common place item in America) is just an emotional reaction based on flawed prejudices and biases of poor people.

Even if there were evidence that people were buying excessive luxury smart phones with savings from food stamps (which there is not by the way, this perception is based on right-wing propaganda, not data, statistics, or factual information), it would be untenable to set up a system where people on these programs could only publicly use items on a specific government approved list.

[Edited on June 5, 2014 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2014 9:43:52 PM

isnt the opposite actually true?

poor people are supremely good with money correct?

stretching that last dime? doing amazing things with extremely limited resources?

6/5/2014 10:00:38 PM

Quote :

"Helping pay Smath's salary with my tax dollars and helping someone afford an iPhone that can't pay for basic food items without assistance are two completely different things."

Why? Because YOU want to pay for one service, but not the other?

I'm a teacher too (not k-12, but still) and I'm well aware of the fact that I'm a public servant and my paycheck is highly dependent on public opinion. Thank God for Jerry Brown and the State of CA, because otherwise I'd be fucked 3 ways til Sunday. NOBODY really WANTS to pay for education, yet somehow everyone demands it and feels entitled to it.

6/5/2014 10:52:55 PM

im a teacher as well, and quite frankly i value my skillset above free sugar water.

6/5/2014 11:35:23 PM

We should not give teachers any more raises unless they can prove that they aren't wasting money on frivolous things like iPhones

6/6/2014 8:40:02 AM

well yeah, my tax dollars pay their salary. why would i want to pay them to consume sugar water and get fat?

6/6/2014 8:43:46 AM

^^

6/6/2014 8:44:11 AM

i think we should do pay deductions for any teacher or faculty member that has flashy wheels on their car

6/6/2014 8:46:16 AM

Quote :

"Why? Because YOU want to pay for one service, but not the other?"

Because if I hire you to do something and pay you to do it and you do it, what you do with that money afterwards is no concern of mine. On the other hand, if I give you money in exchange for no services, but tell you that the money is only to be used for food, then you damn well better be spending it on food.

Or look at it this way:

I hire a teacher with tax dollars to teach. They get money, I get teaching. If they don't teach, I should be able to fire them or demand my money back.

I hire a person on food stamps to buy food for themselves to free up their other funds for getting themselves out of the situation they're in requiring the assistance. If they don't buy food and use their other funds to get out of their situation then they're failing to uphold their end of the deal just as if a teacher failed to teach.

That said, the same reason (top down meddling) why teaching in this country is in such bad shape is why we should be very careful about the amount of top down meddling we do on welfare programs as well. That isn't to say we don't need some monitoring, but let's also remember the government gave us the disaster that was the food pyramid.

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 9:20 AM. Reason : rert]

6/6/2014 9:15:01 AM

I don't see how the teachers salary is relevant to food stamps purchasing soda. The teacher is performing a service and getting paid. The food stamps recipient is receiving government aid while providing no service to purchase food for themselves and their family. Soda is not food.

Most people on food stamps are not destitute. They are free to buy soda with their non food stamp dollars.

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 9:19 AM. Reason : a]

6/6/2014 9:19:00 AM

Quote :

"i think we should do pay deductions for any teacher or faculty member that has flashy wheels on their car "

Most teachers I know would forgo the rim purchase in lieu of...I don't know, food, class materials, college for their children.

Although smath...that guy...I've seen him rolling around town in 22" spinners. Smath I want my tax money back.

6/6/2014 9:47:31 AM

Quote :

"Most people on food stamps are not destitute. They are free to buy soda with their non food stamp dollars. "

then why do you care if they buy soda? whether they buy soda with the food stamps and other stuff with their other cash, or they buy other stuff with the food stamps and soda with their other cash, you are still giving them money and they are using it to buy soda either way.

6/6/2014 9:51:07 AM

Again, this all revolves around the fact that you folks believe people on welfare are "less" than people who aren't.

Your genetic material, upbringing, and environment allowed you to become a teacher. That doesn't make you better than someone with downs syndrome.

A person's worth isn't dependent on their dollar value. Humanitarianism > utilitarianism.

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 9:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/6/2014 9:52:51 AM

No, I don't think the majority of people receiving any kind of public assistance are wasting it. I just wish there was something we could do about those that do tend to waste it.

You see things through a different lens than I do I guess...maybe your personal experiences give you a different (not better) insight. For me, I grew up watching aunts, uncles, cousins use assistance as something that was normal, expected, and with no intention to ever better themselves. It doesn't help that I see other anecdotes that help support what I saw growing up. I also saw my dad who taught school, and worked a night job, and worked several jobs over the summer to keep from having to go on public assistance. I don't know, maybe he saw the rest of the family and wanted to be different.

6/6/2014 10:12:07 AM

on the previous page i asked the following:

Quote :

"if you want to ban soda, which i support, please show how your proposed plan would address the following: IMPLICATIONS OF RESTRICTING THE USE OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS - SUMMARY http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/arra/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf -No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy. -Implementation of food restrictions would increase program complexity and costs. -Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants -No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity. if you read the report they even list some different ways that food could be rated, so you can just list which one you would use or propose another"

no one responded so I started to respond to it myself.

In regards to

Quote :

"No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity."

I found the following study:
Study shows banning soda purchases using food stamps would reduce obesity and type-2 diabetes - See more at: http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2014/06/02/study-shows-banning-soda-purchases-using-food-stamps-would-reduce-obesity-and-type-2-diabetes/#sthash.83dEcCtm.dpuf


I still don't have a non-trivial way to determine what should be banned and what should be included, but I'm not sure if it matters if the restrictions are trivial. I guess my starting proposal would be that all drinks with more than X mg of sugar per serving should be banned. There would be a cost associated with this; someone would need to make that determination and there would need to be a way to mark or easily distinguish what products were allowed. This will need to be a funded mandate, so congress will need to provide additional funding for this.

6/6/2014 10:12:59 AM

Slippery slope.

I see no reason to ban soda for food stamp recipients while not banning soda for the public at large.

6/6/2014 10:15:12 AM

but we already have restrictions, we are already on the slope and never started slipping out of control. Why would banning another public danger increase the slipperiness of the slope?

tl;dr countering with "slippery slope" to an argument is lazy

6/6/2014 10:28:13 AM

Why don't we just un-ban cigarettes from being purchased with food stamps.

6/6/2014 10:41:03 AM

No, it isn't lazy. Here are your products that are already banned:

¦Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
¦Any nonfood items, such as:
¦pet foods
¦soaps, paper products
¦household supplies
¦Vitamins and medicines
¦Food that will be eaten in the store
¦Hot foods

Do you see any food products in that list, besides alochol and what is essentially fast food sold by grocery stores?

So yes, banning soda would be a slippery slope, and its one I don't want to start down.

6/6/2014 10:47:49 AM

Quote :

"Again, this all revolves around the fact that you folks believe people on welfare are "less" than people who aren't. "

Not at all. But if I'm going to give my money in support of something, then I want my money going to that. I have a relative who's a single mother with 2 kids after divorcing her husband. She made a crap ton of bad choices over the course of her life and continues to make them (like shacking up with a boyfriend who doesn't work, has difficulty finding work as an ex felon and doesn't take care of the house or kids even without the job). Every once in a while she calls around asking for money for this issue or that issue so that the kids could have new clothes or supplies for school or what have you. We used to give her the money unrestricted because you take care of family and you take care of people. And when we noticed that the money wasn't going towards the things she was telling us she needed the money for (and in some cases was going to drugs and alcohol, to the point of having CPS take her kids temporarily), we stopped giving her money directly. Now we buy the kids the clothes or supplies directly if we contribute. It isn't that I think my relative is "less" of a person, it's that I want my money to go to the things I'm giving my money for.

Quote :

"Do you see any food products in that list, besides alochol and what is essentially fast food sold by grocery stores? "

Yeah, the hot foods item. Seriously, I guarantee the rotisserie chicken that walmart sells is a whole lot healthier than a 2 liter soda, a bag of doritos and microwave burritos. But the chicken is forbidden, while the soda, chips and burritos are perfectly fine. For that matter, the dog food might have better nutritional value than the chips and soda.

But this is also a perfect example of why these sorts of restrictions are dangerous. The ban on hot foods is obviously about preventing fast food and expensive prepared food purchases, but the grocery chicken is $6-7, and a chicken you have to cook yourself is $4-5. For that extra $1-3 our hypothetical person could get a relatively healthy option, that they can eat as soon as they get home rather than skipping the healthy food and going to the frozen burrito because it's quick. I mean if we're going to start talking about restricting foods based on "nutritional value" then we really need to go whole hog on this and be honest about the assesment. Which means rotisserie chicken is in, and banquet pot-pies are out.

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 11:18 AM. Reason : dfg]

6/6/2014 11:08:17 AM

NO SODA OR BIRTHDAY CAKE FOR FUCKING POOR PEOPLE!!!!1

Quote :

"Why don't we just un-ban cigarettes from being purchased with food stamps."

already covered on page one. include smokes with gruel voucher: problem solved

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 11:11 AM. Reason : fuck the poor! ]

6/6/2014 11:08:21 AM

Quote :

"¦Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco ¦Any nonfood items, such as: ¦pet foods ¦soaps, paper products ¦household supplies ¦Vitamins and medicines ¦Food that will be eaten in the store ¦Hot foods Do you see any food products in that list, besides alochol and what is essentially fast food sold by grocery stores? So yes, banning soda would be a slippery slope, and its one I don't want to start down."

if banning beer and wine is not a slippery slope, than neither is banning soda. if it is a slippery slope then its a very not-that-slippery slope so its silly to worry about. its not like banning soda will cause other items to suddenly start being accidentally banned out of control, this isn't a car on a rollercoaster.

6/6/2014 11:11:39 AM

Quote :

"if my tax dollar is paying for it, they should not be splurging. they should get the bare minimum nutrition needed and nothing more."

Food stamps, and other welfare programs, are a net-negative for the poor. It gives assistance, but it turns off when they earn more money. This causes them to make decisions that will keep them on the programs. Decisions that keep them in poverty.

It's all because of holier-than-thou idiots like you. It's your fault that the programs are delivered in a contingent form that trains people to be slaves. It's not fair.

6/6/2014 11:25:40 AM

Smath74 is a total piece of shit. Sad to see NC taxpayers funding his salary.

6/6/2014 12:13:02 PM

That's right. Call someone you disagree with a piece of shit.

Didn't you say you weren't trolling?

6/6/2014 12:24:13 PM

He's a piece of shit for having absolutely zero empathy for people less fortunate than him. It ain't trollin' if it's true.

6/6/2014 12:28:28 PM

If you want to take away social safety nets, then fine.

Also take away minimum building standards, so they can afford a place to stay.
Take away all regulations the prevent these people from entering markets blocked by license holders.
In fact, right now, destroy all industries that are not subject to entrance from unskilled workers.
Just outlaw them. Every one.

That'll get your tax dollars back. Fair and square.

6/6/2014 12:55:35 PM

I honestly can't believe people are trying to compare paying a teacher to teach withgiving food stamps to someone for no service.

I also can't understand how people are defending the specific case of people on food stamps buying the most expensive iphones. I feel like i have to preface my statement with "I realize that is only isolated incidents, and doesn't represent the majority", but we're talking about that specific isolated incident, and i really don't understand how anyone can defend it.

Quote :

"NO SODA OR BIRTHDAY CAKE FOR FUCKING POOR PEOPLE!!!!1"

how many times does it have to be repeated that we're not saying poor people can't have soda? just that they shouldn't be able to use food stamps for it.

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 2:41 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2014 2:40:12 PM

Quote :

"if my tax dollar is paying for it, they should not be splurging. they should get the bare minimum nutrition needed and nothing more."

- Smath74

Pretty sure a bday cake and some soda to wash it down constitutes as 'splurging'.


Anyway, you continue to ignore my point. It's pretty mean spirited and punitive to spend time/energy trying to make sure that poor people can't buy soda with food stamps. You don't seem to get that part, and I'm not sure why. You're a pretty reasonable and intelligent poster, so think about it a bit more critically.

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2014 2:51:10 PM

^^ you can afford to buy an iPhone and still qualify for SNAP/WIC, why is that so damn hard for you idiots to understand? iPhone's don't cost much, unless she is buying one every month or two it doesn't make a difference. and for all you know, she bought the phone before she lost a job or was given the phone by someone.

stop thinking poor people are less human you fucking subhuman retards

6/6/2014 2:57:31 PM

It's mean-spirited? Really? Where do you draw the line there? It's mean-spirited to keep them from buying candy with it? OR go to the finest restaraunt in the city, since non-poor people do that. Or cigarettes? Or lottery tickets? By saying it's "mean", it sounds like you're letting your emotions invade your critical thinking

I think a lot of this boils down to the kids too. I'd like to think that they're using the stamps to buy their children good meals. Not a diet of junk food and soda.

I know there's a lot of gray here. I wouldn't say they necessarily could NEVER buy soda with food stamps. But since that really couldn't be regulated, I'd say if they want soda occasionally, they could use their own money.

6/6/2014 2:59:10 PM

^^for being such an arrogant dickbag asshole who won't hesitate to talk shit to anyone who doesn't agree with him on a internet forum, you sure do have a lot of empathy for people on food stamps. you're a joke troll dude.

6/6/2014 3:00:32 PM

Quote :

". But since that really couldn't be regulated"

it can actually be regulated if we wanted to, we regulate other things

Quote :

"It's mean-spirited? Really? Where do you draw the line there?"

the line is drawn at:
¦Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
¦Any nonfood items, such as:
¦pet foods
¦soaps, paper products
¦household supplies
¦Vitamins and medicines
¦Food that will be eaten in the store
¦Hot foods

Quote :

" I'd like to think that they're using the stamps to buy their children good meals. Not a diet of junk food and soda. "

but junk food and soda is cheaper and has a lower opportunity cost than healthy food, and when people are found to be buying healthy seafood Fox News et al throws a shit fit.

stop being such a poor-hating mongoloid

6/6/2014 3:02:35 PM

pretty much this:

Quote :

"stop thinking poor people are less human you fucking subhuman retards"

Think of it this way. You see a bum on the street who looks hungry with a jar and a sign asking him for money. If you decide to be nice and give him money so he could grab a bite, would you go out of your way to harass him and say "you'd better not buy any soda with this change I'm going to give you!!1" Unless you're an absolute dick, you wouldn't. Or what about a mom with her kids and a sign? Would you walk her inside the grocery store and police what she buys for her and her kids?

Christ, why is it so difficult to understand this.


[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 3:06 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2014 3:03:14 PM

But what if they wear cargo shorts, or socks that don't match their pants, or are fat? Then you'd think they were subhuman.

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 3:04 PM. Reason : ^^you seriuously should chill with name calling, you arrogant asshole]

6/6/2014 3:03:37 PM

Quote :

"^^for being such an arrogant dickbag asshole who won't hesitate to talk shit to anyone who doesn't agree with him on a internet forum, you sure do have a lot of empathy for people on food stamps. you're a joke troll dude."

I'm PURPOSELY going out my way to be a dickhead to you and other posters who can't seem to get it through their thick skulls. It's not nice to be treated this way, is it? Do you not understand how this works?

6/6/2014 3:05:37 PM

I'm afraid you may be confusing my opinion with others. (and i wasn't talking to you)

6/6/2014 3:06:33 PM

dtownral and I are pretty much making the exact same point, in the exact same way

6/6/2014 3:07:21 PM

Quote :

"the line is drawn at: ¦Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco ¦Any nonfood items, such as: ¦pet foods ¦soaps, paper products ¦household supplies ¦Vitamins and medicines ¦Food that will be eaten in the store ¦Hot foods"

Why is it drawn there? Is that not mean spirited? Is that not depriving the poor of things that regular people have access to? Is that not hateful to the poor? Why the hell wouldn't it apply to vitamins or hot food?

6/6/2014 3:11:32 PM

6/6/2014 3:12:10 PM

Uh, good one?

6/6/2014 3:13:14 PM

You and a lot of other posters make an awful lot of unfounded assumptions about poor people. Not all of them are fat or terrible parents that pour nothing but 2 liters of Sundrop down their kids' throats all day. Go back and re-read that birthday cake example and maybe, for just a fraction of a second, you'll get where I'm going with this.

6/6/2014 3:14:11 PM

Quote :

"Why the hell wouldn't it apply to vitamins or hot food?"

i already posted the following link:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items

in that link they explain the following:

Quote :

"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"

hot food is not designed for at home consumption, vitamins are a supplement and not a food

6/6/2014 3:15:26 PM

^i didn't ask for their reasoning, i'm asking if you think it's mean-spiritied to deny them vitamins or hot food.

^^and you're making a lot of assumptions about me. you have no idea where i come from, how i grew-up, and my thoughts on all of this. i've simply stated that i could understand why they woulnd't allow soda to be bought with food stamps (and commented on the one specific case of someone on food stamps owning a phone that's tive times as expensive as mine). i said nothing about cake, nor have made any sort of comment that even comes close to expressing a belief that the poor are subhuman. To keep repeating that is making a huge assumption that you've made from a few posts on a silly message board.

6/6/2014 3:21:56 PM

Yes, I can see why you and other posters would want to punish poor people by taking away their ability to buy soda with food stamps. It's because you're dicks that think poor people are poor because they aren't smart enough to know that soda is bad for you.

Yep, taking soda away from the poor is really going to help protect poor people from themselves and their terrible decisions.

[Edited on June 6, 2014 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2014 3:26:13 PM

And you're an anonymous arrogant asshole on a message board who hurls insults and unfounded accusations at people you don't know anything about because of your anonymity.

6/6/2014 3:28:21 PM

I actually thought you were smarter than this, but I guess not.

Do you honestly think banning soda stamps is going to help people and reduce poverty?

6/6/2014 3:31:39 PM