Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's time to stop letting people buy soda and other sugary garbage with food stamps, writes Mark Bittman in the New York Times. At the same time, the government can encourage healthier food choices by increasing the value of the stamps when used to buy fruits and veggies.
It's time to stop letting people buy soda and other sugary garbage with food stamps, writes Mark Bittman in the New York Times. At the same time, the government can encourage healthier food choices by increasing the value of the stamps when used to buy fruits and veggies.
its not being a nanny state. to qualify for food stamps you have to abide by rules and regulations.
so to put a limitation on what food you can or can't buy is not government busy bodying. Its simply adding to a list of foods that are already prohibited.
We could do that, but I'd only support it if it saved money somehow, not if it cost money to implement.
Problem is. eating healthier DOES cost more money. If you want families to eat fresh fruits and vegetables, instead of canned food, then the program needs to dole out more money.
Otherwise, they are limited to the crap that is already making our country fat to begin with. Processed foods, junk foods, candy, canned crap,
Otherwise, the government needs to work with farmers to make the fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper than their processed versions.
its not being a nanny state. to qualify for food stamps you have to abide by rules and regulations.
so to put a limitation on what food you can or can't buy is not government busy bodying. Its simply adding to a list of foods that are already prohibited.
It is being a nanny state. Giving someone money for food and then telling them which food they can buy with it is being a nanny state. Mommy gives Junior a dollar and sends him off to school saying "now don't you buy a candy bar with that dollar, you buy an apple"
The fact that we already do that isn't an argument for doing more of it nor is it an argument for it not being a nanny state thing to do.
its not being a nanny state. to qualify for food stamps you have to abide by rules and regulations.
so to put a limitation on what food you can or can't buy is not government busy bodying. Its simply adding to a list of foods that are already prohibited.
The problem is that there isn't a list at all right now. The only food prohibited is warm ready-to-eat food. To create a list of permitted foods would require a classification of every single food product available in the US, probably numbering in the hundreds of thousands. And classifying food is not as straightforward as one may think. Is orange juice too sugary? Is Sunny-D? It's a great idea on paper, but it's not feasible. I like the idea of conservatives agreeing with this idea, people who want freedom in every way possible but think the lives of the poor should be strictly controlled .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Otherwise, the government needs to work with farmers to make the fresh fruits and vegetables cheaper than their processed versions.
The best thing we can do right now is to get rid of our worthless federal farm bill, which is essentially a huge subsidy for people to produce the grains which are turned into processed sh1t like soda, unhealthy snacks, and meat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
