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.
Just so you know, I don't like or dislike her. Now that we've got that out of the way, like it or not the first lady is as much a politician as the president and furthermore, the president would not be elected without her or if she were a Leona Helmsley type. Example, have we ever had a bachelor in the White House?
As we all know many people don't like being told what to do, especially when it comes to their families. I think if the focus would've been less on the family and heavy on the school end including a bit of personal "pushing" if you will of the various school boards she'd of had more of an actual effect instead of photo ops.
What I'm saying is if someone were really serious about change they'd need to get down in the weeds instead of just standing on a lawn talking about how horrible they look, identify and rank districts that need a "visit" first,second etc and then go visit them.
You can't tell me that if the F.L. went to a particular school board, or even the Governor then sat down and suggested some changes along with some technical support to make 'em happen that the board members wouldn't listen and at least do some of it.
If memory serves didn't Eleanor Roosevelt,Lady Bird Johnson,Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton do just this with their "pet projects" like Head Start,Drug Abuse etc?
Those do sound like good suggestions to me. And I still think that this First Lady is a "politician" who certainly does not want to be one. And I think I can say with some confidence that if the First Lady visited Rick Scott in re school food, he would smile politely and NEVER think even twice about what she said after she walked out the door. I think Scott's preference is "private sector" control of schools, via computer home schooling programs. He doesn't even want kids going to public schools, much less eating healthy food on the state's money.
Yes, you have the right to tell government that you don't like it that people who use food stamps don't buy the kinds of foods you think are best for them. Nobody said you didn't. HOWEVER, as I've said before, once you make your tax "contribution" for the privilege of living in THIS country (which, by the way, doesn't have food police), that money is not yours anymore and it will be spent the way YOUR elected officials see fit.
.
You do understand that we as citizens have a right to be involved politically once we have voted.
I have called my congress people regarding various issues and had a state law changed. A group of us were unrelenting, some of us testified and brought evidence of the unfairness of the way this law was written and it was ammended. We influenced the people we voted in to change something. That's what citizens do.
The people who want to make changes to the food stamp program are simply voicing an opinion, and if enough complain, something might change. The attacks and name calling by those who want to stop the process of citizen action really show a sense of desperation and powerlessness.
America is very generous to its poor and will continue to be, sodas or not. The taxpayers have every right to be involved in how their money is spent and will continue to exercise that right.
Example, have we ever had a bachelor in the White House?
Unrelated to the thread topic, but ... James Buchanan remained unmarried throughout his term. Grover Cleveland was single when elected, and married while in office.
Thomas Jefferson and Martin Van Buren were widowers when elected.
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.
I absolutely agree, in fact I think there should be a wholesale ban on using Food Stamps for processed foods generally. We already have rules for school vending machines that prohibit certain foods with low nutritional value.
You do understand that we as citizens have a right to be involved politically once we have voted.
I have called my congress people regarding various issues and had a state law changed. A group of us were unrelenting, some of us testified and brought evidence of the unfairness of the way this law was written and it was ammended. We influenced the people we voted in to change something. That's what citizens do.
The people who want to make changes to the food stamp program are simply voicing an opinion, and if enough complain, something might change. The attacks and name calling by those who want to stop the process of citizen action really show a sense of desperation and powerlessness.
America is very generous to its poor and will continue to be, sodas or not. The taxpayers have every right to be involved in how their money is spent and will continue to exercise that right.
Well, tamajane, I never said you didn't have a right to be involved. Your first involvement was via your VOTE. So go for it. I just get really tired of thread after thread maligning those who have to use food stamps and the different excuses people use to attack them.
What name calling and stop what process are you talking about?Or did you just need a sentence so you could call those who oppose the restrictions you are suggesting on food stamp purchases "desperate"?
So, yeah, by all means go to it and fight to get what you want. I'm sure the lobbyists for those soda, etc., companies will be delighted to work with you. Plus, we really need more bureaucracy and more micromanagement.
I absolutely agree, in fact I think there should be a wholesale ban on using Food Stamps for processed foods generally. We already have rules for school vending machines that prohibit certain foods with low nutritional value.
Too much money to be made now in food stamps. Going electronic got the big banks involved and once that happened they have the power to sway.
JPMorgan makes over $5 billion profit per year alone in just food stamps processing.
Fast food is allowed in states due to "disabled and homeless have no kitchens" and that is becoming more prevalent across the US as more states allow foodstamps to be used for fast food.
You don't need a job now to get food stamps. The government went on a big advertising tour to educate both Americans and Mexicans about food stamp eligibility (yes they ran ads on the food stamp program in Mexico).
All it takes is a nutrition label to qualify...Red Bull and Monster energy drinks qualify.
The USDA refuses to release any statistics on food stamp usage. That should tell you right there that they don't want us to know where this money is going and what is being purchased with it.
I absolutely agree, in fact I think there should be a wholesale ban on using Food Stamps for processed foods generally. We already have rules for school vending machines that prohibit certain foods with low nutritional value.
And do you really think that the companies who produce those processed foods will just quietly stand by and not resist such a "ban"? Why do you guys think that there are not politicians who get campaign contributions from such companies? That's not pretty, but it's got to be true.
And do you really think we need more bureaucracy and more micromanagement of the program......can we afford it? Wouldn't it be better that that money be used by people who qualify for food stamps to buy FOOD?
I'm wondering, have there been any studies which show that people who use food stamps are indeed less healthy than the general population because of their food choices? Of course the "poor" are less healthy than those in our country who have been able to afford health insurance.....but that's another story.
Too much money to be made now in food stamps. Going electronic got the big banks involved and once that happened they have the power to sway.
JPMorgan makes over $5 billion profit per year alone in just food stamps processing.
Fast food is allowed in states due to "disabled and homeless have no kitchens" and that is becoming more prevalent across the US as more states allow foodstamps to be used for fast food.
You don't need a job now to get food stamps. The government went on a big advertising tour to educate both Americans and Mexicans about food stamp eligibility (yes they ran ads on the food stamp program in Mexico).
All it takes is a nutrition label to qualify...Red Bull and Monster energy drinks qualify.
The USDA refuses to release any statistics on food stamp usage. That should tell you right there that they don't want us to know where this money is going and what is being purchased with it.
You've made this statement over and over without any cite to support it:
"JPMorgan makes over $5 billion profit per year alone in just food stamps processing."
Just ONCE could you provide a link to support that statement?
Also, how about a cite that tells us that the USDA has statistics on what specific foods are purchased with food stamps? You really expect everyone to accept what you're saying without any support?
Whether or not you qualify for food stamps is determined by, at least in part, your amount of income. It's my understanding that if you make less than $1100 per month you qualify in Florida, but I could be wrong on that amount. Do you know how much income someone can bring in and still qualify for food stamps? Anyway, I guess if someone is elderly and receive, say $500 per month from SS retirement, and they can't work, they would qualify without having a job.
Good for you and your father-in-law. That's very generous of you two and great volunteer work.
Do you have a lot of people who come for food? Have you noticed any increase in the past few years?
Yeah, and a difference in the type of people. We used to very, very seldom see 25-60 year old, two adult families, but we see more now. We also see more young adults. It used to be mainly single moms and the single elderly. The change in demographics bothers me more than anything else.
I like doing something that directly impacts those in need. I know that the resources and help is actually going to them for what I feel is a worthy cause. Our country has far too much for us to ever be okay with someone going hungry and I feel I have an obligation to back up my beliefs with my sweat.
Fast food is allowed in states due to "disabled and homeless have no kitchens" and that is becoming more prevalent across the US as more states allow foodstamps to be used for fast food.
Then they should not complain about obesity or start any campaigns to stop it. Mrs. Obama seemed concerned enough to try to change food at schools, so which is it? Maybe her husband should watch Supersize Me.
Another loophole is disallowing cooked foods from the store. Is it not mean to make the homeless person eat the cold cooked chicken instead of the warmed up one? They have no microwave so no option to warm it up - and what about having a hot meal? Got to get that in there along with fast food and snacks.
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.
Or did you just need a sentence so you could call those who oppose the restrictions you are suggesting on food stamp purchases "desperate"?
