Here Come the Nannies...

Post Reply New Topic

Well, honestly, my big concerns are the following:
1) I don't think the ban is engaging in something overly helpful, but rather control for the sake of control. Control for the sake of control, however, is a negative impulse that we should all distrust. I mean, these actions, are the first step to negatively impacting our own lives.
2) I really don't think that banning sugary drinks is really the best thing anyway. At worst they are minor luxuries, but really, those items are often very good, as they are usually very easy to transport, flavorful, and in the case of a few, have caffeine, which can be helpful.

As such, I do think there is good reason to oppose this effort.

I think it's a great idea. We focus so much on what the government is or is not telling us to do that we forget the the massive power of marketing and the fact that corporations have a more significant affect on our purchasing decisions, especially on the young and uneducated. The purpose of food stamps is to provide nourishment to those who cannot otherwise afford it. Pepsi is not nourishment, especially not for a growing child.

Closest equivalent we ever get is "milk tokens" for pregnant women, which are restricted to milk/fruit/veg and that's about it. Some local shops will trade for other materials, but they aren't supposed to. What is annoying is that they are so restrictive that if the goods do not match or exceed the cover price (where you can then pay extra with real money) then you get nothing, as they will not provide change, nor even retain the difference themselves, which makes shopping a little awkward when you can't find a banana worth 7 pence to make up the token.

Restricting government funded food tokens to certain foods isn't in itself so very bad, but it seems a bit pointless to JUST make it drinks if its a health thing, and a bit arbitrary if it isn't.

Slightly apocryphal tale I heard from a Virginian family member: In her (small) home town, the supermarkets have all closed down (Food Lion? Something like that.) through sheer lack of use, because the predominantly poor (food stamp etc) using residents point blank refuse to engage in anything that resembles cookery, instead relying on the (doing quite well) fast food outlets for the majority of their cooked meals.

Its something of a puzzle for a government as to how it can look after its voters and citizens if they cannot influence a whole subsection of society to eat in a way that vaguely resembles normal. It might be more "Free" to let them eat cakes until they die, but is that really a sensible model for any nation? Its understandable that no nation really wants a morbidly obese unproductive underclass, but where do you start to prevent that?

this is a tough issue. nanny-sam telling you what you can and can't buy with food stamps can leave a bad taste in your mouth. the question, as i see it, is where do we draw the line? tobacco, alcohol, and a lot of prepared foods (like those hot dogs at 7-11? i don't remember?) are already off limits.

i think food stamps are a great part of our country's safety net. i don't think food stamp money should go to buying booze, so i'm glad that's restricted. i don't think food stamp money should go to cigarettes, so i'm glad that's restricted. a lot of people get the wrong idea about people on food stamps because of misconceptions about what you can and can't get with it already.

so there's already a line in the sand. i could use more information on this topic, but my intuition is that the program is more efficient with alcohol and tobacco off limits. what i do know is that there is fraud that goes on to get around this so i really don't have a solid opinion on whether or not it really is a net gain.

i think, for me, it comes down to purpose. what is the program for? it's not, as far as i understand, the part of the safety net meant to give spending cash to people with low/no income. it's to keep poor americans fed. cigarettes aren't food. vodka isn't food. beer only fits my imaginary definition of food. coke? pepsi? mt dew? dr pepper? what side of the line do they go on? maybe it's more a question of intelligent regulation? "sugary drinks" covers a lot of products. "juice drink" isn't exactly well defined, either. the failure in this regulation is that the prerequisite classification of what is and what is not "food" is a joke.



big k: at least his obvious slur was obvious. still kinda depressing.
http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2008/01/canadian-racial-slur-edition.html

I remember as a boy, when the stamps used to come in a booklet............. It used to be the discarded empty Food-Stamp booklet shells used to just absolutely litter the Supermarket floors after all the stamps had been torn out, kind of like discarded losing pull-tabs at a carnival. By the evening, the grocery store janitors would have a massive task cleaning up piles and piles of stamp-booklets that had just been littered all over the store.

I think that was a formative thing that began to sour me on relief assistance and minority assistance, etc. I mean, if they couldn't even be bothered to discard their waste and their generously-given free money like human beings, and they were going to so carelessly litter, than WTF should taxpayer money be lavished on them if they are too lazy to put their refuse in a f-ing trash can. Its like rubbing salt in the would to see people on benefits take YOUR hard-earned money and they can't even have have the common decency to at least get in and discreetly buy their Little Debbies and then get out without making a mess. But then again, that is just 'the sort' getting those benefits, and its not like they give a damn........... they just think the money is magically entitled to them because of "slavery," or its their due. They think the rules don't apply to them because their ancestors were "oppressed," and that some magic funds will sponsor thier torpor and 'other half' lifestyles, which is absolutely justified in their primordial heads. To them, they are only one of many.... just another drop in the bucket drawing $$ so it doesn't really matter.

Besides that, it was like every cart would be loaded up with Little-Debbie, Frosted Flakes, Grape Soda, etc, and the food-stamp booklet would be whipped out. Then, after all of the stamps had been used, the shell would just be tossed on the floor. It was like it was almost kind of a not-so-secret act of war to get bussed out on mass-transit (on the taxpayer's dime) to wh***y's nice supermarket, litter it up, and then rub it in his face by blatantly paying for their processed junk food with his hard-earned tax dollars. They'd be sure to tow out all 6 kids of theirs for good measure.

It was the same on Halloween as well in my "racially changing" neighborhood as after the area residential kids were done trick-or-treating for the first couple hours between 6-8, the inner-city kids would be out at about 8:30PM and try and hustle any houses with their lights still on for free candy. After 5 or 6 years of this, most houses in the neighborhood turned their lights off by 8:30 or so so the inner-city families would not approach their door with like 7 black kids not even in costume jumping out of a minivan and demanding candy. After a few years most of the neighborhood just stopped participating in Halloween all together as most of the residents just got sick of the pretty blatant attempt to secure free food like this.

I see no point in subsidizing people who live like pigs and can't even use a f-ing trash can. I mean, by all means, live it up on the dole, and get dat fwee health care as well.