PDA

View Full Version : A good slippery slope...



ducknwork
10-07-2010, 06:34 AM
I hope someone gives us a big push down this slippery slope!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/07/ny-seeks-ban-sugary-drinks-food-stamp-buys/


NEW YORK -- New Yorkers on food stamps would not be allowed to spend them on sugar-sweetened drinks under an obesity-fighting proposal being floated by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson.

Bloomberg and Paterson planned to announce Thursday that they are seeking permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the nation's food stamp program, to add sugary drinks to the list of prohibited goods for city residents receiving assistance.

If approved, it would be the first time an item would be banned from the federal program based solely on nutritional value.

The idea has been suggested previously, including in 2008 in Maine, where it drew criticism from advocates for the poor who argued it unfairly singled out low-income people and risked scaring off potential needy recipients.Actually, it singles out those who have to have someone else pay for their food. Many of us who use our own money to buy food don't buy sugary drinks, so why should someone else use my money to buy them? They should be allowed to buy what is necessary, not luxury items! If not being allowed to buy soda is going to scare you away from food stamps, you obviously don't need them anyway. What a BS excuse.

And in 2004 the USDA rejected Minnesota's plan to ban junk food, including soda and candy, from food stamp purchases, saying it would violate the Food Stamp Act's definition of what is food and could create "confusion and embarrassment" at the register.:rolleyes::rolleyes:Good. Maybe they'll be so embarassed they'll shop responsibly or -gasp- get a job and spend their OWN money on junk food!

The food stamp system, which was launched in the 1960s, serves some 40 million Americans a month and does not currently restrict any other foods based on nutrition. Recipients can essentially buy any food for the household, although there are some limits on hot or prepared foods.

Food stamps also cannot be used to buy alcohol, cigarettes or items such as pet food, vitamins or household goods.

The city and state proposal would be temporary, so officials could study its effects over two years. It would apply only to food stamp recipients in New York City -- 1.7 million of the city's more than 8 million residents -- and would not affect the amount of assistance they receive.

"This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment," said a statement from Bloomberg, who also has outlawed trans-fats in restaurant food and has forced chain restaurants to post calorie counts on menus.

In fiscal year 2009, New Yorkers received $2.7 billion in food stamp benefits 2.7 billion in NY alone?? Something needs to be done about this...and spent $75 million to $135 million of that on sugary drinks, the city said.Huge waste of tax dollars! Those drinks are not necessary for survival!

The ban would apply to any beverage that contains more than 10 calories per 8 ounces, except for milk products, milk substitutes like soy milk and rice milk, and fruit juices without added sugar.

A 20-ounce sugar-sweetened drink can contain as many as 16 packets of sugar.

There still are many unhealthful products New Yorkers could purchase with food stamps, including potato chips, ice cream and candy. But officials said the proposal targets sugary drinks because they are the largest contributor to obesity.

"We continue to see a dramatic rise in obesity among children, especially in low-income communities," state Department of Health Commissioner Richard Daines said. "This initiative targets a major public health threat -- the high consumption of sugary beverages -- which have little to no nutritional value."

More than half of adult New York City residents are overweight or obese, along with nearly 40 percent of public school students in kindergarten through eighth grade.

City officials said lower-income residents are most likely to drink one or more sugar-sweetened drink a day; type 2 diabetes is also twice as common among poor New Yorkers compared to the wealthiest.

The USDA had no immediate comment Thursday on the proposal.

The department recently launched a pilot program to encourage food stamp recipients to make more healthful choices in their food shopping. Under the program, involving 7,500 randomly selected households in Massachusetts, participants get 30 cents added to their benefit balances for every dollar they spend on fruits and vegetables -- which reduces the cost of fresh produce by almost one-third.Excellent idea. Hopefully they actually use the produce rather than letting it go bad in the fridge.

menmon
10-07-2010, 09:31 AM
I hope someone gives us a big push down this slippery slope!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/07/ny-seeks-ban-sugary-drinks-food-stamp-buys/

I agree with you.

dnf777
10-07-2010, 09:36 AM
Who was it here that eats for 42 cents per day? We should put them in charge!

Buzz
10-07-2010, 10:27 AM
Who was it here that eats for 42 cents per day? We should put them in charge!

That would help move healthcare costs in the right direction. :rolleyes:

ducknwork
10-07-2010, 10:48 AM
Who was it here that eats for 42 cents per day? We should put them in charge!

That would be me, although a tad exaggerated...:-P


That would help move healthcare costs in the right direction. :rolleyes:


We go grocery shopping on Thursday nights. Tonight we've budgeted <$70 for groceries this week. It would be more, but we don't need diapers or wipes this week. None of us are in bad health and none of us are overweight at all. Here is our dinner menu for the week:

Baked Ziti and salad
Chili w/ some doves mixed in with the hamburger
Fresh local shrimp w/french fries and salad
Cornflake chicken w/broccoli and roasted red potatoes
Homemade hash browns, eggs, and sausage or bacon
Pork chops w/ some veggie and salad
DU Banquet Saturday night

Nothing unhealthy about any of it. You don't have to spend a fortune to eat well.

tom
10-07-2010, 04:35 PM
Geez, I still have heart burn from the Chili we had on Monday. Can I leave that off the list for a few;-)

Gerry Clinchy
10-07-2010, 06:47 PM
$2.7 billion divided by 1.7 million comes out to $30/wk/person. For a family of 4 that's $120/wk. Duck could eat like a king on that much!

luvmylabs23139
10-07-2010, 09:20 PM
MAXIMUM MONTHLY SNAP (FOOD STAMP) ALLOTMENTS
Continental U.S.
October 2009 - September 2010

Household Size

48 States and D.C.


1

$200


2

367


3

526


4

668


5

793


6

952


7

1,052


8

1,202


Each Additional Person

+150

dnf777
10-07-2010, 09:34 PM
That would be me, although a tad exaggerated...:-P




We go grocery shopping on Thursday nights. Tonight we've budgeted <$70 for groceries this week. It would be more, but we don't need diapers or wipes this week. None of us are in bad health and none of us are overweight at all. Here is our dinner menu for the week:

Baked Ziti and salad
Chili w/ some doves mixed in with the hamburger
Fresh local shrimp w/french fries and salad
Cornflake chicken w/broccoli and roasted red potatoes
Homemade hash browns, eggs, and sausage or bacon
Pork chops w/ some veggie and salad
DU Banquet Saturday night

Nothing unhealthy about any of it. You don't have to spend a fortune to eat well.

That sounds great. Its not hard, but many people don't know what to do if it doesn't come out of a paper bag, box, or frozen tray.

I'm amazed every time I go to the store at the checkout. I'm always asked "what is this" for things like leeks, shallots, rhubarb....these young clerks don't even know what real food looks like, if it doesn't have pictures and names on a box for them!!

ducknwork
10-07-2010, 10:11 PM
$2.7 billion divided by 1.7 million comes out to $30/wk/person. For a family of 4 that's $120/wk. Duck could eat like a king on that much!

With that kind of money, I'd probably buy lots of candy, tv dinners, and soda.

Maybe throw in a dozen soft crabs and some filet mignon every now and then.

:D:D:D

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 09:04 AM
MAXIMUM MONTHLY SNAP (FOOD STAMP) ALLOTMENTS
Continental U.S.
October 2009 - September 2010

Now, if you pulled up the average monthly SNAP benefit, you would find it amounts to about $288/month per family as of July 2010, or $134/person (about $31/week). It is an expensive program that is growing more expensive as more and more people see their incomes fall below the level where they can feed their families. I hate to see the amount of money that is being spent on processed foods. However, I guess all those advertising dollars do have an impact. I haven't seen that many commercials for eggs, or lettuce, or fresh fruit. I wonder why.

troy schwab
10-08-2010, 10:13 AM
I would love to see a platform comparison on food stamp recipient's. How bout it Yardley, you seem to be able to find every other statistic? Oh wait, the government probably doesnt want you to see that. I would bet good money on the fact that is grossly democratic registration. SHOCKER!

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 10:24 AM
I would love to see a platform comparison on food stamp recipient's. How bout it Yardley, you seem to be able to find every other statistic? Oh wait, the government probably doesnt want you to see that. I would bet good money on the fact that is grossly democratic registration. SHOCKER!
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you talking about voting behavior of recipients as compared with non-recipients? If so, the answer is pretty clear. Most recipients do not vite at all. Those who do are much more likely to vote for Democrats and against Republicans. Why? Because Republicans systematically favor those who control a disproportionate share of our wealth and income ( the "haves"), while Democrats systematically support those who benefit the least from our economic success.

luvmylabs23139
10-08-2010, 10:24 AM
Now, if you pulled up the average monthly SNAP benefit, you would find it amounts to about $288/month per family as of July 2010, or $134/person (about $31/week). It is an expensive program that is growing more expensive as more and more people see their incomes fall below the level where they can feed their families. I hate to see the amount of money that is being spent on processed foods. However, I guess all those advertising dollars do have an impact. I haven't seen that many commercials for eggs, or lettuce, or fresh fruit. I wonder why.

I think using the maximum benefit it actually a better comparison.
That way the comparison is someone who is fully on the taxpayer dime vs what a taxpayer budgets for food.
It shows that those whom we are suporting can spend a lot more money than is required to eat decent meals.
Additionally, if those people have kids in school, they would be getting free lunches for the kids, something the taxpayer has to factor into their food budget.
This doesn't even include WIC benefits.

troy schwab
10-08-2010, 11:00 AM
If so, the answer is pretty clear. Most recipients do not vite at all. Those who do are much more likely to vote for Democrats and against Republicans.

I would bet that all changed during the last presidential election. I know that locally, the democratic party targeted these folks for registration.. purposely for this reason. When the voting demographic has this growing population (recipients) included.....Of course they are going to vote for the hand that feeds them.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2010, 11:14 AM
I would bet that all changed during the last presidential election. I know that locally, the democratic party targeted these folks for registration.. purposely for this reason. When the voting demographic has this growing population (recipients) included.....Of course they are going to vote for the hand that feeds them.
I tend to think that anything that increases turnout is good. Maybe we should have a reverse "poll tax". If you vote you get a check for $50. In the last election, Obama didn't win because of the "welfare" vote. He won because every major demographic except white men gave him a majority. Some of his biggest majorities were among the poor. However, he also had large majorities among the most affluent and among the most educated. Go figure.

troy schwab
10-08-2010, 11:18 AM
In the last election, Obama didn't win because of the "welfare" vote. Some of his biggest majorities were among the poor.


Isnt that a bit of double speak? I think the welfare vote contributed largely to his win. That being said, I wasnt particularly fond of the other option either.

troy schwab
10-08-2010, 11:23 AM
My biggest problem with the democratic party is their willingness to grow the entitlement mentality that develops among welfare recipients. The base idea of growing government to support the poor IS socialism. The republicans have their fair share of issues, but supporting the socialistic cause of the democrats is something I just cant bring myself to do.