• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Soda Is Target of New Assault

I am all for this, as I posted in the poll thread a month or two ago.
 
Why don't they also limit the recipients to purchasing generic products instead of the name brands when they both exist?
 
Applying for employment and gaining employment is part of the program in my state.
It's easy to fleece, too - all you have to do is apply for jobs you don't qualify for. You just have to fill out the sheet and send it in every month proving you've *filled out applications*
Your case worker is suppose to follow up on you - but they often don't bother.

I don't know about most areas but where I live there is a job placement agency...they could be required to go to that. Fleecing wouldn't be so easy then.
 
Why don't they also limit the recipients to purchasing generic products instead of the name brands when they both exist?
I suspect the name-brand companies' lobby is way too strong for that.
 
Why don't they also limit the recipients to purchasing generic products instead of the name brands when they both exist?

? why

They don't even sell generics at my commissary. :shrug: And when I hit Kroger or Walmart I often find that the name-brands are cheaper if they're on sale.

But then - I always go for cheap.
 
I suspect the name-brand companies' lobby is way too strong for that.

Generics are actually made by the name brand companies but with fewer preservatives and a slightly lower quality, still perfectly healthy though.
 
? why

They don't even sell generics at my commissary. :shrug: And when I hit Kroger or Walmart I often find that the name-brands are cheaper if they're on sale.

But then - I always go for cheap.

To save money.
 
Generics are actually made by the name brand companies but with fewer preservatives and a slightly lower quality, still perfectly healthy though.
The brand names wouldn't make as much money off of food stamps if they limited it to generics, though, would they?

I'm not totally sure how foodstamps work.
 
Generics aren't always cheaper or available - which was my point - so that would be pointless, really.

I said when available. Unless there is a coupon or a special going on, I doubt that name brands are cheaper than generic products.
 
Rev, I hear ya. And if they were working to prevent EVERYONE from buying soda, I would be loading a shotgun and heading to the governor's door. ;)

But, I have absolutely no issue at all with any organization telling recipients of their charity how they can and cannot spend the money they receive from them. They don't let food stamp recipients by alcohol or cigs either, and I gather you would agree with that as well. This is just pushing the line back even further, and it's something that should have been done a long time ago.

It's on par w/the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program. Mothers can only purchase certain items on the nutrition list. Same should go for purchases made using Food Stamps. In fact, that's how it use to be. I've actually witnessed a few cashiers ring up a product that wasn't an authorized items to buy using Food Stamps.

Food Stamps cards are essentially debit cards; so it's not a problem to scan the item and let the "system" accept it or reject it. If accepted, the purchase goes right on thru. If the "system" questions the purchase, a store mgr/supv is suppose to verify the purchase. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some purchases aren't properly verified, i.e., soda and other snack foods. So, to me this restriction on sodas is a step in the right direction.
 
New City Move Against Soda - WSJ.com (The link title is different than the article title)

Bloomberg forever.



This topic spurred some outrage when it was discussed as a hypothetical. I'm hoping they get approved so that they can test this out.

Personally, I'd rather they target foods containing HFCS than sugar. But since sodas contain HFC and that's probably the main way people take it in, I'm fine with this.
 
Personally, I'd rather they target foods containing HFCS than sugar. But since sodas contain HFC and that's probably the main way people take it in, I'm fine with this.

HFCS is basically the same thing as sugar, only it is made artificially. They are both on par with honey and molasses. I just read an article on this a week or so ago, written by a dietician on the biggest food myths. It is a myth that HFCS is any worse than sugar. All sugar or sugar-like intakes should be limited as if they are the same thing.
 
Why don't they also limit the recipients to purchasing generic products instead of the name brands when they both exist?

Meh, I don't think it's really necessary. As I understand it, the food stamp program gives people X dollars to spend on food items. If they want to spend a little more of their allowance on the name-brand product, I think that's fine...it's their decision and really doesn't harm the state at all. I'm more concerned about people buying things on the government's dime they shouldn't be buying at all...like soda.
 
HFCS is basically the same thing as sugar, only it is made artificially. They are both on par with honey and molasses. I just read an article on this a week or so ago, written by a dietician on the biggest food myths. It is a myth that HFCS is any worse than sugar. All sugar or sugar-like intakes should be limited as if they are the same thing.

Obviously that dietician must have been on the payroll of corn producers(/sarcasm). Regular sucrose is going to be better digestively because it absorbs easier, but the harmful affects of HFCS are vastly overstated by its detractors.
 
Obviously that dietician must have been on the payroll of corn producers(/sarcasm). Regular sucrose is going to be better digestively because it absorbs easier, but the harmful affects of HFCS are vastly overstated by its detractors.

Really, though HFCS does get to the heart of this issue. Soda is artificially cheap, which is why people buy it instead of, say, milk. It's cheaper because we have enormous corn subsidies in this country. To the tune of billions of dollars. As a result, farmers grow so much extra corn they don't know what to do with it, so they started making corn syrup. Even that didn't suck up the excess supply, so they started making freaking fuel out of corn.

Dump the corn subsidies and you wont have this issue because soda will cost more.
 
Really, though HFCS does get to the heart of this issue. Soda is artificially cheap, which is why people buy it instead of, say, milk. It's cheaper because we have enormous corn subsidies in this country. To the tune of billions of dollars. As a result, farmers grow so much extra corn they don't know what to do with it, so they started making corn syrup. Even that didn't suck up the excess supply, so they started making freaking fuel out of corn.

Dump the corn subsidies and you wont have this issue because soda will cost more.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm not a big fan of the corn subsidies. But we can't alleviate people of their personal responsibility for their own health, by placing the blame on industry instead. That's not getting to the heart of the matter, which is health education and encouragement of active lifestyles. Suing, or blocking HFCS doesn't address either of those core principles.
 
Not so sure. Not sure how safe tap water is, and bottled water isn't always cheaper.

I would wager than >99.5% of people in this country have access to "safe" tap water in their homes.

Why don't they also limit the recipients to purchasing generic products instead of the name brands when they both exist?

I think WIC does something like this. Back when I was a cashier, I remember it saying something like "good for up to 1lb of cheese costing up to $3.99," which effectively limited purchases to the more economical brands.

Personally, I'd rather they target foods containing HFCS than sugar. But since sodas contain HFC and that's probably the main way people take it in, I'm fine with this.

Agreed, but I'd prefer they target HFCS via eliminating the corn subsidies as mentioned above.
 
Meh, I don't think it's really necessary. As I understand it, the food stamp program gives people X dollars to spend on food items. If they want to spend a little more of their allowance on the name-brand product, I think that's fine...it's their decision and really doesn't harm the state at all. I'm more concerned about people buying things on the government's dime they shouldn't be buying at all...like soda.

It's their decision unless it's soda? Soda isn't only thing that contributes to obesity. Should we limit them to only being able to purchase mustard as a condiment since ketchup is full of sugar and mayonaise is full of fat? Where does it end?

A person who dies of heart failure at 50 is cheaper in the long run than a person who dies at 80 of cancer.
 
That's a very vague article. If a state has one of its public water utilities that's "contaminated", that doesn't mean that the entire state is drinking contaminated water.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean, at face value it makes sense, but it's the precedent that bothers me. Ok, so soda is unhealthy. So are frozen dinners or a diet consisting of too much pasta. What about diet soda? That doesn't have all that sugar in it. Sugary cereals? Vitamin water? Fair bit of sugar in that. Tea? Tea has almost no nutritional value! How about a bag of sugar for baking? That's just empty calories!

How far do you want this to go?
 
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I mean, at face value it makes sense, but it's the precedent that bothers me. Ok, so soda is unhealthy. So are frozen dinners or a diet consisting of too much pasta. What about diet soda? That doesn't have all that sugar in it. Sugary cereals? Vitamin water? Fair bit of sugar in that. Tea? Tea has almost no nutritional value! How about a bag of sugar for baking? That's just empty calories!

How far do you want this to go?

I draw the line at purple drink.

:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom