- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,859
- Reaction score
- 30,124
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I am all for this, as I posted in the poll thread a month or two ago.
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 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 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
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.
The brand names wouldn't make as much money off of food stamps if they limited it to generics, though, would they?Generics are actually made by the name brand companies but with fewer preservatives and a slightly lower quality, still perfectly healthy though.
To save money.
Generics aren't always cheaper or available - which was my point - so that would be pointless, really.
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.
Just like the smoking ban, the trans fat ban, people were like "yeah right" and called us all sorts of consiracy nuts....
I tell you salt is next.
Bloomberg is a tyrant.
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.
Why don't they also limit the recipients to purchasing generic products instead of the name brands when they both exist?
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.
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.
Not so sure. Not sure how safe tap water is, and bottled water isn't always cheaper.
Why don't they also limit the recipients to purchasing generic products instead of the name brands when they both exist?
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.
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.
I would wager than >99.5% of people in this country have access to "safe" tap water in their homes.
Public water supplies in 42 U.S. states are contaminated with 141 unregulated chemicals for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has never established safety standards, according to an investigation by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
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?