Should food stamps be used for sweetened drinks?

Yagisama

Unfortunately, it's in the benefit of many politicians to demonize some poor schmuck possibly misappropriating his 400 bucks a month benefit while they help themselves to millions. And yes, most welfare recipients don't fall in the category of welfare queens living the high life on food stamps, but portraying them as such gets people angry and takes attention away from more important stuff.

srslybritt

HOLY CRAP I SUCK.
So the solution is to single out the people not working and treat them differently.
Got it.

daubawauba

It does sometimes make me sad when I see people with children with their carts full of cheese puffs and soda, and they whip out an EBT card to pay for it. It makes me sad when anybody does that, even with their own money! But the solution would not be telling people what to eat and feed their children. What is more important is educating people about health, nutrition, and getting more bang for the buck at the grocery store. Soda isn't evil, but people can learn to balance their diet with healthy food and the occasional junk they want. It would be cool if the food stamps program operated somewhat like WIC and had predetermined nutritious foods they can buy but also with room to make some of their own choices.

What would be even better would be fixing the problems putting people into welfare in the first place.

RaggedyPond

Sometimes it's just easier to quit your crappy job at McDonald's and get free money. I bet these people will get jobs quick if the government stopped giving out money to the slackers. Survival of the fittest. You can't let the weak slow down the herd.

Onederchic

I would just like to know if the OP ever gets off of her sugar soap box?

Madame_Goldbricker

Sometimes it's just easier to quit your crappy job at McDonald's and get free money. I bet these people will get jobs quick if the government stopped giving out money to the slackers. Survival of the fittest. You can't let the weak slow down the herd.

In the UK if you voluntarily quit your crappy job they can refuse to pay you any benefits for up to 26 weeks. I've known stones that will part with blood quicker than that.

inskydiamonds

Sometimes it's just easier to quit your crappy job at McDonald's and get free money. I bet these people will get jobs quick if the government stopped giving out money to the slackers. Survival of the fittest. You can't let the weak slow down the herd.

I don't think you understand that you can still in poverty and work - minimum wage even at 40 hours a week is not enough to feed a family and pay for all the expenses of being alive.

It's one thing to be against welfare. It's another thing to just make baseless accusations to back up why you don't agree with it.

If you just flat out don't think the government should help anyone, say that. But don't make arguments that lack backbone or sense.

randomtai

The Red Neck is strong in this thread...

RaggedyPond

Sometimes it's just easier to quit your crappy job at McDonald's and get free money. I bet these people will get jobs quick if the government stopped giving out money to the slackers. Survival of the fittest. You can't let the weak slow down the herd.

I don't think you understand that you can still in poverty and work - minimum wage even at 40 hours a week is not enough to feed a family and pay for all the expenses of being alive.

It's one thing to be against welfare. It's another thing to just make baseless accusations to back up why you don't agree with it.

If you just flat out don't think the government should help anyone, say that. But don't make arguments that lack backbone or sense.

Minimum wage at 40 hours a week would be too much to qualify for welfare for a single person. It would have to be a family with only one person working. If the second spouse started working they would make too much for welfare. Your comment makes no sense btw.

inskydiamonds

Sometimes it's just easier to quit your crappy job at McDonald's and get free money. I bet these people will get jobs quick if the government stopped giving out money to the slackers. Survival of the fittest. You can't let the weak slow down the herd.

I don't think you understand that you can still in poverty and work - minimum wage even at 40 hours a week is not enough to feed a family and pay for all the expenses of being alive.

It's one thing to be against welfare. It's another thing to just make baseless accusations to back up why you don't agree with it.

If you just flat out don't think the government should help anyone, say that. But don't make arguments that lack backbone or sense.

Minimum wage at 40 hours a week would be too much to qualify for welfare for a single person. It would have to be a family with only one person working. If the second spouse started working they would make too much for welfare. Your comment makes no sense btw.

Clearly, I wasn't talking about single people. Reread please. I said, " 40 hours a week is not enough to feed a family."

You are disregarding single parent homes, homes where one parent is disabled, and many other situations that might disallow even the working parent from being able to work full time (such as the cost of childcare.)

My comment makes perfect sense. Your perspective is skewed.

RaggedyPond

Sometimes it's just easier to quit your crappy job at McDonald's and get free money. I bet these people will get jobs quick if the government stopped giving out money to the slackers. Survival of the fittest. You can't let the weak slow down the herd.

I don't think you understand that you can still in poverty and work - minimum wage even at 40 hours a week is not enough to feed a family and pay for all the expenses of being alive.

It's one thing to be against welfare. It's another thing to just make baseless accusations to back up why you don't agree with it.

If you just flat out don't think the government should help anyone, say that. But don't make arguments that lack backbone or sense.

Minimum wage at 40 hours a week would be too much to qualify for welfare for a single person. It would have to be a family with only one person working. If the second spouse started working they would make too much for welfare. Your comment makes no sense btw.

Single parents don't exist. Okay.
Disabled parents don't exist either.

My comment makes perfect sense. Your perspective is skewed.

The definition of disabled is skewed.

sowich25

If on welfare Absolutley not. All thier food should not be proceed either. Food stamps were created to help people not enable them to be lazy. If they want to buy junk then go get a job. I shouldnt have to pay for you to eat horrible and stay home become fat and then have that be the next reason I have to pay more taxes.

Go tell one of the 900,000 military veterans on food stamps what they can and cannot buy.

Re-Read my statement. I SAID ON WELFARE NOT MILITARY

Do you not realize many of our veterans are on welfare?

Let me rephrase NON Working welfare

What does that even mean?

1. There are many people on welfare who work, but can't make enough to live.

2. There are many veterans on welfare who don't work, for whatever reason.

You can't just make up terms that don't exist and expect to have a discussion.

English is tough for you, so I will break it down for ya.
1) Have never went to work
2) Have no intention to go to work
3) Family is generational on welfare
4) Teach their kids to scam the system
I hope this helps with the term NON -WORKING. These are the people that we should have more say in what they can and can not do. If I pay for them I should say how my money is spent. If you have never seen the above you need to go to your local walmart around the 1st and 15th of the month. You will get an eye opener.

Hold up - so you're only against people who have never worked drinking soda from food stamps? You're okay with a person who works 3 jobs but can't afford their groceries to buy a pop?

But even if that answer is true, you would be surprised to know that the majority of people on welfare don't fall into that category. And if we make rules for welfare that only are directed at the minority, but effect the majority . . . well, that doesn't make any sense.

English is not tough for me.
Common sense is impossible for you.

Yes I do think a working person deserves to enjoy something every once in a while and someone that lives off the system does not. That is what the sytem was set up for . Go back and read the NEW DEAL on domestic programs. It is to help people get back on their feet not live on the sytem. To give people a sense of pride not lean on the goverment to do everything for them.

inskydiamonds

If on welfare Absolutley not. All thier food should not be proceed either. Food stamps were created to help people not enable them to be lazy. If they want to buy junk then go get a job. I shouldnt have to pay for you to eat horrible and stay home become fat and then have that be the next reason I have to pay more taxes.

Go tell one of the 900,000 military veterans on food stamps what they can and cannot buy.

Re-Read my statement. I SAID ON WELFARE NOT MILITARY

Do you not realize many of our veterans are on welfare?

Let me rephrase NON Working welfare

What does that even mean?

1. There are many people on welfare who work, but can't make enough to live.

2. There are many veterans on welfare who don't work, for whatever reason.

You can't just make up terms that don't exist and expect to have a discussion.

English is tough for you, so I will break it down for ya.
1) Have never went to work
2) Have no intention to go to work
3) Family is generational on welfare
4) Teach their kids to scam the system
I hope this helps with the term NON -WORKING. These are the people that we should have more say in what they can and can not do. If I pay for them I should say how my money is spent. If you have never seen the above you need to go to your local walmart around the 1st and 15th of the month. You will get an eye opener.

Hold up - so you're only against people who have never worked drinking soda from food stamps? You're okay with a person who works 3 jobs but can't afford their groceries to buy a pop?

But even if that answer is true, you would be surprised to know that the majority of people on welfare don't fall into that category. And if we make rules for welfare that only are directed at the minority, but effect the majority . . . well, that doesn't make any sense.

English is not tough for me.
Common sense is impossible for you.

Yes I do think a working person deserves to enjoy something every once in a while and someone that lives off the system does not. That is what the sytem was set up for . Go back and read the NEW DEAL on domestic programs. It is to help people get back on their feet not live on the sytem. To give people a sense of pride not lean on the goverment to do everything for them.

I don't disagree that what you are saying is the purpose of the welfare system. However, the amount of people who do take advantage of the system are in the minority. I could point you to the numbers, but I doubt it would even change your mind. The welfare queen has become the appointed mascot of people on welfare - the welfare queen is not representative of most the people who are actually on welfare.

The question posed in this thread was should food stamps be used for sweetened drinks.
Your answer was no because lazy people shouldn't have sweetened drinks.
My point was the majority of people who receive welfare and food stamps are not the welfare queen image you keep conjuring and therefore are not lazy people who shouldn't be able to buy soda.

Cryptonomnomicon

If on welfare Absolutley not. All thier food should not be proceed either. Food stamps were created to help people not enable them to be lazy. If they want to buy junk then go get a job. I shouldnt have to pay for you to eat horrible and stay home become fat and then have that be the next reason I have to pay more taxes.

Go tell one of the 900,000 military veterans on food stamps what they can and cannot buy.

Re-Read my statement. I SAID ON WELFARE NOT MILITARY

Do you not realize many of our veterans are on welfare?

Let me rephrase NON Working welfare

What does that even mean?

1. There are many people on welfare who work, but can't make enough to live.

2. There are many veterans on welfare who don't work, for whatever reason.

You can't just make up terms that don't exist and expect to have a discussion.

English is tough for you, so I will break it down for ya.
1) Have never went to work
2) Have no intention to go to work
3) Family is generational on welfare
4) Teach their kids to scam the system
I hope this helps with the term NON -WORKING. These are the people that we should have more say in what they can and can not do. If I pay for them I should say how my money is spent. If you have never seen the above you need to go to your local walmart around the 1st and 15th of the month. You will get an eye opener.

Hold up - so you're only against people who have never worked drinking soda from food stamps? You're okay with a person who works 3 jobs but can't afford their groceries to buy a pop?

But even if that answer is true, you would be surprised to know that the majority of people on welfare don't fall into that category. And if we make rules for welfare that only are directed at the minority, but effect the majority . . . well, that doesn't make any sense.

English is not tough for me.
Common sense is impossible for you.

Yes I do think a working person deserves to enjoy something every once in a while and someone that lives off the system does not. That is what the sytem was set up for . Go back and read the NEW DEAL on domestic programs. It is to help people get back on their feet not live on the sytem. To give people a sense of pride not lean on the goverment to do everything for them.

Oh man I don't think I have seen anybody on MFP make so many ignorant assumptions and blanket statements since there was a thread by an individual proclaiming people with depression shouldn't be entitled to disability benefits because the illness was not evident to the naked eye.

Must be nice on that high horse looking down your nose at people you obviously have little to no interaction with. *smh*

sowich25

If on welfare Absolutley not. All thier food should not be proceed either. Food stamps were created to help people not enable them to be lazy. If they want to buy junk then go get a job. I shouldnt have to pay for you to eat horrible and stay home become fat and then have that be the next reason I have to pay more taxes.

Go tell one of the 900,000 military veterans on food stamps what they can and cannot buy.

Re-Read my statement. I SAID ON WELFARE NOT MILITARY

Do you not realize many of our veterans are on welfare?

Let me rephrase NON Working welfare

What does that even mean?

1. There are many people on welfare who work, but can't make enough to live.

2. There are many veterans on welfare who don't work, for whatever reason.

You can't just make up terms that don't exist and expect to have a discussion.

English is tough for you, so I will break it down for ya.
1) Have never went to work
2) Have no intention to go to work
3) Family is generational on welfare
4) Teach their kids to scam the system
I hope this helps with the term NON -WORKING. These are the people that we should have more say in what they can and can not do. If I pay for them I should say how my money is spent. If you have never seen the above you need to go to your local walmart around the 1st and 15th of the month. You will get an eye opener.

Hold up - so you're only against people who have never worked drinking soda from food stamps? You're okay with a person who works 3 jobs but can't afford their groceries to buy a pop?

But even if that answer is true, you would be surprised to know that the majority of people on welfare don't fall into that category. And if we make rules for welfare that only are directed at the minority, but effect the majority . . . well, that doesn't make any sense.

English is not tough for me.
Common sense is impossible for you.

Yes I do think a working person deserves to enjoy something every once in a while and someone that lives off the system does not. That is what the sytem was set up for . Go back and read the NEW DEAL on domestic programs. It is to help people get back on their feet not live on the sytem. To give people a sense of pride not lean on the goverment to do everything for them.

Oh man I don't think I have seen anybody on MFP make so many ignorant assumptions and blanket statements since there was a thread by an individual proclaiming people with depression shouldn't be entitled to disability benefits because the illness was not evident to the naked eye.

Must be nice on that high horse looking down your nose at people you obviously have little to no interaction with. *smh*

Go back and read it before you speak. Again English is tough I see. Welfare was established in the New Deal. IAgain you have no idea about me so dont speak. You have no idea about me or back round but I can tell you this. Where I came from everthing I speak of is true seen it first hand. Welfare and food stamps in this county need to go back to its original intent, not the joke it is now. Rosevelt is rolling over in his grave because of uneducated or blind people like you.

Tigg_er

The military is the biggest social welfare project in the US and I think it does a good job providing many people income and something to do, as well as instill discipline in younger adults.

That said, most young enlisted guy spend their money on booze. And I still don't have any issues with that. So, they could spend it on sweetened drinks for all I care.

WHAT ? Social welfare project ? Tell that to the families of the guys coming home in body bags. Major assumption on most young enlisted spending it on booze is asinine. What military where you in ? I'm gonna make an assumption that what you wrote didnt come across the way you ment it .

paperpudding

Sometimes it's just easier to quit your crappy job at McDonald's and get free money. I bet these people will get jobs quick if the government stopped giving out money to the slackers. Survival of the fittest. You can't let the weak slow down the herd.

Easy to say from an ivory tower..

I hope our societies have moved beyond law of the jungle, survival of only the fittest in the animal herd.

Myhaloslipped

If on welfare Absolutley not. All thier food should not be proceed either. Food stamps were created to help people not enable them to be lazy. If they want to buy junk then go get a job. I shouldnt have to pay for you to eat horrible and stay home become fat and then have that be the next reason I have to pay more taxes.

Oh my. Not worth the strike, I suppose.

paperpudding

If on welfare Absolutley not. All thier food should not be proceed either. Food stamps were created to help people not enable them to be lazy. If they want to buy junk then go get a job. I shouldnt have to pay for you to eat horrible and stay home become fat and then have that be the next reason I have to pay more taxes.

Go tell one of the 900,000 military veterans on food stamps what they can and cannot buy.

Re-Read my statement. I SAID ON WELFARE NOT MILITARY

Do you not realize many of our veterans are on welfare?

Let me rephrase NON Working welfare

What does that even mean?

1. There are many people on welfare who work, but can't make enough to live.

2. There are many veterans on welfare who don't work, for whatever reason.

You can't just make up terms that don't exist and expect to have a discussion.

English is tough for you, so I will break it down for ya.
1) Have never went to work
2) Have no intention to go to work
3) Family is generational on welfare
4) Teach their kids to scam the system
I hope this helps with the term NON -WORKING. These are the people that we should have more say in what they can and can not do. If I pay for them I should say how my money is spent. If you have never seen the above you need to go to your local walmart around the 1st and 15th of the month. You will get an eye opener.

Hold up - so you're only against people who have never worked drinking soda from food stamps? You're okay with a person who works 3 jobs but can't afford their groceries to buy a pop?

But even if that answer is true, you would be surprised to know that the majority of people on welfare don't fall into that category. And if we make rules for welfare that only are directed at the minority, but effect the majority . . . well, that doesn't make any sense.

English is not tough for me.
Common sense is impossible for you.

Yes I do think a working person deserves to enjoy something every once in a while and someone that lives off the system does not. That is what the sytem was set up for . Go back and read the NEW DEAL on domestic programs. It is to help people get back on their feet not live on the sytem. To give people a sense of pride not lean on the goverment to do everything for them.

Oh man I don't think I have seen anybody on MFP make so many ignorant assumptions and blanket statements since there was a thread by an individual proclaiming people with depression shouldn't be entitled to disability benefits because the illness was not evident to the naked eye.

Must be nice on that high horse looking down your nose at people you obviously have little to no interaction with. *smh*

Go back and read it before you speak. Again English is tough I see. Welfare was established in the New Deal. IAgain you have no idea about me so dont speak. You have no idea about me or back round but I can tell you this. Where I came from everthing I speak of is true seen it first hand. Welfare and food stamps in this county need to go back to its original intent, not the joke it is now. Rosevelt is rolling over in his grave because of uneducated or blind people like you.

So everyone who doesn't agree with you is uneducated or blind?.

Yes, that adds credibility to your argument....



BTW, English is indeed tough- "seen it first hand " :laugh:

Yagisama

The military is the biggest social welfare project in the US and I think it does a good job providing many people income and something to do, as well as instill discipline in younger adults.

That said, most young enlisted guy spend their money on booze. And I still don't have any issues with that. So, they could spend it on sweetened drinks for all I care.

WHAT ? Social welfare project ? Tell that to the families of the guys coming home in body bags. Major assumption on most young enlisted spending it on booze is asinine. What military where you in ?

Woah there. Take it easy there tiger. I never said the military didn't have its drawbacks. The military is a great social welfare program for those wanting to improve their situation, get their education paid and have great consulting opportunities with defense contractors when they get out. It's probably the best 'jobs program' in the country.

And I probably should have qualified my booze comment to all the enlisted guys I personally know. I was never in the military, the ROI wasn't there for me. That and I don't like body bags.

Edit: Also, I don't know why someone would assume that a social welfare project is a bad thing. This sort of thing is what we should expect from our government. To do stuff that helps the people. You know, "for the people, by the people" and all that.

Myhaloslipped

If on welfare Absolutley not. All thier food should not be proceed either. Food stamps were created to help people not enable them to be lazy. If they want to buy junk then go get a job. I shouldnt have to pay for you to eat horrible and stay home become fat and then have that be the next reason I have to pay more taxes.

Go tell one of the 900,000 military veterans on food stamps what they can and cannot buy.

Re-Read my statement. I SAID ON WELFARE NOT MILITARY

Do you not realize many of our veterans are on welfare?

Let me rephrase NON Working welfare

What does that even mean?

1. There are many people on welfare who work, but can't make enough to live.

2. There are many veterans on welfare who don't work, for whatever reason.

You can't just make up terms that don't exist and expect to have a discussion.

English is tough for you, so I will break it down for ya.
1) Have never went to work
2) Have no intention to go to work
3) Family is generational on welfare
4) Teach their kids to scam the system
I hope this helps with the term NON -WORKING. These are the people that we should have more say in what they can and can not do. If I pay for them I should say how my money is spent. If you have never seen the above you need to go to your local walmart around the 1st and 15th of the month. You will get an eye opener.

Hold up - so you're only against people who have never worked drinking soda from food stamps? You're okay with a person who works 3 jobs but can't afford their groceries to buy a pop?

But even if that answer is true, you would be surprised to know that the majority of people on welfare don't fall into that category. And if we make rules for welfare that only are directed at the minority, but effect the majority . . . well, that doesn't make any sense.

English is not tough for me.
Common sense is impossible for you.

Yes I do think a working person deserves to enjoy something every once in a while and someone that lives off the system does not. That is what the sytem was set up for . Go back and read the NEW DEAL on domestic programs. It is to help people get back on their feet not live on the sytem. To give people a sense of pride not lean on the goverment to do everything for them.

Oh man I don't think I have seen anybody on MFP make so many ignorant assumptions and blanket statements since there was a thread by an individual proclaiming people with depression shouldn't be entitled to disability benefits because the illness was not evident to the naked eye.

Must be nice on that high horse looking down your nose at people you obviously have little to no interaction with. *smh*

Go back and read it before you speak. Again English is tough I see. Welfare was established in the New Deal. IAgain you have no idea about me so dont speak. You have no idea about me or back round but I can tell you this. Where I came from everthing I speak of is true seen it first hand. Welfare and food stamps in this county need to go back to its original intent, not the joke it is now. Rosevelt is rolling over in his grave because of uneducated or blind people like you.

So everyone who doesn't agree with you is uneducated or blind?.

Yes, that adds credibility to your argument....



BTW, English is indeed tough- "seen it first hand " :laugh:

:laugh:

VBnotbitter

Flipping 'ell Joanne this was possible your best troll thread yet

Cryptonomnomicon

If on welfare Absolutley not. All thier food should not be proceed either. Food stamps were created to help people not enable them to be lazy. If they want to buy junk then go get a job. I shouldnt have to pay for you to eat horrible and stay home become fat and then have that be the next reason I have to pay more taxes.

Go tell one of the 900,000 military veterans on food stamps what they can and cannot buy.

Re-Read my statement. I SAID ON WELFARE NOT MILITARY

Do you not realize many of our veterans are on welfare?

Let me rephrase NON Working welfare

What does that even mean?

1. There are many people on welfare who work, but can't make enough to live.

2. There are many veterans on welfare who don't work, for whatever reason.

You can't just make up terms that don't exist and expect to have a discussion.

English is tough for you, so I will break it down for ya.
1) Have never went to work
2) Have no intention to go to work
3) Family is generational on welfare
4) Teach their kids to scam the system
I hope this helps with the term NON -WORKING. These are the people that we should have more say in what they can and can not do. If I pay for them I should say how my money is spent. If you have never seen the above you need to go to your local walmart around the 1st and 15th of the month. You will get an eye opener.

Hold up - so you're only against people who have never worked drinking soda from food stamps? You're okay with a person who works 3 jobs but can't afford their groceries to buy a pop?

But even if that answer is true, you would be surprised to know that the majority of people on welfare don't fall into that category. And if we make rules for welfare that only are directed at the minority, but effect the majority . . . well, that doesn't make any sense.

English is not tough for me.
Common sense is impossible for you.

Yes I do think a working person deserves to enjoy something every once in a while and someone that lives off the system does not. That is what the sytem was set up for . Go back and read the NEW DEAL on domestic programs. It is to help people get back on their feet not live on the sytem. To give people a sense of pride not lean on the goverment to do everything for them.

Oh man I don't think I have seen anybody on MFP make so many ignorant assumptions and blanket statements since there was a thread by an individual proclaiming people with depression shouldn't be entitled to disability benefits because the illness was not evident to the naked eye.

Must be nice on that high horse looking down your nose at people you obviously have little to no interaction with. *smh*

Go back and read it before you speak. Again English is tough I see. Welfare was established in the New Deal. IAgain you have no idea about me so dont speak. You have no idea about me or back round but I can tell you this. Where I came from everthing I speak of is true seen it first hand. Welfare and food stamps in this county need to go back to its original intent, not the joke it is now. Rosevelt is rolling over in his grave because of uneducated or blind people like you.

Actually my English is fine, maybe you should spell-check your own responses.

“Food Stamps Plan,” was implemented in 1939 but last time I checked it was 2014 correct me if I am wrong...times have changes and so have circumstances.

The ideas I have developed about you are based upon your responses and they speak volumes about your arrogance and ignorance...You have to believe me I have seen it first hand!

I am neither blind nor uneducated but nice try.

I guess you just have problems paying taxes towards people less fortunate than yourself but you probably happily pay taxes for unnecessary political campaigns, pay rises or cocaine the member of government you support snorts off the backsides of Moroccan teenage boys your hard earned taxes paid for...OK that last one was maybe out of line (maybe, who knows)

I think your diet must consist of the spoon-fed crap Fox news and the government feeds you.

As it was mentioned you want to punish the majority because of a minority and yet you don't see the inequity of that logic.

I highly doubt you have seen more than a very small percentage of the population under the poverty line and if you claim that you have what do you do? campaign around the country in shelters or soup kitchens? I highly doubt it!

Your outlook is myopic at best.

Justkeepswimmin

Juice - NOT soda. At least there's some redemption in juice plus some diabetics REALLY need their damn juice at times when they can't chew. If soda is an "optional" or "entertainment" item in my house meaning its not a necessity why should I pay for others' to have it. That's just as insane as asking someone else to pay for me to go to the movies or my race entry fee- it's totally OPTIONAL!

Yagisama

As an aside, only about 12% of the federal spending goes to safety net programs.

And if you're worried about poor people spending that $1 on a bottle of soda, take note that each JASSM missile costs $1.327 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASSM

squishycatmew

It does sometimes make me sad when I see people with children with their carts full of cheese puffs and soda, and they whip out an EBT card to pay for it. It makes me sad when anybody does that, even with their own money! But the solution would not be telling people what to eat and feed their children. What is more important is educating people about health, nutrition, and getting more bang for the buck at the grocery store. Soda isn't evil, but people can learn to balance their diet with healthy food and the occasional junk they want. It would be cool if the food stamps program operated somewhat like WIC and had predetermined nutritious foods they can buy but also with room to make some of their own choices.

What would be even better would be fixing the problems putting people into welfare in the first place.

You really can't judge a darn thing from seeing someone's grocery cart the one day you happen to both be in the store. You won't see a ton of fresh fruits and veggies in my cart, because I get a big ol' box of them delivered from my farmshare. The grocery store is where I go for everything else. Sometimes I run to the store solely to get snacks for a party.

Justkeepswimmin

As an aside, only about 12% of the federal spending goes to safety net programs.

And if you're worried about poor people spending that $1 on a bottle of soda, take note that each JASSM missile costs $1.327 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASSM

Just because my health insurance (and copays) are 30% of my monthly budget does that mean that I shouldn't worry about spending $2.00 per protein bar????

paperpudding

Juice - NOT soda. At least there's some redemption in juice plus some diabetics REALLY need their damn juice at times when they can't chew. If soda is an "optional" or "entertainment" item in my house meaning its not a necessity why should I pay for others' to have it. That's just as insane as asking someone else to pay for me to go to the movies or my race entry fee- it's totally OPTIONAL!

All individual food items are optional - meaning no individual item is a necessity.

Not seeing your point.

geebusuk

From what I've seen the author of this thread uses such things as a way to mass spam people about her rather unscientific and poorly researched relihion... cult.... err, group on MFP.

Wherein she still faile to back up her wild claims.

Juice - NOT soda. At least there's some redemption in juice

Because the high fructose content makes it a poorer choice to consume for recovery after exertion and more likely to be stored as fat than 'soda'?

Yagisama

As an aside, only about 12% of the federal spending goes to safety net programs.

And if you're worried about poor people spending that $1 on a bottle of soda, take note that each JASSM missile costs $1.327 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JASSM

Just because my health insurance (and copays) are 30% of my monthly budget does that mean that I shouldn't worry about spending $2.00 per protein bar????

You should worry about whatever you like to worry about.

And health insurance being 30% of your monthly budget? I would say that my point of view is that we should be more concerned with bringing health insurance costs down rather than worry that someone uses their food stamps to buy soda.