The problem with those "many obstacles" is that they virtually always fail to control for socioeconomic status. There unquestionably were bad things in the past, but we don't have a time machine, the past can't be fixed. Poverty is a hell of a trap (note that poverty is a mental thing--I've seen plenty of immigrants with little money but without the mindset, they climb out of it), but it's a trap for any skin color. And the argument for current discrimination virtually always amounts to pointing to a disparate outcome. I do not know how to fix the problem, but fighting it with anti-discrimination efforts is a case of using the tool at hand, no matter how unsuitable.
-
Features
Are people already regretting their choice?
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
thebeave
Contributor
How would you know what world I've lived in? I was quite poor in my early adulthood, but, no, I was never on any government food aid. Rather than make unfounded judgements and insults about me, how about you elaborate on specific errors in my post? I presume that, unlike me, you are entitled to make comments about this subject because you have personal experience with SNAP.
We get much of our produce from a Mexican place here. Lots and lots of people paying with benefits cards (no idea what they are called here) and rarely do I see sensible choices in what they are buying.
WAB
Contributor
Those people on the street corners - many of them are not doing so bad. If you do a search on panhandling, or "flying a sign", you can see that it's often not a bad paying gig. In fact, in a busy area, they probably take in far more than the people working in entry level jobs. My last boss's brother flew a sign and claimed he once made 1500 in one week. He traveled around from big city to big city, and lived in motels.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,368
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
We also cannot forget that some people with university degrees hold low paying jobs.This needs to be printed in bold at the top of every thread. Most MAGAs I know are home owners and quite well off. Trump stickers and banners festoon their gigantic gas guzzling Ford 250s and the giant boats they haul along behind them.Sadly, it is not only the poorly educated who voted for Trump.Yes. The ignorant, aka poorly educated have been easy to manipulate for a very long time. Is there a way to help them out of this darkness? I'm not sure.People finally coming to grips that they voted against their own self-interest... a thing white conservatives have been doing for decades. For so long, they have become angry about how bad things are now, after all those conservative policies were put into the system.What was this thread about again?
I'm not denying that a lot of Trumpies are in the lower income brackets. Just please, let's stop blaming the whole mess on those poor ignorant dummies stumbling around in their pathetic world of uneducated, uninformed darkness.
Yes, a lot of people who are well off voted for Trump. So did a lot of solidly middle class people. IMO, news source is a better prediction of choice of candidate than income or education level. There are plenty of well educated, solidly middle class or above individuals who think people were stupid for voting for Biden or for Harris, not to mention Clinton. Somehow they are able to overlook or ignore criminality of Trump and his regime.
laughing dog
Contributor
IMO, there is no good reason to unnecessarily place someone in a possible uncormfortable or embarrassing situation because you disagree with their nutritional choices.
And to be clear, the reductions in SNAP funding are not driven by improving nutritional choices but by deliberate GOP policy choices to deliver tax cuts .
Elixir
Made in America
A lot of well-off people are just sick of and ignorant of politics, and think it’s amusing to own the libs who want to tax them, by putting trump flags on their quarter million dollar fishing boats and lifted f350s.
Until those people are significantly hurt by trumponomics - I mean directly so it can’t be blamed on Obama, Clinton or Biden - they will keep voting for fascists.
southernhybrid
Contributor
My ex was a WIC nutritionist for a few years before we parted and when I worked in public health, I also screened women for WIC. I don't know how many learned from the counseling given by my ex, but the point is that WIC only allows women to buy certain healthy foods with that benefit.A good friend used to work for WIC and mothers who apply/receive benefits also receive counseling about nutrition—or used to do. Her comment as that some were very receptive and some were not.My ex and I received what was known as food stamps after he had been drafted during the Viet Nam War. Back then, you had to pay for your food stamps. We paid about 45 dollars for about 85 dollars worth of food stamps each month. I would never thought of using them to buy soda or junk food, as I was trying to feed my family, including my infant son with that entitlement. It didn't bother me in the least what other people thought about me using food stamps, and it's true that today's SNAP benefit looks like a credit card and I've never heard anyone complain about a poor person getting that benefit, at least not in Georgia. Most people who get SNAP either work or are disabled or old. They are all living in poverty. It's only ignorant assholes that would criticize a poor person for needing help like SNAP.
I had a coworker who told me she was embarrassed to get SNAP benefits and I told her if her cheap ass employer had paid her more than the minimum wage, she wouldn't need that benefit and there was nothing for her to be ashamed about. That seemed to help her feel better. I didn't care how she used her benefit, but I do agree that soda and candy aren't nutritious food, so if they are exempted from the program, it shouldn't be criticized, especially when there are far more important things to criticize. Soda is just sugar water for that matter. I'm not a conservative, but I see no problem in helping children eat healthier and educating their moms what foods to buy for them. That should be something we should all support if we want the future's children to eat healthier foods and have fewer health problems.
Soft drinks are one of the causes of obesity. I know this because some of the women I worked with asked me how to lose weight and the first thing I asked them was how much soda did they drink. Some drank over 2 liters a day. I would always tell them to start by giving up their sodas. Not sure if any of them did, but it would have helped if they could do it.
WIC which is a program that helps poor pregnant. nursing women and children eat healthier, only allows a limited amount of healthy foods to be used with that benefit. I think we go to an extreme when we say that people will be deprived, if using a food benefit doesn't permit using it for empty calorie junk food. Hopefully, they can still use SNAP for certain processed foods that are often less expensive and have some nutritional value, and added vitamins, but drawing the limit on things like Coke and Pepsi, shouldn't be a problem imo. Sometimes we liberals need to realize that we don't have to disagree with every single thing supported by a consecrative, even if we think their motives are wrong, because even a broken clock is right twice a day.
There should just be a list of what can be used with the SNAP benefit provided to each recipient so that nobody is embarrassed at the checkout in the grocery line. Considering most people use the automatic check out these days, hopefully that will provide more privacy. I do think that the SNAP benefit should offer more money than it currently does. The amount is usually so small that it doesn't do much to help a family eat well for the entire month. Nutrition classes should also be offered, if they aren't already. Extend the benefit but set a few limits on what can be bought so the food has at least some healthy nutritional value. It wouldn't surprise me if the junk food market has been pushing for SNAP to cover their products. That helps corporations, not poor people.
It is difficult to move past patterns one grows up with, particularly food. It is not only genetics that contribute to vulnerability to substance abuse or consuming highly caloric/nutritionally poor foods. Growing up, I disliked most of my mother’s cooking but fur years after I was an adult, the second I crossed over the threshold to her house, I was hungry. Just a conditioned response.
We also cannot ignore the fact that food deserts exist, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. And that shelf stable foods tend to be less nutritious and are often filled with calories and additives.
As far as the soda goes, one of the women who told me she drank at least 2 liters of soda per day, died of heart failure at age 45. I have no idea if she was on SNAP or paying for all that sugar water herself, but just maybe if she hadn't drank so much, she wouldn't have been so obese and she might have lived longer. Why should the government be adding to the nation's health problems by paying for soda for people who need help buying food? It's not my primary concern by any means, but I see nothing negative about not letting it be paid for with a SNAP card. Some of you are making poor people seem like they are overly sensitive about being poor and needing help. Most aren't.
I was dirt poor throughout most of my 20s. My first nursing job paid me 3.98 per hour and that was on the nightshift. Even in 1975, those were poverty wages. Still, I didn't let what other people thought of me bother me in the least and most of the poor people I've known, befriended or worked with were the same way. Can we stop making assumptions that they would be upset or embarrassed if they can't buy soda with their SNAP benefit?
No offense Laughing Dog, but soda isn't a nutritional choice. It's a harmful, often habit forming drink that sometimes causes health problems. I've mentioned earlier the obese women who asked me for help losing weight and then told me they were drinking a lot of soda each day. A nutritional benefit should be about offering nutrition, not about paying for a potentially harmful beverage that too many people find addicting. No one should be policing everything a person getting SNAP buys, but I see nothing wrong with simply not allowing one to use a nutritional benefit to buy something that lacks any nutrition and can be addictive to some. Empty calories aren't nutrition.
I'll leave it at that because I think we've all made our points, but I will mention that due to this thread, my husband and I discussed this at lunch time, and we both agreed that SNAP shouldn't pay for soda and that poor people are much stronger emotionally than some of you seem to think. Still, it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I'd just prefer not to have the government adding to the problems that drinking too much sweetened beverages does to people's health as well as putting more strain on our health care system.
Elixir
Made in America
TDMTP
I consume Coca-Cola almost every day.
Also I drink whiskey every day, and
expect no harm from either.
A half liter (17.5oz) bottle ok Coke lasts me 3 days. A 750ml bottle of brandy lasts 50-55 days.
People should limit their soda consumption and alcohol consumption IMO, but being poor shouldn’t mean the fed gets to tell you what to eat and drink.
I consume Coca-Cola almost every day.
Also I drink whiskey every day, and
expect no harm from either.
A half liter (17.5oz) bottle ok Coke lasts me 3 days. A 750ml bottle of brandy lasts 50-55 days.
People should limit their soda consumption and alcohol consumption IMO, but being poor shouldn’t mean the fed gets to tell you what to eat and drink.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,368
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I don't disagree BUT: I was very slender during my youth and up until my youngest child was born after which I have struggled, unsuccessfully to lose weight. I was always the most slender of my siblings, and in fact, was arguably underweight, but one of my siblings always carried a bit extra weight and had a boxier frame compared with me, who has a slight frame, and the others did in adulthood and still do. They do not eat healthy foods. I do. In fact, it's difficult to visit them because every single meal I eat with them is from some place that serves calory laden meals of too large a serving size. I hate eating all of that junk and now bring some yogurt and fruit and veggies to eat for meals we are not sharing. Otherwise, almost every meal consumed is made at home, from scratch. Where feasible, I use fresh, local food to cook but living in the midwest, it is more challenging to get fresh fruits and vegetables in cold weather months. My point is that even though, once on my own, I have maintained a pretty healthy diet, and my siblings have not, we all ended up fat. How much is genetics and how much is how we grew up? I have no idea. But except for when we eat pasta or bread, very little of our food is processed. I simply do not buy foods with a lot of additives, primarily to control sodium but also because I just don't like a bunch of extra unnecessary junk in my food. We are lapsed vegetarians and now, generally do not eat red meat more than once a week and then, only the leanest that I can find. When you buy little red meat, it is easier to afford the leaner cuts which are more expensive but that's what we do. I definitely know that I am in a very privileged position to be able to afford to do that--something that many people, not just those who need SNAP/EBT can afford to do.My ex was a WIC nutritionist for a few years before we parted and when I worked in public health, I also screened women for WIC. I don't know how many learned from the counseling given by my ex, but the point is that WIC only allows women to buy certain healthy foods with that benefit.A good friend used to work for WIC and mothers who apply/receive benefits also receive counseling about nutrition—or used to do. Her comment as that some were very receptive and some were not.My ex and I received what was known as food stamps after he had been drafted during the Viet Nam War. Back then, you had to pay for your food stamps. We paid about 45 dollars for about 85 dollars worth of food stamps each month. I would never thought of using them to buy soda or junk food, as I was trying to feed my family, including my infant son with that entitlement. It didn't bother me in the least what other people thought about me using food stamps, and it's true that today's SNAP benefit looks like a credit card and I've never heard anyone complain about a poor person getting that benefit, at least not in Georgia. Most people who get SNAP either work or are disabled or old. They are all living in poverty. It's only ignorant assholes that would criticize a poor person for needing help like SNAP.
I had a coworker who told me she was embarrassed to get SNAP benefits and I told her if her cheap ass employer had paid her more than the minimum wage, she wouldn't need that benefit and there was nothing for her to be ashamed about. That seemed to help her feel better. I didn't care how she used her benefit, but I do agree that soda and candy aren't nutritious food, so if they are exempted from the program, it shouldn't be criticized, especially when there are far more important things to criticize. Soda is just sugar water for that matter. I'm not a conservative, but I see no problem in helping children eat healthier and educating their moms what foods to buy for them. That should be something we should all support if we want the future's children to eat healthier foods and have fewer health problems.
Soft drinks are one of the causes of obesity. I know this because some of the women I worked with asked me how to lose weight and the first thing I asked them was how much soda did they drink. Some drank over 2 liters a day. I would always tell them to start by giving up their sodas. Not sure if any of them did, but it would have helped if they could do it.
WIC which is a program that helps poor pregnant. nursing women and children eat healthier, only allows a limited amount of healthy foods to be used with that benefit. I think we go to an extreme when we say that people will be deprived, if using a food benefit doesn't permit using it for empty calorie junk food. Hopefully, they can still use SNAP for certain processed foods that are often less expensive and have some nutritional value, and added vitamins, but drawing the limit on things like Coke and Pepsi, shouldn't be a problem imo. Sometimes we liberals need to realize that we don't have to disagree with every single thing supported by a consecrative, even if we think their motives are wrong, because even a broken clock is right twice a day.
There should just be a list of what can be used with the SNAP benefit provided to each recipient so that nobody is embarrassed at the checkout in the grocery line. Considering most people use the automatic check out these days, hopefully that will provide more privacy. I do think that the SNAP benefit should offer more money than it currently does. The amount is usually so small that it doesn't do much to help a family eat well for the entire month. Nutrition classes should also be offered, if they aren't already. Extend the benefit but set a few limits on what can be bought so the food has at least some healthy nutritional value. It wouldn't surprise me if the junk food market has been pushing for SNAP to cover their products. That helps corporations, not poor people.
It is difficult to move past patterns one grows up with, particularly food. It is not only genetics that contribute to vulnerability to substance abuse or consuming highly caloric/nutritionally poor foods. Growing up, I disliked most of my mother’s cooking but fur years after I was an adult, the second I crossed over the threshold to her house, I was hungry. Just a conditioned response.
We also cannot ignore the fact that food deserts exist, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. And that shelf stable foods tend to be less nutritious and are often filled with calories and additives.
As far as the soda goes, one of the women who told me she drank at least 2 liters of soda per day, died of heart failure at age 45. I have no idea if she was on SNAP or paying for all that sugar water herself, but just maybe if she hadn't drank so much, she wouldn't have been so obese and she might have lived longer. Why should the government be adding to the nation's health problems by paying for soda for people who need help buying food? It's not my primary concern by any means, but I see nothing negative about not letting it be paid for with a SNAP card. Some of you are making poor people seem like they are overly sensitive about being poor and needing help. Most aren't.
I was dirt poor throughout most of my 20s. My first nursing job paid me 3.98 per hour and that was on the nightshift. Even in 1975, those were poverty wages. Still, I didn't let what other people thought of me bother me in the least and most of the poor people I've known, befriended or worked with were the same way. Can we stop making assumptions that they would be upset or embarrassed if they can't buy soda with their SNAP benefit?
No offense Laughing Dog, but soda isn't a nutritional choice. It's a harmful, often habit forming drink that sometimes causes health problems. I've mentioned earlier the obese women who asked me for help losing weight and then told me they were drinking a lot of soda each day. A nutritional benefit should be about offering nutrition, not about paying for a potentially harmful beverage that too many people find addicting. No one should be policing everything a person getting SNAP buys, but I see nothing wrong with simply not allowing one to use a nutritional benefit to buy something that lacks any nutrition and can be addictive to some. Empty calories aren't nutrition.
I'll leave it at that because I think we've all made our points, but I will mention that due to this thread, my husband and I discussed this at lunch time, and we both agreed that SNAP shouldn't pay for soda and that poor people are much stronger emotionally than some of you seem to think. Still, it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I'd just prefer not to have the government adding to the problems that drinking too much sweetened beverages does to people's health as well as putting more strain on our health care system.
The other thing is that I know from bitter experiencing, watching my father fat shame one of my siblings that fat shaming and shaming people for what they choose to consume is ineffective and only increases the shame. There is enough shame in this country over being poor. We do not need to pile on by criticizing people who consume sodas, etc. I agree: I only rarely drink soda--probably fewer than a dozen times in a year, and when I drink tea, it is always without sweeteners of any kind, nor any milk or cream. I drink water and/or tea almost exclusively. Occasionally, a glass of wine or a beer--again, probably fewer than a dozen times in a year. Liquor? I've never developed a taste for it and it just never occurs to me to pour myself a drink of any type of booze.
And yet, I've gained a lot of weight. At one point, I was extremely fastidious about tracking every morsel that went into my mouth, and calculating the calories over a two week period and took that to the doctor who took one look at it and said that I should be losing weight on that diet. I definitely agreed--and yet I was gaining, not losing weight. My thyroid function was good so????
Certainly, I'd much rather that there was much less consumption of sugary drinks including all of those fancy coffees and sodas. We'd be healthier and our teeth would thank us as well. But people do get to make their own choices. As far as criticizing people for making poor choices with money provided by tax dollars, I'd rather see us go after corporations who get lots of money in subsidies and tax write offs and credits and use the money to give their CEOs enormous bonuses or evade regulations.
southernhybrid
Contributor
I did a lot of research about the soda thing and I learned a lot. First of all, the beverage industry has been lobbying for many years against removing soda from the SNAP benefit. No surprise there. I also learned that this soda thing started around 2004, so it's nothing new. It's just hard to change. Both Dems and Republicans in different administrations have been in favor of removing soda from the SNAP benefit.
Soda is also considered the primary reason for the extreme rise in obesity. Of course that's not always t he case. I know it's more complicated as some people seem to have a genetic predisposition to obesity.
I learned that it was originally thought that SNAP recipients would buy very little soda with their benefit but that turned out to be wrong. They spend a good deal on soda, something like 4 billion dollars per year. In fact, I read that the average SNAP recipient drinks an average of 7 sodas per week, while the average low income drinks about 5 and people in the middle and upper classes drink about 3.5. I might be off by a fraction since I'm going by memory, but the point is SNAP is being wasted on a high number of sodas. While obesity is a risk factor for many diseases, a lot of the problem also has to do with what made one obese. My husband's late grandmother was quite obese but she ate lots of healthy nuts and I don't remember ever seeing her drink a soda. She hate other healthy foods and while she did have some heart problems, she lived to be 94, with her health failing only in the last year or two of her life.
Do your own DD if you're willing to learn more about why there has been a movement to take some unhealthy foods off of the SNAP benefit for decades. While I almost never agree with the idiot JFKjr. I think he's correct to want to remove soda from the SNAP benefit. About 12 states have or are in the process of removing it. I wouldn't remove other unhealthy foods because that would make it a lot more complicated for both grocers and recipients, but if soda is covered, why not wine etc. It makes no sense that it was ever a part of a so called nutritional benefit. It was a mistake to include it.
And, @Toni, I'm not criticizing people for making unhealthy choices. I even drink one glass of ginger ale almost every day and I weigh under 110, although I am a bit insane when it comes to watching my weight. Aerobics have helped me a lot, but that's healthy even for people who are obese, regardless if they lose weight or not. I'm not criticizing people who are overweight. I realize it's a complicated disease that we don't fully understand, although a lot of very obese people do eat a huge amount of food. Why is that? How did it happen? I blame some of it on restaurant food. I ordered a salad for lunch that had over 1300 calories in it, so I brought half of it home and barely used any of the dressing. It's complicated and I hope we learn more so we can help people with this issue. If you eat healthy foods and are overweight, you will likely be fairly healthy as long as you exercise as well. At least that is the impression I've gotten based on my reading. But genetics can cause diseases as well and cancer can invade even the healthiest person in the world, so having a healthy life style can't protect us from every disease. It just statistically lowers the chances of early mortality.
I'm criticizing our government for paying for some of those extremely unhealthy things via SNAP. Does it not bother you that the beverage corporations are at least partly responsible for allowing their products to be covered by SNAP? It sure bothers me.
OMG! We are off topic once again. Okay. I just read that a lot of men are regretting voting for Trump. Back on topic.
I would think a lot of women would be regretting voting for that creepy, sexist asshole even more, along with minorities.
Soda is also considered the primary reason for the extreme rise in obesity. Of course that's not always t he case. I know it's more complicated as some people seem to have a genetic predisposition to obesity.
I learned that it was originally thought that SNAP recipients would buy very little soda with their benefit but that turned out to be wrong. They spend a good deal on soda, something like 4 billion dollars per year. In fact, I read that the average SNAP recipient drinks an average of 7 sodas per week, while the average low income drinks about 5 and people in the middle and upper classes drink about 3.5. I might be off by a fraction since I'm going by memory, but the point is SNAP is being wasted on a high number of sodas. While obesity is a risk factor for many diseases, a lot of the problem also has to do with what made one obese. My husband's late grandmother was quite obese but she ate lots of healthy nuts and I don't remember ever seeing her drink a soda. She hate other healthy foods and while she did have some heart problems, she lived to be 94, with her health failing only in the last year or two of her life.
Do your own DD if you're willing to learn more about why there has been a movement to take some unhealthy foods off of the SNAP benefit for decades. While I almost never agree with the idiot JFKjr. I think he's correct to want to remove soda from the SNAP benefit. About 12 states have or are in the process of removing it. I wouldn't remove other unhealthy foods because that would make it a lot more complicated for both grocers and recipients, but if soda is covered, why not wine etc. It makes no sense that it was ever a part of a so called nutritional benefit. It was a mistake to include it.
And, @Toni, I'm not criticizing people for making unhealthy choices. I even drink one glass of ginger ale almost every day and I weigh under 110, although I am a bit insane when it comes to watching my weight. Aerobics have helped me a lot, but that's healthy even for people who are obese, regardless if they lose weight or not. I'm not criticizing people who are overweight. I realize it's a complicated disease that we don't fully understand, although a lot of very obese people do eat a huge amount of food. Why is that? How did it happen? I blame some of it on restaurant food. I ordered a salad for lunch that had over 1300 calories in it, so I brought half of it home and barely used any of the dressing. It's complicated and I hope we learn more so we can help people with this issue. If you eat healthy foods and are overweight, you will likely be fairly healthy as long as you exercise as well. At least that is the impression I've gotten based on my reading. But genetics can cause diseases as well and cancer can invade even the healthiest person in the world, so having a healthy life style can't protect us from every disease. It just statistically lowers the chances of early mortality.
I'm criticizing our government for paying for some of those extremely unhealthy things via SNAP. Does it not bother you that the beverage corporations are at least partly responsible for allowing their products to be covered by SNAP? It sure bothers me.
OMG! We are off topic once again. Okay. I just read that a lot of men are regretting voting for Trump. Back on topic.
I would think a lot of women would be regretting voting for that creepy, sexist asshole even more, along with minorities.
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,368
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I definitely understand the reasons for wanting to limit SNAP benefits to what you and I would consider healthy choices but it definitely involves a lot of negative and judgmental feelings about low income people. In the US, there is a tremendous amount of shame connected with being poor. We don’t need to add to it.I did a lot of research about the soda thing and I learned a lot. First of all, the beverage industry has been lobbying for many years against removing soda from the SNAP benefit. No surprise there. I also learned that this soda thing started around 2004, so it's nothing new. It's just hard to change. Both Dems and Republicans in different administrations have been in favor of removing soda from the SNAP benefit.
Soda is also considered the primary reason for the extreme rise in obesity. Of course that's not always t he case. I know it's more complicated as some people seem to have a genetic predisposition to obesity.
I learned that it was originally thought that SNAP recipients would buy very little soda with their benefit but that turned out to be wrong. They spend a good deal on soda, something like 4 billion dollars per year. In fact, I read that the average SNAP recipient drinks an average of 7 sodas per week, while the average low income drinks about 5 and people in the middle and upper classes drink about 3.5. I might be off by a fraction since I'm going by memory, but the point is SNAP is being wasted on a high number of sodas. While obesity is a risk factor for many diseases, a lot of the problem also has to do with what made one obese. My husband's late grandmother was quite obese but she ate lots of healthy nuts and I don't remember ever seeing her drink a soda. She hate other healthy foods and while she did have some heart problems, she lived to be 94, with her health failing only in the last year or two of her life.
Do your own DD if you're willing to learn more about why there has been a movement to take some unhealthy foods off of the SNAP benefit for decades. While I almost never agree with the idiot JFKjr. I think he's correct to want to remove soda from the SNAP benefit. About 12 states have or are in the process of removing it. I wouldn't remove other unhealthy foods because that would make it a lot more complicated for both grocers and recipients, but if soda is covered, why not wine etc. It makes no sense that it was ever a part of a so called nutritional benefit. It was a mistake to include it.
And, @Toni, I'm not criticizing people for making unhealthy choices. I even drink one glass of ginger ale almost every day and I weigh under 110, although I am a bit insane when it comes to watching my weight. Aerobics have helped me a lot, but that's healthy even for people who are obese, regardless if they lose weight or not. I'm not criticizing people who are overweight. I realize it's a complicated disease that we don't fully understand, although a lot of very obese people do eat a huge amount of food. Why is that? How did it happen? I blame some of it on restaurant food. I ordered a salad for lunch that had over 1300 calories in it, so I brought half of it home and barely used any of the dressing. It's complicated and I hope we learn more so we can help people with this issue. If you eat healthy foods and are overweight, you will likely be fairly healthy as long as you exercise as well. At least that is the impression I've gotten based on my reading. But genetics can cause diseases as well and cancer can invade even the healthiest person in the world, so having a healthy life style can't protect us from every disease. It just statistically lowers the chances of early mortality.
I'm criticizing our government for paying for some of those extremely unhealthy things via SNAP. Does it not bother you that the beverage corporations are at least partly responsible for allowing their products to be covered by SNAP? It sure bothers me.
OMG! We are off topic once again. Okay. I just read that a lot of men are regretting voting for Trump. Back on topic.
laughing dog
Contributor
No offense, but the reduction in SNAP payments was not about nutritional choices but saving $ for tax cuts.My ex was a WIC nutritionist for a few years before we parted and when I worked in public health, I also screened women for WIC. I don't know how many learned from the counseling given by my ex, but the point is that WIC only allows women to buy certain healthy foods with that benefit.A good friend used to work for WIC and mothers who apply/receive benefits also receive counseling about nutrition—or used to do. Her comment as that some were very receptive and some were not.My ex and I received what was known as food stamps after he had been drafted during the Viet Nam War. Back then, you had to pay for your food stamps. We paid about 45 dollars for about 85 dollars worth of food stamps each month. I would never thought of using them to buy soda or junk food, as I was trying to feed my family, including my infant son with that entitlement. It didn't bother me in the least what other people thought about me using food stamps, and it's true that today's SNAP benefit looks like a credit card and I've never heard anyone complain about a poor person getting that benefit, at least not in Georgia. Most people who get SNAP either work or are disabled or old. They are all living in poverty. It's only ignorant assholes that would criticize a poor person for needing help like SNAP.
I had a coworker who told me she was embarrassed to get SNAP benefits and I told her if her cheap ass employer had paid her more than the minimum wage, she wouldn't need that benefit and there was nothing for her to be ashamed about. That seemed to help her feel better. I didn't care how she used her benefit, but I do agree that soda and candy aren't nutritious food, so if they are exempted from the program, it shouldn't be criticized, especially when there are far more important things to criticize. Soda is just sugar water for that matter. I'm not a conservative, but I see no problem in helping children eat healthier and educating their moms what foods to buy for them. That should be something we should all support if we want the future's children to eat healthier foods and have fewer health problems.
Soft drinks are one of the causes of obesity. I know this because some of the women I worked with asked me how to lose weight and the first thing I asked them was how much soda did they drink. Some drank over 2 liters a day. I would always tell them to start by giving up their sodas. Not sure if any of them did, but it would have helped if they could do it.
WIC which is a program that helps poor pregnant. nursing women and children eat healthier, only allows a limited amount of healthy foods to be used with that benefit. I think we go to an extreme when we say that people will be deprived, if using a food benefit doesn't permit using it for empty calorie junk food. Hopefully, they can still use SNAP for certain processed foods that are often less expensive and have some nutritional value, and added vitamins, but drawing the limit on things like Coke and Pepsi, shouldn't be a problem imo. Sometimes we liberals need to realize that we don't have to disagree with every single thing supported by a consecrative, even if we think their motives are wrong, because even a broken clock is right twice a day.
There should just be a list of what can be used with the SNAP benefit provided to each recipient so that nobody is embarrassed at the checkout in the grocery line. Considering most people use the automatic check out these days, hopefully that will provide more privacy. I do think that the SNAP benefit should offer more money than it currently does. The amount is usually so small that it doesn't do much to help a family eat well for the entire month. Nutrition classes should also be offered, if they aren't already. Extend the benefit but set a few limits on what can be bought so the food has at least some healthy nutritional value. It wouldn't surprise me if the junk food market has been pushing for SNAP to cover their products. That helps corporations, not poor people.
It is difficult to move past patterns one grows up with, particularly food. It is not only genetics that contribute to vulnerability to substance abuse or consuming highly caloric/nutritionally poor foods. Growing up, I disliked most of my mother’s cooking but fur years after I was an adult, the second I crossed over the threshold to her house, I was hungry. Just a conditioned response.
We also cannot ignore the fact that food deserts exist, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. And that shelf stable foods tend to be less nutritious and are often filled with calories and additives.
As far as the soda goes, one of the women who told me she drank at least 2 liters of soda per day, died of heart failure at age 45. I have no idea if she was on SNAP or paying for all that sugar water herself, but just maybe if she hadn't drank so much, she wouldn't have been so obese and she might have lived longer. Why should the government be adding to the nation's health problems by paying for soda for people who need help buying food? It's not my primary concern by any means, but I see nothing negative about not letting it be paid for with a SNAP card. Some of you are making poor people seem like they are overly sensitive about being poor and needing help. Most aren't.
I was dirt poor throughout most of my 20s. My first nursing job paid me 3.98 per hour and that was on the nightshift. Even in 1975, those were poverty wages. Still, I didn't let what other people thought of me bother me in the least and most of the poor people I've known, befriended or worked with were the same way. Can we stop making assumptions that they would be upset or embarrassed if they can't buy soda with their SNAP benefit?
No offense Laughing Dog, but soda isn't a nutritional choice. It's a harmful, often habit forming drink that sometimes causes health problems. I've mentioned earlier the obese women who asked me for help losing weight and then told me they were drinking a lot of soda each day. A nutritional benefit should be about offering nutrition, not about paying for a potentially harmful beverage that too many people find addicting. No one should be policing everything a person getting SNAP buys, but I see nothing wrong with simply not allowing one to use a nutritional benefit to buy something that lacks any nutrition and can be addictive to some. Empty calories aren't nutrition.
I'll leave it at that because I think we've all made our points, but I will mention that due to this thread, my husband and I discussed this at lunch time, and we both agreed that SNAP shouldn't pay for soda and that poor people are much stronger emotionally than some of you seem to think. Still, it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I'd just prefer not to have the government adding to the problems that drinking too much sweetened beverages does to people's health as well as putting more strain on our health care system.
And I wonder if the same defense would arise if the bill limited SNAP payments for only fresh fruit and vegetables
Politesse
Lux Aeterna
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,954
- Location
- Tauhalamme/Laquisimas
- Gender
- nonbinary
- Basic Beliefs
- Jedi Wayseeker
If you were working a hard job and had to choose between a head of broccoli or two bags of chips for your lunch, with no expectation of any other food until dinner, you'd go for the chips too. Broccoli is healthy but it does not satisfy, and any feeling of fullness it generates won't stick for long, especially the limp-ass broccoli you're likely to find at a bodega in a shit neighborbood if you found any at all. But the main difference between you and a person isn't whether you eat healthily or not, it's that you can eat whatever the fuck you want and not worry that you're eating your rent, because unlike anyone who qualifies for SNAP, you take in more than $1600 a month.
EDIT: And the fact that an authoritarian government doesn't get to chime in on what you are "allowed" to eat.
EDIT: And the fact that an authoritarian government doesn't get to chime in on what you are "allowed" to eat.
Last edited:
Toni
Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2011
- Messages
- 22,368
- Basic Beliefs
- Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Criticism of the choices people make with their SNAP benefits certainly are easily exploited to convince us that people who need SNAP benefits aren’t smart enough to know how to use them. Or are too lazy or unwilling to learn or unwilling to delay gratification. Definitely not deserving. All that SNAP money just wasted on people who don’t know how to use it. Better to send that money to billionaires for tax breaks.No offense, but the reduction in SNAP payments was not about nutritional choices but saving $ for tax cuts.My ex was a WIC nutritionist for a few years before we parted and when I worked in public health, I also screened women for WIC. I don't know how many learned from the counseling given by my ex, but the point is that WIC only allows women to buy certain healthy foods with that benefit.A good friend used to work for WIC and mothers who apply/receive benefits also receive counseling about nutrition—or used to do. Her comment as that some were very receptive and some were not.My ex and I received what was known as food stamps after he had been drafted during the Viet Nam War. Back then, you had to pay for your food stamps. We paid about 45 dollars for about 85 dollars worth of food stamps each month. I would never thought of using them to buy soda or junk food, as I was trying to feed my family, including my infant son with that entitlement. It didn't bother me in the least what other people thought about me using food stamps, and it's true that today's SNAP benefit looks like a credit card and I've never heard anyone complain about a poor person getting that benefit, at least not in Georgia. Most people who get SNAP either work or are disabled or old. They are all living in poverty. It's only ignorant assholes that would criticize a poor person for needing help like SNAP.
I had a coworker who told me she was embarrassed to get SNAP benefits and I told her if her cheap ass employer had paid her more than the minimum wage, she wouldn't need that benefit and there was nothing for her to be ashamed about. That seemed to help her feel better. I didn't care how she used her benefit, but I do agree that soda and candy aren't nutritious food, so if they are exempted from the program, it shouldn't be criticized, especially when there are far more important things to criticize. Soda is just sugar water for that matter. I'm not a conservative, but I see no problem in helping children eat healthier and educating their moms what foods to buy for them. That should be something we should all support if we want the future's children to eat healthier foods and have fewer health problems.
Soft drinks are one of the causes of obesity. I know this because some of the women I worked with asked me how to lose weight and the first thing I asked them was how much soda did they drink. Some drank over 2 liters a day. I would always tell them to start by giving up their sodas. Not sure if any of them did, but it would have helped if they could do it.
WIC which is a program that helps poor pregnant. nursing women and children eat healthier, only allows a limited amount of healthy foods to be used with that benefit. I think we go to an extreme when we say that people will be deprived, if using a food benefit doesn't permit using it for empty calorie junk food. Hopefully, they can still use SNAP for certain processed foods that are often less expensive and have some nutritional value, and added vitamins, but drawing the limit on things like Coke and Pepsi, shouldn't be a problem imo. Sometimes we liberals need to realize that we don't have to disagree with every single thing supported by a consecrative, even if we think their motives are wrong, because even a broken clock is right twice a day.
There should just be a list of what can be used with the SNAP benefit provided to each recipient so that nobody is embarrassed at the checkout in the grocery line. Considering most people use the automatic check out these days, hopefully that will provide more privacy. I do think that the SNAP benefit should offer more money than it currently does. The amount is usually so small that it doesn't do much to help a family eat well for the entire month. Nutrition classes should also be offered, if they aren't already. Extend the benefit but set a few limits on what can be bought so the food has at least some healthy nutritional value. It wouldn't surprise me if the junk food market has been pushing for SNAP to cover their products. That helps corporations, not poor people.
It is difficult to move past patterns one grows up with, particularly food. It is not only genetics that contribute to vulnerability to substance abuse or consuming highly caloric/nutritionally poor foods. Growing up, I disliked most of my mother’s cooking but fur years after I was an adult, the second I crossed over the threshold to her house, I was hungry. Just a conditioned response.
We also cannot ignore the fact that food deserts exist, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. And that shelf stable foods tend to be less nutritious and are often filled with calories and additives.
As far as the soda goes, one of the women who told me she drank at least 2 liters of soda per day, died of heart failure at age 45. I have no idea if she was on SNAP or paying for all that sugar water herself, but just maybe if she hadn't drank so much, she wouldn't have been so obese and she might have lived longer. Why should the government be adding to the nation's health problems by paying for soda for people who need help buying food? It's not my primary concern by any means, but I see nothing negative about not letting it be paid for with a SNAP card. Some of you are making poor people seem like they are overly sensitive about being poor and needing help. Most aren't.
I was dirt poor throughout most of my 20s. My first nursing job paid me 3.98 per hour and that was on the nightshift. Even in 1975, those were poverty wages. Still, I didn't let what other people thought of me bother me in the least and most of the poor people I've known, befriended or worked with were the same way. Can we stop making assumptions that they would be upset or embarrassed if they can't buy soda with their SNAP benefit?
No offense Laughing Dog, but soda isn't a nutritional choice. It's a harmful, often habit forming drink that sometimes causes health problems. I've mentioned earlier the obese women who asked me for help losing weight and then told me they were drinking a lot of soda each day. A nutritional benefit should be about offering nutrition, not about paying for a potentially harmful beverage that too many people find addicting. No one should be policing everything a person getting SNAP buys, but I see nothing wrong with simply not allowing one to use a nutritional benefit to buy something that lacks any nutrition and can be addictive to some. Empty calories aren't nutrition.
I'll leave it at that because I think we've all made our points, but I will mention that due to this thread, my husband and I discussed this at lunch time, and we both agreed that SNAP shouldn't pay for soda and that poor people are much stronger emotionally than some of you seem to think. Still, it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I'd just prefer not to have the government adding to the problems that drinking too much sweetened beverages does to people's health as well as putting more strain on our health care system.
And I wonder if the same defense would arise if the bill limited SNAP payments for only fresh fruit and vegetables
The other thing is: A lot of low income people do not have the means to store food that is not shelf stable or to cook. They may/may not have a stove or pots and pans or simple staples such as salt, cooking oil. Or utensils we all use. Much less herbs and spices that can transform a simple bowl of rice into something more tasty.
southernhybrid
Contributor
Did you bother to look any of the information about how much SNAP pays for soda or for how long people on both sides of the aisle have been trying to get soda off of the SNAP benefit.Criticism of the choices people make with their SNAP benefits certainly are easily exploited to convince us that people who need SNAP benefits aren’t smart enough to know how to use them. Or are too lazy or unwilling to learn or unwilling to delay gratification. Definitely not deserving. All that SNAP money just wasted on people who don’t know how to use it. Better to send that money to billionaires for tax breaks.No offense, but the reduction in SNAP payments was not about nutritional choices but saving $ for tax cuts.My ex was a WIC nutritionist for a few years before we parted and when I worked in public health, I also screened women for WIC. I don't know how many learned from the counseling given by my ex, but the point is that WIC only allows women to buy certain healthy foods with that benefit.A good friend used to work for WIC and mothers who apply/receive benefits also receive counseling about nutrition—or used to do. Her comment as that some were very receptive and some were not.My ex and I received what was known as food stamps after he had been drafted during the Viet Nam War. Back then, you had to pay for your food stamps. We paid about 45 dollars for about 85 dollars worth of food stamps each month. I would never thought of using them to buy soda or junk food, as I was trying to feed my family, including my infant son with that entitlement. It didn't bother me in the least what other people thought about me using food stamps, and it's true that today's SNAP benefit looks like a credit card and I've never heard anyone complain about a poor person getting that benefit, at least not in Georgia. Most people who get SNAP either work or are disabled or old. They are all living in poverty. It's only ignorant assholes that would criticize a poor person for needing help like SNAP.
I had a coworker who told me she was embarrassed to get SNAP benefits and I told her if her cheap ass employer had paid her more than the minimum wage, she wouldn't need that benefit and there was nothing for her to be ashamed about. That seemed to help her feel better. I didn't care how she used her benefit, but I do agree that soda and candy aren't nutritious food, so if they are exempted from the program, it shouldn't be criticized, especially when there are far more important things to criticize. Soda is just sugar water for that matter. I'm not a conservative, but I see no problem in helping children eat healthier and educating their moms what foods to buy for them. That should be something we should all support if we want the future's children to eat healthier foods and have fewer health problems.
Soft drinks are one of the causes of obesity. I know this because some of the women I worked with asked me how to lose weight and the first thing I asked them was how much soda did they drink. Some drank over 2 liters a day. I would always tell them to start by giving up their sodas. Not sure if any of them did, but it would have helped if they could do it.
WIC which is a program that helps poor pregnant. nursing women and children eat healthier, only allows a limited amount of healthy foods to be used with that benefit. I think we go to an extreme when we say that people will be deprived, if using a food benefit doesn't permit using it for empty calorie junk food. Hopefully, they can still use SNAP for certain processed foods that are often less expensive and have some nutritional value, and added vitamins, but drawing the limit on things like Coke and Pepsi, shouldn't be a problem imo. Sometimes we liberals need to realize that we don't have to disagree with every single thing supported by a consecrative, even if we think their motives are wrong, because even a broken clock is right twice a day.
There should just be a list of what can be used with the SNAP benefit provided to each recipient so that nobody is embarrassed at the checkout in the grocery line. Considering most people use the automatic check out these days, hopefully that will provide more privacy. I do think that the SNAP benefit should offer more money than it currently does. The amount is usually so small that it doesn't do much to help a family eat well for the entire month. Nutrition classes should also be offered, if they aren't already. Extend the benefit but set a few limits on what can be bought so the food has at least some healthy nutritional value. It wouldn't surprise me if the junk food market has been pushing for SNAP to cover their products. That helps corporations, not poor people.
It is difficult to move past patterns one grows up with, particularly food. It is not only genetics that contribute to vulnerability to substance abuse or consuming highly caloric/nutritionally poor foods. Growing up, I disliked most of my mother’s cooking but fur years after I was an adult, the second I crossed over the threshold to her house, I was hungry. Just a conditioned response.
We also cannot ignore the fact that food deserts exist, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. And that shelf stable foods tend to be less nutritious and are often filled with calories and additives.
As far as the soda goes, one of the women who told me she drank at least 2 liters of soda per day, died of heart failure at age 45. I have no idea if she was on SNAP or paying for all that sugar water herself, but just maybe if she hadn't drank so much, she wouldn't have been so obese and she might have lived longer. Why should the government be adding to the nation's health problems by paying for soda for people who need help buying food? It's not my primary concern by any means, but I see nothing negative about not letting it be paid for with a SNAP card. Some of you are making poor people seem like they are overly sensitive about being poor and needing help. Most aren't.
I was dirt poor throughout most of my 20s. My first nursing job paid me 3.98 per hour and that was on the nightshift. Even in 1975, those were poverty wages. Still, I didn't let what other people thought of me bother me in the least and most of the poor people I've known, befriended or worked with were the same way. Can we stop making assumptions that they would be upset or embarrassed if they can't buy soda with their SNAP benefit?
No offense Laughing Dog, but soda isn't a nutritional choice. It's a harmful, often habit forming drink that sometimes causes health problems. I've mentioned earlier the obese women who asked me for help losing weight and then told me they were drinking a lot of soda each day. A nutritional benefit should be about offering nutrition, not about paying for a potentially harmful beverage that too many people find addicting. No one should be policing everything a person getting SNAP buys, but I see nothing wrong with simply not allowing one to use a nutritional benefit to buy something that lacks any nutrition and can be addictive to some. Empty calories aren't nutrition.
I'll leave it at that because I think we've all made our points, but I will mention that due to this thread, my husband and I discussed this at lunch time, and we both agreed that SNAP shouldn't pay for soda and that poor people are much stronger emotionally than some of you seem to think. Still, it's not something I'm losing sleep over. I'd just prefer not to have the government adding to the problems that drinking too much sweetened beverages does to people's health as well as putting more strain on our health care system.
And I wonder if the same defense would arise if the bill limited SNAP payments for only fresh fruit and vegetables
The other thing is: A lot of low income people do not have the means to store food that is not shelf stable or to cook. They may/may not have a stove or pots and pans or simple staples such as salt, cooking oil. Or utensils we all use. Much less herbs and spices that can transform a simple bowl of rice into something more tasty.
Do you know a lot of extremely poor people? I not only have a very poor friend, who I visit on a regular basis, I've been in the homes of countless poor people when I was a home health nurse. Only one had no way to store food because she lived in a school bus. One had no running water but somehow she managed to cook by using an outside source of water. Some had no food on their shelves so I called Social Services to help them out or in some cases Adult Protective Services because they were no longer able to live independently.
Even the poorest, including those who lived in the worst, high crime poverty stricken neighborhoods one can imagine all had stoves, pots and pans, dishes etc. I've been in those neighborhoods, in Greenville, SC, in Raleigh, NC and even for a few years in the worst, most poverty stricken area of the city which is plagued by gangs, where I've lived in for over 25 years in Georgia. The people I visited were for the most part very dear people, even if they struggled to make ends meet. There are also food banks in my small city where people can help supplement what they need.
I loved serving the poor, but the assumptions made about their living conditions aren't what I saw. The one exception was the woman who lived in a school bus, but she did have family near by who made sure she had food. Exactly how would soda improve the lives of these people? I'm not saying that all questionably unhealthy foods should be taken away from the SNAP benefit as that would be too complicated for both the grocery store and the person on SNAP. I'm only taking about soda, an unhealthy drink that adds nothing to a person's nutrition. As I said earlier, this has been an issue since around 2004 and it was not originally expected that people would buy so much soda with their SNAP benefit. Does it not bother you that the beverage industry has been lobbying to keep soda a part of the SNAP benefit? That's what a lot of this is about, more money for COKE and Pepsi!
southernhybrid
Contributor
The fed doesn't tell you what to eat or drink, but the government shouldn't have to pay for your Coke or whiskey either. A nutritional supplement should be for nutrition. How many times do I need to say that? I'm not happy that over 4 billion dollars a year being spent by the government to supplement the soft drink industry. What anyone spends with their own money on these things is their own business. I just see no moral problem with removing soda from a government benefit that is supposed to be for nutrition. It's not the most concerning issue of the day, but since someone brought it up, I'm just stating my opinion. I'm not crazy about a nutritional program adding billions of dollars each year to the beverage industry. That's all it does. It doesn't help poor people in the least.
Elixir
Made in America
Exactly my point. You’ll have to say it constantly, ad nauseum and probably to little or no effect. The remedy is EDUCATION, so that even poor people can understand their nutritional options and the results of those choices. Permitting rat poison to be on the SNAP list should not be an adviso that it’s safe to eat, but if people are plagued by rats, being able to obtain it might be helpful, or even a life saver. I don’t think of soda or whiskey as food, and both of them have addictive or habit forming qualities, and unlike rat poison, have few positive qualities to balance out their detrimental effects.
This administration is deeply committed to keeping people - especially poor people - stupid, gullible and stuffed full of nonsensical conspiracies and woo. The degree of their success is directly proportional to the futility of trying to improve outcomes by changing SNAP eligibilities. Without education you’re going to need food police or let them sicken and die.
thebeave
Contributor
Not sure education is always going to work. You certainly know about the hazards of drinking alcohol and soda, yet you still do it (as do I, especially the sodas, alcohol not so much).
Elixir
Made in America
Actually I don’t. I used to but I educated myself the hard way. Averaging 3-4 oz of coke and 15-17 ml of brandy (a ‘shot’ is generally 32-45 ml) per day doesn’t feel like “too much” in any way.
Maybe “the hard way” is a necessary component of education, but knowing a set of facts can make “the hard way” less hard, while misinformation and woo deprive people of rational choices, and the ability to accurately assess the effects of consuming XY or Z poisons. The current active effort to misinform, misdirect and deceive consumers is not in the public interest.