20% of food stamps spent on soda & junk food.

[belleflop]

This is pretty stupid. Seriously. Read it back to yourself. Are you trying to miss the point?

I'm well aware that exercise enables caloric consumption. I'm a semi-serious runner and peak at 70+ miles/week of running during training cycles. I basically eat a shitload of "empty" carbs during that time. I'm well aware that people who engage in serious exercise routines are able to consume things that the sedentary shouldn't. On long runs (or bike rides, or swimming), this even includes just consuming straight sugars in the form of Gu packets, it's fine.

For the typical person, even a couple cans a day remains a poor idea. Soda has no nutritionally redeeming qualities, is 40+ grams of sugar per can, spikes blood sugar levels significantly, and has strong connections to all sorts of negative health outcomes. The existence of other factors doesn't, in any way, render drinking soda a good idea.

You keep changing your argument/position, it's hard to keep up.
Your original assertion was soda was bad. I articulated and challenged that assertion by saying that it wasn't.
You then changed your argument to say that excessive refined sugars consumption is bad, I agreed. (what about natural unrefined sugars?)
You also asserted that drinking soda is a direct correlation to being unhealthy and fat, to which I challenged your assertion by asking if the soda consumption was the only correlation when it came to being fat and unhealthy. (Spoiler alert: it isn't)

You now assert "Soda has no nutritionally redeeming qualities, is 40+ grams of sugar per can, spikes blood sugar levels significantly, and has strong connections to all sorts of negative health outcomes." I'd then argue that soda has VERY LITTLE nutritional value, not NONE, and other things such as simple carbohydrates, you know, processed foods, can also spike blood sugar levels in the same capacity. SO I'd ask if you also want to ban the poor people from buying processed foods on SNAP as it has also been proven to be unhealthy if consumed in excess?
You now say I'm stupid and I'm missing the point. I'd argue your pre-disposition on this topic is leading YOU to miss the point, which is this.

Soda, just like any other unhealthy alternative food/beverage is not bad for you if consumed in moderation along with a sensible diet.

Diet soda, however, has been linked in many scientific studies, to increase risks of cancer, heart attacks, stokes (chemically altered glucose derivatives that cause larger abrupt fluctuations of blood sugar levels).

[Spectral]

You keep changing your argument/position, it's hard to keep up.
Your original assertion was soda was bad. I articulated and challenged that assertion by saying that it wasn't.
You then changed your argument to say that excessive refined sugars consumption is bad, I agreed. (what about natural unrefined sugars?)
You also asserted that drinking soda is a direct correlation to being unhealthy and fat, to which I challenged your assertion by asking if the soda consumption was the only correlation when it came to being fat and unhealthy. (Spoiler alert: it isn't)

You now assert "Soda has no nutritionally redeeming qualities, is 40+ grams of sugar per can, spikes blood sugar levels significantly, and has strong connections to all sorts of negative health outcomes." I'd then argue that soda has VERY LITTLE nutritional value, not NONE, and other things such as simple carbohydrates (you know, processed foods, can also spike blood sugar levels in the same capacity) SO I'd ask if you also want to ban the poor people from buying processed foods on SNAP as it has also been proven to be unhealthy if consumed in excess?
You now say I'm stupid and I'm missing the point. I'd argue your pre-disposition on this topic is leading YOU to miss the point, which is this.

Soda, just like any other unhealthy alternative food/beverage is not bad for you if consumed in moderation along with a sensible diet.

Diet soda, however, has been linked in many scientific studies, to increase risks of cancer, heart attacks, stokes (chemically altered glucose derivatives that cause larger abrupt fluctuations of blood sugar levels).

Yeah, this remains pretty stupid. There's no plausible argument that soda is healthy. Each of your points here are basically stupid. Yeah, other things are also unhealthy - no shit. Yeah, having a bad habit can be mitigated by other choices - no shit.

Some folks like to argue things just for the sake of doing so. This is very obviously an example of that. I'm not going to be dragged down to that level any further this evening.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Keep in mind another thing.

Regulating what people can and cannot buy has proven to cost more than the stuff they shouldn't be buying.

Would you rather:

1) $2m going to soda and candy, 8m going to actual food
2) $4m going to administrative/legal, 6m going to actual food

It's the same idea of 'basic income'. It sometimes literally costs less money to simply GIVE people money, than it does to have all the systems in place to help people who don't have that money.

Well when that whole drug testing debacle in Florida happened, and it was shown that the drug testing cost WAY more money than it saved.

"Fiscal conservative" no longer means spending the least amount of money possible and necessary. It means spending as much money as is necessary to stick it to poor people.

They'd rather spend 30 billion dollars to prevent 0.1 billion of 10 billion dollars from being "misused" by poor people, than just spend the 10 million and let that 0.1 go "misused".

[Ahovv]

Again. No one is saying it's reasonable but you've selectively ignored two counter arguments. One, people are not educated properly on this matter and you ignored the situations in which someone is financially stable but life happens and now they're broke. I doubt we'll be forcing abortions on anyone anytime soon since we're still struggling to legalize abortions that are voluntary. So until then, we have to deal with the current situation and that is that poor people have kids and people with kids can become poor. Are you going to punish their innocent children for their mistakes or misfortunes?

I like how I offer a solution to a specific problem, and you somehow devalue the solution by saying "yeah, but you ignored this other situation!"

The fact is, encouraging/forcing abortions for those who simply cannot afford children will result in a higher quality of life, in addition to lowering the burden of welfare. There is no possible way you think the opposite is true.

So, that being established, yes, we have a ways to go in terms of abortion. Religious freaks need to stop making it a big deal.

[belfpala]

Lol are you serious? Peanuts are not good for you. They're mostly fat. You wanna talk about something that is good for you? Avocados. But if someone bought Avocado butter, HO FUCK LOOK AT THEM HIGH AND MIGHTY WASTING THEIR FOOD STAMPS. Might as well of bought red meat and alcohol.

Peanuts are not bad for you. Yes, they have fat, but fats are decreasingly the villain in weight gain and heart disease, and increasingly seen to have benefits. They also have a number of vitamins and minerals. And are a decent source of protein. Are satiating and filling... need I go on?

Avocados are good too. /shrug

[belleflop]

Yeah, this remains pretty stupid. There's no plausible argument that soda is healthy. Each of your points here are basically stupid. Yeah, other things are also unhealthy - no shit. Yeah, having a bad habit can be mitigated by other choices - no shit.

Some folks like to argue things just for the sake of doing so. This is very obviously an example of that. I'm not going to be dragged down to that level any further this evening.

I thought your whole argument was then to conclude that soda ("Not supplying government subsidies for sugar seems pretty reasonable") shouldn't be allowed to be purchased by people on the SNAP program? Was that not the whole point? Soda is bad for you because you said therefore it should be banned for food stamp users. I'm now asking if that logic (it's unhealthy *with conditions, so BAN) can be applied to all calorie sources that have been found to be of little nutritional value (processed foods, simple carbohydrates) and bad for you if consumed in excess.

I'm not arguing to argue, I'm engaging your assertion and challenging it with a different point of view. I've agreed with you when your assertion is backed by science, I've disagreed with you when you try and pin your opinion as facts. The plausible argument is that your original assertion lacked proper definition, it lacked proper categorization, and wreaked of personal biased. If you would of asserted something like 'According to Harvard drinking refined sugars in excess can lead to many unwanted health risks, therefore I think we should do something about soda being so readily available without other healthy affordable alternatives being available in poor cities in the USA.' I'd be more open to starting a dialogue with you discussing possible solutions to this problem, rather than spend time pushing back on your subjective "soda is bad" argument.


So what do you think is a solution to this problem?

[Splenda]

I lived in food stamps for three years. I DID buy junk food, but I also bought fruits/veggies/rice/pasta. I did pretty well, but the junk food was definitely a suppliment that was necessary a decent chunk of the time. A large frozen pizza was like 4 lunches for me, for example. I'm not a soda drinker. I shopped at the cheapest place per town, and I tried to eat as well rounded as possible. Even then I'd run out of food stamps, and I had no income at all. It was miserable, and despite my best efforts, not that healthy.

I probably currently spend about $35-50 per week on food, not including any take out or random cravings. I eat TONS of veggies and fruit, and I rarely buy meat because it's too expensive where I live. My main source of protein these days is just eggs. Eggs are cheap here

Most of the things I buy, besides fruit/veggies/eggs, is boxed or canned or frozen and lasts a long time. I'm an anorexia patient, so it takes me ages to go through food.

[Kallisto]

I like how I offer a solution to a specific problem, and you somehow devalue the solution by saying "yeah, but you ignored this other situation!"

The fact is, encouraging/forcing abortions for those who simply cannot afford children will result in a higher quality of life, in addition to lowering the burden of welfare. There is no possible way you think the opposite is true.

So, that being established, yes, we have a ways to go in terms of abortion. Religious freaks need to stop making it a big deal.

Burden of welfare? In pretty much every western Democracy welfare bill is tiny. Almost miniscule in comparison to every other money loss in the budget.

Hell in the same countries people not paying their fucking tax costs governments between 10-20 times more than the welfare bill. Not welfare cheats (which is mostly the government being at fault with errors) but the entire welfare budget.

Maybe we should stop worrying about what people do with welfare, stop considering it a drain and start going after those full on who refuse to pay their share. Especially those who may have not paid a cent for nearly 2 decades

[Lucrece]

You don't really think this do you?

Yes, I do. Dental care is not covered in most plans. Public healthcare will only cover so much of your cancer treatments. There are still consequences to be felt for bad health choices.

And like people who choose to drink often or engage in contact sports without the government denying them benefits, it's their right to suffer those choices.

Nobody wants to live under somebody else's definition of what's right when it comes to your own affairs, so long as those affairs aren't imposed on children or other adults the government has no business intervening to tell you what's in your own best interest. Stop paternalizing people.

[Auxora]

I see these far right posts here all the time, and I'm not sure why the posters don't just say what they are getting at. Obviously it's just a backhanded attack at entitlements/welfare/low income benefits. I'm sure it's not out of a concern for the health of people on food stamps by the people writing these articles.

There are definitely people out there that abuse welfare benefits and I've seen that firsthand. But the majority of people on them do legitimately need them and don't abuse them, and if you don't think so I'd suggest volunteering at a food bank or kitchen in a low-income area to see that yourself. In fact even the OP's stats are saying 80% of food stamps are being spent on "good" food, which ironically actually kind of helps prove that point.

It's also not easy for low-income folks to get good food. They aren't going to be shopping at Whole Foods like people in the upper-income areas. It's just a simple truth that a lot of food that is cheaper isn't healthy. It's tough to even get to a normal grocery store in low-income areas.

Get rid of waste, do what can be done to crack down on the people that abuse benefits. But people that have never struggled complaining that a tiny portion of their income goes to help poor hungry just seems a bit greedy, selfish, and uncharitable imo. Something to think about this Sunday morning.

[Spectral]

I thought your whole argument was then to conclude that soda ("Not supplying government subsidies for sugar seems pretty reasonable") shouldn't be allowed to be purchased by people on the SNAP program? Was that not the whole point? Soda is bad for you because you said therefore it should be banned for food stamp users. I'm now asking if that logic (it's unhealthy *with conditions, so BAN) can be applied to all calorie sources that have been found to be of little nutritional value (processed foods, simple carbohydrates) and bad for you if consumed in excess.

I'm not arguing to argue, I'm engaging your assertion and challenging it with a different point of view. I've agreed with you when your assertion is backed by science, I've disagreed with you when you try and pin your opinion as facts. The plausible argument is that your original assertion lacked proper definition, it lacked proper categorization, and wreaked of personal biased. If you would of asserted something like 'According to Harvard drinking refined sugars in excess can lead to many unwanted health risks, therefore I think we should do something about soda being so readily available without other healthy affordable alternatives being available in poor cities in the USA.' I'd be more open to starting a dialogue with you discussing possible solutions to this problem, rather than spend time pushing back on your subjective "soda is bad" argument.


So what do you think is a solution to this problem?

In the context of the thread, my entire position amounts to, "I think it's reasonable for the government to not subsidize the purchase of soda". I'm pretty comfortable with that position. The majority of arguments against it have been pretty silly.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm not generally enthusiastic about trying to fine-tune regulation of SNAP benefits. If reducing sugar consumption makes sense (and it obviously does), the easiest place to start is to simply stop subsidizing production of HFCS and other food additives that provide little other than sugar. Tightly restricting SNAP purchases has significant regulatory costs; some combination of policy-making, enforcement, and compliance is bound to cost more than could practically be justified.

On the object level, I don't care much about what people buy with their SNAP funds. The vast majority of argument I've engaged in during this thread is against positions that I think are plainly ridiculous. People are so far away from coherent ideas (we have people arguing for compulsory abortions and all sorts of other crank positions) that it's difficult to proceed meaningfully. This is a minor problem that seems to beckon all sorts of absurd crankery in either defense of or attack against the poor. Yeah, I'd rather we not spend ~$7-8 billion per year on soda as part of a program that is nominally about supplemental nutrition, but I also think the problem of subsidizing foods that are basically unhealthy is broader while the conditions of SNAP are already too restrictive, so these themes kind of run against each other. My solution to both would be replacing current sugar subsidies with taxes and liberalizing SNAP laws to have it be closer to a direct cash subsidy. People may then choose to buy soda if they really want to.

I have also never suggested banning any foods, so I'm not sure where that reference is coming from.

[Ragelicious]

Food stamps in 2017... So much for being part of the western world...

[Deleted]

Not exactly huge news and not exactly a lot of money either:

Here in Illinois a Single Mother with One Child Making $10/hour at full-time and getting child support of $500/month earns $2100/month gross

With rent of $750/month, taking $250/month out for dependent care and paying one utility that's not Heat/AC/Phone grants the Standard, Excess Shelter, and the Earned Income Deduction.

The mother gets a whole $16/month from SNAP

That 9.3% comes to $1.48 -- about the cost of a 2 liter bottle per month.

I'm glad someone tries to use math and logic sometimes.

/thread

[Spectral]

Hell in the same countries people not paying their fucking tax costs governments between 10-20 times more than the welfare bill. Not welfare cheats (which is mostly the government being at fault with errors) but the entire welfare budget.

Which country?

[Felaris Stormrage]

A bunch of factors go into this. The first, being the overall price of 'healthy' versus 'non-healthy' food. It's generally cheaper to buy the heavily processed foods. Secondly, I assume many people who are recipients of EBT, are often working long hours for little pay. So, being able to afford and prepare healthier options can be a much more difficult decision, when faced with a cheaper and easier prepared option, like a microwaveable pizza. Lastly, education plays a large factor. If you're poorly educated and grew up on eating unhealthy 'quick-made' foods, then you're more likely to continue doing so.

On a side note, we shouldn't be so harsh and critical about the food being purchased with SNAP benefits. Sometimes, it is the small things in life that make a huge difference, such as a favorite food.

[Zyky]

Maybe if the healthy stuff was cheaper than the non-healthy stuff those with SNAP where every penny matters would buy it instead.

This in a nutshell. It's pretty absurd that to make 3 healthy meals a day it can cost around of $20 a day. The average amount people on food stamps receive is around $200 a month. To eat healthy every day and get your 3 meals in it would cost almost 3 times what they get monthly

[Tomyris]

The food and, by extension, the healthy food must be very cheap in the US, following this thread. If I want to make myself a salad only of some greens and tomatoes, I pay at least double the price of a frozen pizza. Not to mention that I am going to be hungry again after an hour. I tried different approaches over the years for shopping and cooking. My results? You can definitely eat cheaper....healthier? Not so much.And when you have to feed the whole family and work? Good luck! I am very thankful for the menus at schools, at least the kids are eating healthy stuff. If I go in a supermarket when promotions are up, they are mostly for junk food. For the rest you have to pay the whole price. I am starting to hate food industry more and more. Too bad the politicians do not, but they certainly enjoy seeing social classes hate each other and ignoring the bigger problems.
And I do not blame poor people for drinking soda either. For some it might be the single vice they can afford. Whatever makes them feel better. If you want to crack down on bad habits, do that for the whole population, don't nitpick. The poor people are such easy targets, aren't they?

[kamuimac]

Food stamps in 2017... So much for being part of the western world...

its nothing new though - the only ones who seen US as dreamland were always people from former poor soviet republics and muricans themselves - everyone else knows for years now that living conditions were always much better in rich countries of west EU then in US .

- - - Updated - - -

This in a nutshell. It's pretty absurd that to make 3 healthy meals a day it can cost around of $20 a day. The average amount people on food stamps receive is around $200 a month. To eat healthy every day and get your 3 meals in it would cost almost 3 times what they get monthly

its nothing new , its nothing surprising . food was always expensive - those who eat healthy were always historicaly rather rich people then poor .

i really sometimes wonder why people dont use some critical thinking and view on history - if in 2017 you are making minimal wage or living of welfare you are not different then slave in ancient rome or peasant in medieval eu - nothing changed besides the illusion of freedom - people keep telling themsleves that just because they can afford car/tv/cell phone they are suddenly not poor peasants when they in fact are. and for peasants/slaves it was always historicaly normal situation that they were on verge of starving from hunger

to change it they need to fight for getting better jobs - nothing changed nothign will change. besides people living in bubble of illusion that they are free.

[Vargulf the Happy Husky]

better on snacks and empty calories than drugs.

you know a lot of people that get food stamps sell them to people for half. so like a 100 dollar ebt card could sell for 50 bucks cash.

either way, better than trading them in for crack

[Total Crica]

Instead of complaining what people are buying on food stamps, why don't you worry about getting them off food stamps and, oh I don't know, having it so more jobs pay a livable wage?

Because the people who complain about what food stamps are buying only enjoy controlling other peoples lives, not actually helping other people control their own lives.