PDA

View Full Version : NYC's Bloomberg wants to ban soda purchases with food stamps.




Kludge
10-08-2010, 02:52 AM
Good for them. Not fond of much going on in their war on fat, but this would be a decent improvement to a disgusting policy.

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg sought federal permission on Wednesday to bar New York City’s 1.7 million recipients of food stamps from using them to buy soda or other sugared drinks.

The request, made to the United States Department of Agriculture, which finances and sets the rules for the food-stamp program, is part of an aggressive anti-obesity push by the mayor that has also included advertisements, stricter rules on food sold in schools and an unsuccessful attempt to have the state impose a tax on the sugared drinks."

More @ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07stamps.html?_r=2&hp

Stary Hickory
10-08-2010, 03:03 AM
Why just sugary drinks? What about free cell phones and god knows what else. Anything to shrink it I will support though. Welfare should not be pleasant at all, I don't support involuntary charities in any form, but Welfare even in it's current form should provide the BARE necessities to survive. It should not be a living but a means to transition to a real living.

I cannot understand the mindset that will accept welfare, it disgusts me. If I was starving I would be humbled and very thankful for charity, I would want to get off it as soona s possible and repay what it was that I was given. I just could not sleep soundly knowing someone had to sacrifice for my own mistakes or problems.

I cannot understand nor tolerate the mentality of those who think it is their RIGHT to the labor of other human beings, a right that can only be brought by using deadly force or the threat of it.

MelissaWV
10-08-2010, 07:27 AM
Why just sugary drinks? What about free cell phones and god knows what else. Anything to shrink it I will support though. Welfare should not be pleasant at all, I don't support involuntary charities in any form, but Welfare even in it's current form should provide the BARE necessities to survive. It should not be a living but a means to transition to a real living.

I cannot understand the mindset that will accept welfare, it disgusts me. If I was starving I would be humbled and very thankful for charity, I would want to get off it as soona s possible and repay what it was that I was given. I just could not sleep soundly knowing someone had to sacrifice for my own mistakes or problems.

I cannot understand nor tolerate the mentality of those who think it is their RIGHT to the labor of other human beings, a right that can only be brought by using deadly force or the threat of it.

He answers a variation on this question. Bloomberg was asked why just sugary drinks (and not sugary foods, fatty foods, etc.)... and his response was the old copout that you can't fix everything at once.

While I agree with the bulk of your post, there is something I noticed right away. The woman in the news story I was watching was talking about how she buys Gatorade, Powerade, water, and rarely Kool-Aid or soda for her kids. Those last two things are super cheap. If you are now going to be banned from buying sugary drinks, will your EBT allowance go up? I'm sure the case will be made for it.

furface
10-08-2010, 07:37 AM
Why not just ban food stamps?

Slutter McGee
10-08-2010, 07:43 AM
Why just sugary drinks? What about free cell phones and god knows what else. Anything to shrink it I will support though. Welfare should not be pleasant at all, I don't support involuntary charities in any form, but Welfare even in it's current form should provide the BARE necessities to survive. It should not be a living but a means to transition to a real living.

I cannot understand the mindset that will accept welfare, it disgusts me. If I was starving I would be humbled and very thankful for charity, I would want to get off it as soona s possible and repay what it was that I was given. I just could not sleep soundly knowing someone had to sacrifice for my own mistakes or problems.

I cannot understand nor tolerate the mentality of those who think it is their RIGHT to the labor of other human beings, a right that can only be brought by using deadly force or the threat of it.

I would be willing to accept government welfare for a short period of time if I had children I had to feed. I would hate it, but I would do it. The way I see it, the government takes so much of somebodies income, that if the burden were reduced, charities would see a lot more money coming in and it would be possible for them to be the primary provider to the needy.

That being said, everydime I spent of taxpayer money, I would give back to charity once I was one my feet again. Government has created a problem that forces reliance on itself. Just like, if by some miracle social security is solvent when I retire, I plan on taking what I can get. Not because I agree with the concept, but just because I have no problem taking back some of what I have given to the government.

Slutter McGee

LibertarianfromGermany
10-08-2010, 08:00 AM
Why not just ban food stamps?

I agree.

It's stupid to celebrate restrictions on what people can use those stamps for. If you're gonna take money from someone else and giving it to another, limiting what that other can use the money for isn't really changing anything (nor doing any good at all).

Kludge
10-08-2010, 09:00 AM
I agree.

It's stupid to celebrate restrictions on what people can use those stamps for. If you're gonna take money from someone else and giving it to another, limiting what that other can use the money for isn't really changing anything (nor doing any good at all).

I disagree. This should discourage people from choosing particularly unhealthy drinks for water -- might as well if they're on the public dole.

I agree food stamps (and all welfare) should be abolished, but the programs might as well benefit citizens as much as possible for the short while longer they'll be around (I think I mean the gov't programs - not the citizens).

TheBlackPeterSchiff
10-08-2010, 09:34 AM
Your going to see a spike is soft drink robberies. "Gimme yo sprite homie!!!"

HOLLYWOOD
10-08-2010, 09:44 AM
"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg sought federal permission on Wednesday to bar New York City’s 1.7 million recipients of food stamps http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07stamps.html?_r=2&hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/nyregion/07stamps.html?_r=2&hp)

There's always ways around this, but a few points on Whats WRONG with this whole picture:

1.7 million on food stamps in New York City... eek!

A prefect example when you are on the government dole... they can dictate anything

If FEDERAL taxs are paying for this, what gives Mayor Bloomberg the authority to dictate policies of Federal Food Stamps?

Recepients will just go around the system, whether it be bartering, trading, subsituting stamps for soda Black Market progams, underground fraud, a slew of other routes to circumventing a soda ban.

Then there's the BS theiven policies and taxation of CRVs/redemption fees-taxation.

Food Stamp recepients will just buy their soda in New Jersey or Online.

NYC loses big bucks in tax revenue... smaller businesses hurt

amy31416
10-08-2010, 10:09 AM
As far as all thievery goes, I'd have the least problem with local welfare, as long as it only bought milk, oil, sugar, cheese, butter, salt, flour (grains), oatmeal, yeast, fruit and vegetables, perhaps some canned tuna or chicken as well. And only generics or store brands. Perhaps one or two whole chickens/month.

No juice, no meat, no candy, soda, or even breads and cereal.

specsaregood
10-08-2010, 10:11 AM
I still say you should be able to buy toilet paper with food stamps.

Stary Hickory
10-08-2010, 11:02 AM
He answers a variation on this question. Bloomberg was asked why just sugary drinks (and not sugary foods, fatty foods, etc.)... and his response was the old copout that you can't fix everything at once.

While I agree with the bulk of your post, there is something I noticed right away. The woman in the news story I was watching was talking about how she buys Gatorade, Powerade, water, and rarely Kool-Aid or soda for her kids. Those last two things are super cheap. If you are now going to be banned from buying sugary drinks, will your EBT allowance go up? I'm sure the case will be made for it.

I don't know what a EBT allowance is really. So I cannot comment on it. This is why I asked about sugary drinks, and why it was the focus. It sounds almost more health related than fiscally related.

The problem with welfare is no accountability. W/o welfare people would be taken care of properly if they were in need...but they would absolutely have to be in need. Also what is missing from welfare is the stigma of being a leecher off other people. People should have to ask people to be kind and give, they ought to feel indebted. With welfare people feel it's their right and we have people that persist on it as a way of life.

If there was no welfare I would help folks if they needed it. Hell I still give money to perfectly healthy bums(most of them are mentality off). With the negative effects of stealing from people with force considered properly it's obvious to see that only voluntary charity can truly help people. Otherwise the negative effects of robbing productive citizens undermines the entire social structure that we all live under.

BrendenR
10-08-2010, 11:12 AM
With the negative effects of stealing from people with force considered properly it's obvious to see that only voluntary charity can truly help people. Otherwise the negative effects of robbing productive citizens undermines the entire social structure that we all live under.

I have a slightly different view on this, which is that there are two types of people:

Poverty:
1) Bums who will do the least amount of work possible to get by.
2) People in unfortunate situations due to no fault of their own who given the chance will pull themselves up by their bootstraps and contribute to society.

You can GREATLY help #2 by having a government program that gives them assistance with food/shelter etc. and by so doing give them a chance to make it on their own, in turn paying back society for the service.

What you MUST try and avoid is giving group #1 the help we give to #2. Is it possible to have a 100% positive result? No way!

But I do believe we can do a LOT better at kicking group #1 off the public dole.

And my point for saying all this is, you're not going to get far trying to push people towards a pro-liberty agenda if you have such a hard lined approach (KILL FOOD STAMPS STOP STEALING MONEY AND GIVING IT TO WORTHLESS BUMS), that gets you no where.

puppetmaster
10-08-2010, 11:42 AM
if you are going to provide food stamps....make it ONLY for the staples and nothing else. bread water....etc....and make it a pain and not based on child birth.

no fed involvement just local and churches....

specsaregood
10-08-2010, 11:51 AM
You can GREATLY help #2 by having a government program that gives them assistance with food/shelter etc. and by so doing give them a chance to make it on their own, in turn paying back society for the service.


Food stamps would be one of the last programs I would cut. There are so many other bigger $ items that would take higher priority. Maybe when everything else is cleaned up we could discuss cutting it.

Stary Hickory
10-08-2010, 12:07 PM
I still say you should be able to buy toilet paper with food stamps.

Only single ply though

Stary Hickory
10-08-2010, 12:08 PM
Food stamps would be one of the last programs I would cut. There are so many other bigger $ items that would take higher priority. Maybe when everything else is cleaned up we could discuss cutting it.

Food stamps absolutely needs to go, you can hold it a bit just like SS and Medicare but in the end t must be cut. Food stamps sounds nice and cuddly but it is a wealth transfer and is widely abused.

oyarde
10-08-2010, 12:55 PM
Private charity is the way to go , period .

specsaregood
10-08-2010, 01:00 PM
Food stamps absolutely needs to go, you can hold it a bit just like SS and Medicare but in the end t must be cut. Food stamps sounds nice and cuddly but it is a wealth transfer and is widely abused.

Fair enough, but it would still be way down the list if I was dictator.

tjeffersonsghost
10-08-2010, 01:07 PM
Make the masses reliant on food stamps, then tell them what they can and cant buy with them. Priceless.

Actually Im not against this is any way I think that if you are on food stamps you should be limits on what you can and cant buy.

tjeffersonsghost
10-08-2010, 01:08 PM
Private charity is the way to go , period .

Tell that to the people walking into food banks that have no food because the charity is down huge because the masses are broke and the ones with the money are holding onto it or "investing" it.

mrsat_98
10-08-2010, 01:26 PM
I still say you should be able to buy toilet paper with food stamps.


Only single ply though

Generic Brand for cheap assholes.

Stary Hickory
10-08-2010, 01:57 PM
Tell that to the people walking into food banks that have no food because the charity is down huge because the masses are broke and the ones with the money are holding onto it or "investing" it.

What do you mean "holding onto it". If people start stuffing money under the mattresses is does not diminish wealth. It would cause the value of money to increase, amplifying the buying power of everyone else and investments. There is nothing wrong with holding onto money, it is merely an investment into society as a whole.

And if the masses are broke how is robbing them going to help the poor? Their is no excuse for theft. If you would only consider how destructive theft is in society and how it discourages the creation of wealth and encourages people to NOT engage in economic activity. This hurts the poor far more than anything else.

oyarde
10-08-2010, 02:04 PM
Tell that to the people walking into food banks that have no food because the charity is down huge because the masses are broke and the ones with the money are holding onto it or "investing" it.

If the Federal govt only taxed me for article one section eight , I could ensure my family, co workers and friends would not need a food bank visit .

oyarde
10-08-2010, 03:13 PM
For those that did need a food bank visit , I could ensure there would be food there.

HOLLYWOOD
10-08-2010, 03:14 PM
for those that did need a food bank visit , i could ensure there would be food there.


agree

Humanae Libertas
10-08-2010, 03:49 PM
The state should set restrictions on Food Stamps if they please to. You have no idea how many illegals I see at the supermarket using EBT cards buying the entire store.

LibertyEagle
10-08-2010, 04:27 PM
He answers a variation on this question. Bloomberg was asked why just sugary drinks (and not sugary foods, fatty foods, etc.)... and his response was the old copout that you can't fix everything at once.

While I agree with the bulk of your post, there is something I noticed right away. The woman in the news story I was watching was talking about how she buys Gatorade, Powerade, water, and rarely Kool-Aid or soda for her kids. Those last two things are super cheap. If you are now going to be banned from buying sugary drinks, will your EBT allowance go up? I'm sure the case will be made for it.

They are on WELFARE. Sucking at the tit of the American people.

They can damn well drink WATER!

forsmant
10-08-2010, 04:31 PM
I think that food stamps should be limited. I don't think that my money should be spent on someone else treats.

MelissaWV
10-08-2010, 04:44 PM
They are on WELFARE. Sucking at the tit of the American people.

They can damn well drink WATER!

I'm with you, but I was addressing the notion that this would in any way have a positive impact. In reality, the case will probably be made that, to eat and drink healthy things, the EBT funds per case will need to be raised :( If you're not able to buy BOGO sodas and cheapo Kool-Aid, then you're buying more expensive things (even bottled water is more expensive, and in some areas the water out of the tap is less than desirable). Nothing ever leads to spending less in the Government these days.

* * *

Hickory: EBT is foodstamps, or rather the current form of it. I'm not even sure places accept the paper stamps anymore, but don't work in a sector that deals with that, so can't be sure. Your benefits appear magically on your card every month, calculated on your alleged level of poverty and the number of mouths you feed. You can go out and spend them all at once on pretty much anything that qualifies, which is the bulk of things at the grocery store. You can buy ahi tuna, or you can buy Ramen noodles. You just can't buy certain prepared foods from the deli, and things along those lines. What I am saying is that, if the main goal is to get people healthy, the case will be made that the EBT allowance must go up so that families can afford even better food and drink... on my (involuntary) dime.

* * *

As for private charities, the best part about them is that there are usually strings attached. If you ever find yourself in the unfortunate position of being homeless or really really REALLY down on your luck in any other sense, you'll find churches and charities willing to give, and often if you offer to help "work off" what they are giving to you, you will find them all the more eager to help you out.

What's sad is that there are regulations that prevent them from doing certain things, and taxes that prevent people from having just that much extra every month to help keep charities open and tithe to the house of worship they choose to attend. I tried to get one church to hold my wedding ring as collateral for a loan, but they refused to accept it, saying they were "not allowed" to do that. Instead, they gassed up my car and gave me a bag of food. The food was not the best, but it was good enough to keep a person alive with minimal fresh food to help along. You'd be surprised just how good a box of Corn Flakes can be when you've had nothing for ages, and how absurdly fast one develops a taste for oatmeal (though I hate the stuff). I paid them back and then some, and I send them money every Christmas.

Lots of other private individuals turned up to help when I was down on my luck. The hardest part is asking, and foodstamps take that difficulty away. It's almost automatic. You go in with your information, and you are impersonally analyzed and given your benefits. That's it. You have very little obligation to get off foodstamps, and you absolutely have zero obligation to pay it back (though one could argue that the THEORY is that you will get a job and the future taxes confiscated from your salary will pay back what you took). There's a mindset that creates. You don't have to give in to the thoughts that creep in, the fact that you're "eligible" for hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in food benefits and you can just sit at home and eat it up, and just worry about a little money for gas or whatever. If you gamed the entire system, you could get just about anything for free; all you give up is pride in yourself, and most folks are lacking in that, anyways.

/rant

LibertyEagle
10-08-2010, 04:51 PM
I'm with you, but I was addressing the notion that this would in any way have a positive impact. In reality, the case will probably be made that, to eat and drink healthy things, the EBT funds per case will need to be raised :( If you're not able to buy BOGO sodas and cheapo Kool-Aid, then you're buying more expensive things (even bottled water is more expensive, and in some areas the water out of the tap is less than desirable). Nothing ever leads to spending less in the Government these days.

I know you were only ranting, Melissa. :) So was I. There is a lot to be angry about these days, eh.

With regard to the water issue, people on WELFARE shouldn't be drinking BOTTLED water. I drank tap water when I was a kid and they damn well can too. If they want something better, then they need to get their asses off of welfare and go work for it. Welfare shouldn't be a cake walk. Hell, it shouldn't even exist. When it first started there were all kinds of limitations on what you could buy with food stamps. Not like today at all.

MelissaWV
10-08-2010, 05:17 PM
I know you were only ranting, Melissa. :) So was I. There is a lot to be angry about these days, eh.

With regard to the water issue, people on Melissa shouldn't be drinking BOTTLED water. I drank tap water when I was a kid and they damn well can too. If they want something better, then they need to get their asses off of welfare and go work for it. Welfare shouldn't be a cake walk. Hell, it shouldn't even exist. When it first started there were all kinds of limitations on what you could buy with food stamps. Not like today at all.

People on me should be drinking bottled water, because that's all I have that's cold and delicious in my house :p (Sorry, I just had to exploit that typo...)

LibertyEagle
10-08-2010, 05:19 PM
lolol.

oyarde
10-08-2010, 05:20 PM
People on me should be drinking bottled water, because that's all I have that's cold and delicious in my house :p (Sorry, I just had to exploit that typo...)

I have well water , wine , beer, tea and coffee . :)

dannno
10-08-2010, 05:28 PM
They are on WELFARE. Sucking at the tit of the American people.

They can damn well drink WATER!

That's pretty much all I drink anyway.. well, that and beer...

dannno
10-08-2010, 05:32 PM
The water in my town really sucks though, so I have a britta water filter to make that taste ok and drink inexpensive high end bottled water in my car and at work..

But honestly, people on welfare who want good water can fill up 1, 3 or 5 gallon bottles of water for $.25/gallon at those reverse osmosis machines.. I am ok with welfare paying for that so they don't have to drink the BS coming out of the tap..