There's talk about taxing sodas. Could it be that the government food stamp program doesn't want to pay that extra soda tax for millions of people on the program? Should sodas be taxed then the government RECEIVES the money.
The idea of the state (NY) dictating what purchases that poor people make with food stamps is Big Brother at work again...it is difficult for the poor to survive in our social econmical times...of course we all know that there is a hidden agenda behind this.The down on your luck brother that has to ask for help has to follow the rules and regulations of the service provided or you will not recieve the service (food stamps).I agree with Mr.Smiley in terms of moderation and First Lady Obama's initative on healthy choices in eating but...with milk at almost five dollars a gallon...divided by how many children are in your household by the number of cups of milk each child drinks a day...it seems the poor really do not have much of a choice selecting the sugary,syrupy likes of soda...the main reason type2diabetes is on the rise in many young people today.The government could give free milk like they did the surplus of cheese some years ago...of course when you recieve anything that is so called "free"...there is usually a price to pay such" red tape"...ask a mother recieveing W.I.C. To allow the State to enforce this ludacris idea speaks to the point ...is this a Free America or is it a Dictatorship where the agenda will be the political enslavement of the"dry mouth" poor? CHOICE=FREEDOM=AMERICA
"Our problem as a society is lacking moderation." You've said it, Mr. Smiley. I, too, believe that moderation is key in everything. As for this instance, I think the focus should be on educating folks on making healthier choices, the benefits of sunshine and exercise and benevolence. Yes, benevolence can improve one's health, thus, contributing to long life. Too often folks get their health cues from advertisements. Also, some have retained the eating habits of their elders and have found it difficult to let them go.
If you are going to depend on the government to feed you these are the problems that come along with it. This is a perfect Master-Slave scenario. I agree with Dr. West that if this is how things are going to be run the policy should go both ways corporate elites who are being funded by the government should be told what they can and cannot buy.
I received an email that said we should limit what foods people can buy through the food stamp program. The claim is that because it’s tax payer money, they should only be allowed to buy healthy foods. The reason behind it is because they think it escalates weight related illnesses, which in turn increases the tax payer burden on health care. Nowhere in this email did they express concern about the health of the people. This email was more about how to control what the poor can have because somebody else is footing the bill; I would imagine the same sentiment applies in New York.
There is a common misconception that people on food stamps are living large and taking advantage of this program. Most people that make this comment to me have never met a single person on food stamps. They don’t realize that many are working people that just can’t afford to feed their families. How can you limit a choice of food when the person that uses the food stamps also pays into the tax that provides the service? The real question is, how can we devalue a person’s job to the point that they require help with something as basic as food?
The people that are complaining are the same ones that enjoy the luxuries that are produced by people that can’t afford to feed themselves. These would be your housekeepers, desk clerks, retail clerks, restaurant workers, groundskeepers, and a host of other jobs that make life easier and enjoyable, but are devalued. It’s become acceptable for a CEO of a large company to make 500 times what the lowest paid worker in that company makes while at the same time, hate the person that asks for help with their grocery bill.
Wait a minute, it's OK for the state to micro manage something such as telling a recipient of Food Stamps what not and what to buy, yet preach how our Federal Government shouldn't. Calling acts such as this " to much government involvement ", how hypocritical of them. There have been so many cut backs in programs such as this, that I'm wondering if the poor really have enough to eat. Decisions such as this should be lefted in the hands of that person's personal case worker, and nutritional classes should be given if obesity and unhealthy nutritional choices are being made. Why is that the poor, are the first ones, to be hit when it comes to cut backs, although these cut backs doesn't hold a candle to corporate corruption, and misuse of taxpayers dollars in other ventures.