Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
May the LC thread be with you. May the LC thread be with you.

05-03-2015 , 03:53 PM
Maybe we can cut subsidies to sugar producers and use that money to mail out info on healthier living. Procure something akin to, what was it, Brazil's food guidelines?

You know, more useful information than just "eat healthier"

Edit

It was Brazil

http://www.vox.com/2015/2/20/8076961/brazil-food-guide
05-03-2015 , 03:54 PM
sugar isn't unhealthy, but whatever.
05-03-2015 , 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
I don't think that it's at all an unreasonable goal to try to encourage healthier options and discourage junk food, which is what suzzer's talking about. That's a different thing entirely than the Wisconsin ******ation of deciding what sharpnesses of cheddar cheese the poors deserve.

So I don't really know why goofy, Anais, and fly seem so utterly dismissive of that position.
There's a contingent of about 10 posters that believe if you don't just give poor people all the money they need you're a terrible person. #itworkedinafrica
05-03-2015 , 03:55 PM
Hurray, a semantikes derail! Let's all forget what words and context are and follow him down this rabbit hole.
05-03-2015 , 04:10 PM
Every school, where there's demand anyway, should offer free breakfast, lunch and snack every day no questions asked.

Any homeless person should be able to at least get a peanut butter sandwich and an apple or something anytime, no questions asked also.

That's not necessarily in lieu of food stamps.

There's too much bureaucracy in everything. And I don't mean that the gov. spends too much money on administrative functions, distribution of public services is very efficient (far more than most private charities). The bureaucracy is a burden on the people who need it the most.
05-03-2015 , 04:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
I don't think that it's at all an unreasonable goal to try to encourage healthier options and discourage junk food, which is what suzzer's talking about. That's a different thing entirely than the Wisconsin ******ation of deciding what sharpnesses of cheddar cheese the poors deserve.

So I don't really know why goofy, Anais, and fly seem so utterly dismissive of that position.
Apparently it goes against "Go Team" liberal dogma that any restriction or non-expansive modification to any program to help the poor robs them of human dignity. Details, common sense or practicality are never a consideration.

If food stamps were originally set up with minimal nutrition requirements, or Red Bull was put in the same category as say gum, none of those guys would ever have the slightest problem with it. But I'm ******* for wanting to tweak the system a little to make it better, even though I'm still 100% for food stamps and want to expand tons of different programs to help the poor.

From the Baltimore thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
In suzzer-land, here's how I would help this kid:
  • Make tuition completely free for him to any state school or private school that meets max tuition and min admission/continuation requirements. Note in my perfect world this should apply to everyone in the country rich, middle class or poor. But I'll settle for poor.
  • Offer free trade school as an alternative to kids who don't meet the admission requirements or to anyone of any age who wants to go
  • The poor also get room & board covered for either.
  • Abolish student loans in favor of grants for all of the above. Kids can still get loans for schools that refuse to meet max tuition requirements. Middle class and rich kids can get loans for room and board. No more indentured-servitude to student loans for anyone.
  • Fund inner-city schools better while at the same time crush malevolent teacher's unions that protect asshats like that teacher in the video who does absolutely nothing
  • Give that kid tons of charter school options (note this is already working fantastically well in many places, teacher's unions hate it of course)
  • Make sure he's got good nutrition (food stamps if needed)
  • Fund head start and other after-school programs
  • Create a negative income tax to subsidize the poor w/o dis-incentivizing making an income
  • Clean up all the abuses in the disability program and funnel the funds toward the stuff above
  • Don't throw money down a hole in stupid criminal $2T wars and use the money to fund the above for like a decade
For reference: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=2004

Last edited by suzzer99; 05-03-2015 at 04:32 PM.
05-03-2015 , 04:28 PM
It seems like when you have a welfare program, be it food stamps, healthcare, free housing, or whatever, it is inevitable that the government is going to take an interest in how people use the benefits, and tyrannies will ensue. It's easy to take the position that no questions should be asked, but you will never get a voter consensus on that when half of the country is against welfare, much less unconditional welfare. As a result, I think that the anti-poverty measures are always going to stoke class/racial tensions.
05-03-2015 , 04:28 PM
I personally have no problem with poor people being alert. Not sure why anyone would be.
05-03-2015 , 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
It's not, it just flies in the face of "Go Team" liberal dogma. If food stamps were originally set up with minimal nutrition requirements, or Red Bull was put in the same category as say gum, none of those guys would ever have the slightest problem with it. But I'm ******* for wanting to tweak the system a little to make it better, even though I'm still 100% for food stamps.
I guess I should have mentioned that I don't actually agree with you, suzzer. I'm on board with the "Go Team" liberal dogma on this one. The studies and reporting I've seen seem to indicate that any such restrictions on how WIC/EBT/SNAP benefits are used are ineffective, and they make things harder for the people the programs are supposed to be helping.
05-03-2015 , 04:37 PM
I mean, it seems like such a tiny point in the debate on food stamps that it's almost silly to bring it up.

It'd be like "team dogma" saying, "there should be laws against murder," and suzzer fretting about the one-off situation of an assailant who has rabies and it's also the full moon and so you confuse your assailant with a werewolf and just happen to shoot them with a gun containing silver bullets.

Not the biggest concern, tbh.
05-03-2015 , 04:43 PM
It is a fairly tiny point. It only became a big issue on 2p2 when the subject came up, I said I don't think Red Bull should be purchasable with food stamps (I was surprised to find out it was), then a bunch of other posters got on their moral high horse about my position.

Food stamps already limit stuff like prepared foods and gum. Just move soft drinks over to that category imo.

Anyone who knows my posting history on here knows I don't like to see policies which seem obviously wrong - completely independent of partisan politics. This is one of those issues to me. Food stamps exist to keep people from going hungry, not help give them diabetes.
05-03-2015 , 04:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
That Wisconsin bill is why the democrats should have pushed for reasonable restrictions that ban foods with zero nutritional value like Red Bull, candy and Ding Dongs. Now they have the republicans deliberately gunking up the system so they can just confuse people and then say "See govt can't do anything right."
Meh, money is fungible.
05-03-2015 , 04:47 PM
I'm proud of everyone here for not engaging ikes on his "sugar isn't unhealthy, but whatever" post.

Good work, team. Kudos all around.
05-03-2015 , 04:53 PM
Prepared foods like hot pockets, microwave meals?

Those seem like time savers that could allow poors to spend more time working or job searching.
05-03-2015 , 04:58 PM
You should be able to buy a fishing rod with food stamps imo.
05-03-2015 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anais
Prepared foods like hot pockets, microwave meals?

Those seem like time savers that could allow poors to spend more time working or job searching.
I think those are fine. But those cooked, warm rotisserie chickens are not. That makes much less sense than Red Bull imo. I think the "no hot food" thing is something about paying for the ingredients not the preparation. Of course the fast food industry is lobbying hard to change the rules and get in on the action... I mean bring more human dignity to the poor.

Last edited by suzzer99; 05-03-2015 at 05:05 PM.
05-03-2015 , 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTeeMe
Meh, money is fungible.
So why even have food stamps? Just give straight cash. I realize some have argued for that. I personally don't agree with it in a lot of cases.

But my point is if you're gonna have food stamps there have to be some restrictions on what is considered "food".
05-03-2015 , 05:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayo
I'm proud of everyone here for not engaging ikes on his "sugar isn't unhealthy, but whatever" post.

Good work, team. Kudos all around.
I think with you mentioning it, ikes still chalks up a win in his Excel troll-tracker. And add another point for this reply. Dammit foiled again.
05-03-2015 , 05:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
I think with you mentioning it, ikes still chalks up a win in his Excel troll-tracker. And add another point for this reply. Dammit foiled again.
BUT this way he still doesn't get to argue whatever silly pedantic point he was trying to make, which I think is what he was *really* hoping for. It is his way.
05-03-2015 , 05:22 PM
Excessive sugar is unhealthy, but calories are calories, bros.
05-03-2015 , 05:25 PM
Underweight elderly folks who can't tolerate regular food would benefit from regular soda.
05-03-2015 , 05:40 PM
They have their Ensure.
05-03-2015 , 05:46 PM
http://ensure.com/products/ensure-original

15g of sugar, bros. OH SNAP!
05-03-2015 , 05:48 PM
Yep and also protein and other good stuff.

Well played on the SNAP.
05-03-2015 , 06:05 PM
If you're not snorting Wendy's sugar packets for sustenance, you're not poor enough to need food stamps

      
m