Some were saying that only those who were poor or who knew poor people could criticize the poor.
I’ll never be a billionaire or a politician, but I will and do criticize them.
That’s part of my point. We don’t have to compare “credentials” for having an opinion. Being poorer at some stage one’s life doesn’t give one more credibility, per se.
@fractalmstr I really don’t see the benefit of people dwelling on outliers who abuse the system when there is no evidence suggesting it is widespread instead of focusing on the good that is done. It detracts and adds noise to the discussion, IMO.
^^
I think some here wrongly assume that many of us don’t know any low-income people. I think the issue of purchasing tattoos, cigarettes, booze, concert tix, and smart phones is valid because so many of us have seen too many very low income people purchasing these items, and then not have funds for necessities…and…no…those “extras” weren’t purchased as gifts from better-heeled friends or family. Not saying that that never happens, I just believe those are more the one-offs, because that is what I’ve directly seen.
Those of us who’ve been routinely “hit up for money” by such folks who’ve blown thru their funds on wasteful items, are understandably annoyed.
I haven’t read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned that taxpayers subsidize virtually EVERY can of non-diet soda through the federal subsidies on corn? Those subsidies DWARF the amount that SNAP recipients spend on soda. If you want the government to get out of the business of subsidizing soda (and unconscionable amounts of high fructose corn syrup in nearly all processed foods), you should be looking at the farm subsidies first.
Well, not explicitly, but I did mention that the SNAP funds and farm subsidy funds are passed in the same bill so that the urban and rural congressmen will support both programs and not double cross each other. Maybe it has changed recently, but it was that way for at least 40 years.
And I could not agree more about corn subsidies*. Also ethanol requirements.
Well, it’s a valid comparison for two reasons:
- The taxpayer is directly funding those MREs and mess halls which serve small treats like candies and soda much like SNAP when the core purpose is to ensure sufficient nutrition for military personnel so they can carry out their missions effectively.
- There's some serious questions raised within the military about whether rising levels of obesity within the US armed forces partially due to the availability of the special treats in recent years will have a deleterious long-term effects on the military being able to fulfill its core mission if this issue isn't discussed and scrutinized rather than swept under the rug in the name of uncritical jingoism.
The analysis is not correct:
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/01/food-stamps-snap-welfare-soda-new-york-times/
You should itemize how you’d like your $36/year contribution to SNAP to be spent and send that list to your elected representatives. That’ll show 'em.
[QUOTE=""]
- There's some serious questions raised within the military about whether rising levels of obesity within the US armed forces partially due to the availability of the special treats in recent years will have a deleterious long-term effects on the military being able to fulfill its core mission if this issue isn't discussed and scrutinized rather than swept under the rug in the name of uncritical jingoism.
[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about military members with desk jobs? I’m not seeing pics of “obese” military members in combat areas where MREs might be more commonly available. Maybe I’m wrong about others, but the military desk-job folks I worked with were not eating MREs on any sort of daily or near-daily basis.
According to the articles I posted previously, more than 10% of all Army soldiers have been found to be overweight or obese according to DoD figures and the Army leads the pack in terms of overweight/obesity cases followed by the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.
And yes, some were in combat areas as the former Army NCO colleague recounted with some disgust during the early-mid period of OIF.
Also, you seem to focus on MREs while ignoring the fact small treats like candies and fountain sodas are served in most military dining halls/aboard warships.
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I see no users here who I do not recognize, so nobody should be surprised when I say that personal snark toward an individual user is never appropriate. Oh, and I see no connection with farm subsidies and soda consumption. Let’s keep to topic please. Several posts deleted.
I still think that unless we decide to address the core issues, which are lack of available affordable food, lack of example of what to eat/how to shop, lack of facilities to store and cook food, banning Soda or chips or what have you is just putting a tiny band aid on the problem. It gives the impression something is being done when nothing really has changed.
This is going to cost some money to do. Some choices to be made, and there are going to be people who lose some benefit or service to make up the difference. Which is why we don’t address the real issue. So I’m still not fussed over the soda pop. The problem is much bigger.
One way to do this would be to follow most highly developed countries and tax the extremely wealthy more to enable greater services and safety nets for the very poor, but in that case, the people who would “lose” would be billionaires, and, well, they don’t want that, and, well, they have disproportionate political power.
I think they’re misguided, though (and to their credit, some of them seem to be catching on to this!): they need the rest of us, they need a functional consumer population and employee pool.
Just to be clear, the USDA study on which the NY Times article linked in the OP was based concluded that SNAP recipients make essentially the same kinds of food choices as non-SNAP recipients. SNAP recipients spend slightly more of their food dollar on soft drinks than non-SNAP consumers (5.4% v. 4%). But keep in mind that the total food budget of the average SNAP recipient is probably significantly less than the total food budget of the average non-SNAP consumer, so that the total amount spent on soft drinks might actually be less for the average SNAP recipient than for non-SNAP households.
Also, 5.4% spent on soft drinks doesn’t mean 5.4% of SNAP dollars are spent on soft drinks; that’s 5.4% of total food spending, but most SNAP recipients also spend their own, non-SNAP funds on food, so the percentage of SNAP funds spent on soft drinks is probably considerably less, perhaps more on the order or 2% to 3%…
The USDA study also found that SNAP recipients spent a higher fraction of their food budget on ground beef, chicken, and cold cereal than non-SNAP consumers, while non-SNAP consumers spent a higher fraction on candy, ice cream, cookies, and coffee and creamers. SNAP recipients also spent a higher percentage on packaged lunch meats, while non-SNAP consumers spent more on bulk deli meats. But all these differences are relatively trivial. Broadly speaking, the food basket of SNAP recipients and non-SNAP consumers is very similar, with similar amounts going to junk foods and most spending going toward basic food items.
Cherry-picking the data as the author of the NY Times story did can give a grossly distorted picture
Hear, hear, @bclintonk
Just picked up my “Snap-recipient” brother from the hospital after his 2nd attempted suicide. Finding work and sustaining a life can be difficult for a 56 year old man. Especially when employers delve into medical history. It’s easy to get around hipa and privatization laws.
This isn’t a lazy guy. Unfortunately there aren’t a lot of jobs for guys like him that don’t have the mental acuity to be a computer programmer or the physical ability to complete an 8 hour day doing custodial work like he is doing now. And bottom line—companies don’t want to hire older workers. The “pull-yourself-by-the-bootstrap” posters are well meaning but IMHO insensitive and obtuse to the working poor situation.
It’s not a soda problem. It’s a jobs and mental health issue.
And for any “snap tattoo watchers” out there. If you happen to see my brother out driving a nice looking Cadillac after buying his SNAP groceries (might be a 2 liter of Diet Coke in there that he spent 99 cents on)—don’t fret about the nice looking Cadillac he’s driving. I paid $1,000 for it because he needed a car because both of their cars can’t be fixed.
Perhaps our low income population needs more education so they can make better nutritional choices. I think colleges should take all the need based awards and merit aid grants they offer to middle and upper income families and funnel them to low income students. Once they’ve had a college education, those students will know what foods are nutritious and which aren’t and can teach their families. And as a bonus, once they have a degree they can get a decent job so there will be fewer of them on public assistance programs wasting tax dollars.
^that. You are hitting the “complete solution” to poverty…education to break the cycle. Such a huge problem tho. Then you have to prepare the kids for college bc many won’t be ready at all:(. The enormity of it paralyzes us.
If you need a college education in order to learn which foods are nutritious, you are likely not ready for college, as that is something that high school graduates (or younger) can readily learn on their own. And all the need based aid you so generously provided will have been wasted.
Seriously? Low income Americans need a college education to learn about nutritious foods?