No junk food for Gov. Haley

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.thestate.com/2013/05/03/2754637/senate-budget-proposal-would-ban.html

In response to Gov. Haley's efforts to restrict what kinds of food can be bought using Food Stamps, Sen. Darrell (D-Richland) has managed to get a proviso attached to the budget restricting the Governor's Mansion to buying only those foods that can be bought using Food Stamps.  Note that at this point, the budget has only passed the committee stage.  I doubt it will survive into the final bdget, but it very well might.  There are enough Republicans who have been rubbed the wrong way by Haley, it could actually stay as a way to tweak her.

[dead0man]

I agree with both sides and hope they both get their way.


wait, Governors don't buy their own food?

[DemPGH]

Ha, that's pretty good. But frankly, restricting food stamp use to food with nutritional value on the whole would certainly not be the worst idea a Republican came up with.

[Blue3]

I agree with both sides and hope they both get their way.


wait, Governors don't buy their own food?

Must be a South Carolina thing.

In Rhode Island, the governor doesn't even have an official residence.

And I know the President has to pay for all the food they eat/serve at the White House..

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I agree with both sides and hope they both get their way.


wait, Governors don't buy their own food?

Must be a South Carolina thing.

In Rhode Island, the governor doesn't even have an official residence.

And I know the President has to pay for all the food they eat/serve at the White House..

The tendency here is to have the actual salary of public officials to be kept low but shower them with bennies that don't attract as much attention as the salary numbers.  In cash pay, Haley in the bottom quartile of salary among U.S. governors.

[King]

You literally cannot afford to sustain yourself in healthy foods on a food stamp budget. For this kind of policy to work, benefits will either have to be raised or the government stand up to big agriculture and reform the farm subsidy system to favor more fruits, vegetables, fish and chicken.

Neither of which either political party is willing to do.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You literally cannot afford to sustain yourself in healthy foods on a food stamp budget. For this kind of policy to work, benefits will either have to be raised or the government stand up to big agriculture and reform the farm subsidy system to favor more fruits, vegetables, fish and chicken.

Neither of which either political party is willing to do.

You definitely need to give up most prepared foods and basically replace meat with beans for most meals.  However, it takes time to make food from scratch, which is something the working poor are usually short of.

[King]

You literally cannot afford to sustain yourself in healthy foods on a food stamp budget. For this kind of policy to work, benefits will either have to be raised or the government stand up to big agriculture and reform the farm subsidy system to favor more fruits, vegetables, fish and chicken.

Neither of which either political party is willing to do.

You definitely need to give up most prepared foods and basically replace meat with beans for most meals.  However, it takes time to make food from scratch, which is something the working poor are usually short of.

Yep.  This is why reforming farm subsidies would do more for healthy choice than food stamp reforms or taxes on junk food at the consumer side.  If grocer delis and restaurants (even fast food) could prepare healthier food at a lower cost, they'd be more inclined to do so and it would be easier for poorer Americans to diet.

[Old Man Svensson]

Ha, that's pretty good. But frankly, restricting food stamp use to food with nutritional value on the whole would certainly not be the worst idea a Republican came up with.

I concur. It would certainly be a blow to the plague of obesity if food stamps could only be used for food that's not liable to kill you.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm conflicted on such moves.  I both believe you should have the freedom to buy the food you enjoy eating (within cost constraints)... but also would prefer tax dollars going to healthier foods for a portion of the population that has relatively little access to healthy foods.

But I always prefer positive reinforcement.  It certainly wouldn't be impossible to set up a "rewards" type program for EBT cards... foods that qualify earn points and those points earn you extra $$$ for food.

You wouldn't necessarily even have to raise funding much... just make it an incentive instead of a rule.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You literally cannot afford to sustain yourself in healthy foods on a food stamp budget. For this kind of policy to work, benefits will either have to be raised or the government stand up to big agriculture and reform the farm subsidy system to favor more fruits, vegetables, fish and chicken.

Neither of which either political party is willing to do.

You're right on all counts here, but let's not even try to accept the notion that there's genuine "reform" attempts at work here. This is almost certainly an attempt at reducing the effect of food stamps and sabotaging what is otherwise one of the most successful programs of the American welfare state, so it can be pointed to down the road as ineffective. If it happens to reduce spending on South Carolina's end and/or promote healthier eating habits (which it won't in 99.8% of people, it will just make buying things more complicated) that would be an almost entirely unintended benefit. This is ideologically motivated blind-cutting-around-the-edges-because-we-can't-abolish-the-whole-thing.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You literally cannot afford to sustain yourself in healthy foods on a food stamp budget. For this kind of policy to work, benefits will either have to be raised or the government stand up to big agriculture and reform the farm subsidy system to favor more fruits, vegetables, fish and chicken.

Neither of which either political party is willing to do.

You're right on all counts here, but let's not even try to accept the notion that there's genuine "reform" attempts at work here. This is almost certainly an attempt at reducing the effect of food stamps and sabotaging what is otherwise one of the most successful programs of the American welfare state, so it can be pointed to down the road as ineffective. If it happens to reduce spending on South Carolina's end and/or promote healthier eating habits (which it won't in 99.8% of people, it will just make buying things more complicated) that would be an almost entirely unintended benefit. This is ideologically motivated blind-cutting-around-the-edges-because-we-can't-abolish-the-whole-thing.

Sabotaging?   Food stamps would have more support if people were confident they weren't being wasted on doritos and soda.

[DrScholl]

Poor people don't even have access to much else than junk food (or what is deemed junk food), because there aren't many supermarkets in poor areas. When all there is in the neighborhood a corner store that accepts EBT, there's really no option but to shop there. These conservatives don't know and care about this, though.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Sabotaging?   Food stamps would have more support if people were confident they weren't being wasted on doritos and soda.

And in my experience, people who have to live on a very limited food stamp budget do not waste a notable portion of that money on doritos and soda when given real shopping options. But please, continue to live in this world where we legislate on the basis of welfare queen myths. I do admire your naiveté, though; Republicans would gosh golly never legislate on meanspiritedness!

[Ban my account ffs!]

Yeah, it's clear Shua doesn't know any poor people... at least not very well.

No.. you won't find doritos and soda in a poor person's house.  Unless you're talking like waaay off brand Our Family Cola... and typically the only chips they can afford are plain Old Dutch Rip-L chips or something that tastes like the bag it came in.

No.. these people survive on mashed potatoes and hamburger gravy and the like.  And those not too proud probably get a meal or two a week at a soup kitchen.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sabotaging?   Food stamps would have more support if people were confident they weren't being wasted on doritos and soda.

And in my experience, people who have to live on a very limited food stamp budget do not waste a notable portion of that money on doritos and soda when given real shopping options. But please, continue to live in this world where we legislate on the basis of welfare queen myths. I do admire your naiveté, though; Republicans would gosh golly never legislate on meanspiritedness!

And I admire your obfuscation.  How the hell does any of that substantiate your claim about sabotage?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, it's clear Shua doesn't know any poor people... at least not very well.

It's clear you don't read carefully . . . at least not very well.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Sabotaging?   Food stamps would have more support if people were confident they weren't being wasted on doritos and soda.

And in my experience, people who have to live on a very limited food stamp budget do not waste a notable portion of that money on doritos and soda when given real shopping options. But please, continue to live in this world where we legislate on the basis of welfare queen myths. I do admire your naiveté, though; Republicans would gosh golly never legislate on meanspiritedness!

And I admire your obfuscation.  How the hell does any of that substantiate your claim about sabotage?

If you can damage a program you'd ultimately like to get rid of and pass it off as actually "helping" and "caring", it's a win/win because

1)  It furthers your agenda of dismantling the program, even if it only chips away at the edges...

2)  It reduces the blowback you might feel because outward appearances suggest you're "helping" the program rather than hurting it.  Food stamps are popular enough that outright attacking it might not be politically popular.

Sometimes you're like a horse with blinders on, shua.  You assume the intentions of the SC GOP is to improve or help the plight of the poor.  That is a dangerously misplaced assumption.  Their intentions are as mean spirited as they seem.

[Napoleon]

I am going to come to Shua's defense here. You guys can feel free to jump at him but he didn't even come close to saying what its being interpreted as. I don't agree with these restrictions but I admit that I do know poor people and they do buy soritos and soda with food stamps and I think they should be able to buy any food they want with them, but we don't need to make shua our strawman . Come on.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Sabotaging?   Food stamps would have more support if people were confident they weren't being wasted on doritos and soda.

And in my experience, people who have to live on a very limited food stamp budget do not waste a notable portion of that money on doritos and soda when given real shopping options. But please, continue to live in this world where we legislate on the basis of welfare queen myths. I do admire your naiveté, though; Republicans would gosh golly never legislate on meanspiritedness!

And I admire your obfuscation.  How the hell does any of that substantiate your claim about sabotage?

Because the same kind of people pushing this kind of "tell the poor to buck it up and live healthier" crap are the same folks who are trying to criminalize the implementation of a passed, ruled constitutional, healthcare program, something that is literally sabotage. The entire American conservative movement at this point has based most of it's foundations on drowning the government in it's bath water and "starving the beast"; they are ideologically motivated, not pragmatically motivated. They do not like the food stamp program because it is welfare.

They are not interested in genuine, good-hearted reform of it, and if they could get away with it they would try and Abortion-debate the whole program; raising the barrier to entry to such an extent that it's still there, but hard as hell to get anything out of. The Republican Party doesn't legislate against things they view as empirically bad in the most pragmatic way, they legislate against things they are ideologically and personally opposed to. There's a big difference in there that admittedly is lost on most casual American politics observers.

[King]

Poor people are banned from buying Doritos and rich people would never think of eating of Doritos.  I guess we just want those in the middle to get fat?

[HoosierPoliticalJunkie]

You literally cannot afford to sustain yourself in healthy foods on a food stamp budget. For this kind of policy to work, benefits will either have to be raised or the government stand up to big agriculture and reform the farm subsidy system to favor more fruits, vegetables, fish and chicken.

Neither of which either political party is willing to do.

Food stamps are supposed to be supplemental, though, not complete.  It's not supposed to cover all your food expenses anyways. 

[DemPGH]

Ha, that's pretty good. But frankly, restricting food stamp use to food with nutritional value on the whole would certainly not be the worst idea a Republican came up with.

I concur. It would certainly be a blow to the plague of obesity if food stamps could only be used for food that's not liable to kill you.

Sure. Red meat, potatoes, "junk food" - as a person gets older the worse these are for the heart, blood, and organs. But it's actually easily possible to eat quite healthy on a budget: whole grains, veggies, various kinds of beans, and fruit (a good source of natural sugar) sure won't bust the budget. Of course, one has to develop a taste for these foods, though. Eating healthy is more lifestyle than anything else.

And for me the issue here isn't a "cheating the system" or "welfare queen" kind of thing, it's just public health. Lower income people do tend to have horrible diets, and I think it's more a knowledge issue than a budget issue.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Personally, I think junk food is just as bad for you as drinking or smoking. We certainly wouldn't want state benefits going toward the direct purchase of booze or smokes. But when it's carbonated high fructose corn syrup, a thing that has virtually no nutritional value and plenty of negative health consequences, it's OK?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Chris Christie might want to follow suit.