You won't be able to buy soda with foodstamps
Subject: You won't be able to buy soda with foodstamps
In what seemed to be simply a money grab by many, Bloomberg's attempt to tax soda failed.How about a scenario in which we are able to tell people on Foodstamps (estimated to be presently 25% of NYC's population) that they can't use those funds to buy soda?
....will they simply use their other funds to buy soda instead?
How the heck does one enforce such a tax in a city where it seems impossible to prevent EBT from being routinely redeeemed for $?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536692147903272.html?mod=WSJ_NY_LEFTTopStories
Comments
-
And what about diet soda and non-sweetened drinks not to mention various juices and all the other crap packed with sweetner. Personally I don't drink any of that stuff, but I won't tell people what they should or shouldn't eat. This amounts to --in my mind--just being some kind of xenophobic, fascistic exercise of power and will do nothing to eliminate the obesity problem. Most of the people I see on food stamps are the immigrant population (and honestly few if any are obese) in my neighborhood. And they all have dollars too. Instead do something to regulate the Food stamp handout and make it fair for those who really need it. . . .
-
What about bacon and tater tots?
Ice Cream? Bacon-tater-tot-ice cream? :-& -
i'd find it easier to get up in arms about this if soda weren't so cheap anyway.
however:
i am sick and tired of OMG WAR ON OBESITY being a stand-in for legitimate argument. news flash: not everyone who drinks soda is obese. (and not everyone who is obese is unhealthy, just as skinny people are not exempt from serious, costly illness.) i'm sick and tired of being forced to look at those gross ads on the subway -- calories are (up to a point) calories. drinking a soda does not make you fatter than drinking beer.
this is always a touchy subject with me (although i usually drink less than 16 oz. of soda per month), but especially now. between nausea and headaches (daily, and with no allowed pain-killer for the mild-moderate ones), there is no way i would have survived the first trimester without coca-cola. -
Let's think this thru:
The city is trying to curb obesity because it doesn't want to pay huge health costs down the road. (I find it hard to believe that we actually care that people are fat ....even from aesthetic point of view)
....In an era where the government is the largest insurer of the poor (and perhaps becoming the largest insurer "period"), this may actually be an instance of government actually acting in its own self interest. [this of course assumes such a prohibition would drive down obesity. A questionable assumption]
....but let's not rule out payback: More than a few people at DOH and City government absolutely despise the soda industry as a result of being denied needed tax revenue, and giving them a public defeat.
Could this just be a way to hurt the soda industry where it hurts? ....take away its most loyal and obese customers: The poor.
.....when revenge is involved, who cares if people actually lose weight?
P.S. The eligibity for Food Stamps has been expanded over the past decade, and one not need be desperately poor to qualify. The program is presently designed to supplement wages, not just as a supplement to public assistance.
.....mmmm bacon tater tots. -
That op-ed seems to layout some pretty strong arguments that are better than anecdotal evidence, IMO. And nobody is banning soda. They city is simply putting it in with other unhealthy, not-particularly-life-sustaining things like beer, liquor, wine, cigarettes and restaurant food.
Obesity and diabetes rates are exponentially higher in poor neighborhoods. It is indeed an epidemic that needs to be dealt with, an epidemic that creates costs on the gov/taxpayers' dime.
I don't think people on food assistance programs have the inalienable right to buy unhealthy products with almost zero nutritional value with said assistance. -
If Bloomberg is able to get permission from the Feds to "restrict Food Stamp purchases in this manner", other cities will likely follow suit.
....meaning the soda industry is going to spend huge amounts on lobbyists to try to have his request denied. -
Well, all I can reasonably hope for is more public scrutiny of the role of sugar drinks in our obesity problem, and how those companies are peddling them to the public a great cost in health care and health of the citizenry.
Maybe if soda companies are forced to lobby, more people will take a look at the situation. -
The food stamps program has a two pronged rationale, firstly to enable low-income households to purchase food, and secondly to encourage good nutrition. I would have no problem restricting the program to minimally processed foods: fresh,canned and frozen meat and vegetables, butter, oil, milk, eggs, bread etc. provided that the list of foods available is developed by the Dept of Agriculture in consultation with the CDC, and not the mayor of New York and the congressional toadies of Food Inc.
If you want to see what recipients spend it on, stand in line at a supermarket the first Saturday of any month and you'll see. Many spend it on nutritionally sound food, others spend it on fat, sugar and sodium laden processed foods. Quite difficult to make sweeping generalizations. -
Mamacita wrote: What about bacon and tater tots?
Mmmmmmmm bacon-tater-tot-ice cream...I think you just invented my new favorite thing... :shock:
Ice Cream? Bacon-tater-tot-ice cream? :-& -
I think people have the right to make decisions that other people think are bad, like whether to smoke, drink, eat junk food etc., but I can still see the argument behind Bloomberg's idea. The food stamp program is funded by taxpayers to provide for the NEEDS of the less fortunate. Soda and other junk foods have no nutritional value, and people don't NEED it.
I don't think tax dollars should be allocated to pay for something that's just a treat, the same way I wouldn't support "cigarette stamps" or "beer stamps". Especially since -as other posters have pointed out- poor health drives up health care costs, too. -
Our tax dollars should not be used to promote the consumption of unhealthy food. The obesity rate is going through the roof and someone has to start somewhere to address the problem. Calorie information in restaurants was another Bloomberg initiative which has become national. These are all baby steps in the battle to break the stranglehold big business has on the diets of poor people. If you're going to peddle poison you should pay a price to help pay for the long term health effects of your corporate greed. Maybe once fast food costs as much as good food we won't have to have this discussion. And don't get me started on why NYC schools spend less than $1 per day to feed each child who otherwise probably go hungry. Where the hell are our priorities?
-
iphone problems
-
iphone issues
-
The city is trying to curb obesity because it doesn't want to pay huge health costs down the road. (I find it hard to believe that we actually care that people are fat ....even from aesthetic point of view)
I am.
There are too many people and this city is getting too crowded. Everyone needs to lose 20lbs asap so there is a bit more room on the subway cars. -
on the subject of subways, perhaps the men of the city could also attend to the epidemic of testicular elephantiasis or whatever it is that compels them to sit with legs spread to the breaking point.
-
Above, I said approximately 25% of NYC was on food stamps ....turns out the number today is closer to 20%
http://gothamist.com/2010/11/09/one_in_five_new_yorkers_on_food_sta.php#comments....that's a lot of people that would have to find another way (i.e. not food stamps) to pay for soda.
-
Update:
The Feds tell Bloomberg his proposal to ban purchasing soda with Food Stamps isn't going to happen.
-
sweet tea said:
i'd find it easier to get up in arms about this if soda weren't so cheap anyway.however:
i am sick and tired of OMG WAR ON OBESITY being a stand-in for legitimate argument. news flash: not everyone who drinks soda is obese. (and not everyone who is obese is unhealthy, just as skinny people are not exempt from serious, costly illness.) i'm sick and tired of being forced to look at those gross ads on the subway -- calories are (up to a point) calories. drinking a soda does not make you fatter than drinking beer.
this is always a touchy subject with me (although i usually drink less than 16 oz. of soda per month), but especially now. between nausea and headaches (daily, and with no allowed pain-killer for the mild-moderate ones), there is no way i would have survived the first trimester without coca-cola.
I hate to be "that guy" but there is def something to be said about the fat synthesis of simple sugars like HFCS vs complex grains and other macronutrients. Simple sugars are more fattening than fat!
And if one is living on the gov't dole, I'm sorry, but the gov't has the right to make decisions for them, especially when their own decisions affect the bottom line. I.e., someone using food stamps to subsidize shitty diet + lifestyle choices will eventually become a drain on the gov'ts healthcare programs. So I see nothing wrong with the gov't not putting money behind bad foods.
Though really, like anything, it has to be hollistic- i.e., no more corn or milk subsidies either. I really hate behavioral/special interest taxes, but I also don't see how the gov't subsidizing obesity is of much benefit to us either.
-
wont work, small grocery stores
still sell em 
. -
I wonder what would happen to the market for corn (a crop that is heavily subsidized by the Feds) if this proposal had passed. -- Soda is usually sweetened by corn syrup, and this prohibition could have effected how much we consume.--
If this was approved, I suspect that other states and cities would have followed Bloomberg's lead and implemented similar restrictions....
-
I think ditching the corn subsidies would be more effective. Nobody is gonna buy a $3 can of soda.
-
Cool The Kid said:
I think ditching the corn subsidies would be more effective. Nobody is gonna buy a $3 can of soda.Sure, but by advocating for corn to be less subsidized, the city would not get the benefit of the savings. By proposing a tax, NYC actually stood to gain $$.
We'd only get the benefit of corn products costing more ---> resulting in perhaps less obesity.
In many low income neighborhoods, the guy hawking untaxed, out of state cigarettes (particularly Newports) is a common sight.
If this tax had passed, would we have had people bringing in cases of soda for outside of NYC?
-
We can't tax our way out of bad fiscal policy.
-
NYC doesnt have bad fiscal policy. Due to the mayors largess and mgt skills, we are one if the few cities with a balanced budget.
-
Emboldened by the defeat of the "Food Stamp - Soda Ban" and aware that a large percentage of New Yorkers now receive food stamps, Taco Bell and KFC now want to be able to accept SNAP benefits.
http://gothamist.com/2011/09/06/taco_bell_and_kfc_want_a_piece_of_t.php
-
Anti-hunger advocates support the move—Coalition for the Homeless said that for people who don't live near a grocery store and can't afford a restaurant,
This is horrifying. Where in this country are there fast food "restaurants" but no grocery stores? Frankly, I think food stamps should be similar to WIC, with the ability to spend your money on organics if you want, and maybe less requirements in the milk department.
Just a couple days ago I read about a family in Britain where the kids are being taken from the parents because the kids haven't lost weight during a probationary period. Too far? I think so. However, giving families money knowing they can spend it on crap food is obscene. In my opinion, food that is awful for you is a luxury; a once in a while treat. Why it should be defended has me completely baffled.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds