Support NeoGAF

[DownLikeBCPowder]

And those items are found in abundance in every grocery store. What's your point? I didn't give you an idealized opinion, I gave you a common example of how conveniences are utilized.

As did I.

Yes, you did imply exactly that. You want the program to only be allowed in the stores you deem fit, and only on foods you deem fit. That's excessive regulation by any use of the phrase. If you read back on the thread some, you'll see I'm a huge proponent of cooking your own food, and more or less despise processed foods being substituted for such. The issue is what you deem as gray area foods may not be so to others. Again, what foods are completely off limits? Only snack foods? Fine. Define snack foods, then.

Do you honestly feel that tax dollars should go to children and families shoveling down Snickers and Coke? There are reasonable regulations we can all agree on.

I was mostly being facetious. However, I still fail to see why you're so invested in what poor people eat. It doesn't make any sense why you'd care if they're buying tortillas or buying snickers. Again, not a healthy choice, but that's the money they've been allotted for foods...so why do you care?

I don't know, maybe because it's our money? If it's their dollars, I honestly don't give a damn what they do. When it becomes a tax funded purchase, the conditions of my concern change. If you make the purchases of your own dime, you are not beholden to anyone, however if you rely on Big Government to buy your food, you should be subject to regulation (assuming you think the expenditure of public funds should be reasonably monitored and regulated. If you don't feel that way, I suppose we should just roll wheel barrels of money to whomever so wants it and let them do as they wish. Who cares who gets it or where it comes from, right? It's in their allotted budget now.)

Right. Based on that exact same logic, since we all pay taxes, fat people should be put on government mandated diets, because now we all shoulder the burden of their decision to survive off of Krispy Kreme burgers and lard shakes.

A great reason that legislation never should have had a chance at passing.

Entitlements are disruptive and reward/encourage non-productive behaviors and poor attitudes, to mention nothing of causing our eventual bankruptcy.

...because that's out and out fascism. I say this as a healthy adult male who runs 20 hours a week, btw. I'm not a fatty, myself. Though some of my best friends....

You can't possibly think being forced to go on a diet by government officials is anything but a horrible idea.

You honestly have no expectations that the government will, in time, begin to mandate such behavior if you wish to continue to receive aid from Big Government?

 

[WanderingWind]

Not have the fatty police come to your house but with a nationwide medical database in place to keep track you can have higher premiums for those who are considered fat or unhealthy. A healthy society would be cheaper to fund in the long run. Higher premiums would be the incentive to lose weight.



It just feeds into the entitled mentality and giving that to college students can't be good for society as a whole later on where everyone expects the government to come to their aid with something like food stamps.

Colleges have more than enough funding to provide students with lunch off of tuition fees that they should have to shove students on food stamps

"A healthy society would be cheaper to fund." Yes, we ought to get rid of everything the government deems unhealthy. For the good of us all.

 

[WanderingWind]

As did I.

But your "example" is arbitrary. Unhealthy foods are widely available everywhere. Convenience stores, grocers, Wal-Mart, etc. Not allowing them used in one particular place is arbitrary.

Do you honestly feel that tax dollars should go to children and families shoveling down Snickers and Coke? There are reasonable regulations we can all agree on.

Fine. Then define the list of approved foods, and off limit foods. Keep in mind the location and seasonal availability of each. Change this list as new foods are introduced.

I don't know, maybe because it's our money? If it's their dollars, I honestly don't give a damn what they do. When it becomes a tax funded purchase, the conditions of my concern change. If you make the purchases of your own dime, you are not beholden to anyone, however if you rely on Big Government to buy your food, you should be subject to regulation (assuming you think the expenditure of public funds should be reasonably monitored and regulated. If you don't feel that way, I suppose we should just roll wheel barrels of money to whomever so wants it and let them do as they wish. Who cares who gets it or where it comes from, right? It's in their allotted budget now.)

What an amazing example of reductio ad absurdum.

A great reason that legislation never should have had a chance at passing.

But it did. Deal with it.

Entitlements are disruptive and reward/encourage non-productive behaviors and poor attitudes, to mention nothing of causing our eventual bankruptcy.

"Entitlements" is a ridiculously loaded phrase for government assistance. We both agree that there is waste in the system. I'd say that waste is in the form of who qualifies...not in the paltry sum of food stamps that are allotted. Let's worry about eliminated the people who do not need assistance, rather than dictate exactly what their menus is allowed to consist of.


You honestly have no expectations that the government will, in time, begin to mandate such behavior if you wish to continue to receive aid from Big Government?

Every government has dictated some form of control over behavior. Dictating people's health has always been onerous to me.

.

 

[Rentahamster]

...because that's out and out fascism. I say this as a healthy adult male who runs 20 hours a week, btw. I'm not a fatty, myself. Though some of my best friends....

You can't possibly think being forced to go on a diet by government officials is anything but a horrible idea.

Well places like New York and California have already banned trans fats.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/nyregion/21trans.html?scp=2&sq=trans+fat&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/26/us/26fats.html

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/cardio/cardio-transfat-bro.pdf (warning, pdf)

This New York lawmaker wants to ban salt in restaurants:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYo7w_OJciw

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/business/11salt.html?scp=3&sq=trans+fat&st=nyt

How likely is the step from banning unhealthy foods to banning unhealthy behavior? No idea. Do these types of prohibitions work? No idea. Is it the right thing to do? That's debatable.

According to this article, things are hunky-dory: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56J5HQ20090720

However, the transition has been smooth, Angell's team writes, asserting that trans-fat restriction "is now a largely unnoticed part of New York City life."

How credible is the source? Well, the research is done by a government agency, the same government that passed and enforces the ban and has a vested interest in its success.

Do we assign the same amount of credulity and scrutiny to a corporate-funded research team investigating a topic that is of vested interest to said corporation? That's up to the reader to decide.

Your best bet is probably just to ask NY-gaf.

But anyway, back to my point. This is where the "slippery slope" arguments start to pop up. Is this a slippery slope to "out and out fascism"? Some say yes, some say it's a bunch of bullshit.

Now that the government is in control of a lot of the money that goes into health care, they have a vested interest in keeping you healthy and reducing health care costs.

One way to reduce health care costs is to "encourage" healthy behavior and some believe that "encouragement" will inevitably evolve into "coercion". Some believe the "encouragement" will lead to an overall healthier and prosperous society. How powerful is one willing to allow the government to be in order to fulfill its objectives? It all depends on one's world view.


@CharlieDigital: Nice work with the first hand reporting!

One thing to consider (which I think is a large point of misunderstanding amongst many people in this thread) -

Regarding your shopping trip and the places you shopped at and the items you purchased: Is this what the "hipsters on food stamps" are currently doing, or what they should be doing?

Some think it's the former, others, the latter.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Food stamps are, economically speaking, the best thing that the government can fund. The notion that food stamps are contributing to some sort of economic downfall is laughable at best.

 

[WanderingWind]

One way to reduce health care costs is to "encourage" healthy behavior and some believe that "encouragement" will inevitably evolve into "coercion". Some believe the "encouragement" will lead to an overall healthier and prosperous society. How powerful is one willing to allow the government to be in order to fulfill its objectives? It all depends on one's world view.

First off, I didn't quote your entire post because it was large. Not because I'm selecting only some parts to respond to.

NYC banning trans-fats is a good example of how government officiating health can not cause waves. It's highly, highly debatable whether or not they should have done that. Trans-fats are severely unhealthy...there is no debate about that. Now, people let that one slide without too much of a stink, because it wasn't really banning any group of food. It was banning one particular oil...of which there were many other reasonable substitutes.

Regulating the entire health of a person is much, much trickier. Let's use a common staple that most would agree would not be an abuse of food stamp usage. Eggs.

How unhealthy are the yolks, in particular? Considering their negative health benefits, should those be regulated? What about sugar? It can be made to create food items which are extremely unhealthy. Is that, too, now off limits? Butter? Oil? Red meats? Frozen foods? Fish?

If you regulate that only healthy foods are allowed by persons on food stamps, then there is no end to the interference.

 

[Callo Merlose]

government cheese and fried bologna sandwiches are all kinds of awesome

YES.

 

[slit]

We penalize people for smoking and if the government is now going to foot medical bills with taxpayers money, why not have people who are obese put on diets or face higher premiums?

GTFOH, you honestly think that would have any chance of working? How the hell would you enforce it? By weighing people at the doctors office? People lose and gain weight at different rates since everybody's metabolism is different. What about people that have Thyroid problems? That is such an impractical solution that I think the passing of this health care legislation has rendered some people completely nuts.

 

[ATF487]

Well, I'm in the middle of nowhere :lol

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...0.255818,-74.516144&spn=0.10415,0.182304&z=13

About 1.25hr south of NYC and 1 hr east or Philly.

That is pretty surprising, actually :lol

I want good produce deals . Anyone near here know of any proper farmers markets/produce stores? All I can find are farms.

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

GTFOH, you honestly think that would have any chance of working? How the hell would you enforce it? By weighing people at the doctors office? People lose and gain weight at different rates since everybody's metabolism is different. What about people that have Thyroid problems? That is such an impractical solution that I think the passing of this health care legislation has rendered some people completely nuts.

Do you regularly find the government practical?

Food stamps are, economically speaking, the best thing that the government can fund. The notion that food stamps are contributing to some sort of economic downfall is laughable at best.

Really? The best thing the government can fund is a form of welfare? I would think something along the lines of, oh I don't know, our ailing infrastructure so that our economy can continue to grow and stay competitive in the 21st century? Or maybe education so that we can have a viable and competitive workforce for tomorrow's aforementioned economic conditions? I guess food stamps really are the best thing, economically speaking, that the government can fund.

 

[slit]

Do you regularly find the government practical?

So what are you saying? That because the govt is sometimes impractical that we should just let any stupid idea that comes by to go through and not question it's enormous stupidity?

 

[DownLikeBCPowder]

So what are you saying? That because the govt is sometimes impractical that we should just let any stupid idea that comes by to go through and not question it's enormous stupidity?

I'm suggesting that one should not underestimate the lengths of redundancy and "impractical" ideas that the government may or may not impose.

 

[entremet]

That salt ban sounds absolutely insane. That guy knows absolutely nothing about cooking. The issue with salt has more to do with the amount the stuff is in processed foods, not stuff prepared from whole foods.

 

[slit]

I'm suggesting that one should not underestimate the lengths of redundancy and "impractical" ideas that the government may or may not impose.

I'm not underestimating anything, I'm simply questioning the logic of a poster. Are you saying that the gov't has come up with some truely stupid ideas? No kidding.

 

[ATF487]

Really? The best thing the government can fund is a form of welfare? I would think something along the lines of, oh I don't know, our ailing infrastructure so that our economy can continue to grow and stay competitive in the 21st century? Or maybe education so that we can have a viable and competitive workforce for tomorrow's aforementioned economic conditions? I guess food stamps really are the best thing, economically speaking, that the government can fund.

Food stamps are always (well in reality, usually) spent on food, and that means that they are always helping out retail stores. It spurs the economy much more than a blank check, and isn't a huge money sink. I'm all for education/public work investment but it takes ages to see the benefits from education especially.

I wish I could find this graph that shows the average return the government gets for certain public works/welfare projects....

 

[Monocle]

That article is populist bait that invites readers to join in on the nationwide anti-intellectual circle jerk. Should welfare regulations be critically examined, and altered as necessary? Of course. Should young, fit, educated people be eligible for aid? In most cases, probably not. Does that give us license to mock the lifestyles and eating habits of young people who may, in fact, have a legitimate need for food stamps? Think again.

I'm pleased that some subset of the US population tends to avoid the disgusting processed pigshit that passes for food here. At least their dietary preferences aren't contributing to the obesity epidemic. Consider the benefit of reduced future health care costs.

 

[jamesinclair]

"Theyre young, they're healthy, they should get a job".


The national unemployment rate for those 18-30 is around 20% last I checked. And remember unemployment only counts those actively looking for jobs.

Where I am, total unemployment is 18%, which makes me think youth unemployment is close to 30%.

"get a job" indeed.