« Minimum wage follow-up post | Main | Who's the real Italian? »

October 08, 2010

Comments

For every allowed item such POM (no added sugar), there are 10 more SWPL branded drinks which dump cane sugar, agave nector, and other socially acceptable but nutritionally berefit sweeteners into their products.

No-brand rice, beans, and canned vegetables are what we should have instead of food stamps. During the Great Depression this is what the government provided and back then people took it out of desperation and with shame.

Food stamps really are a gift to the food industry. They definitely don't provide any nutritional benefits above what could be provided with simple bulk food items.

Here is a summary of the rules for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) - also known as food stamps, although they don't use stamps anymore:

Households participating in the SNAP program may use their food stamp benefits in grocery stores to buy eligible food items, according to USDA rules. Generally, benefits can be used to purchase food products intended for human (not animal) consumption, seeds or plants used to grow food, and nonalcoholic beverages. Many other items commonly found in grocery stores may not be purchased with benefits. These include alcoholic beverages; household products such as soap, paper products and cleaning utensils; tobacco products; or any other nonfood products. In addition, with some exceptions, hot foods or foods prepared for immediate consumption cannot be purchased with food benefits.

http://www.ehow.com/list_5988395_rules-food-stamps_.html

....

However, here's another little tidbit:

In addition, applicants may be asked to provide information about assets such as bank accounts. In most areas, households with more than $2,000 in such assets are ineligible for benefits (or $3,000 for households with a family member who is over age 60 or disabled). However, some states, such as New York, have removed the maximum-asset level for most households.

....

So I guess the recipients won't be allowed to buy sugary soft drinks (maybe diet ones are OK?), but if they own, say, Trump Tower, that's alright? Just checking....

That's fine. As long as anyone who gets a paycheck from a bailed out company can't buy anything other than a room in a boarding house and oatmeal.

I don't get why the people who get the least amount of government welfare get shit on the most.

Yeah, people have been talking about preventing food stamps from buying soda for a long time. In 2004 the state of Minnesota tried to do something similar. Their request was denied by the department of agriculture.

Another aspect of this is that grocers have to enforce an ever increasing number of restrictions and against people who may be irritated or enraged not to get want they want. How will they keep track of them all?

JGP

Wow, this was exactly my thoughts when I heard this story. This may be the first time I've ever agreed with Mayor Bloomberg, even if he holds his position for the wrong reasons.

"Another aspect of this is that grocers have to enforce an ever increasing number of restrictions and against people who may be irritated or enraged not to get want they want. How will they keep track of them all? "

It shouldn't be that difficult. The WIC program will only allow limited items to be purchased with their WIC checks; milk, juice, cheese, cereal, and so on.

Many States now use an EBT card rather than actual "stamps." The items you don't want food stamp recipents to buy could be programed not to ring up and debit from the card.

And they should only get their food stamps if they've put enough time in at the gym that week!

"In fact, the only thing you should be able to buy with them is Soylent Green."


Thanks. I got a really good belly laugh out of that one!!!

Michelle Obama must be on food stamps to pay for her HUMONGOUS SHOULDER MUSCLES omg omg omg.

Why do we lack a TRADITIONALIST CONSERVATISM?

shoulder muscles shoulder muscles :O

Off topic: The Rachel Yould article in the Oct. 4 New Yorker touched on some of the issues you handle well, class, credentialism, and student loans. I would love to hear your take on it, not so much about the alleged abuse, but about what Yould did and said to get people to champion her and loan her money. How does being a beauty pageant winner (sounds kinda prole-y to me) fit in with her impressing all the folks at Stanford, etc.? And there's the weirdness of how her theivery and deceit were all in service of what SWPL culture would seem to consider flawless ideals. She seems to have come from a near-but-not-really-prole background and to have turned out to be amazingly talented at playing the credential game; was her problem just that she was too poor to really play it without lies and theft, or do you think there was more to it? And what do you think her history says about the scholarship/student loan system more broadly?

Yes I love SWPLS who drink fruit drinks. Slap an "All-Natural" label on it but pump it with 50 grams of sugar and SWPLs will drink it up, literally.

In Italy there is a name for laws like these: "Grida manzoniane". Laws that prohibit or mandate something with harsh penalties that no one will ever take seriously as the government have no teeth to enforce them.
It come from an scene in the "Promessi Sposi" of Alessandro Manzoni.

Half Sigma, you are right.
Food Stamp cards should be programmed to only allow people to buy healthy foods

Even if you believe in individual liberty, it is appropriate for the government to restrict the use of the cards. Most of the food being purchased is being fed to minors and thus the government has a compelling interest in making sure the minors get healthy stuff and not oreos.

And on a related topic, the same low IQ, low social capital young people that are using their food stamps for junk food are getting suckered in to the TTT law schools. No matter where you turn, these people are victimized by our society.

This is from the Fluster Blog, and is relevant

Saturday, October 9, 2010
Why prospective law students will never get the message.
Recently on JD Underground, someone posed the question as to when or whether prospective law students would ever learn the truth about the legal job market and stop applying to law school in mass.

My answer is, No. I don't think word will trickle down to enough people. There will probably always be a perception among some people that becoming a lawyer will guarantee you an at least solid middle class quality of life and offer an excellent chance of attaining an upper middle class income, at least amongst enough people to fill the law schools.

Perhaps students from middle class and upper middle class families will get the message from their sisters, brothers, and cousins, but legions of students from poor and minority families who think that just gaining admission to a for-profit college is a huge achievement will continue to believe that going to law school is a golden ticket (just as they think that higher education in general and especially graduate degrees will guarantee a ride on the gravy train). If the students from middle class and upper middle class families stop coming, the law schools will simply lower their admissions standards rather than deprive themselves of tasty tuition dollars, and students from lower class backgrounds will eagerly break down the doors, starry-eyed and giddy at the thought that they could become the first lawyer or professional in their families.

Our society has been indoctrinating people about the value of higher education for decades and people from poor and minority backgrounds are especially susceptible to that message because they often don't have any family members who can tell them otherwise. As evidence, I cite the hordes of people who have no business going to college who are flooding into the community colleges and for-profit schools. This notion that higher education is a guarantor of at least a solid middle class lifestyle is deeply, deeply entrenched in the American psyche and exactly zero voices are saying otherwise on a public scale. (Little guys like you and me who gripe on blogs and specialized forums don't count. I want to see Oprah or the President or Brian Williams spread the message.)

Read this article about "Professor X" who teaches at a "College of Last Resort" to get a better sense of what I'm talking about. Hordes of people, including people who have no business going to college, feel desperate to go, believing that higher education will give them a golden ticket on the gravy train. Also watch the Frontline program College, Inc. and read the New York Times article about how well-intentioned people are being suckered into for-profit college debt.

Thus, even if a great many undergraduates learn the truth, a great many will still continue to succumb to the propaganda put out by the ABA, NALP, the LSAC, the law schools, Hollywood, politicians, pundits, and society in general.

Since this is a government benefit, the government should be free to restrict it in any way they see fit. Whether forbidding the purchase of soft drinks while allowing the purchase of other drinks of equally dubious nutritional value is a good policy is a separate issue.

One thing I am curious about is why poor people don't cook more. It's absolutely cheaper to prepare your own food than to buy pre-made stuff, and it's also healthier. I guess poor mothers don't teach their daughters to cook anymore.

Side Note: I have been a pescaterian for over 4 years now and noticed things with people paying with food stamps. Coke is not the only thing they pay for that is not needed such as Doritos, candy, sugar ... I think if you go see the prices for these foods you will notice all the healthy foods or those foods that are marketed healthy are much more money than those that are not healthy. Instead of micro-managing the problem we should stop subsudies on corn and start subsidies on fruits and vegables... If you wanna know how posionious sugar is take a look at this "Sugar: The Bitter Truth "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM]

The american principle of freedom, also means the freedom to destroy ones own life.

You can't have one without the other, the conservatives and libertarians around this blog and always bitching about their "economic freedom" and freedom from government but it's ok for the lower classes to not have freedom right?

Why don't you all admit that unhappy people eat garbage foods because they are stressed out because of inequality and their low status? Living a low status life is highly stressful, if we took away stress and treated them like human beings instead of cattle perhaps they would not need to stuff their faces for comfort.

I should have got myself classified as disabled for GMAT test-taking purposes. That way, I would have had twice the time for it, which may have improved my score by 150 points. Too bad I just thought of this now, halfway through my crappy MBA program at a no-name school.

What do u think about lying to get extra GMAT time to get into Harvard so you can work at a hedge fun and make a lot of money?

Ot,

Gaian child sacrifice a la ancient Carhage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATTknP8t7JU

The comments to this entry are closed.