How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
06-21-2017, 10:37 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,604
Re-consider the article from the following perspective: On average, the rate of smoking and alcohol consumption is similar* between SNAP households and non-SNAP households. If a government were to start allowing people to purchase alcohol and tobacco using their SNAP / WIC / etc benefits, would you have a problem with this even though the rates of use were similar across all households?
That's basically the point here. Soft drinks, processed snacks and the like provide little to no nutritional benefit, and have side-effects which are harmful to health and therefore increase the burden on the (also publicly-subsidized) healthcare system. Thus, why do they qualify for subsidy under a program which has the word "nutrition" in its title?
* = In recent years, the rate of smoking among non-SNAP households has actually declined at a faster rate than among SNAP households, but we'll pretend that it's 1985 for the purpose of this comparison, and the rates are still the same. Also, did anybody else see what looked like a DeLorean bursting into flame and then vanishing last night?
Farm subsidies are great when there's a global depression / famine / world war / etc., taking place. Not so much when they become the norm.
Actually, this applies to pretty much all subsidies.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 10:44 AM
That's right. Our docs were very concerned that my son would be born with serious heart abnormalities, as is commonly seen in fetal hydrops cases. As it turned out, he did have a couple heart abnormalities, but they were minor, relatively common, and should resolve on their own. But I was very grateful for the cardiologist given the possibility of much more serious issues.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 10:55 AM
Until that conversation, I assumed that she did just that- worked with kids that were born that way. But unfortunately she also deals with lots of kids that are developing issues after the fact.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 11:58 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,604
Dammit, Spock! Why can't you just accept the bacon for what it is?
Reply
1
1
06-21-2017, 02:43 PM
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
Like: why does the government (or taxpayers) get to say what to eat when the funders (taxpayers) don't have to do the same?
Mostly playing Marx's advocate as I think most of America is a fat slob.. it's proven science.
BTW Can the gov at least make SNAP not eligible to pay for bottled water?
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 03:56 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,604
Do I seriously not get a single for the Spock-Bacon post? C'mon, that was funny as hell.
Nobody is (or would be) forcing SNAP recipients to eat differently than the status quo, any more than the fact that we do not presently subsidize their alcohol and tobacco consumption does not force them to drink and smoke differently than the status quo. (In fact, SNAP recipients actually tend to smoke more than non SNAP recipients here in the 21st century.)
I'm merely asking: If "we the people" have decided that we're not going to use public money to subsidize certain behaviors which, while perfectly legal, are detrimental to health and provide no benefit, why are we ok using public money to certain other behaviors which are also harmful to health and provide no nutritional benefit, under the guise of a "supplemental nutrition assistance" program?
It's not an unreasonable question.
for the Spock-Bacon post? C'mon, that was funny as hell. I'm merely asking: If "we the people" have decided that we're not going to use public money to subsidize certain behaviors which, while perfectly legal, are detrimental to health and provide no benefit, why are we ok using public money to certain other behaviors which are also harmful to health and provide no nutritional benefit, under the guise of a "supplemental nutrition assistance" program?
It's not an unreasonable question.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 04:01 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,604
I'd be curious to know how much of a restriction it is, as compared to a conventional drain. Where's JasonC with his magnehelic gauge?
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 04:27 PM
SADFab Destructive Testing Engineer
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Beaverton, USA
Posts: 18,642
Total Cats: 1,866
Seeing as BW recommends a 10AN line minimum for the oil drain, I'd say its a bit small. Not by much though, that is quite thin walled, and the hole isn't that small
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 04:28 PM
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Do I seriously not get a single for the Spock-Bacon post? C'mon, that was funny as hell.
Nobody is (or would be) forcing SNAP recipients to eat differently than the status quo, any more than the fact that we do not presently subsidize their alcohol and tobacco consumption does not force them to drink and smoke differently than the status quo. (In fact, SNAP recipients actually tend to smoke more than non SNAP recipients here in the 21st century.)
I'm merely asking: If "we the people" have decided that we're not going to use public money to subsidize certain behaviors which, while perfectly legal, are detrimental to health and provide no benefit, why are we ok using public money to certain other behaviors which are also harmful to health and provide no nutritional benefit, under the guise of a "supplemental nutrition assistance" program?
It's not an unreasonable question.
for the Spock-Bacon post? C'mon, that was funny as hell.Nobody is (or would be) forcing SNAP recipients to eat differently than the status quo, any more than the fact that we do not presently subsidize their alcohol and tobacco consumption does not force them to drink and smoke differently than the status quo. (In fact, SNAP recipients actually tend to smoke more than non SNAP recipients here in the 21st century.)
I'm merely asking: If "we the people" have decided that we're not going to use public money to subsidize certain behaviors which, while perfectly legal, are detrimental to health and provide no benefit, why are we ok using public money to certain other behaviors which are also harmful to health and provide no nutritional benefit, under the guise of a "supplemental nutrition assistance" program?
It's not an unreasonable question.
I'm perfectly OK with forcing people on SNAP to buy the staples and cook. Eggs, milk, flour, butter, rice, etc.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 05:36 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,604
However...
There are Federal and State guidelines for the nutritional quality of prepared foods which can be served in public schools. Not especially good ones, but they do exist.
The same goes for food served by the Armed Forces, food distributed as refugee / disaster aid, food served to prisoners, etc.
SNAP, by comparison has no food-quality guidelines. They restrict the expenditure of SNAP money only by broad classification, without any regard for the nutritional quality therein. Quoting directly from the USDA's "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Eligible Food Items" page:
Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:
- Foods for the household to eat, such as:
- breads and cereals;
- fruits and vegetables;
- meats, fish and poultry; and
- dairy products.
- Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.
- In some areas, restaurants can be authorized to accept SNAP benefits from qualified homeless, elderly, or disabled people in exchange for low-cost meals.
Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
- Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
- Any nonfood items, such as:
- pet foods
- soaps, paper products
- household supplies
- Vitamins and medicines
- Food that will be eaten in the store
- Hot foods
Additional Information
“Junk Food” & Luxury Items
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.
- Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
- Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome. Further detailed information about the challenges of restricting the use of SNAP benefits can be found here:
Report -- Implications of Restricting the use of Food Stamp Benefits
Report -- Implications of Restricting the use of Food Stamp Benefits
Energy Drinks
When considering the eligibility of energy drinks, and other branded products, the primary determinant is the type of product label chosen by the manufacturer to conform to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines:
- Energy drinks that have a nutrition facts label are eligible foods
- Energy drinks that have a supplement facts label are classified by the FDA as supplements, and are therefore not eligible
Live Animals
Generally live animals and birds are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. Live seafood such as lobsters, fish and shellfish may be purchased with SNAP benefits.
Pumpkins, Holiday Gift Baskets, and Special Occasion Cakes
Pumpkins are edible and eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. However, inedible gourds and pumpkins that are used solely for ornamental purposes are not eligible items.
Gift baskets that contain both food and non-food items, are not eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits if the value of the non-food items exceeds 50 percent of the purchase price. To read our most recent notice about Gift Baskets, click here.
Items such as birthday and other special occasion cakes are eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits as long as the value of non-edible decorations does not exceed 50 percent of the purchase price of the cake.
In fact, if you read the PDF linked to near the middle of the page, you'll see that it opens with this line:
Federal dietary guidance uniformly applies to the total diet – there are no widely accepted standards to judge the “healthfulness” of individual foods.
Really? Here's a tip: If it's carbonated, or it comes in a foil-lined polypropylene bag, or if 100% of the contents have been deep-fried, then it's not "healthful."So while a prison couldn't get away with serving nothing but Fritos and Mountain Dew to a convicted rapist, SNAP will happily pay for people to serve that same crap to their children.
And that, I find troublesome.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 06:33 PM
I don't do well with chaos; like when the car in front of me stopped at a 4 way stop, saw a cyclist coming from the right; the cyclist does the correct thing and stops, and the car in front of me sits and sits and sits and waves the cyclist through the intersection instead of driving.
My reaction: we encountered the 1:100 cyclist that would actually stop at a stop sign, and this moron in front of me ***** it all up by waving him through the intersection out of turn.
My reaction: we encountered the 1:100 cyclist that would actually stop at a stop sign, and this moron in front of me ***** it all up by waving him through the intersection out of turn.
Reply
1
1
06-21-2017, 07:58 PM
Re: SNAP funds
EBT money is fungible, y'all. Sure, maybe there's a transactional cost involved, but you're not going to stop folks from buying cheetos, cigarettes, or drugs. If they have other sources of income, all they have to do is shift their own spending around. Even if they don't have other sources of income, it's not hard to trade the EBT funds for what they want. Kind of like when you see folks advertise a $100 gift card for sale for $90 because they don't want anything from that store.
So, sure, throw enough regulations and government departments at the problem and maybe you add a bit of friction to those transactions, increase the cost of those transactions by a few percentage points. But you're not going to stop people from buying what they want.
EBT money is fungible, y'all. Sure, maybe there's a transactional cost involved, but you're not going to stop folks from buying cheetos, cigarettes, or drugs. If they have other sources of income, all they have to do is shift their own spending around. Even if they don't have other sources of income, it's not hard to trade the EBT funds for what they want. Kind of like when you see folks advertise a $100 gift card for sale for $90 because they don't want anything from that store.
So, sure, throw enough regulations and government departments at the problem and maybe you add a bit of friction to those transactions, increase the cost of those transactions by a few percentage points. But you're not going to stop people from buying what they want.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 08:15 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,036
Total Cats: 6,604
EBT money is fungible, y'all. Sure, maybe there's a transactional cost involved, but you're not going to stop folks from buying cheetos, cigarettes, or drugs. If they have other sources of income, all they have to do is shift their own spending around. Even if they don't have other sources of income, it's not hard to trade the EBT funds for what they want. Kind of like when you see folks advertise a $100 gift card for sale for $90 because they don't want anything from that store.
So, sure, throw enough regulations and government departments at the problem and maybe you add a bit of friction to those transactions, increase the cost of those transactions by a few percentage points. But you're not going to stop people from buying what they want.
So, sure, throw enough regulations and government departments at the problem and maybe you add a bit of friction to those transactions, increase the cost of those transactions by a few percentage points. But you're not going to stop people from buying what they want.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2017, 08:16 PM
Retired Mech Design Engr
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Seneca, SC
Posts: 5,009
Total Cats: 857
I don't do well with chaos; like when the car in front of me stopped at a 4 way stop, saw a cyclist coming from the right; the cyclist does the correct thing and stops, and the car in front of me sits and sits and sits and waves the cyclist through the intersection instead of driving.
My reaction: we encountered the 1:100 cyclist that would actually stop at a stop sign, and this moron in front of me ***** it all up by waving him through the intersection out of turn.
My reaction: we encountered the 1:100 cyclist that would actually stop at a stop sign, and this moron in front of me ***** it all up by waving him through the intersection out of turn.
Reply
0
0
