Iowa House Republican wants to ban Food Stamp purchase of "junk foods"

NO JUNK FOOD: A House Human Resources Subcommittee is asking the Department of Human Services to seek a waiver from the USDA to restrict the purchase of so-called junk food with food stamps.

Last year, 360,546 Iowans received $510 million in food stamps, according to the department.

HF 288 asks the department to seek a waiver, something Ann Wiebers of DHS told the subcommittee is unlikely. If a waiver was granted, Rep. Dave Heaton, R-Mount Pleasant, wants a list, similar to that used by the Women, Infants and Children program, developed to identify foods that cannot be purchased with food stamps in order to promote "more healthy eating."

http://wcfcourier.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/9fdd753e-3ee5-11e0-b787-001cc4c002e0.html

I'm sure they will be even more outraged by this than they were about Michelle Obama's initiative to reduce childhood obesity. :sarcasm:

:D

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will start today's show with a long rant aimed at Mr. Heaton...NOT!

condemns Michele Obama for advocating healthier eating? The stupid. It burns.

when I heard this report on the radio!

... big food corps and toward smaller and more sustainable local food producers. While I am slightly uncomfortable with this it is not as if the WIC program makes choice doa. Heck, about half of the stuff in my local stores is WIC approved - just not the processed shit.

I can see where someone would view this as restricting poor folks, but I think of it as more pulling some big corps off of the public tit. Now if wencould something about farm subsidies going to monsanto, adm, etc.

to cost considerably more than "junk foods"; therefore, people get more "bang for the buck" when purchasing a less-than-healthy option.

poor in actual nutrients.

Leading to this:



They're cheaper because we subsidize them either through food stamps or through agricultural subsidies that favor unhealthy foods.

We need to end all subsidies on the production end, because it is impossible to discriminate how it is used. Subsidizing corn (for instance) means subsidizing meat/dairy production as well as everything made with corn oil, corn syrup, etc. And so.

Instead we should shift that money to the consumption end where it can be more carefully monitored. Food-stamps and maybe tax breaks on food purchases for those who don't quite qualify for direct aid, but only for food that is actually good for you.

People can still buy junk food, just not with federal money.

A little perspective would be helpful. I think I get what you are refering to but I'm not sure.

Help?

or maybe diabetes. :shrug:

Sid

... without that information its a guess which I only like to do if it's MY opinion I'm supporting. Hehe.

Still - your guess is a good fit. Thanks.

I guess the y axis label got cut off or something.

Sorry.

Much more sense. And it is an expected result of corps using tax subsidies to drive down the price for their crap and then offering zero alternatives to those who most need it.

You are right about the junk foods being cheap and full of calories, but they are also deficient in the very nutrients that allow and support good health. It's hard enough living in constant stress without having to also deal with deficiency diseases, syndromes etc.

Ii just think everyone deserves a good nutritional meal. And I think one of the main steps to see that happen is to get the corporations to change what they do or just do an end run around them.

I help co-ordinate the deliveries for a local organic farm. We do a LOT of charity work giving food to an intentional community (developmentally challenged adults), a battered womans and childrens shelter, and a homeless shelter. It isn't enough and I feel like I'm pushing a big damn rock up a big damn hill sometimes, while at the same time the food corps get huge subsidies and tax breaks to market shit to the inner cities. It aint' right. But what is the solution?

I welcome your thoughts.

By the farm bill.

If more taxpayer money was going to producers growing veggies that make it to the dinner table, and less for processed corn. Here's the latest breakdown of where our money goes, according to EWG:

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000

1 Corn Subsidies**
1,641,218 $73,792,669,478
2 Wheat Subsidies**
1,375,252 $30,729,925,838
3 Cotton Subsidies**
264,824 $30,259,690,401
4 Conservation Reserve Program
856,582 $26,066,897,923
5 Soybean Subsidies**
1,044,608 $22,776,888,516
6 Disaster Payments
1,321,942 $17,925,697,394
7 Rice Subsidies**
69,992 $12,551,853,937
8 Sorghum Subsidies**
615,664 $5,904,112,011
9 Dairy Program Subsidies
158,039 $4,813,037,994
10 Env. Quality Incentive Program
272,196 $4,051,373,024
11 Livestock Subsidies
797,961 $3,470,458,808
12 Peanut Subsidies**
91,563 $3,401,966,100
13 Barley Subsidies**
352,969 $2,465,990,160
14 Tobacco Subsidies
394,793 $944,104,224
15 Sunflower Subsidies**
61,690 $819,557,901
16 Wetlands Reserve Program
5,561 $395,389,977
17 Canola Subsidies**
20,465 $355,045,734
18 Apple Subsidies
8,586 $261,540,987
19 Oat Subsidies**
640,111 $260,927,639
20 Sugar Beet Subsidies
9,071 $242,064,005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

And neither of these problems is helped by just restricting the use of the food stamps.

I no longer buy the "Food desert" meme.

While many cities have urban neighborhoods that have no major grocery store, the average suburban dweller has further to travel to the grocer.

Americans that it is for the poor. We are discussing food stamps, the average suburban dweller isn't the issue, they can hop in the car and get what they need.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The economically disadvantaged should not have to choose between what is bad for them but cheap and what is good for them and expensive. A shift in priorities away from corporate overprocessed and nutritionally unsound food and toward locally grown and nutritious food makes sense to me.

I'm going out on a limb here but I gonna guess that your opposition to this is that historically (and let's face it it is probably the real reason this RW, um, person is suggesting this) has to do with the usual RW belief that the poor haven't earned the right to have so called "luxury" foods. I'm all aboard with this position. People should be able to choose what works for them. Sometimes some food won't work because it will spoil without refrigeration, etc.

But don't you think that an overall policy shift toward a more just and sustainable food chain that includes healthier affordable options for the poor and indigent is a good idea? But perhaps this is the wrong way to implement that change. I haven't thought your end of the equation through, and I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

Colorfully yours,

J

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sorry I failed the progressive litmus test today. But I'm not sorry that I fight to change the laws that support big food companies at the expense of the poor. I'm not sure but does your anger have to do with the obvious back door effort of this bill to limit the choices of the indigent to what this RWer feels they deserve?

That I do NOT support. But I would like to see that the list of foods that funds like WIC go to food that is proven, if not nutritious, at least not deleterious to health. And perhaps we should discuss if the Food Stamp program should funnel some of that money into better food for the poor.

willing to take us seriously?

Being ignored is a message of DEATH... it is NOT funny, nor is it cute.

People are being denied heat, children are being denied school meals, homeless people are told to 'sacrifice" with having more low-income housing funds cut, but you are worried that somebody may get a piece of food that you don't consider to be " good choice"?

Some soul-searching is in order. Especially when one is in a position of power over poor people.

I agree with your position on meals, heating, housing funding, etc. It's a fraking crime and shouldn't be that way. And yes I called my congress critter and wrote and got my friends to do the same. But when your congress critter is Michelle "frakin"

But to be truthful, that junk food is not a "good" choice. IT is a choice, but I would like to clarify by saying that when I used the word "good" I meant healthful. If someone wants to choose "vitamin enriched mud", or "cigarettes - now with vitamin C", or "doritos" or whatever I am cool with that. Completely. One can lead a horse to water, etc. And besides there are many reasons that we eat food - and hunger or nutrion are only 2 of them. One could decide that they are getting together with friends to hang out and have a celebration of some kind and if someone wants to buy a pizza or whatever, then I think they should be free to make those choices.

However, I also think that we should make sure that any money going to the food corporations should go be driven at least indirectly toward other sources. Other more healthy and sustainable sources. This is a small dog in that hunt. The bigger dawg is farm subsidies that go primarily to big corporate factory farms which are bad for the environment, bad for the economy and that produce and end product that is not healthy. I fully support shifting the government granting system toward helping smaller local (or whatever) companies produce good tasting, healthier, inexpensive choices for EVERYONE. but especially for the poor. Their choices are already badly limited and getting more so all the time.

I support more choice, not less.

nothing more, nothing less.

But part of shaping public policy should be to make sure that more of those choices are ones that are both inexpensive and nutritious and good tasting.

Junk food manufactures are in business to make money. If we take away a partial source of their income through removal of junk food from food stamps they will be forced to offer a more healthy alternative. For them it will just make better sense. The arguments that taking away junk food takes away the power of choice of poor people and the argument that junk food provides cheap calories, I think dovetail. I would think, that given the option most poor people would choose to give their children a healthy meal rather than crap. I think money and time are the driving force behind the reason that many Americans, not just poor people, are forced to eat junk.

when you take the choice away from one, you take it away from all, not just the ones that don't have your discretionary funds to buy what they will.

Who gets to decide what you can buy in the grocery store? can Bobbie? She should be allowed to make your food choices for you because you feel you have the right to make it for her. BTW she is not advocating people choose junk food, she is just calling out the incredibly galling belief that you have the right to choose for poor people, how condescending and superior can you get?

Should we make the choices for those "little women" that make choices you don't like with their reproductive organs? Just as condescending and just as absurdly wrong.

Do you believe that after a steady diet of NOTHING but rice and beans it would be inappropriate to treat oneself to a bag of crappy chips? just for the taste perhaps? should they be allowed chocolate? or is that just for the superior people as well?

If you only get food stamps and work than save up. I know your not going to like that answer. I have a feeling we completely disagree on the issue. Do I think we (the taxpayers) owe people the right to eat junk food, then no I don't.

You appear to feel quite superior, I am not advocating MORE money for junk food I am saying everyone should have the right to choose.
You disagree with that because "it is your money damn it!!" that sounds quite Republican to me, just like the legislation you appear to support.

It is not your money and we are not asking you to buy a poor kid a candy bar once a week, I know that would be horrible for the lice ridden gutter snipes to have anything but rice and beans and no one is asking you personally to do so. I personally believe you should not be burning gasoline and expecting me to breathe it, but I am not the control freak you are so my guess is your OK.

We should raise the amount of money we provide in food stamps to offset the cost of eating healthier. Poor people do not choose to feed their children large amounts of empty calorie garbage, it is thrust upon them because of how little we pay in food stamps.

I just believe that food stamps should be used to purchase healthy food. I think we should raise the amount people receive. Yes, this limits people's freedom but they are using taxpayer money. I know where your coming from, but we just have different views.

anymore, which I am sure that y0u know.

It is wonderful to know how many of you think you have the right to determine who gets an abortion, who eats what, and all other decisions.

It must be nice to be enthroned on that seat of pure wisdom.

stems from our screwy ag-subsidies.

We put in too much money at the production side of the equation. So we give billions to corn producers meaning corn is now artificially cheap. That's great if you're using it in it's original form or a moderately processed form (canned corn, corn flour, etc). But the problem is that also makes it a wonderful and unhealthy additive for junk food companies. So we drive down the price of nice fresh corn on the cob (yay!) but also on corn syrup, corn oil, and all the products made with those (too numerous to mention and mostly unhealthy) in addition to meat and dairy that use corn as a feedstuff and allows them to produce at an artificially low cost. So we are effectively subsidizing meat, dairy, and junkfood. With the exception of dairy in some cases those are things we do not need to be healthy and ought to be present in much smaller portions of our diet (and we certainly don't need to subsidize them).

Instead we should work on ending those subsidies and save the money for the consumption side of the equation.

That way the healthy foods: vegetables, fruits, grains, minimally processed food stuffs with not too much fat/sugar/oil added can be covered and not everything else. This would drive down the cost of healthy foods by making them more widely used (causing a shift in agriculture practices) all the while driving up (relative) the cost of unhealthy foods.

But corn farmers and food companies have great lobbyists. The poor and folks with common sense do not.

cigarettes and alcohol. No one is stopping you from buying soda, chips and twinkies. I think your outrage is misplaced. Progressives are not high fructose lovers or junk food lovers. Remember we are accused of being arugula eating elites.

I for one, have no problem with this rule and the common sense definition of junk food ( potato chips, soda, candy, sugary treats). Calling me names does not negate that I am a liberal and support
democratic causes.

to talk about childhood obesity and what contributes to it, yet dems do. Logically, seems like I am on the left side of this argument and you are on the right. No one is saying take away a persons right to purchase junk food. I say tax soda, and don't let purchase of junk food with food stamps.

This stance is not right wing and it certainly is not showing any colors on my part.

What equality!

and what *their* intentions are.

Just like I would willingly bulldoze every private health insurance company into a pit of lime while alive and then close up the hole, if given the chance. The food that goes to the poor in this country is a freaking crime. Studies have proven over and over that these kind of foods are seriously bad for health. The SAD (standard american diet) is the only one on the planet that has been proved to shorten lifespans while increasing the incidence of metabolic and chronic illnesses. Monsanto, ADM, etc. are no ones friend.

But enough about my psychosis. What do you think about the idea - not the source. If the idea sucks then tell why you think it sucks. We all already KNOW that the RW talking point ideas are toxic. Is this one of them? What are the potential problems you see? Is there any benefits IYO?

So yah - Given that even a broken clock is right twice a day, when the hands of that clock swing around to an idea with at least enough merit to be discussed, then I will discuss it. Please keep in mind that I would have no intention of ever compromising on the goal; to get good quality inexpensive food choices available for those who most need it and could benefit from it.

It won't be used to ensure everybody has access to affordable, healthy food. Instead it will be used to ensure that poor people can't use their EBT cards. Of course we both know Republicans don't like social welfare programs. If you like the idea of getting rid of all food deserts, getting a real grocery store with healthy food instead of a bodega with overpriced "juice drinks" etc. then I'm totally behind that.

But I believe that food stamps should be allowed to be spent on any food item (of course "junk" is subjective, so I like to keep it simple) because a fair amount of the time, it's either that or nothing - either no real grocery store, or they don't have the combined budget, knowledge and time on how to make a simple, healthy meal from scratch. And while I fully support getting health affordable food to poor communities, this isn't going to get us there. This is just co-opting a toxic RW talking point in the hopes of being able to get something good out of it. Noble, but misguided.

candy bar, because *THEY* disapprove.

The arrogance is truly astounding.

Frankly I think every neighborhood should have some kind of food co-op that was responsive to the neighborhood and had a mandate to find as much local, healthy, and affordable food as possible.

Heck I volunteer at the one nearest to me and with a local farm so they can distribute to the needy.




I think I jumped the shark on this one. Sorry.

Well said and some points for thought.

I suspect that you are correct about this legislation being used to limit what the "less worthy" can choose. I fully support the big change that needs to happen to food policy, namely farm subsidies that currently go to big corps for the most part and subsidize the crappiest foods.

I shot from the hip on my first response and, apparently, shot off the foot that I usually keep in my mouth.

What constitutes junk food must be very narrowly defined. I am not sure how narrowly defined this bill makes junk food but in principle I really don't see a problem with it.

If yes, why do you still support it?

If no, why not?

At the same time I don't think food stamps should be used to buy alcohol or cigarettes but I don't care if people smoke or drink.

Basically chips, candy, snack cakes, etc. Convenience stores carry other foods than these at least where I love (which by the way has had a law banning junk food purchase from food stamps for years). If someone did try to feed their family entirely off of junk food their child would be horribly malnourished. The fact is, because junk food is cheaper, many people on food stamps buy it and they are malnourished. I noticed that another guy that was defending the no junk food law was from a state that already had such a law.

In our convenience stores you pretty much always have staple food items, like beans, rice, pasta, soup, etc. I wonder if this is because of the law. Since many people have said that people on food stamps only have excess to convenience stores I am wondering if in states that do not have this law if convenience stores basically only carry junk food?

to go about their lives by stripping them of one of the few conveniences that they can afford, processed foodstuffs.

If this type of bill is done right it could be a very good thing.

I think it's OK if my taxes are used to help poor people buy chicken, rice, and tomatoes. I got a real problem if they use the money to buy Pringle's and Fruit Loops.

Who would have to define what "junk food" is?

You guessed it....THE GOVERNMENT!
:wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

So, this Republican wants the big, bad, arrogant GOVERNMENT to tell US what qualifies as "junk food" and "healthy food"? My God, this is socialism--er--marxism--no, wait--communism! Oh, what the hell....they all mean the SAME thing!

that includes "good" food qualities like vitamins, protein, fiber, calcium, etc gives them all a positive score and compares them to "bad" food qualities like salt content, calories, and fat and if the balance is in favor of good then it passes, otherwise it is labeled junk food.

They're already doing the basic work by providing nutrition facts on the back of the carton. It wouldn't be too much to require some sort of health-ratio based on those facts that tells the clerk (or more likely the barcode scanner) that this item is acceptable or not.

....they're just trying to CONTROL us! That's the arrogance of big government!

LOL! Nice to use their talking points back at them.

food stamps are government.

What has happened to our country?

...do you know sarcasm when you hear it? :sarcasm:

I am TOTALLY against food stamps being used to buy anything other than fruit, vegetables, bread, and dairy products.

that has been typed out.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

we don't need to subsidize the junk food industry.

It's big enough as is. And as people on food stamps are likely to be on some kind of medical assistance this could end up saving quite a bit of money.

Isn't that pretty much the same thing she talked about?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

like they do when FLOTUS mentions anything about eating healthy?

Many people scoffing at this might want to stop and think about how much Monsanto product goes into that crap.

for families that have no easy access to a real grocery store.

Are YOU going to tell a poor mother who has access to a gas station but NOT a grocery store that her kids can't eat at ALL because there's nothing "healthy" enough for them at the convenience store? Better starvation than junk food? Really??

It's easy to judge poor families when you have never been in a situation where there's NOT a grocery store within walking distance, and you don't have adequate public transit, a car, or the gas money to drive to one. Lots of poor neighborhoods have convenience stores. Very few of them have grocery stores.

But since they earn more than poverty wages, they figure that they must be smart.

And $60 a month in child support.
There were nights when we ate pancakes and sausage for dinner, or French toast.
There were nights (not very often) when we had Banquet TV dinners, or Swanson.
Just about every Sunday dinner was spaghetti and meatballs.
Potato chips, sodas were something that only made it to the table on birthdays and picnics. McDonald's? I have a vague recollection of being taken there once.

How many people with the current experience of poverty have time to read up on the Farm Bill and where the subsidies go? How many currently impoverished people take advantage of available resources to gain an understanding that taxpayer dollars can be used to provide subsidies to vegetable growers and other food producers whose goods make it to the table, but are instead going to producers of cheap livestock feed and processed grains that go straight to the Doritos aisle?

10:1 odds that impoverished people who are aware of all that already shop in the veggie aisle and their local farmers' market. Those who don't give a shit need to get a clue. The government money they spend helps determine future budgets.

ps - this is Iowa. Frigging Iowa. 356k people on food stamps in a FARM state.

pancakes and sausage, french toast, spaghetti and meatballs. All of these share a few qualities. They are made from ingredients that transport well (with the exception of the eggs, which can be tricky considering their fragility) because they're calorie-dense. They are made with ingredients that store well (flour, dry pasta) and don't spoil quickly. But fruit and vegetables are more expensive and a law that forbids you from buying the Banquet or Swanson dinners isn't going to shift your purchases to cantaloupe and salad. It's just going to go toward more of the solid staples that you rely on.

Does not translate to "all nights."

Sorry you got that idea.

and I do believe scratch pancakes are healthier than Doritos, but maybe that's just me.

We. Get. It.

It needed to be said, and I thank you.

This policy has always been a reich-wing load of shit to degrade food stamp recipients and finally permanently place them in the caste of pariah - if there was any question about their status before.

The true nature of these New Dems is now on display.

When you don't have a grocery store in your neighborhood and you can't afford a car (or the gas money to drive to the nearest grocery store) then you buy whatever convenience store crap that you CAN get, because your kids eating Sun Chips and drinking Yoohoos is a better option than your kids not eating anything at ALL.

And will this ban poor mothers from buying cake mixes and ice cream for the kids on their birthdays? 'Cause poor kids aren't allowed to have luxuries like a birthday cake.

:eyes:

All the stores in my area have labels on the shelves, next to the prices, which state whether they are WIC or EBT (SC food stamp program) approved. They are NEVER next to junk food. That includes the "candy" cereals, like Lucky Charms and Cocoa Pebbles.

Cereals like Cocoa Pebbles are still relatively low calorie and they're fortified with vitamins and minerals, too. They have added sugars and no whole grains, but other than that, they're a hell of a lot healthier than actual candy. I don't necessarily oppose food stamps not covering soda or potato chips, which have no nutritional value at all, but cereal? Do poor kids have to eat gruel, too?

I don't know if I'd consider Cocoa Pebbles Junk food, but soda and chips, yes.

It's not much money, you know.

And I think that some of the prepared cereals are junk food, especially those with a lot of corn and corn sugar.

Have you seen what a bag of chips is going for these days? I was looking at a flyer that advertised a 2-for-1 sale at $3.75.

Shit. For that much, you can eat Ramen noodles every night for weeks. (Not that that's not junk, too, but you get the idea.)

I suspect that Iowans might too.

Iowa is a state in which people grow their own food.

It might be smart to give people on food stamps and who want to grow their own vegetables the opportunity to do that -- maybe through community gardens.

Growing your own food is not free, but you get really healthy food during the growing season.

And our corn makes it into ethanol factories or to ADM for corn syrup production. Our fields are devoted to corn and soybeans. Not a lot of produce grown here except in the summer and you can get to the farmers markets, but we do bring in the bulk of our produce from other states and nations.

Our own village over the past couple of years identified a piece of land and the community group supplied seeds and seedlings while volunteers prepared the soil and planted and weeded the garden during the summer. In fact, we had Saturday planting party to get the seeds into the ground. Retired people and the elderly could harvest what they needed for free. Younger people could get produce from it provided they donated time to weed or hoe. This community effort has been a great success. We even sold a bumper crop of pumpkins at the farmers market and will use the proceeds for purchasing seeds for the next year and gas for tilling.

crowd into apartments even in high rises. Victory gardens were common and very popular in Europe when we lived there. We really need them here, especially for low income and unemployed people.

you can get nacho chips for 99¢ and the cheez dip for about the same. It used to be a pound of each, but over the last few years they've reduced the chips to 12 oz and the cheez to 14 oz in order to keep it from going over a dollar. Here http://savealot.shoplocal.com/savealot/default.aspx?action=entryflash&aref=home check out some of the specials.

Who don't know how to manage their household, and especially don't know how to manage their pantry. There are plenty of people like that who have decent, even high-paying jobs.

Luckily, there are programs out there to teach low-income people the skills they need to properly stock a kitchen and cook low-cost meals.

However I would like the government to provide information on why junk food is so bad and why you would be better off eating healthier. I'd also like the government to try and lower the cost of healthier food.

well there is more than ONE problem..but a mainstay problem is "the boyfriend".

It's damned nearly impossible for a single person to even GET food stamps these days, and WIC is all about children (it used to be under 6..don't know if that's still the case)

The FOOD is supposed to be for the KIDS, but once that stamp-card/those WIC vouchers are in Mom's hand, it's up to HER to deliver the food to the kids.

If there is a sponging boyfriend in the home, much of that food will end up in HIS belly, and not in the kids'.

Food automatically becomes "family-food", once it's in the fridge, and when schools report that kids are going to school hungry, or when people are getting the baby formula and then selling it or trying to refund it at stores, for cash, the people in charge of these programs get intrusive.(to the extent that they can with all the cut backs)

Every time there is ONE incident that gets reported, it automatically focuses attention on everyone else too.

No one ever "got rich" because they had a little help with their food purchases, but newspapers & tv stations love to hone in on any "unusual case" and then balloon it into a "BIG PROBLEM".

We would all like to think that everyone buys healthy foods with that assistance, and that they feed it all to their kids, and NOT to a boyfriend who contributes nothing to the household except for his presence, but there is no way to ever be "sure" in every case.

One way to prevent "some" abuse, is to tax (and thereby exempt) certain items that are not considered to be a healthy diet for a child.

In 99.9999% of families who get food stamps, there is also some cash flow.

If the food bought with assistance is assumed to be healthy and nutritious, it then falls on the parent to decide how much of "their" cash they are willing to spend on the frills.

Special events will intrude into that cash flow..like for birthday cakes & treats or perhaps at Easter , Halloween & Xmas, but for the most part, the week to week groceries pretty much remain the same for most families.

You can walk down aisles in any store and see what should/could easily be taxable..soda pop on one side/chips/cookies on the other side...shelf after shelf of "exotic" flavored waters/quasi-juice drinks.

Even coffees could be taxed..All the special blends and exotic coffee concoctions are not "necessities".

Even at the meat counters, some items could be easily taxed...an example.. frozen shrimp (for shrimp cocktails). WE happen to love them, and would pay tax on them, because we don't eat them EVERY day. they are a LUXURY item.

The same goes for frozen dinners. I would not mind paying taxes on them because on nights when I don't feel like cooking, Marie Callendar cooks a dinner for my husband. It's not cheap, and it is a luxury....and it's a rarity, so a little tax would not hurt at all.

I do not want to pay taxes on the staple foods or produce, dairy, bread or frozen SINGLE-Veggie packages.

Computers make all this a breeze.

If people on assistance shop wisely, they can feed their families well, and 99.999% probably do, but we only hear about the teensy percent who do not..

Taxing luxury/frankenfoods would probably not affect most people on assistance at all

the people at WIC. Maybe the program should adapt to the reality that not all poor people are widows and orphans.

have an almost insurmountable task at hand when they try to get help.

The sad part is that if a woman marries the boyfriend, she is often then ineligible for any aid, or gets it cut.

And if the boyfriend is unemployed, and living with the woman on assistance, it's just another mouth to feed and less for the kids, because she cannot claim him.

It's a nasty little trap that too many people get caught in, because the assistance is never enough to get OUT of the trouble, but just barely enough to stay alive on..:(

My friend's daughter-in-law just lost her child care assistance because she got a small raise..not enough to cover the extra that it will cost her now, but just enough over whatever "limit" they set, so now my friend is babysitting 3 nights a week.. the worthless soon-to-be-ex husband (my friend's son) pays nothing because he has never held a meaningful job, and is a drug user:(

In economics and consumer theory, a Giffen good is one which people paradoxically consume more of as the price rises, violating the law of demand. In normal situations, as the price of a good rises, the substitution effect causes consumers to purchase less of it and more of substitute goods. In the Giffen good situation the income effect dominates, leading people to buy more of the good, even as its price rises.

... snip

The classic example given by Marshall is of inferior quality staple foods, whose demand is driven by poverty that makes their purchasers unable to afford superior foodstuffs. As the price of the cheap staple rises, they can no longer afford to supplement their diet with better foods, and must consume more of the staple food.

As Mr.Giffen has pointed out, a rise in the price of bread makes so large a drain on the resources of the poorer labouring families and raises so much the marginal utility of money to them, that they are forced to curtail their consumption of meat and the more expensive farinaceous foods: and, bread being still the cheapest food which they can get and will take, they consume more, and not less of it.
—Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (1895 ed.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giffen_good

http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1T4ADRA_enUS413US414&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=oak+cliff+stores&fb=1&gl=us&hq=stores&hnear=Oak+Cliff,+Dallas,+TX&ei=KrRlTcSvMsWblgfwvfXeBg&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=image&resnum=5&ved=0CAQQtgMwBA

Jan's Food market

Green House Food mart

Gipson'd Food mart

all of which are walk-in marts... no fresh food.No deli.No fruits/vegs.No fresh meat. all packaged,premade.All sell liquor and lottery tickets.

This is reality,folks.

JOBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBS!