Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Harry Boy, Aug 15, 2012.
Good For Her
Baker feels heat for denying EBT users from buying her sweets - BostonHerald.com
No such thing as bad publicity fueled by false outrage.
Bless her for having the courage to do the right thing.
Welfare & food stamps are supposed to allow people to lead normal lives. They're supposed to only provide the bard minimum...bottom line is that living on social programs SHOULD be a sucky quality of life.
I would take a different view of this PR.
Living on food stamps should provide a person the nutrition and health choices deemed healthy.
Seems like buying a whoopie pie, which is junk food, isn't solving the nutritional needs of a person.
I would argue the same for buying smokes or booze with EBT cards.
People on food stamps tend to have lousy lives. They often live in bad neighborhoods, in apartments with mold, have young children, have few people to help them out, and have other problems. Many of them are borderline retarded, have serious physical ailments, or have terrible mental illnesses. Some of them work when they can find it. To deny them a sweet is the height of stinginess in my opinion. Alcohol and cigarettes are another matter, but only because of the risk of addiction and the harm it causes.
Eating garbage food leads to harm does it not?
I have a hard time condemning this woman for not accepting EBT for sweets if Mumbles is going to ban soda and sweet drinks for paying customers.
It just seems sort of silly, and frankly I would guess her homemade baked goods are healthier than the Twinkies the customers will go out and buy instead.
So its silly that a business person is choosing to not accept EBT payment for a good referred to in the article as "sweet, fatty"?
It can't be both ways...
We can't be ok with government going after soda, sweet drinks etc etc in the name of better health, and then take offense that a person who sells "sweet, fatty" treats to not sell them to people on the public dime.
I assume you are the type who would be all for the bad food crusades....odd that you are against someone trying to protect a person from a bad food choice.
The parallel would be outlawing bakeries. I don't really understand why Bloomberg only targeted soft drinks. After all, a lot of deserts are even more unhealthy. In fact, I would bet there are a lot of main dishes that are not as good for you as soft drinks. That said, there is a big difference between a government regulating something and an individual doing it. While a case can be made for state to regulate some behaviors (such as by having requiring certain drugs to be prescribed), I certainly don't think individual business owners should be in that business.
I figured this was going to be your line of thought (not judging, I just had a feeling this convo was going to be going there).
In this case, I see this business person as doing the right thing for society. A person on EBT is being supported by the government (the people). We shouldn't be subsidizing choices that would/could cause harm to that person's body.
If I can't walk into Boston and buy a Double Big Gulp soda with my own money that I work my butt off for, I have a hard time saying "ya, Jon Q EBTperson, have a 600 calorie, 25 grams of fat whoppie pie on me"
Crap food, butts, booze etc.
I mean what good does it do Joe and Jane Taxpayer to pay more tax to fund welfare costs because recipients ate too many whoopie pies and now need Crestor?
If they want to eat sweets, they should stop popping out babies and get themselves jobs.
Yeah....tell that to the 15.9% of people over 65 who are living on incomes below the poverty line - many of whom are on food stamps.
Poverty rate rises under alternate Census measure - Nov. 7, 2011
That moon pie looks good, doesn't it, Grandma? Too bad you can't afford it coz we sure the hell ain't buyin' it for you.
Thank you for your service.....no, you cannot have a moon-pie.
Veteran Poverty by the Numbers
You want a moon pie? Fine! Get a job ...and don't forget to report for your mandatory monthly drug and pregnancy test.
One million more U.S. children living in poverty since 2009, new census data shows
I do see your point, Drewski, but if that woman is truly concerned about the harm that sweets cause, then she should get out of the business. Pleasure is one of the natural pursuits of life. To deny someone one pleasure will make them find another. There's no problem finding unhealthy pleasures. Of course, there are perhaps those who spend their entire allotment on junk food, but I'm not sure how that can be corrected. I think a poor mom should be allowed to buy her child a birthday cake, for instance.
Of course, I'm talking about the legitimately poor, not the small number who play the system. Food stamps are generally used properly by the overwhelming number of people who get them. Not all poor people are addicts or have eating disorders, you know.
While I agree with you I also wonder why they didn't expand upon a combination of WIC and EBT. Always thought the WIC program was a great idea. yes ... some people sold the vouchers but your never going to stop that. EBT should be some combination of spending with choice and spending within areas of food groups. some parents are not smart enough to choose properly for their children unfortunately as we all know.
And that is not limited to poor people....nor are food stamps limited to parents with small children.
The idea that anyone thinks it is ok, fine for any of us or for our government, acting on our behalf, to prevent a military veteran from buying a bag of chips or a grandmother from eating an ice cream cone or a child with bone cancer or CP from having a birthday cake is, simply, repugnant to me.
Patters and Mrs.PFnVa - I do see your points. And I actually agree with you...but when governments (town/city) take away the choice of other people to buy sweets/soda etc with their money (not societies); since government is "looking out for society", I have no problem with a business owner "looking out for society"; it is simply another manifestation.
I want everyone to have a whoopie pie when they have a craving (or whatever your pleasure is), but if I can't have one on my dime, neither can you
I agree with you ... but it would not hurt for there to be some minimum standards in there Mrs. PF. That is what made(makes) the WIC program so good. it's all about a mom supplying her kids with the proper nutrition. that is my point ... some % of standards should be in order ... even if it was a mere 10% or 20% of the total. I do not think food choices should be restricted either. That would go against my belief in equality for all if I were to say that. If someone wants to splurge on a Carvel cake ... so be it.
I thought it was clear, Mrs., that my comments are in reference to able-bodied adults, Mrs. But if that part wasn't clear, Mrs., I apologize for not being specific enough.
In other words, Mrs., your self righteous sanctimony and pictures of the Widow Jones and all those poor orphans, Mrs., really doesn't apply here. Not that that has ever stopped you from getting on your soapbox, Mrs.
Separate names with a comma.