I heard on the radio that it was being pushed for Fast Food restaurants to accept food stamps.
Do you agree that fast food restaurants should accept food stamps? Why or why not?
I am against it. Fast Food is a luxury. It, while being good, is quite expensive and *not* a legitimate use for someone who is getting free stuff from the government.
I might hear the argument "Well poor people like fast food to!" but even so, it isn't like these people live off of their food stamps. If they want a treat of sorts they should use their real money to do it, not government money.
Your thoughts?
I'm not from where you're from (USA, is it?) so I don't know too much about this. Are food stamps similar to ration tickets? Like those during wartimes?
Food Stamps are a form of wellfare. It helps low income families who are unable or unwilling to spend money on a recommended amount of nutritional food to be able to feed their families better. I worked at a grocery store, so I saw some of the benefits and flaws of the system. My biggest issue was the huge amount of people who pay for food with food stamps and then pay cash for cigarettes and beer. Cheaper foods are usually not as healthy as more expensive foods. Since bad parents will always find money to buy cigarettes and beer, they would normally without food stamps buy sodas instead of milk, kool-aid instead of fruit concentrate, and other cheaper, unhealthy substitutes for thier kids. SNAPS has a policy of not allowing people to buy "hot food", because hot food in more expensive because one would have to pay extra for someone else cooking it. The taxpayers shouldn't pay for luxury of other people eating out (that includes fast food). Also, SNAP in run by the states, so each has their own polices and rules.
I'm not sure how I feel about food stamps in general. However, I think that fast food defeats the purpose of food stamps, and that the use of food stamps should be limited to nutricious foods. I understand the difficulties in implementing that sort of policy.
Quote from: Duckling on September 14, 2011, 07:27:48 PMI understand the difficulties in implementing that sort of policy.
You know that food stamps aren't stamps anymore? They use a debit card that sends purchase information to a government agency.
Quote from: Idozen Cair on September 14, 2011, 05:57:35 AM
I'm not from where you're from (USA, is it?) so I don't know too much about this. Are food stamps similar to ration tickets? Like those during wartimes?
No it is generally just a form of welfare. They give you food stamps (or a debit card now, apparently) that you can spend at local grocery stores.
Yes, SmartyPants, I was aware of that. I was actually referring to a policy on which foods were nutricious; no one wants to be un-nutricious and lose their customers, so the corporate lobby will have the regulation be lax to the extent of being ineffective, does this go through.
Quote from: Duckling on September 15, 2011, 05:17:06 PM
Yes, SmartyPants, I was aware of that. I was actually referring to a policy on which foods were nutricious; no one wants to be un-nutricious and lose their customers, so the corporate lobby will have the regulation be lax to the extent of being ineffective, does this go through.
My level of interpretation is below your last few sentences. What are you trying to say?
Duckling's wording doesn't make sense to me too.
Okay, first: I'm a grammar Nazi, and your sentence really should look like: "Duckling's wording doesn't make sense to me, either."
Second, I did fail to punctuate with commas in helpful locations, so I'll try again:
"I was referring to the making of a policy which might determine a dichotomy of foods nutricious and not so; no food supplier or manufacturer wishes to be classified in that latter part of that dichotomy, and thus lose customers who utilize the food stamp system. As such, the corporate lobby composed of food suppliers and manufacturers whose foods might be considered not to be nutricious by a new policy that determined whether or not they were, indeed, nutricious would actively try to prevent such a policy from taking hold -- it would hurt their business interests -- and thus render any remnant of the original policy, were it to go through, completely useless."
I hope that ambiguity in meaning due to synonyms and a lack of commas has been resolved, and my elaboration upon my ideas has helped to do so as well.
Quote from: Duckling on September 20, 2011, 05:37:50 PMOkay, first: I'm a grammar Nazi, and your sentence really should look like: "Duckling's wording doesn't make sense to me, either."
I did that intentionally to be humorous.
Oh. Further mangling would have been advisable in order to make more people laugh or smirk. Grammar is a strong point of mine, and subtlety... isn't.
Quote from: Duckling on September 20, 2011, 05:37:50 PM
Okay, first: I'm a grammar Nazi, and your sentence really should look like: "Duckling's wording doesn't make sense to me, either."
Second, I did fail to punctuate with commas in helpful locations, so I'll try again:
"I was referring to the making of a policy which might determine a dichotomy of foods nutricious and not so; no food supplier or manufacturer wishes to be classified in that latter part of that dichotomy, and thus lose customers who utilize the food stamp system. As such, the corporate lobby composed of food suppliers and manufacturers whose foods might be considered not to be nutricious by a new policy that determined whether or not they were, indeed, nutricious would actively try to prevent such a policy from taking hold -- it would hurt their business interests -- and thus render any remnant of the original policy, were it to go through, completely useless."
I hope that ambiguity in meaning due to synonyms and a lack of commas has been resolved, and my elaboration upon my ideas has helped to do so as well.
And how is this relative to food stamps and fast food?
Quote from: Deagonx on September 22, 2011, 09:15:05 PMAnd how is this relative to food stamps and fast food?
I think he is saying that lobbyist convince lawmakers to allow food stamps to be used on unhealthy food.
Quote from: SmartyPants on September 22, 2011, 11:15:06 PM
Quote from: Deagonx on September 22, 2011, 09:15:05 PMAnd how is this relative to food stamps and fast food?
I think he is saying that lobbyist convince lawmakers to allow food stamps to be used on unhealthy food.
Well even so I don't really care that McDonalds is unhealthy, and that isn't why I'm opposed to the use of food stamps there.
Quote from: Deagonx on September 23, 2011, 03:34:58 PMWell even so I don't really care that McDonalds is unhealthy, and that isn't why I'm opposed to the use of food stamps there.
I don't know about you, but I am more concerned about the extra cost involved.
Quote from: SmartyPants on September 23, 2011, 09:48:51 PM
Quote from: Deagonx on September 23, 2011, 03:34:58 PMWell even so I don't really care that McDonalds is unhealthy, and that isn't why I'm opposed to the use of food stamps there.
I don't know about you, but I am more concerned about the extra cost involved.
Ditto.
Quote from: SmartyPants on September 22, 2011, 11:15:06 PM
I think he is saying that lobbyist[s would] convince lawmakers to allow food stamps to be used on unhealthy food.
Pretty much. That appears to be what the present issue is.
No matter how hard we try to give
hungry nutritionally challenged children healthy foods, lobbyists come in and say that it's unfair, and that we should give fast food to
hungry nutritionally challenged children.
I'm confused. Are you for the usage of food stamps (food debit card) at Fast Food Restaurants or against?
Rather against.
Quote from: Duckling on September 30, 2011, 09:27:40 PM
Rather against.
I'm not (planning on) getting into the discussion, but I'd like to say that this is one of those rare moments when the duck and I are in agreement.
For somewhat different reasons, I'd venture, but yes; we appear to be in agreement.