Michelle Obama Fans Change Their Tone

I agree with this. The logic is sound.

 

While I agree it is obviously a double standard, I also think that it is a cheap shot to pick on people on government assistance because this double standard that you rightly pointed out is something that manifests itself in all aspects of our society. As an example, a parent forcing their children to go to sleep early while their parents stay up late or perhaps a parent not letting their children smoke cigarettes while they smoke two packs a day. The examples are many but if picking on poor people makes you feel better, go at it.

 

Yeah, because the nutritional needs of growing children are exactly the same as adults.

 

There is nothing wrong with snacks in moderation. The problem is that when kids are in school with cash in their pockets and no parental supervision over what they eat, moderation goes right out the window. There is nothing wrong with parents on food stamps buying some junk food as treats in addition to everything else they buy. Choices are taken away from children all the time for many good reasons, because often they make bad ones. Adults should be allowed to make their own choices for better or for worse.

 

.............

Yea, I'm sure that healthy eating as an adult is clearly just as important as teaching children and giving them the appropriate nutrition in their formative years before they run into obesity problems.

It's always the best use of resources to be reactive to an issue rather than containing it generationally and trying to prevent its effects before the billions of dollars need to be spent.

The youth are the upcoming human infrastructure of our country, learn from our piss poor reactive infrastructure attempts.

 

Educational programs should not be tied to SNAP benefits.

I don't understand these small government types that want to set up programs and systems to check up on poor people to make sure they are being good little boys and girls. What a patriarchal mindset.

 

So you're for raising SNAP benefits to the amount where families can afford actual food and not the absurdly inexpensive junk food (such as taco kits, insanely cheap, but absurdly high in sodium)?

I guess we do agree on something.

 

….this….is not true.

Meta-study

On average, it costs $550 more per year to eat healthy.

P-Worm

Edit:

To weigh in on how I feel about the "discrepancy," to me it is obvious that adults are mature enough to make choices that are best for them or their family. Children do not have this kind of psychological development. Telling children what to eat should be expected, but telling SNAP recipients what to eat is a sure sign of government overreach.

 

That's complete ********.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/eating-healthy-vs-unhealthy_n_4383633.html

You're also (conveniently) overlooking that impoverished areas are the epicenters of food deserts.

----------

Ha, same study.

Note that meta-analysis are a great way to sift through the noise.

 

I'm confused. Are you saying that what you posted contrasts what P-Worm said?

29 cents per serving more for meats. So If you do only one meal for three people per day, that's already $317.55 more in just the meats portion for one meal.

Healthier diets cost $1.48 per day more? That's $540.20 per year.

What are you suggesting?

Plenty dying of breast cancer, too.

And does McD's take SNAP or food stamps?

Good idea. Or, you know, just pay people more.

 

Why the double standard? Because it's not a double standard. You're making a false equivalence. The most significant difference is that the person selecting the items to purchase with food stamps is an adult whereas the person selecting the food to eat/purchase at school is a child. Another big one is that children also can't go to another school to get a different lunch/snack. Adults on food stamps can spend them where they please (among places that accept them).

 

Agreed. They can make the choice to buy doritos and mountain dew with their own cash. But the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for their junk food cravings through EBT/SNAP.

 

Anyone who doesn't have mommy still shopping for them knows that is 100% fact.

 

I'd be interested in seeing what they define as healthy, there may be a bunch of excessive "health" supplements and stuff you don't need.

Chicken breast, frozen veggies, rice, beans, etc. This is what I base my diet around and this stuff is dirt cheap and surely cheaper than 6-8 dollar fast food meals.

As for the topic, despite this not being as big a deal as fox news would have you believe, I wouldn't be apposed to regulating what you can buy.

 

That site is a little silly. Their click-throughs on the study pages go to dead links, so I can't really see what they used for comparison. It mentions discrepancy between healthier and less healthy types of various foods, but I don't think their comparison assumes a lot of fast food. The wording suggests it's more like chicken thighs compared to skinless chicken breast. One is considered healthier than the other, speaking of which, really good chicken isn't exactly cheap. I wanted to see what they wrote as healthy for beef. Some steak cuts are quite expensive, yet not necessarily the healthiest option.

 

How come the scientists disagree?