I posted the information regarding New York’s request to ban food stamps from being able to purchase soft drinks (like soda pop… and I don’t wanna hear anyone complaining about me calling it pop, either) before I made up my mind in where I fell with it… because I don’t like to be reactionary. I’d rather think my decisions through before I go off ranting somewhere.
When my girl first showed me the link, I shrugged it off. “I mean, they already ban other things that they’ve deemed harmful… if you want more choice, get off government assistance.” I believe that most people who are for this kind of legislation all echo that same sentiment.
Then again, I’ll be honest. That felt like lazy thinking to me.
Let’s do a little quick math:
14% of the population is enrolled in the SNAP program (formerly known as food stamps). Roughly, that’s something like 41.8 million.
12.5% of the population is African-American. Even if the entire whole of the Black population in America was on food stamps… it would still not be only Blacks on food stamps.
Almost 10% of the population is unemployed. Even if the entire unemployed population was on food stamps, it would not only be unemployed Americans on food stamps.
Do you know how many Americans are considered at least overweight? At least 60%. So, subtract out the [maybe] 15% of people who are merely victims of being far too muscular and weigh more than the BMI thinks they should… and you’ve still got 45% of Americans who are overweight. So basically, there’s four times as many people in America who are overweight as there are on food stamps.
But wait… one final point.
Do you know how many Americans live beneath the poverty line? I can assure you… it’s way more than 41 million… and, even still, Blacks do not make up the majority of the impoverished population. Look at those numbers – clearly, everyone who is eligible for assistance… does not receive it.
It took me – maybe – 10 minutes to compute all those numbers. (Told y’all 10 minutes is valuable.)
What does that mean? That those on government assistance are not all Black, not all unemployed (and therefore, assumedly, lazy welfare queens), and even if they were all overweight… guess what? There’s still another almost half of America that is just as overweight. So… let’s get over any assumptions of who and what food stamp recipients really are.
I’ve already written about the government making the decision to tax soda as a means of paying for health care. If the issue is money, I’m almost certain that if the government stopped overpaying for corn (or paying for it period?) they could find the money for health care. If the issue is the actual product, then saddle up, ride out… and ban it. No guts, no glory.
My question, really, is… what makes the food stamp recipients so worthy of this special attention that THEY would be prohibited from using their benefits to buy that which has already been deemed harmful by a government entity? Why do they get the honor of the government telling them what to do, and not the rest of us? Why do they get that “protection” and not all of us? Because the government should be allowed to control what they purchase? At least 60% of Americans are, by standard, overweight… and 14% of Americans are on food stamps. They’re obviously not the only ones who “are in need of the additional guidance.”
Or is it that we think that, because they are soooo poor that they need government assistance, that they obviously need us to tell them how to eat? Let’s face facts: The only difference between food stamp recipients and at least a third of America? It isn’t money. It’s the fact that they’re on government assistance. Period. The recession should’ve taught us that.
Let’s assume that they’re really thinking, “We need to save them. We need to help them. We need to curb obesity, and since they rely on us for X, surely they also need our help to accomplish Y, as well.”
There are four thoughts that immediately come to mind:
For one, if this is about people who need outside help in addressing their weight (not their health, their weight), then – again – there’s at least another 45.9% of Americans outside of food stamp recipients that need to be addressed. Is pop a great place to start to rid ourselves of added sugar? Yes. Is the entire 14% of food stamp recipients guzzling down soft drinks? No. So why are we starting with the poor instead of the “middle class” who, by obvious definition, is also fat? Because the poor have the fewest lobbyists and are the easiest to target? Oh.
Secondly, this isn’t about prevention of purchases. This is about “You can’t buy it with the money we give you.” I’m sorry, but I immediately cringe at the thought of trying to force someone to change their choices instead of educating them on why another option is better. And before you question what “telling people how bad soda is for them” can do… remember what site you’re reading right now.
The fact that the Mayor of NYC would make a statement like “This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on foods and drinks that provide real nourishment.” about an “initiative” that prevents access instead of using education to allow the individual to make the appropriate decision… further lets me know how toothless this is. If you’re assuming they don’t know anything about food and drinks that provide real nourishment… it makes sense to, instead, make the decision for them? No. It would make sense to provide them education on proper nutrition. It may be soda today, but it’ll be some other new-fangled product tomorrow and they’ll need you to swoop in and save them then, too… because instead of helping them learn how to make their own decisions, you merely made the decision for them. No one learns from that.
Thirdly, if we’re going to allow the government to dictate which items are good and bad… can you imagine how much money would come pouring in to “re-election campaigns” to prevent certain foods from being classified negatively? (Keep in mind, the current policy states that in order for a food to be considered ineligible for purchase with food stamps, it needs to be voted on by Congress.) The amount and opportunity for corruption at the expense of the public’s health… I can’t even imagine just how ridiculous and unfruitful it would be.
Lastly, if the Mayor of freaking New York City gave even a remote damn about the health, wellness and well being of those who rely on government assistance… perhaps he should spend a little time conversing with his constituents. Especially since one said the following right here on my own blog:
Also, if were going to make the argument that food stamp users should be spending on healthier choices, how bout we put some of those stores where [food stamp] users are?
If he believes food stamp recipients are so in need of assistance in regard to how to eat, why not actually talk to the individuals to find out what problems they face so that you’re not disillusioned about what problems they really face? Or is that too much conversation to be had with people who won’t be donating to a campaign any time soon? They have answers that are worth listening to… being on government assistance doesn’t equate to “being stupid.”
I don’t believe this is about truly addressing obesity in impoverished communities. I wholeheartedly believe this is about people wanting to feel like they can lord over “people who need it.” And lets face it – when you think of “overweight and poor” or “overweight and on government assistance,” you think Black (thanks to the “welfare queen” analogy) … and America is a country that is notorious for trying to rescue some needy Black [or Black-looking] people. Even in its philanthropic nature, it is ridiculously misanthropic. Deny that if you want… I’m okay with that.
So… if the question is “how do we address obesity among Americans” and I’m shooting down the “prevent the poor from buying soft drinks” answer… do I have an answer of my own?
Absolutely.
How about, for starters, paying some respect to the hierarchy of food needs and helping these people address these concerns first? Then, how about a little education? Teach people how the choices they make in food are in direct correlation to their ability to life healthily. Show people how poor food choices have contributed to poor health in America (or is that too much blame for “Big Food?”) and teach them how to avoid having to make those kinds of decisions. Educate them on how to use their food stamps to the best of their abilities. Be less elitist, insulting and classist – don’t assume that all food stamp users are some poor, lazy, clueless and shiftless individuals who clearly need your almighty interference. If the issue was truly obesity and if every single food stamp user was overweight, that still leaves almost half of the rest of the US population in need of the same kind of government involvement… and singling out the poor simply because they’re at the mercy of the government is little more than a politician’s toothless growl. Lots of bark… very little bite.
Update: And if you’re not completely talked out about this issue, Civil Eats is hosting a relatively interesting conversation about what questions this situation brings up. I don’t agree with it all, but both sides deserve representation on this issue.
76 comments
I still hold that the government has the right to put whatever restrictions they want on their programs. It’s like Section 8; you don’t get to arbitrarily live wherever you want. When someone is ASSISTING you, you can either accept the assistance with parameters or not. The government can make whatever strike against a problem they feel will help. Just because it’s not what would be BEST doesn’t mean it can’t be effective.
You don’t HAVE to have food stamps to eat. Like I said elsewhere, if your pop jones is that bad, save your pennies and fund it yourself.
And I still hold that there needs to be some kind of limits to the power that you give government. Sorry.
There’s no possible way you can tell me that nutrition is in any way comparable to Section 8. I cannot register that comparison with the information you’ve given me thus far… especially considering the blunders in nutritional information the government has made in the past 60 years.
Suppose you’re right, and suppose I agreed with you. I’ve already listed the information necessary in order for the government to make the appropriate changes to the policy. You really think, given the current process, that (A) the process would maintain its integrity and (B) the process would even begin, considering how much money would be at stake?
This is a tough one, Erika. I agree that the govt. shouldn’t be breathing down our necks. But soda is poison – it’s chemicals, food coloring and sugar. I’d like to think it didn’t even exist, because when kids get too fat, it’s because they drink the stuff. How ironic, though, that school lunches are pretty bad in the nutrition department.
Soda is a luxury. If I’m running low on funds and I have to choose between soda and something more nutritious, I’m not getting the soda. So why should people who are using free money get luxury items? It’s not awful to think governmental assistance should have boundaries. The purpose of food stamps is to provide the necessity of food to people. Soda is not a necessity. So should people who use food stamps be allowed to be alcohol with them? If we shouldn’t say no to soda, why say no to beer?
I cannot believe I’m about to say this, but… WHO says soda is a luxury? YOU? LOL
Do you realize what a “necessity” is when it comes to food? Suppose I agreed with that. Say I really and truly ran down the list of what you actually NEEDED to survive, and the government said “Okay, this is the bare bones list of what can be purchased with food stamps.” That’s not about nutrition… that’s about money. Because you’re not preventing food stamp recipients (FSR) from making any purchases… you’re just telling them what to do with government money… as if they can’t get any other money to fund or support their wants. As I mentioned above… these are people with jobs. If they want it.. they’ll get it. They don’t know WHY they shouldn’t have it.. they just know “the gov’t won’t let me buy it with their money.” If that’s enough for y’all, then it isn’t about nutrition for you either. It’s about punishment for being on government assistance.
I agree with you all the way. Soda is NOT A NEED!!! They need to cut some of these foodstamps. You dont know how I feel some days when I go in the store and see people buying shrimp, lobsters, crab, TBone steak with FOODSTAMPS….
So again… this isn’t about nutrition, this is about “poor people shouldn’t be eating better than me.” Again, someone needs someone to feel superior to – someone to lord over. Womp.
Maybe the issue isn’t food stamp recipients eating well. Maybe the issue is that you aren’t eating well enough. *shrug*
Exactly! I remember being a teenager and shopping with food stamps back when they were a big book of monopoly money that EVERYONE could see (and make opinions about). Our closest store was Berkeley Bowl, one of those health food stores that sells organic grains in bins and hip stuff like that.
My mother was a firm believer that just because we were poor did not mean we had to live off of corn chips and hot dogs (which, apparently is quite offensive to hard-working, tax-paying Americans…). Our diet consisted almost entirely of rice, fruit, vegetables and fish. Berkeley Bowl had this thing called “seafood medley” that was a bin of all the bits and pieces that had been cut off of their other seafood products and thrown together. It was cheaper than buying fillets, so we ate a lot of that!
STILL! Standing in line with my decadent… plums… and fish chunks in a plastic bag… all these hip, hemp wearing, patchouli smelling liberal ladies would stare at my transaction as soon as the monopoly money came out. They’d raise their eyes, flare their nostrils, shift uncomfortably, sometimes outright scowl. How DARE I shop in the same store and buy the same high-quality produce as them, using THEIR tax money?? Now, on special occasions, like birthdays when we actually splurged for angel food cake or shrimp? Geeze.. I think I still have scars from the holes these ladies burned into my flesh with their eyes…
So DON’T act like it’s about concern for the health of the poor! It’s CONTEMPT, plain and simple. My mother had a severe mental illness that prevented her from even leaving our apartment on many days, hence my doing the shopping. Because of that, we should have eaten beans, rice and hot dogs, only purchased from the seediest of sources. After all, beggars can’t be choosers.
I am one of the 14% that is using government assistance. I do not plan on needing the governments help forever and am working as well as going to school. I thank God for the help. In order to show my true appreciation, and to help myself and my family, I do my best to make sure we eat healthy as well as help by giving to anyone who needs food (i.e. Our church food give away). I dont normally get soda but it is my alcohol. When I have a HORRIBLE TERRIBLE day, I will have a can of ‘Sprite’. It’s fair to say that most of the time Im getting water. In my church we talk alot about helping others. When you give money to someone, you cannot dictate what they do with it. You can only hope they will do what is right. If what they do with it will be a major issue for you, you should not give it. You are to give out of the kindness of Christ who lives in you. If anything, lower the price of some of the fitness clubs. Im almost willing to bet that membership will increase. Make it easier for people to see a dietician. I tried to make an appointment and the closest date was 6-8 months away(and I know from staff that the dietician was not that busy) Start a monthly, trimonthly, pamplet about being health wise. There are many other things that can be tampered with that will make a overal positive change in the NATION not just the 14% of the nation.
I can’t advocate a business lowering their prices to accommodate anyone against their will… but I don’t even know that I believe a dietician is going to be of any assistance in this kind of situation just because they’re going to spout the same information that the government has been spouting for the past few decades… and really, I mean.. really, that’s done us NO good.
I’m just… intrigued… by the idea that we’re holding people to standards that we don’t want to abide by ourselves, here. I.. I don’t know. Thank you for commenting. 🙂
It sure would be nice, but where’s the funding for education? It wouldn’t cost a thing to say “no soda on food stamps.” It’s a nutritional program intended to prevent starvation/malnutrition. There’s nothing elitist or misanthropic about prohibiting a non-food item on food stamps. I have no problem at all with the government “dictating” that you can’t buy Dr. Pepper with food stamps. (You can certainly buy it with other assistance: social security, disability, welfare, unemployment…)
That some people might perhaps drink less soda and maybe even improve their health would be a side benefit. There are limited funds and lots of hungry people. Maybe it’s how the program is marketed. No one is upset that WIC funds can only buy actual real food for mothers and children, so how are food stamps so different?
According to the city of New York: “In fiscal 2009, New Yorkers received $2.7 billion in food stamp benefits and spent $75 million to $135 million of that on sugary drinks.” OK, so $75-135 MILLION in sugary drinks couldn’t have been better spent, even at the bodega on the corner? So $75,000,000-$135,000,000 worth of sugary drinks in the state of New York alone is OK? It’s misanthropic and elitist to say that it should’ve been spent differently? No way.
Where’s the funding for education? Exactly HOW MUCH do you think education costs? You think it “wouldn’t cost a thing” to enact a ban? Read “Implications of Restricting the Use of Food Stamp Benefits,” as I linked in my post.
“It’s misanthropic and elitist to say that it should’ve been spent differently?” Where did I say that? C’mon, son. No straw men here. I don’t like that.
This isn’t about money, and it certainly isn’t about obesity or malnutrition… because – as I showed in ALL those numbers I quoted up there – even if every person on assistance was overweight… exactly how much of NY’s overweight population does that account for? It isn’t about malnutrition. And just because people are on government assistance doesn’t mean that it’s acceptable to make them our nutritional guinea pigs. The government made us ALL nutritional guinea pigs in the 20th century, and now we’re all unhealthy because of it. No thanks. You won’t find ME co-signing that, sorry.
The fact that y’all think a NUTRITION woe can be cured by FORCE and not EDUCATION is astounding to me. I mean, I respect your opinions (and I’m not a fan of the government, let alone government assistance… so this is a strange position for me to be in) and all but… wowzers.
I agree with you Erika. Most people aren’t making good choices in regards to nutrition not just those on public assistance.
I took a group of graduate public health students on a tour last week. What they saw was for this particular high poverty community in an urban area was that that 90% of the drinks available for purchase were sugary drinks. So another solution might be to change the standards of who can accept food stamps. Just like with WIC they should be made to carry a certain healthy options number of items before they can be approved as a vendor. If a majority of their shoppers use them they will change because they won’t want to lose their revenue.
Another option is to give discounts for healthier items. This study shows it might help. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61251H20100203
People know what’s healthy but either want to stretch their budgets, are addicted to fat and sugar, or can’t/don’t have time to cook.
I know from personal experience when I needed to stretch my budget for about a year the quality of the food I purchased when way down. At $25/pp a week what the rest of you buy? A pack of kool-aid for .25 or 100% juice for $4? You tell me? I don’t drink soda but this is a lot more complicated than the comments here take into account.
YES! This touches on that “Hierarchy of Food Needs” that I linked. Having “enough food (or that which we visibly identify AS food)” TRUMPS “quality of food” EVERY DAY. I’m not gonna bypass “[insert unhealthy item]” because I’m waiting on my store to stock up on “[insert healthy item].” I’m gonna purchase what I believe is going to “make it do what it do,” and hope for the best… since it’s highly unlikely that I’ll even have enough time to focus on food between work and the kids. Very troubling, indeed.
Thanks for that link! I’m going to hold onto it for another post.
With your logic food stamps should be used for beer, cigarettes, $30 steak dinners at Outback and whatever the user pleases. That is not appropriate use of tax payer money.
Now, if you would be so kind as to explain how you came to that conclusion, by quoting my exact words here, I could refute it. 🙂
I commented on this same issue on another board. I agree with you wholeheartedly Erika. I’ll just add this. Soda is cheap. It is a cheap, easy choice for people who have to spread what little they have as far as they can. If you take away the right to buy soda with SNAP funding, these same people will spend a few dollars in cash to buy soda. And/or they will take the $5 they couldn’t spend on five 2-liters of soda during the week and spend it on 5 cheap, just as unhealthy drinks versus 1 or 2 bottles of something healthier. In other words they will use that same funding to buy equally unhealthy foods, because they lack the education mostly, and because unhealthy foods are just cheap. And, of course, this type of decision-making is not limited to people on food stamps. Cash buyers on a budget (and lacking the knowledge) with a family to feed will make that same decision.
In regards to the WIC argument. WIC is a government program promoting nutrition for pregnant women and children under the age of 5, so yes, they do dictate choices narrowly to “healthy” foods. However, SNAP is not a nutrition program. Instead, it is a program to prevent people from starving.
As far as education goes, I just don’t see how expensive that has to be. People on government assistance (WIC, SNAP, Medicaid, etc.) sometiems have to sit through other “educational” or informative videos as requirements to receive their benefits. So, is it so hard to put together one video and require people to sit through it, or to loop it as they are waiting in an office, completing applications, waiting to see a caseworker, etc??
Education is always the key. But, I understand why people are not proponents of education in this issue. The same people who want to put non-consequential restrictions on food stamp recipients are not even willing to truly educate themselves about the real problem (ie. the mayor not reasearching the issue directly with his constituents) to make informed decisions about real solutions. So, force is the winning answer. Never has the use of force ever turned out well, but, oh well…it’s an easy answer.
Love everything about this comment! Specifically highlighting this, though:
“In other words they will use that same funding to buy equally unhealthy foods, because they lack the education mostly, and because unhealthy foods are just cheap. And, of course, this type of decision-making is not limited to people on food stamps. Cash buyers on a budget (and lacking the knowledge) with a family to feed will make that same decision.”
Thank you for your perspective. 🙂
By force? It’s a government handout, it should have strings attached. This is a really weird angle to me–“oh no, they’re going to take away their subsidized soda pop by force.” Where is the force? I’m not buying it, not at all. Is taking it off the list going to cause a huge uproar? Maybe it would make people re-examine their grocery list, how is that bad? I see zero problem in restricting soda.
And of course education is key. There are lots of educational programs already in place, revised food pyramid posters in the SNAP office, new education efforts in schools, etc. Yes, we need more. If more people had healthcare they could learn about nutrition from their doctor, but of course that’s another debate altogether. I don’t disagree that a massive educational campaign is needed, but in the current situation when there are more people than ever qualifying for and needing assistance, stretching those dollars on food makes sense.
The issue for me isn’t forcing people to make better nutritional choices–I am a civil libertarian at heart and I don’t believe anyone should tell anyone else how to live–it’s why the heck are tax dollars buying soda in the first place? Why are people arguing that soda belongs on SNAP? I don’t think it makes the poor into nutritional guinea pigs at all, and I definitely don’t think it’s a punishment for being poor–that’s a really unfair argument to make. Yes, it’s an arbitrary step, but it’s a good step. Maybe if it were restricted, it might help move us toward the sea change we need as a nation to stop thinking that 32oz of Pepsi is an appropriate beverage to have with a meal. That’s really the bigger problem, isn’t it? That our idea of what’s normal, what constitutes a meal, is ludicrously skewed? We have fast food joints pushing items containing a meal’s worth of calories as something to eat for a snack, sodas & chips sold in multiple-serving packages when everyone knows that no one’s going to split a 20oz bottle of coke with a friend, etc.
How is soda *not* a luxury item, anyhow? It’s no different than someone buying a $4 pumpkin spice latte (actually I have no clue what those cost.) Would you argue that a 400 calorie coffee dessert drink is not a luxury? Is alcohol? What about candy? So are you pleased that $75,000,000-$135,000,000 of taxpayer money was spent on sugary drinks in NY last year? Was that an appropriate use of funds? Did that money help keep people from starving? Did it help kids (51% of SNAP recipients are children)? That’s a heck of a lot of money, and to imply that wanting it spent differently stems from a desire to punish the poor is just silly. They could still buy soda, just not with their food money. I like wine, but it doesn’t come out of my grocery budget. When money’s extra tight between paychecks and I’m at the store to grab a few things, I just don’t put the wine in my basket. Same goes for any of the other more luxurious food/bev items I enjoy. I’m not punishing myself, I’m making wise & frugal choices based on my finances. I’m making sure my children have milk and yogurt and produce and the things they need to grow and thrive before I buy fun extras for myself.
I don’t know…I just don’t think it’s a terrible step to take.
Yes, by force. You’re forcing people to change instead of telling them why change is vital. That is how I’m defining force. It’s excessive. (Not to be confused with “excessive force.”)
This isn’t about whether or not soda “belongs” on SNAP. If I had MY way, NONE of you would be drinking it. It’s about whether or not the government should take THIS particular approach to removing it from our households, and whether or not you REALLY want to allow the government access to THIS kind of precedent. I, personally, don’t.. and if you’re a libertarian, I can’t imagine how you don’t see the rabbit hole that digs.
Again, you’re playing games with straw men… and I can’t do that. Stop breaking apart my sentences and piecing them together so that you can refute what you put together… because I’ll just have to tap out. Not once did I imply that MILLIONS spent on soft drinks is judicious spending, but then again, I think most of the crap “you people” put in your carts is piss poor spending at the grocery store, too. Luckily, you’re not being held to my standards.. funny how that works. Not once did I indicate my stance on whether or not I BELIEVE soda is a “luxury.” C’mon, really. Address what I’m SAYING, not what you think I’m saying.
I don’t think that it’s a “terrible” step to take. I think it’s a lazy, uninformed and fruitless step to take… to be honest. *shrug*
Erika, I certainly appreciate the calculations you presented concerning the demographics of those receiving food supplementation benefits. It’s surprising to some to realize recipients aren’t just lazy, minorities – milking the system.
What kind of kills me is how people got so up in arms about a potential tax on pop for consumers, declaring it an infringement on lifestyle choices … then they turn around to advocate measures such as this. Again, we (taxpayers) need to practice what we preach before we condemn the funds allocation to certain items, presently covered under the ‘food stamp’ program. It feels like there’s a whole lot of folks itching to “cast the first stone.” A comprehensive and multi-class approach to the obesity epidemic is going to be the route to resolution. Not pointing fingers at the poor or those on assistance.
Essentially, I think this ‘pop ban’ is a gateway experiment. What’s new and what’s next? When you find yourself dependent on a system or person, they’ll want something in return or will use your reliance to manipulate you – pursuant to their agenda. As a fiscal conservative, I actually DETEST how government-dependent we are becoming as a country. Yet, given the dreadful employment environment and the multitude of industry crashes (namely, financial and housing) – I also understand that it was inevitable.
But banning items to curb usage of non-nutritious foods and their resulting health implications, is going to be minuscule in efficacy. Especially if there is no education behind why some choices are superior to others! Let’s not even start on if there will ever be equal ACCESS to better choices?! I wonder if Mayor Bloomberg is going to put that in his little study?
And, if you think you’re exempt from this kind of dietary dictation, wait until our health care system is reformed in action. Taxpayer choices are going to be scrutinized even greater, as a result of stricter guidelines by employer-based health plans (if they’ll still be able to afford it) and the government’s alternative option.
Sorry for spamming your blog with my ‘all over the place’ rant. I just think this is egregiously misguided. It’s not pop that’s harming us, overall, it’s our mindset.
Shoutout to the fiscal conservatives… one eye on the budget, one hand on our wallets. *raises glass*
You said everything I wanted to say… and in less words. Get off my blog. LMAO!
THIS is what I wanted to lead into, but I couldn’t even go there:
“And, if you think you’re exempt from this kind of dietary dictation, wait until our health care system is reformed in action. Taxpayer choices are going to be scrutinized even greater, as a result of stricter guidelines by employer-based health plans (if they’ll still be able to afford it) and the government’s alternative option.”
We’re paying for each other’s HEALTH CARE… so that, plus the fact that they’ll OBVIOUSLY see how well a pop ban will do (because, make no mistake, it WILL do well for weight if enacted), they’re going to outright ban the product PERIOD. Not merely tell manufacturers that they can’t make it.. they’ll just do something about US purchasing it. And if you think they’d stop at soft drinks to fund health care (or cheapen it), you’re naive — it’d ALL be backed by “Well, this worked soooooo well, and we’d save sooooo much…” that’s a roller coaster that I’m willing to stop right here.
I love your “all over the place rants!” When you write your own on this one (and I know you will), link it here!