President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 04, 2010 02:31 AM UTC
18 Comments
So I’m guessing what’s going on here is “poor people have higher rates of obesity” and “poor people are more likely to be on food stamps” thus “food stamps lead to obesity.” This is a poor use of logic, but to the degree that people are using food stamps (or their limited food budget) on unhealthy food, the solution is restricting food stamps to specific healthy foods (fruits, veggies, whole grains, skim milk and lean meats, etc). I’m sure Mike Coffman supports that because as Sarah Palin has shown, Republicans love when the government tells people what they should be eating.
costs more than unhealthy calories.
For instance, a bag of potato chips may run you $2 on sale, for 1,650+ calories. The same amount in apples would cost about $7.50 if you get a screaming deal ($1 per pound).
So Coffman not only supports big government, but also big spending.
While out of character, it’s not a bad idea. Kids should have healthy food. By extension, the means to afford healthy food. Outside aisles only and the funds to do so.
Good on Coffman. Debt be damned!
There are probably apple subsidies too, but corn is America’s cash crop. $4 billion in subsidies this year alone. That is why a bag of potato chips is $2, and a bag of apples if three or four times that.
But they’re fried in corn oil.
Anyway, my point is that unhealthy food is not just cheaper, it’s subsidized by our tax dollars to keep it that way.
Let’s take it to corn. $1 for 800 calories of soda, $2.50 for the 2,000 or so in fruit roll ups, etc. If it’s crap food, it has corn in it. Meanwhile, fish is usually about $1 for 100 or less calories, don’t even think about turkey. Even milk is getting ridiculous (can’t be exact; it makes me sneezy). No calcium, enriched bread, no protein, no fruits, only veggies after they’ve had the good processed out. Farm subsidies do either need an overhaul or to be nixed.
Again, a good idea, but not very Republican. As Ari pointed out about the red, red election map – there’s a lot of rural area that always votes that way.
Good on Mike for being honest instead of party loyal. 😉
will compete with oil/energy for the most disruptive and game changing topics in the next 5-7 years.
You can eat $2 of chips in a sitting, but I don’t think many people can drink $2 of milk (a gallon) in a sitting.
If you’re just looking at calories, then compare that soda or sweet snack to something similar, not low-fat meats.
Potato chips are $4-$5/lb. Potatoes are what, 50 cents/lb? Apples are $2/lb. You could prepare 2 or 3 hot dogs or hamburgers for the price of a bag of chips.
Your statement that healthy calories cost more is just plain wrong.
People buy processed food because it’s full of salt, fat, and MSG, so it tastes good. They either don’t know or don’t care that it makes them fat.
To get the calories a person needs per day from apples it would take about ten pounds of it per day. Two huge turkey breasts only give about 600 calories. We could do this all day.
Potato chips, while technically more expensive per pound, pack more calories in an ounce than an apple does in half a pound.
When it comes to balanced diets, good stuff costs more. $10 worth of fruits, vegetables, and fish is going to have your kids hungrier than $10 worth of crap.
And it’s easier. Fine point, but I don’t know where you’re shopping that feeding four kids is doable on food stamps if you’re buying what they should really be eating.
Also, this doesn’t always result in fat children. It results in malnourished children. Your stereotyping is showing.
Here is your opportunity to find out what you can get in food stamps:
Food Stamp Calculator
I guess <$12,000/yr income is really high, right?
(I’m currently living rent free at Mom’s, if you didn’t know.)
So, I plugged in insurances of $600/mo, pretty close, and then I qualified……whoa, get the grocery cart ready………$30/mo in benefits.
Of course, under The Coffman Plan I can starve and lose the last pounds I’ve been trying to.
Thank you Mike!
Uh, how so?
Lack of nutrition and starvation are usually contributors to learning disorders, no?
Is he confused or just stupid?
Being from a safe district, he’s allowed to be confused and stupid. No one will care.
Coffman does not want the fatties to starve. I thought this was a joke about marijuana at first!
All Coffman wants it to return control of food stamps to the states where it can be administered more efficiently. That might take away your statist power, so you lie and say the fat on OPM kids will starve.
If we have to get the kids fat on OPM, at least let us do it at the local level where we can do it efficiently. Maybe we distribute food directly, and no cheap fatty foods need apply.
Stupid comments that falsely link assistance programs to medical conditions don’t fit with your agenda.
But with regard to an actual removal of statist power, I hope your philosophy applies to standing armies!
….not fifty of them.
Local control doesn’t mean better. Often worse, highly variable standards.
Your knee is jerking again.
But I think your point is well made!