Donald wants to people to spend food stamps on junk food

[SandSquid]

But that's my thought. I guess I'm kind of old school where I don't like expanding socialist government programs based on what soda and junk food lobbyists want.

But you do seem to like using those programs to control what poor people eat. I guess I'm kind of old school, but I say leave them their dignity, and the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat.

Why the hell are Prog blue cities taxing sodas and sugar laden products for and other products? Taxpayers get reamed in all ways.

Different topic you have, but ok. Both sides do it in their own way for their own reasons.

I'm all for ending it with something in place to replace it.

I believe you are pointing out the Sugar Program. Lobbyists get legislators to spend billions on that program which raises the prices of sugar for consumers twice as high. This means that American consumers are not only footing the bill for these government backed handouts to big sugar, but are being made to pay higher prices for sugar and related goods as a result.

Seriously, half the price of your soft drinks are your tax money funding programs to make them more expensive due to the Sugar lobbyists.

Or are you talking about that tax which actually has reduced sugary drink intake (the #1 way sugar is consumed and the most deadly way it is) in some cities, especially among the disadvantaged.

Ok, Berkley, Albany, Boulder, San Fran and other cities have put that to a vote and the voters in those cities voted for it.

So I guess in those instances where it's the people voting for the tax to pay for something they want, I am ok with that. When it's lobbyists telling the swamp that we need more corporate handouts, I am less likely to support that.

But back to the topic, what about lobbyists telling the swamp we need to expand a socialist program do you like?

 

[SandSquid]

But that's my thought. I guess I'm kind of old school where I don't like expanding socialist government programs based on what soda and junk food lobbyists want.

But you do seem to like using those programs to control what poor people eat. I guess I'm kind of old school, but I say leave them their dignity, and the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat.

Why the hell are Prog blue cities taxing sodas and sugar laden products for and other products? Taxpayers get reamed in all ways.

Good point, what's one more reaming?

I guess it's up to the individual what they like. You can be for or against those things. I just think expanding a socialist program that lobbyists are pushing to the swamp isn't something I'm for. But to each their own. Those corporations have billions, they can spend it to get the government to spend our taxpayer money on their products with the right people willing to listen in office.

 

[dblack]

But that's my thought. I guess I'm kind of old school where I don't like expanding socialist government programs based on what soda and junk food lobbyists want.

But you do seem to like using those programs to control what poor people eat. I guess I'm kind of old school, but I say leave them their dignity, and the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat.

Why the hell are Prog blue cities taxing sodas and sugar laden products for and other products? Taxpayers get reamed in all ways.

Good point, what's one more reaming?

I guess it's up to the individual what they like. You can be for or against those things. I just think expanding a socialist program that lobbyists are pushing to the swamp isn't something I'm for. But to each their own.

Indeed. I feel your pain.

Those corporations have billions, they can spend it to get the government to spend our taxpayer money on their products with the right people willing to listen in office.

Exactly. And which is more egregious - the politicians selling it, the corporations buying it, or the fact that government has the power to tell us what we're allowed to eat?

 

[SandSquid]

But that's my thought. I guess I'm kind of old school where I don't like expanding socialist government programs based on what soda and junk food lobbyists want.

But you do seem to like using those programs to control what poor people eat. I guess I'm kind of old school, but I say leave them their dignity, and the freedom to decide for themselves what to eat.

Why the hell are Prog blue cities taxing sodas and sugar laden products for and other products? Taxpayers get reamed in all ways.

Good point, what's one more reaming?

I guess it's up to the individual what they like. You can be for or against those things. I just think expanding a socialist program that lobbyists are pushing to the swamp isn't something I'm for. But to each their own.

Indeed. I feel your pain.

Those corporations have billions, they can spend it to get the government to spend our taxpayer money on their products with the right people willing to listen in office.

Exactly. And which is more egregious - the politicians selling it, the corporations buying it, or the fact that government has the power to tell us what we're allowed to eat?

Which is why I am fine with a NUTRITIONAL SUPPLEMENT program not expanding to things that are not Nutritional, even if that's what the lobbyists behind candy and potato chips want. But those dollars spoke to the swamp.

I don't think the gov't should tell us what we should eat. But trying to say cheez whiz and potato chips are nutritional supplements so that food stores don't have to sell fruits and vegetables is just lobbyists lobbying the swamp.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Used to be you couldn't go spend your food stamps on junk food at the gas station too. Now Trump is expanding that. Just a matter of time it seems.

/——-. So you hate Trump for what he might do but never has. How liberal of you.
View attachment 263285

No I am just against the expansion of socialist programs like food stamps from food staples to junk food.

Once again tell us when they couldn't buy junk food with food stamps?


.

Your the one telling us Miami has all these huge 24hour grocery stores in the hood, so your post don't make sense..they could always buy junk food with food stamps

I'm not saying they have 24 hour ones. heck the nearest 24 hour one from me is 20 miles away.

You picked a location. And from that location they have 8 grocery stores in a 1 mile radius as well as free delivery.

Sure, some like the swamp. They like that lobbyists for convenience stores can get cheese whiz as a staple food and expand socialist programs. I don't.

And unlike you, I'm not going to make that excuse that they don't have another option, then admit I hadn't looked into it but was just making it up, then fail at trying to prove an option (by finding 8 grocery stores within a mile of your location, a high level of public transportation, and free food delivery), then pout when facts said otherwise and change the goalposts.

I didn't change the goal posts what do you think I lived in every town in the United States? I know what I experienced I read the news of no bussiness in the hoods and you want to jump on a rarity?


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The issue is that for a grocery to accept food stamps, they couldn't just sell junk food. They had to have "Staple foods" where people could buy nutritious options. Now if you sell cheez whiz at your gas station, that's a staple food and they can shop their.

Why should government tell them what to buy or where to shop? Is the goal to help these people, or control them?

To help. Why should a Supplemental NUTRITIONAL assistance program be expanded to more easily allow non-NUTRITIONAL foods? Because of lobbyists for potato chip and snack food producers?

Nobody is saying control them. Just that for a nutritional supplement, the key should be focusing on nutritional foods to supplement and this move clearly goes in the opposite direction.

Just because beachfront mansions aren't eligible for public housing doesn't mean that is an attempt at control. If you want an 8000 sq ft mansion, buy one. I don't think we need to expand socialism to that point myself.

Of course that's controlling them. If they want the money, they gotta jump through the hoops. Regardless of the sales pitch, welfare is about controlling people. Always for their own good, of course.

No it isn't If they need money for Nutritional assistance, that should go towards NUTRITIONAL ASSISTANCE. No hoops. What you are talking about is expanding this program further for non-nutritional assistance.

It's not controlling someone to say that if you can't pay your rent, you don't get a mansion.

But some like the swamp, the lobbyists trying to say that monster energy drinks and candy are food staples.


Which is why I am not for listening to the swamp saying we need to expand these socialist programs not just to provide nutritional assistance, but also candy and make sure Soda doesn't get pulled off the list etc. This program used to be simple. Excess crops went to a food bank where those in need could get it for free. Dairy, eggs, meat, grains. That was it. But people like you want to expand and expand, drive up those taxes to pay for more and more things that aren't needed, so everyone can have the same things whether they work for them or not.

You eat the Rabbit food, don't demand other people to do the same, that is control.


.

 

[SandSquid]

/——-. So you hate Trump for what he might do but never has. How liberal of you.
View attachment 263285

No I am just against the expansion of socialist programs like food stamps from food staples to junk food.

Once again tell us when they couldn't buy junk food with food stamps?


.

Your the one telling us Miami has all these huge 24hour grocery stores in the hood, so your post don't make sense..they could always buy junk food with food stamps

I'm not saying they have 24 hour ones. heck the nearest 24 hour one from me is 20 miles away.

You picked a location. And from that location they have 8 grocery stores in a 1 mile radius as well as free delivery.

Sure, some like the swamp. They like that lobbyists for convenience stores can get cheese whiz as a staple food and expand socialist programs. I don't.

And unlike you, I'm not going to make that excuse that they don't have another option, then admit I hadn't looked into it but was just making it up, then fail at trying to prove an option (by finding 8 grocery stores within a mile of your location, a high level of public transportation, and free food delivery), then pout when facts said otherwise and change the goalposts.

I didn't change the goal posts what do you think I lived in every town in the United States? I know what I experienced I read the news of no bussiness in the hoods and you want to jump on a rarity?


.

So no, you don't have an example. Got it.

That was all you needed to say.

 

[SandSquid]

The issue is that for a grocery to accept food stamps, they couldn't just sell junk food. They had to have "Staple foods" where people could buy nutritious options. Now if you sell cheez whiz at your gas station, that's a staple food and they can shop their.

Why should government tell them what to buy or where to shop? Is the goal to help these people, or control them?

To help. Why should a Supplemental NUTRITIONAL assistance program be expanded to more easily allow non-NUTRITIONAL foods? Because of lobbyists for potato chip and snack food producers?

Nobody is saying control them. Just that for a nutritional supplement, the key should be focusing on nutritional foods to supplement and this move clearly goes in the opposite direction.

Just because beachfront mansions aren't eligible for public housing doesn't mean that is an attempt at control. If you want an 8000 sq ft mansion, buy one. I don't think we need to expand socialism to that point myself.

Of course that's controlling them. If they want the money, they gotta jump through the hoops. Regardless of the sales pitch, welfare is about controlling people. Always for their own good, of course.

No it isn't If they need money for Nutritional assistance, that should go towards NUTRITIONAL ASSISTANCE. No hoops. What you are talking about is expanding this program further for non-nutritional assistance.

It's not controlling someone to say that if you can't pay your rent, you don't get a mansion.

But some like the swamp, the lobbyists trying to say that monster energy drinks and candy are food staples.


Which is why I am not for listening to the swamp saying we need to expand these socialist programs not just to provide nutritional assistance, but also candy and make sure Soda doesn't get pulled off the list etc. This program used to be simple. Excess crops went to a food bank where those in need could get it for free. Dairy, eggs, meat, grains. That was it. But people like you want to expand and expand, drive up those taxes to pay for more and more things that aren't needed, so everyone can have the same things whether they work for them or not.

You eat the Rabbit food, don't demand other people to do the same, that is control.


.

Not at all. people should be able to eat what they want and can afford. Again, NOT ONCE have I said we should pass a law to outlaw those foods.

But if you want a socialist program that ensures everyone gets to eat caviar, whether or not they can afford it, that's up to you. If you want a socialist welfare Nutritional supplement program to expand into non-nutritional foodstuffs. That's your call.

 

[sealybobo]

There's nothing wrong with cheese in can.

This is a really strange thing to whine about, but I guess if you hate Trump, you hate EVERYTHING he does.

If Obama did the same thing, liberals would be saying how great it was.

Reminds me of conservatives complaining about a tax on cigarettes or soda.