A Federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration cannot ban SNAP recipients from using benefits on sugary drinks & candy.

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, more takeover of the government by unelected black robes.

This is the fault of Chief Justice Roberts for being far too temperate with lower courts.

Judge Blocks Bans on Using Food Stamps for Sugary Drinks and Candy

A federal judge ruled that the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to approve state waivers that restrict what SNAP participants can buy with their benefits.

www.nytimes.com

The result of the ruling?

Fat. They'll all get really fat. And act as a direct contradiction to the left's pro health agenda.

 

[Darkwind]

I've tried to tell people this from the start. It is illegal. Not only because it doesn't save one dime. Not only because soft drinks and candy are food. Not only because there is no legal nor medical basis to tell others against their will how they can or cannot eat just because they need some SNAP program to get by, but because once the government established that power, the next step would be to tell everyone how and what to eat.

#4 of total government control:

1. Control their healthcare.
2. Control their banks.
3. Control their travel.
4. Control what they eat and drink.

True. We cannot tell them what to eat and drink.

But we can refuse to pay for it.

 

[Marener]

It’s funny how mad you guys get when judges make Trump follow the law.

 

[ozro]

So, who are you backing?

Peterson or Glassman?

Glassman was actually a practicing attorney.

But he's not in tight with the GOP clique.

So far I'm leaning towards Glassman. Still about a month for him to screw up or for Peterson to do something to change my mind.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So far I'm leaning towards Glassman. Still about a month for him to screw up or for Peterson to do something to change my mind.

Interesting.

I am in the same camp.

I live in LD15 which is so red it glows. Glassman can't even get an audience with us.

My state senator is Jake Hoffman...which is why.

 

[Senior]

Yeah, I've tried too. People too gawddamned lazy to even sign a petition!!!!

Or vote. Now there is a novel idea. Vote! Vote instead of employing lawfare.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You can be sure this judge is an obese sugar addict, too.

 

[Meathead]

Yes, more takeover of the government by unelected black robes.

This is the fault of Chief Justice Roberts for being far too temperate with lower courts.

Judge Blocks Bans on Using Food Stamps for Sugary Drinks and Candy

A federal judge ruled that the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to approve state waivers that restrict what SNAP participants can buy with their benefits.

www.nytimes.com

At the end of the day it's a good thing. Diabetes leads to premature death and dead people usually do not vote or draw food stamps. Heartless perhaps, but none-the-less true.

 

[LibertyWeeps]

I've tried to tell people this from the start. It is illegal. Not only because it doesn't save one dime. Not only because soft drinks and candy are food. Not only because there is no legal nor medical basis to tell others against their will how they can or cannot eat just because they need some SNAP program to get by, but because once the government established that power, the next step would be to tell everyone how and what to eat.

#4 of total government control:

1. Control their healthcare.
2. Control their banks.
3. Control their travel.
4. Control what they eat and drink.

Food stamps were created to help people who were on unemployment and made poverty level wages to get the NECESSARY items to live on.
Not to get fat on, not to get diabetes on. To EXIST on.

These were all the basics........flour, sugar, cooking spices, rice, oats, beans, dairy, meat, breads, pastas, veggies, fruits.......
Coffee and tea were considered "frivolous", but they were part of the basics.

They added frozen dinners in the 90's, because of so many single parents working and taking care of kids.

Then the lard assed whales on welfare started spewing their stupidity, stating THEY "NEED" chips, soda, and candy and threw toddler fits until the states passed it. I think they should have told them to F off and lose some weight!!!!!

 

[toobfreak]

True. We cannot tell them what to eat and drink.
But we can refuse to pay for it.

That is the point, no you can't! So I'll ask for the 90th time here:

1. What is accomplished by taking soft drinks and candy off the SNAP plan?
2. How does it benefit you or the gov doing so?

 

[Darkwind]

That is the point, no you can't! So I'll ask for the 90th time here:

1. What is accomplished by taking soft drinks and candy off the SNAP plan?
2. How does it benefit you or the gov doing so?

Well, I said you can't tell people what to eat or drink. But WE have rights too and to not pay for them is OUR right.

How does it benefit me, you, and the rest of us?

In reduced health insurance premiums, just for starters.

 

[toobfreak]

Food stamps were created to help people who were on unemployment and made poverty level wages to get the NECESSARY items to live on.

Wrong on all three counts.

Not to get fat on, not to get diabetes on. To EXIST on.

Who is getting fat? Who is getting diabetes? Why do you presume everyone buying soft drinks and some candy is wolfing mountains of the stuff down? Maybe it is 10% of their diet, but more likely 1% of their diet, they are just like you or I and crave something sweet to drink and need something cheap for a "dessert." But if it is just to exist on, give them bred and water. You can exist on that. Let's start a pilot program and put you on bread and water for three months.

What if you are on SNAP through no fault of your own? Health problem, not getting welfare, not enough money to meet minimum requirements. Now you come along and want to make their lives more intolerable just because it makes YOU feel good while not saving the taxpayer even one nickel?

And what if you own a company whose product is soda or cake, ice cream or candy? How would you feel that the gov just arbitrarily eliminated/outlawed m,aybe 10% of your market and through no fault of yours?

These were all the basics........flour, sugar, cooking spices, rice, oats, beans, dairy, meat, breads, pastas, veggies, fruits.......
Coffee and tea were considered "frivolous", but they were part of the basics.

What if the SNAP recipient is a cripple who cannot cook? What if they need a little sugar in their diet for diabetic reasons?

Then the lard assed whales on welfare started spewing their stupidity, stating THEY "NEED" chips, soda, and candy and threw toddler fits until the states passed it. I think they should have told them to F off and lose some weight!!!!!

I see. Those "lard-ass whales" are your typical black, welfare baby-maker. So you are out to punish them. But what of all the old, sickly, disabled SNAP recipients who will be affected by your law? No matter how you dice it, this is nothing just discrimination. Its motivations are based in racism, and worse of all, it won't even accomplish any thing you think it will.

1. It saves no money.
2. It solves no problem.
3. It makes no one healthier.
4. It harms business.
5. It is purely discriminatory and prejudicial.
6. It punishes the least offenders the most while not punishing the biggest offenders at all.

And it opens the door for the government to begin including diet under the umbrella of healthcare and tracking what people eat and dishing out rewards and punishments for eating "incorrectly."

 

[Captain Creeper]

I's gonna hav me a helfy dinna of Cheetos an grape soda!

 

[toobfreak]

Well, I said you can't tell people what to eat or drink. But WE have rights too

What right is that?

and to not pay for them is OUR right.

No it isn't. FDR created government assistance back in the 1940s, codified into law by congress. One program is SNAP, you have no right to tell other people what to buy and eat just as they have no right to tell you what you want to eat, what to watch, who to associate with. The argument that you somehow now have the blanket right to take away basic human dignity from others running their lives just because they need some assistance off the government is the weakest, most ill-conceived, most unamerican argument I've ever heard. By that argument, the gov has the right to regulate what you can and cannot eat too.

People are on SNAP for 50 different reasons in a hundred different situations and it just amazes me that so many people want to jump into the trap of treating all of them the same assuming worst-case for all, even knowing that it doesn't solve a single problem. DOING SO WILL NOT SAVE THE TAXPAYER ONE NICKEL. It'll actually harm the people with the greatest need the most while having no effect over those who actually are probably the biggest offenders! It'll do the exact OPPOSITE what you think you are accomplishing.

Meanwhile, there ARE logical permutations that make sense, such as limiting soft drinks and candy to no more than 10% of your entire dietary budget, etc., or issuing waivers for certain situations. That might work.

How does it benefit me, you, and the rest of us? In reduced health insurance premiums, just for starters.

BULLSHIT. These people are on Medicaid, or Medicare. It is not going to have any effect on insurance premiums because there is no graphable medical benefit. For one thing, what's the first thing everyone says? "If they want pop or candy, LET THEM PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES." So, if they are still eating and drinking the same amount of candy and Coke, how will that reduce any premium?

Further, if that DID reduce insurance costs, then you've just made the argument why they should do the same thing to you: Ban whole classes of food they deem unhealthy, then punish you for buying them, which means government tracking and control of everything you buy and consume.

Just what the government would love to do and here you are blindly jumping right into the trap gladly.

 

[LibertyWeeps]

Wrong on all three counts.


Who is getting fat? Who is getting diabetes? Why do you presume everyone buying soft drinks and some candy is wolfing mountains of the stuff down? Maybe it is 10% of their diet, but more likely 1% of their diet, they are just like you or I and crave something sweet to drink and need something cheap for a "dessert." But if it is just to exist on, give them bred and water. You can exist on that. Let's start a pilot program and put you on bread and water for three months.

What if you are on SNAP through no fault of your own? Health problem, not getting welfare, not enough money to meet minimum requirements. Now you come along and want to make their lives more intolerable just because it makes YOU feel good while not saving the taxpayer even one nickel?

And what if you own a company whose product is soda or cake, ice cream or candy? How would you feel that the gov just arbitrarily eliminated/outlawed m,aybe 10% of your market and through no fault of yours?


What if the SNAP recipient is a cripple who cannot cook? What if they need a little sugar in their diet for diabetic reasons?


I see. Those "lard-ass whales" are your typical black, welfare baby-maker. So you are out to punish them. But what of all the old, sickly, disabled SNAP recipients who will be affected by your law? No matter how you dice it, this is nothing just discrimination. Its motivations are based in racism, and worse of all, it won't even accomplish any thing you think it will.

1. It saves no money.
2. It solves no problem.
3. It makes no one healthier.
4. It harms business.
5. It is purely discriminatory and prejudicial.
6. It punishes the least offenders the most while not punishing the biggest offenders at all.

And it opens the door for the government to begin including diet under the umbrella of healthcare and tracking what people eat and dishing out rewards and punishments for eating "incorrectly."

I'm just relaying to you what the Food Stamp/SNAP people have told me, to my face, the few times I've had to go sign up.
If they are wrong, then........I would assume, I was lied to just like all the other times I had to sign up for some goobermint program.

 

[toobfreak]

I'm just relaying to you what the Food Stamp/SNAP people have told me,

These people are idiots. Did it ever occur to you they are only relaying what THEY have been told or were told to tell people like you?

Bottom line: neither you, I, and least of all the gov has the right or should be in the business to telling much less controlling what other people can eat.

Worst of all, the prima facie reason being that their taxpayer money be used only on "essential" foods without even defining how they determine what is essential to anyone, under the illusion that somehow this will save taxpayers money when in fact, if anything, it'll only end up costing more.

Let's say SNAP recipients spent 10 billion a year on cola and snack bars. OMG! Let's cut that out of SNAP and save 10 billion dollars!

Nope, doesn't work that way. They have no way to regulate the candy intake on a per-individual basis, so, if a person was getting $200/month for food before and spending $20 of it on snacks, they will STILL get $200/month for SNAP food! Just that the $20 used to be spent on snacks will now be spent on something else--- maybe ice cream and cake. But they still get $200 in benefits.

They still spend their SNAP benefit, maybe buy that $20 in snacks with pocket money they have now (maybe welfare cash), but either way, it doesn't save you or the government a nickel. In fact, it'll cost both government and industry just to revamp their approval lists.

 

[HeyNorm]

Yes, more takeover of the government by unelected black robes.

This is the fault of Chief Justice Roberts for being far too temperate with lower courts.

Judge Blocks Bans on Using Food Stamps for Sugary Drinks and Candy

A federal judge ruled that the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to approve state waivers that restrict what SNAP participants can buy with their benefits.

www.nytimes.com

Has the judge never heard the old saying……

Never look a gift horse in the mouth?

Might need to eliminate the benefit entirely?