First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[martybegan]

.there are people in this country who have nothing, no hope of ever improving their situation, for them, I'm not fretting over the government buying the child a snickers bar every now and then.

So we subsidize them at living standard that is comfortable enough for them to not want to improve themselves?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Like get off the dole and get a job?

How patriotic to get off assistance and pay taxes instead of living off someone else's.....some can't get off, but many can and should.

And for those that can, I'm fine with encouraging those people to improve their situation, for those that can't, let's not punish the children

 

[martybegan]

And for those that can, I'm fine with encouraging those people to improve their situation, for those that can't, let's not punish the children

Now figure out how to separate the "those who can't" from the "those who won't"

 

[ThisIsMe]

So we subsidize them at living standard that is comfortable enough for them to not want to improve themselves?

There are some who just can't improve. And I'm not talking about subsidizing those who CAN improve but are too lazy to try, I'm talking about providing a child of parents who are living with no hope a treat. Hell, that pack of cookies might just be the best thing that child had all week.

 

[martybegan]

There are some who just can't improve. And I'm not talking about subsidizing those who CAN improve but are too lazy to try, I'm talking about providing a child of parents who are living with no hope a treat. Hell, that pack of cookies might just be the best thing that child had all week.

The start a charity to do that. Government support should be the bare minimum.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The start a charity to do that. Government support should be the bare minimum.

Can't argue with charity. You make a good point

I'm torn

 

[MisterBeale]

let's not punish the children

Requiring that the poor feed their children properly with tax-payer donated food, is NOT a punishment.

For many? I can see how discouraging entitled behavior IS a punishment though. . . .

 

[toobfreak]

You asked me a question, I answered it. You just didn't like the response, so you hit me with a wall of text.

You answered it with a question. And that wall of text was simply to make clear the complex dichotomy between seeing people here who have championed themselves before me for years as denizens of the Constitution and the American way suddenly do an about face and start calling for a very unAmerican and unconstitutional thing. I've merely been trying to hopefully make a few people here realize the hypocrisy of their sudden 180° reversals. The real test of conservatism is not to back it just when it works to your favor but to stand behind it even when it doesn't!

The simple fact is this, people who get welfare, make poor judgements.

Really??? How was it a "poor judgement" when a person I once knew got a heart infection causing his heart cavity to swell and damaging his aorta at the worst possible time and he was forced onto public assistance because he could no longer work?

Restricting them to a certain type of food isn't punishment.

Really? So your brand of constitutionalism allows for the government to just arbitrarily deny certain people the ability to buy certain foods deemed "non-essential with FOOD stamps just to punish another group of people cheating the system? That is the WORST kind of punishment because it is entirely arbitrary and unjust, not only because the government shouldn't have the right to tell others what to eat, not only because they did nothing to deserve it, but because it solves absolutely NOTHING. Denying people the right to buy what they want doesn't do jack to fix the system, doesn't do jack to stop the abusers, nor does it do anything to make anyone healthier nor even save five cents, so what is the point other than blind vindictiveness and prejudice? Yet you are to have me believe blind arbitrary vindictiveness directed at innocent people isn't punishment? It is the worst kind of punishment because it is arbitrary and unjustified.

It is helping them make better choices.

I see. Better choices of not coming down with an illness? That is a load of bullcrap.

If they want to purchase crap, they can get a side job for the money to do that.

Wow.

 

[Lesh]

No more Super Big Gulps

Gonna have to spend their own money now.

Gonna ban hot dogs? They’re not healthy.

How about bologna?

 

[toobfreak]

^^^ This is a liberal, 100%, arguing that people who are capable of working

WHO is capable of working? I am talking about legitimately sick or disabled people who are exactly the kind of people which the public assistance program was /designed/ for to help.

They want soda? Get a job. And if they’re elderly or disabled, having to give up soda is a good thing.

Why? Because YOU say so, Lisa? I bet if you were old and sick and disabled, having a cold pop or something sweet once in a while as a little pleasure in your life might mean the whole world to you. It might be all you have left to look forward to. Think about it.

Bottom line: why are so many people anxious to punish a legitimate group of people for the actions of others just to get even with them for being honestly sick to reap a non-existent benefit which does neither them nor you and I nor the state any benefit?

I'm amazed that people still keep trying to defend such a position. Worse, defend it by attacking me. I'm sorry, I must be a bigger person than many here in that I can be a true conservative and constitutionalist yet also still be charitable and human.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Requiring that the poor feed their children properly with tax-payer donated food, is NOT a punishment.

For many? I can see how discouraging entitled behavior IS a punishment though. . . .

I agree, we should make sure their nutrition needs are met, what were talking about is a snack every now and then. Marty made a good point though, charities are available

 

[Delldude]

Gonna ban hot dogs? They’re not healthy.

How about bologna?

Sugar and children is the issue...........proven.

 

[MisterBeale]

what were talking about is a snack every now and then.

Most poor folks, the really poor ones, have some form of other income.

Whether it be AFDC, child support, SSI, etc.

. . . or they work.

If folks want a treat? They need to pay for it out of their budget.

They need to choose, junk food, or cable and streaming services.

 

[dblack]

Gonna ban hot dogs? They’re not healthy.

How about bologna?

And any food from companies supporting "woke" politics.

 

[MisterBeale]

Gonna ban hot dogs? They’re not healthy.

How about bologna?

Those items, while having deleterious health affects, also contain essential nutrition.

Candy and pop doesn't.

 

[Delldude]

Most poor folks, the really poor ones, have some form of other income.

Whether it be AFDC, child support, SSI, etc.

. . . or they work.

If folks want a treat? They need to pay for it out of their budget.

They need to choose, junk food, or cable and streaming services.

If you consider all the perks they are eligible for, it's equivalent to something close to $20,000.

 

[MisterBeale]

WHO is capable of working? I am talking about legitimately sick or disabled people who are exactly the kind of people which the public assistance program was /designed/ for to help.


Why? Because YOU say so, Lisa? I bet if you were old and sick and disabled, having a cold pop or something sweet once in a while as a little pleasure in your life might mean the whole world to you. It might be all you have left to look forward to. Think about it.

Bottom line: why are so many people anxious to punish a legitimate group of people for the actions of others just to get even with them for being honestly sick to reap a non-existent benefit which does neither them nor you and I nor the state any benefit?

I'm amazed that people still keep trying to defend such a position. Worse, defend it by attacking me. I'm sorry, I must be a bigger person than many here in that I can be a true conservative and constitutionalist yet also still be charitable and human.

Legitimately disabled folks can spend their financial budget on either junk food or entertainment needs.

Working folks that pay taxes have to make financial choices every day.

. . . there is no reason that those who are getting charity can't do the same.

 

[MisterBeale]

If you consider all the perks they are eligible for, it's equivalent to something close to $20,000.

Mostly true.

The actual amount depends greatly on the state which folks choose to live.

The amount available to the indigent in Mississippi is a vastly different amount that those who live in CAL or NY.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Most poor folks, the really poor ones, have some form of other income.

Whether it be AFDC, child support, SSI, etc.

. . . or they work.

If folks want a treat? They need to pay for it out of their budget.

They need to choose, junk food, or cable and streaming services.

got it

 

[Delldude]

Mostly true.

The actual amount depends greatly on the state which folks choose to live.

The amount available to the indigent in Mississippi is a vastly different amount that those who live in CAL or NY.

When all things are considered, it's not too bad a deal. Housing, food, medical, phone, disability. Sell a little something for the head on the side, and you're all set.