First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[Polishprince]

Maybe Wal Mart and McDonalds should pay living wages.

Hillary Clinton was a big wig for Walmart, why not ask her?

 

[toobfreak]

Should we buy them transportation too, since it's their right to drive? Clothes? What if they're an alcoholic and will die without it, think Frank Gallegher, should we buy them that? Should we pay for all of their medical expenses too? Where does your scenario end and why?

Now you are just being silly and resorting to B&W reasoning. What is cheaper, more intelligent and better?

1. Spending $10,000 one time to get a person truly back on track in short order to being a productive person again?
2. Or only spending $200 a month, but for 30 years?

You see, this is where we are at with government. Government is going broke helping people because it does such a bad job at it that it never does it well enough to ever be able to STOP helping people. Then the idiots think they are addressing their own inabilities and failures by further cutting services.

But I know: it all looks good on paper being able to tell your constituents you are addressing the massive expenditure by cutting "waste" and "fat" by depriving a group of people simple things like a can of soda. Meantime, not one dime of actual spending has been saved.

The problem isn't the people ON assistance, it is the fact that government runs it so badly and ineffectively. Cutting out candy and pop is just the latest attempt to fool taxpayers into thinking that government is getting itself together and tightening its belt.

 

[toobfreak]

If they were utilizing self determination to begin with, they wouldn't be using taxpayer money to buy their food.

WRONG. One has nothing to do with the other. I'm not going to keep repeating myself if you are incapable of understanding the problem.

 

[Polishprince]

Now you are just being silly and resorting to B&W reasoning. What is cheaper, more intelligent and better?

1. Spending $10,000 one time to get a person truly back on track in short order to being a productive person again?
2. Or only spending $200 a month, but for 30 years?

You see, this is where we are at with government. Government is going broke helping people because it does such a bad job at it that it never does it well enough to ever be able to STOP helping people. Then the idiots think they are addressing their own inabilities and failures by further cutting services.

The purpose of public welfare programs is the continued employment of public welfare bureaucrats.

From that standpoint, the program is an outstanding success.

 

[toobfreak]

And then, because they’re on Medicaid, we have to pay to treat all that as well.

WRONG. Once again, the real problem is not the people needing assistance as shit happens and no one can change that, it is how the government utterly fails at ever giving enough to get able-bodied people back OFF assistance.

 

[toobfreak]

If your subsistence is provided by the taxpayer, it’s not inappropriate to exclude non staples.

Who gets to decide what is a "non-staple" to another person? Do you actually think the government bothers to look at or consider all the different situations and reasons why a person might need assistance in the first place?

Remember who is running these programs.

Would you like for me to decide what is a non-staple for you?

 

[toobfreak]

The purpose of public welfare programs is the continued employment of public welfare bureaucrats.
From that standpoint, the program is an outstanding success.

I'll buy that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Of course.

But the admiral and I were having a disagreement as to what society TRADITIONALLY considered. . . "welfare."

. . . the classic term which the administration of FDR started, was AFDC.

TANF was not even started till 1997.

You telling me no one in this nation used the term, "welfare," to describe goberment payments till '97?

Aid to Families with Dependent Children - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tiu have to understand, you are obviously a relative youngster. Welfare of any kind didn't exist when we were kids growing up.

 

[toobfreak]

All the effort is wasted if it just makes people sick.

Show me a person who ever got sick from eating a candy bar or drinking a can of pop.

I bet we could save more by simply forcing you to replace all your light bulbs with 40W lamps.

How would you like having only 40W lamps and a timer which only allows you 2 hours of TV a day?

You are a drain on the grid and doing this will save us a lot of money and be healthier for you.

Too bad if you don't like it.

Uncle Sam owns your ass. I mean, you DO use a lot of taxpayer-funded services like electricity, highways and much more that I pay into, so I should have a say in how you live!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Damn, you are not very informed about what the hell is going on.

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Walmart's low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

www.forbes.com

How Big Food Corporations Take Advantage of SNAP

Companies like Walmart are getting away with not only paying their workers low wages, but also owning the stores where the workers use SNAP benefits to buy their food.

blog.ucs.org

Walmart and McDonald’s are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says​

Walmart and McDonald's are among top employers of Medicaid and food stamp beneficiaries, report says

Walmart and McDonald's are among the top employers of beneficiaries of Medicaid and food stamps, according to a GAO study commissioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

www.cnbc.com

Once again, you broadly apply the term welfare for all types of public assistance. That is your definition and not generally accepted. For example, my now=disowned brother had Medicaid even though he was gainfully employed because he made minimum wage. If he was on welfare, he could sit on his ass!

 

[Meathead]

Show me a person who ever got sick from eating a candy bar or drinking a can of pop.

Yeah, it's called diabetes.

 

[toobfreak]

You don't have a 'right' to anyone else buying you candy and soda, it's as simple as that.

Why not? What does denying a person candy and soda accomplish? Have you read anything here at all? Why do I need a right? If I qualify for $200 in assistance, who died and left you in charge of telling me how and where I should spend it?

Maybe I hate soda, in which case, I am giving up nothing.

 

[toobfreak]

Yeah, it's called diabetes.

No one gets diabetes from eating a candy bar or can of pop.

There are many people with diabetes who ate well all their lives.

And so what if a person gets diabetes anyway? What business is that of yours?

If you are going to argue, at least try to do it intelligently.

 

[Meathead]

Why not? What does denying a person candy and soda accomplish? Have you read anything here at all? Why do I need a right? If I qualify for $200 in assistance, who died and left you in charge of telling me how and where I should spend it?

Maybe I hate soda, in which case, I am giving up nothing.

Support your own ******* ass without begging for handouts. Never thought of that I guess.

 

[toobfreak]

you didn't answer.

You obviously didn't read.

 

[toobfreak]

Nobody’s telling them that, libbie.

Pretty funny. Years before you joined here, we ran a thread where many of us took a test to measure our political stance and I tested as the most conservative person on this board. I'm not the one here defending taking a statist (even fascist) position.

Think about it, Lisa, you are defending others making decisions on how another person should choose to live and eat based on how much YOU approve of their choices.

Yet you would be incensed if the government did that to you.

Even when it makes no difference to you or costs you different either way, you still think you have the right to do it just because you can to a subset of society unable to stand up for and defend themselves.

 

[Meathead]

Pretty funny. Years before you joined here, we ran a thread where many of us took a test to measure our political stance and I tested as the most conservative person on this board. I'm not the one here defending taking a statist (even fascist) position.

Think about it, Lisa, you are defending others making decisions on how another person should choose to live and eat based on how much YOU approve of their choices.

Yet you would be incensed if the government did that to you.

Even when it makes no difference to you or costs you different either way, you still think you have the right to do it just because you can to a subset of society unable to stand up for and defend themselves.

A conservative moocher who wants to spend money that's given to them on shit. People like that should become Dems like the rest of them.

 

[toobfreak]

The rich can afford to get fat and sick on junk food, the poor can't.

So in other words, you are a supporter of the caste system. The rich are entitled to liberty but the poor do not.

Wouldn't it be a better system to simply help raise the poor up so that more of them were rich too?

That is Americanism. What you are arguing is Fascism.

 

[toobfreak]

A conservative moocher who wants to spend money that's given to them on shit. People like that should become Dems like the rest of them.

Who is a moocher?

 

[toobfreak]

Yeah, it's called diabetes.

You did not answer my question. You evaded.