First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[dblack]

"Busybodies" already do. They prohibit the purchase of cigarettes and booze. But you'd rather they get nothing.

From government, yes. I would. I don't think the state should be in charge of charity. It leads to meddling nonsense like this thread.

 

[Lisa558]

Which is probably some form of AFDC or SSI, right?

So the unintended consequence will be more cash spent on sweets..and less on frills like the electric bill?

You mean welfare takers are so irresponsible that they will spend their money on Super Gulps instead of toward their electric bill?

 

[wtb]

If you pay for all your own food, it makes sense for there not be any restrictions on eating as much junk as one wants to. It's sad and it's unhealthy - but it's not up to someone else.

On the other hand, if taxpayers are paying for someone's food, I think it makes a lot of sense to have it pay for only reasonably healthy food.

 

[Rawley]

From government, yes. I would. I don't think the state should be in charge of charity. It leads to meddling nonsense like this thread.

Survival of the fittest, huh? Rather harsh

 

[dblack]

Survival of the fittest, huh? Rather harsh

Not at all. I just don't think government should be in charge of deciding who survives.

 

[Lisa558]

Not at all. I just don't think government should be in charge of deciding who survives.

And not paying for candy is a matter of survival? LOL

 

[Delldude]

Fine, let’s cancel it

Private charity does a much better job helping people out of poverty

One of Obama's first actions was cancelling /limiting charitable deductions.

Only charity is the government.

This argument about giving tax money to people for snap and limiting what they can spend it on.

It's like, out of compassion you give the homeless guy $20 so he can get a decent meal......as you walk away, looking back you see him beeline for the liquor store.

 

[Rawley]

Not at all. I just don't think government should be in charge of deciding who survives.

?? Uh, that's survival of the fittest. Again, quite a harsh view on life. Public hospitals outlawed?

 

[struth]

One of Obama's first actions was cancelling /limiting charitable deductions.

Only charity is the government.

This argument about giving tax money to people for snap and limiting what they can spend it on.

It's like, out of compassion you give the homeless guy $20 so he can get a decent meal......as you walk away, looking back you see him beeline for the liquor store.

Yes, one of the key parts of the Demafasicst agenda is to end charity. They believe the only donatoins should be to the party...

 

[Delldude]

Not at all. I just don't think government should be in charge of deciding who survives.

They are......they do.

 

[dblack]

?? Uh, that's survival of the fittest.

No, it's not. This is liberal nonsense. Opposing the welfare state doesn't mean I don't care about people. It doesn't mean I think we shouldn't help them. Why do you insist on that insinuation?

I get the same crap if I oppose socializing healthcare. You people act like government is the only means of helping people. It's not. It's not even a good means of helping people.

 

[dblack]

They are......they do.

Only in narrowly defined circumstances. Some people want to broaden that power. I don't.

 

[Rawley]

No, it's not. This is liberal nonsense. Opposing the welfare state doesn't mean I don't care about people. It doesn't mean I think we shouldn't help them. Why do you insist on that insinuation?

Because you make statements like

"I don't think the state should be in charge of charity. It leads to meddling nonsense like this thread."
"Not at all. I just don't think government should be in charge of deciding who survives."

You cut off and obviously refuse to answer my question.

I'll ask again. Do you oppose the "charity" of public hospitals. Clearest example of the gvt deciding who survives.

 

[Delldude]

Only in narrowly defined circumstances. Some people want to broaden that power. I don't.

Knee jerk doesn't count?

 

[dblack]

Because you make statements like

"I don't think the state should be in charge of charity. It leads to meddling nonsense like this thread."
"Not at all. I just don't think government should be in charge of deciding who survives."

Yeah -- where in there does it say I don't care about people? That I don't want to help people? That I think it should be "survival of the fittest"??

I'll ask again. Do you oppose the "charity" of public hospitals. Clearest example of the gvt deciding who survives.

Government shouldn't be running hospitals either, if that's what you're asking.

 

[dblack]

Knee jerk doesn't count?

Dunno what that's supposed to mean.

 

[Delldude]

Dunno what that's supposed to mean.

You mentioned narrowly defined circumstances.

 

[Rawley]

Yeah -- where in there does it say I don't care about people? That I don't want to help people? That I think it should be "survival of the fittest"??

Government shouldn't be running hospitals either, if that's what you're asking.

Seems safe to assume President dblack would cancel the "charity" of Medicaid.

Well, no public food program, no public hospitals, no Medicaid would lead a reasonable person to say that you don't care about people.

 

[Lisa558]

Seems safe to assume President dblack would cancel the "charity" of Medicaid.

Well, no public food program, no public hospitals, no Medicaid would lead a reasonable person to say that you don't care about people.

Isn’t he the one saying we should pay for candy for poor people on government charity? I’m confused. He wants us to give their kids candy and soda, but not pay for medical care?

 

[dblack]

Seems safe to assume President dblack would cancel the "charity" of Medicaid.

Well, no public food program, no public hospitals, no Medicaid would lead a reasonable person to say that you don't care about people.

Only if the "reasonable person" assumes that government is the solution to every problem.