First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

Only if the "reasonable person" assumes that government is the solution to every problem.
Got it. We understand you,

“If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
 
Got it. We understand you,

“If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
It's instructive to see you struggle with this concept. You literally can't conceive of someone who opposes your favored, government-mandated solutions, yet isn't dismissing the problems we're trying to solve.

If I oppose welfare, it's obviously because I don't care about about poor people, or even want to seem the suffer. If I oppose socialized medicine, it's because I don't want poor people to get health care. If I oppose DEI, it's because I'm a an obvious bigot.

That's as far as it goes for you, isn't it?
 
What do you figure your out of pocket expenses are for the SNAP recipients candy and soda?
 
It's instructive to see you struggle with this concept.
Seems you are the one struggling.
You literally can't conceive of someone who opposes your favored, government-mandated solutions, yet isn't dismissing the problems we're trying to solve.

If I oppose welfare, it's obviously because I don't care about about poor people, or even want to seem the suffer. If I oppose socialized medicine, it's because I don't want poor people to get health care. If I oppose DEI, it's because I'm a an obvious bigot.

That's as far as it goes for you, isn't it?
You need to explain how you propose helping these people. A poor kid has a failing kidney. What do his parents do?
 
Seems you are the one struggling.

You need to explain how you propose helping these people.
No. I really don't. You need to shelve your ridiculous presumption that anyone who opposes your favored solution to a social problem is denying the problem, or is just plain evil.

The truth is, I don't think government does a good job solving all of society's problems. There's really only a narrow subset of society's problems that government is suited to deal with. The rest, we're better off solving via voluntary means.
 
No. I really don't.

No you don't have to explain how you would help or care for the poor. But don't get pissy when the only reasonable conclusion that one can take, when you want to close public hospitals and cancel Medicaid is that your solution to the poor kid with failing a failing kidney is “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
 
No you don't have to explain how you would help or care for the poor. But don't get pissy when the only reasonable conclusion that one can take, when you want to close public hospitals and cancel Medicaid is that your solution to the poor kid with failing a failing kidney is “If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”
Not pissy. Just pointing out that that is NOT a reasonable conclusion. It's a bigoted presumption.
 
No it’s not. It can come with stipulations, as it already does. They can’t buy alcohol, for example, with government charity dollars.
Because alcohol and tobacco aren't food. It's funny how you right wing idiots are always talking about freedom folks should have until it is something that you feel you need to control. How does someone buying potato chips or baked potatoes affect you?
 
Because alcohol and tobacco aren't food. It's funny how you right wing idiots are always talking about freedom folks should have until it is something that you feel you need to control. How does someone buying potato chips or baked potatoes affect you?
Soda isn’t food either.

If they want junk food, they can earn their own money and buy it. Taxpayers don’t need to fund wasteful welfare dollars.
 
Because alcohol and tobacco aren't food. It's funny how you right wing idiots are always talking about freedom folks should have until it is something that you feel you need to control. How does someone buying potato chips or baked potatoes affect you?
It’s funny how you left-wing nutcases think people living on the dole are as entitled to buy whatever they want as responsible, productive citizens.
 
If Jonny asks Mom why he can’t eat junk food, she can tell him it’s because other people are buying our food for us because I didn’t graduate high school, or I had three children out of wedlock, or I didn’t prepare for a career - and they will only pay for healthy food.

Then she is letting her child know that if he wants to be able to pick and choose to buy whatever he wants, he shouldn’t make the same mistakes his mother did.

Where’s the incentive to stop the generational welfare?
 
If Jonny asks Mom why he can’t eat junk food, she can tell him it’s because other people are buying our food for us because I didn’t graduate high school, or I had three children out of wedlock, or I didn’t prepare for a career.

Then she is letting her child know that if he wants to be able to pick and choose to buy whatever he wants, he shouldn’t make the same mistakes his mother did.

Where’s the incentive to stop the generational welfare?
Just hard to hold back that racist, white arrogance. How do you know they are not someone who worked at the VA and got laid off and it put them in a financial bind?

Should America put stipulations on money that they send to foreign countries?
 
Is potato chips food? How about honey roasted peanuts? Are cookies food?
I don’t recall them prohibiting that, but the issue isn’t what can be labeled food. The issue is that people using taxpayer dollars to buy food have limitations placed on them.

If they want to buy shit food, then they can get a job. In fact, it would be a great lesson to teach a kid: if you want candy, you can mow a lawn, shovel snow, whatever, and then WITH YOUR OWN MONEY you can buy candy.

That’s exactly how my father was able to buy candy, when it was the Depression and he was 8 years old. My grandparents had no money for candy. So, Dad delivered the ice to a neighbor and he got a penny. He then went to the drugstore and picked out his treat.

How do I know this story? Because my Dad was so proud that he earned a penny and could buy his own candy that he must have told it to me 5 times. (RIP, Dad.)
 
I don’t recall them prohibiting that, but the issue isn’t what can be labeled food. The issue is that people using taxpayer dollars to buy food have limitations placed on them.

If they want to buy shit food, then they can get a job. In fact, it would be a great lesson to teach a kid: if you want candy, you can mow a lawn, shovel snow, whatever, and then WITH YOUR OWN MONEY you can buy candy.

That’s exactly how my father was able to buy candy, when it was the Depression and he was 8 years old. My grandparents had no money for candy. So, Dad delivered the ice to a neighbor and he got a penny. He then went to the drugstore and picked out his treat.

How do I know this story? Because my Dad was so proud that he earned a penny and could buy his own candy that he must have told it to me 5 times. (RIP, Dad.)
Good for you, you should write a book because I swear every event that comes up you have a story to tell. Ok, back to the lecture at hand. How do you know these folks are not telling their kids to cut grass, wash cars or something else? So do they go to the counter with a buggy full of candy, cookies, sodas, etc., if a mother goes and buys groceries and she decides to treat her kids with some cookies or Ice Cream I don't really see the harm in that.
 
Good for you, you should write a book because I swear every event that comes up you have a story to tell. Ok, back to the lecture at hand. How do you know these folks are not telling their kids to cut grass, wash cars or something else? So do they go to the counter with a buggy full of candy, cookies, sodas, etc., if a mother goes and buys groceries and she decides to treat her kids with some cookies or Ice Cream I don't really see the harm in that.
I’m just telling you what people with good values and who want to raise responsible kids do,

And there’s no harm in a mother buying her kid an ice cream. But not with OUR money.
 
Obesity is much more of a problem among welfare people. Why should taxpayers have to buy them junk food that will contribute to it?

Maybe we need to go back to food stamps that are redeemable for a limited selection of actual food. Or, a food bank where only these basics are stocked. In either case, it would reduce all the EBT fraud.

We also need to instill a sense of regret, or even shame, when one has to have other people feed their children. There’s a complete sense of entitlement about it. I met a young man (early 30s, I’d guess) at a gathering who told me his girlfriend just had his baby, and that he helped her apply for food stamps. He’s telling me, a perfect stranger, that he is having other people feed his kid, as if there was nothing to be ashamed of.
I think they should work and try to feed their kids. But if they are working ac40 hr person week job and earning a measely 15 or 20 dollars per hour then some assistance would be appropriate and moral.
 
I think they should work and try to feed their kids. But if they are working ac40 hr person week job and earning a measely 15 or 20 dollars per hour then some assistance would be appropriate and moral.
I never said to cut off assistance. A family of five (a single mother with four little kids) gets $1,000 tax-free dollars toward food.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom