First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law

[Superbadbrutha]

It is not their money. It is a government program, subject to rules and limitations.

There is a downside to having other people pay for your food.

It is their money; they go to whatever store they want to and shop.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

So why did you claim they were sent money and it became theirs?

Once it is on their card it is theirs, dumbass.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Ah so you do care what they buy

I doubt if they are buying a fifth of Hennessey or a carton of cigarettes for the kids.

 

[Lisa558]

It is their money; they go to whatever store they want to and shop.

Nope….not the same as people who earned their own money. Rules and limitations against junk food in a NUTRITION government charity program are well within bounds.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Nope….not the same as people who earned their own money. Rules and limitations against junk food in a NUTRITION government charity program are well within bounds.

Yep, as of today they can buy the same junk food that you buy.

 

[Coyote]

It will take a while to get it through since Dems will block it. They want to make sure that welfare people get the same choices and lifestyle as people who work for a living.

Why shouldn’t they get the same food choices within their budgetary constraints? They aren’t children, this is not alcohol, cigarettes or drugs.

 

[Coyote]

Aside from the issue of freedom (to choose what to eat), the other issue with bans on junk food lies defining it. Anybody remember ketchup was proposed as a vegetable in children’s school lunches?

A much better way to go about this is to offer nutritional education and make healthy food choices easily available and affordable. That way, it is still a free choice.

 

[Robert W]

Aside from the issue of freedom (to choose what to eat), the other issue with bans on junk food lies defining it. Anybody remember ketchup was proposed as a vegetable in children’s school lunches?

A much better way to go about this is to offer nutritional education and make healthy food choices easily available and affordable. That way, it is still a free choice.

I see your point very clearly.

Idaho decided that the funds used for soda and candy are better supplied as fruits and vegetables. Since they get it gratis, it is deemed fair to all.

 

[whoisit]

I see this as very good thing.

The grocery lobby sure won't be pleased.

Healthy too for the youth.

 

[Coyote]

I see your point very clearly.

Idaho decided that the funds used for soda and candy are better supplied as fruits and vegetables. Since they get it gratis, it is deemed fair to all.

How does that work?

 

[Robert W]

How does that work?

For healthy food, the clerk can put it on the bill. Candy and Soda are not healthy food and can't be paid for using what we call food stamps.

 

[Coyote]

For healthy food, the clerk can put it on the bill. Candy and Soda are not healthy food and can't be paid for using what we call food stamps.

So that really isn’t the same then, you are taking away freedom to choose.

 

[Robert W]

So that really isn’t the same then, you are taking away freedom to choose.

It is done all the time to kids. They are also citizens, amirite?
This is the same issue smokers have. They want to use food stamps for smokes.

 

[Coyote]

It is done all the time to kids. They are also citizens, amirite?
This is the same issue smokers have. They want to use food stamps for smokes.

These people are not kids.

 

[Lisa558]

Why shouldn’t they get the same food choices within their budgetary constraints? They aren’t children, this is not alcohol, cigarettes or drugs.

Because it’s taxpayer money.

 

[Coyote]

Because it’s taxpayer money.

That doesn’t matter. These programs were set up, in part, to afford poor people dignity, not to treat adults like children and micromanage it. Stuff like alcohol, sure, I ‘m in agreement with not allowing that, there is zero nutritional value and it is also controlled in other ways, but rest of it should be up to the consumer, same as anyone else.

 

[Robert W]

That doesn’t matter. These programs were set up, in part, to afford poor people dignity, not to treat adults like children and micromanage it. Stuff like alcohol, sure, I ‘m in agreement with not allowing that, there is zero nutritional value and it is also controlled in other ways, but rest of it should be up to the consumer, same as anyone else.

They can't eat dignity but they can eat healthy food since they don't pay for it and citizens who don't know them do pay for it.

 

[Lisa558]

So that really isn’t the same then, you are taking away freedom to choose.

They have the freedom to choose if they spend their OWN money. When they are using taxpayer funds, there are limitations.

 

[Lisa558]

That doesn’t matter. These programs were set up, in part, to afford poor people dignity, not to treat adults like children and micromanage it. Stuff like alcohol, sure, I ‘m in agreement with not allowing that, there is zero nutritional value and it is also controlled in other ways, but rest of it should be up to the consumer, same as anyone else.

Of course it matters. It is called the Nutrition Supplement Program, so it makes perfect sense that purchases - through the taxpayer program - should be limited to nutritional items.

They are still free to buy candy and soda with any cash they get via TANF, or through earnings.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

They have the freedom to choose if they spend their OWN money. When they are using taxpayer funds, there are limitations.

The only limitations are alcohol and tobacco for the most part, they can buy anything else they want to.