I hardly think that prohibiting wasteful government spending on junk food is bullying people. Do you know that people on the government’s money spend more on soda than people who earn their own money?
First SNAP Ban on Candy and Soda Set To Become Law
- Thread starter EvilEyeFleegle
- Start date
I did. I predicted it would be used this way.
How do you think this argument will pan out when the we socialize health care?
We are buying poor people beef, chicken, tuna, milk, eggs, cheese, bread, vegetables, fruit, juice, peanut butter and jelly, etc., etc. - and the leftists call us bullies for not wanting to shell out for candy and soda.
What is wrong with children learning that when you make bad decisions and have to rely on a government charity program for food, you don’t get to buy everything that responsible, self-supporting people do? Don’t we want to incentivize children to break the welfare cycle when they grow up?
Of course. It's just a "little" bullying. And it's for a "good cause".
It always is.
I asked before, but you steered around the question. Will you be making these kinds of demands if we socialize health care? Will it piss you off of smokers, or overeaters tec, are costing taxpayers money with their bad habits? What should we do about that? Something similar?
Since you're not a logistics expert, I'll tell you why: The card is easier and costs less money.
Smokers and overweight people should have to pay more in health insurance.
We should just go back to food stamps. Less opportunity to fraud.
BothWings
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2020
- 4,809
- 5,961
- 1,928
Our taxes frequently pay for health benefits for those who can't afford to pay for their own. Therefore, I as a taxpayer am totally alright with limiting what they buy with MY money to "normal" healthy food. I'll be damned if I'll be paying for them to have diabetes in the future. The people making that into law work for ME, and I approve of it. Don't like it, too bad.
That's what I thought. So, if we're not paying insurance premiums, if it's all financed through taxes, you'll be insisting that government go after people with habits you don't approve of. Church Lady indeed!
No. Why should people who make healthy choices have to subsidize the irresponsible choices of others?
And when Dems get back in power, your approval won't mean squat. Then they'll be telling you how to live. Won't that be fun?
I’ll be allowed to buy soda and candy because I don’t take government welfare. But I won’t - because it’s a waste of my money and unhealthy to boot.
- Jul 27, 2021
- 62,107
- 74,355
- 3,488
You're making my my case. Please continue! Who all would be on your shit list if health care is nationalized? Smokers? Overeaters? Boozers and other addicts? Gays with their stds? Loose women?
Do you wonder who Democrats will have on their list?
- Jul 27, 2021
- 62,107
- 74,355
- 3,488
.
At least twelve years from now, and by then, the really sick dems will be back in the asylums where they belong.
.
Get off your high horse. Responsible, wise people should not have to subsidize the costs of bad behavior - primarily smokers.
Just smokers? No one else? I assume "gender reassignment" would be off the table. And abortions? What about mental health?
There's lots of "bad behavior" out there. And, according to you, anyone getting benefits from the government should have to follow your parents rules, or your version thereof. You're going to be really busy!
Meathead
Diamond Member
From the far-right wing The Atlantic:Once again, Idaho leads the nation!
Well..in stigmatizing the poor, anyway~
Gov. Little is sure to sign this.
First SNAP ban on candy and soda set to become law
The bill now heads to Idaho Governor Brad Little's desk to be signed.www.newsweek.com
SNAP benefits—also known as "food stamps"—are administered nationwide to low- and no-income households that would otherwise struggle to purchase groceries. In the 2024 fiscal year, the program served 130,900 Idaho residents, or 7 percent of the state population. But numerous states are considering banning certain purchases from being made using the anti-poverty benefit, Idaho being the first to pass a bill in both chambers.
The passage and potential signing of the bill does not necessarily mean Idaho's SNAP recipients in Idaho will be immediately impacted, as the ban will be subject to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) approval.
No waivers are currently in place in any state that bar SNAP recipients from buying foods based on their nutritional value. However, this could be subject to change under the current Trump administration. Newsweek has contacted the USDA for comment via email.
There is also a push at the federal level to see junk food purchases banned. In January, U.S. Representative Josh Brecheen, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced the Healthy SNAP Act, which would make soft drinks, candy, ice cream and prepared desserts ineligible from being purchased using SNAP benefits.
Banning soda from SNAP seems like a no-brainer. Soda is a big reason adults in the United States consume, on average, two to three times more than the daily recommended intake of sugar. The federal government’s own research has shown that Americans who receive food stamps have worse diets than nonparticipants with similar incomes, and soda is surely part of that problem.
Republicans Are Right About Soda
Public-health groups are tying themselves in knots over a GOP crackdown on the sugary drink.
You sound like a liberal now - taking things to a ridiculous extreme to try to win an argument.
Smoking is obviously a voluntary choice, known to be harmful to health, and results in more medical expenses. Nothing wrong with a “premium penalty” upon those who deliberately choose to smoke.
Please continue. You are the best reason I can think of to avoid making charity and heath care government responsibilities.
Democrats, are you following this??
Similar threads
New Topics
-
CNN's Harry Enten Flabbergasted by Brutal New Numbers for Dems on Economy- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
