Poll: Should EBT users be able to Purchase Junk Food with It?

Should EBT users be able to Purchase Junk Food with It?


  • Total voters
    30
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. How ridiculous.

Of course they are. This whole thread began with many people admitting that given the chance, they are all for banning others from buying snacks, chocolate, or anything sweet or sweetened, fattening, or just not a health food. That would lead to no pizza, no hamburgers, hotdogs, peanut butter or any such thing. Why? Just because they are down on their luck. Not that it would do anything for their health nor save the public coffers even a dime.

Just out of poor spite because they hate politicians and because some people abuse and cheat the system.
 
Of course they are. This whole thread began with many people admitting that given the chance, they are all for banning others from buying snacks, chocolate, or anything sweet or sweetened, fattening, or just not a health food. That would lead to no pizza, no hamburgers, hotdogs, peanut butter or any such thing. Why? Just because they are down on their luck. Not that it would do anything for their health nor save the public coffers even a dime.

Just out of poor spite because they hate politicians and because some people abuse and cheat the system.
Just stupid:

Decades of research have demonstrated that diabetes affects racial and ethnic minority and low-income adult populations in the U.S. disproportionately, with relatively intractable patterns seen in these populations’ higher risk of diabetes and rates of diabetes complications and mortality (1).


The only savings to the taxpayers is an early death of the mooching class which you seem to be keen on.
 
Decades of research have demonstrated that diabetes affects racial and ethnic minority and low-income adult populations in the U.S. disproportionately, with relatively intractable patterns seen in these populations’ higher risk of diabetes and rates of diabetes complications and mortality
Then the first role of government then should be to help get the poor educated and resituated so that they don't have to be poor anymore.

The only savings to the taxpayers is an early death of the mooching class
Aha. So now even death is not too severe a penalty for anyone who has a run of bad luck in any country you would run.

which you seem to be keen on.
NO! I am NOT keen on anyone or anything! But neither am I particularly AGAINST anyone either blindly. I am just not suffering the kind of predetermined hatred you've displayed for a group of people just because they needed a helping hand.

At some point in all our lives, sooner or later, most all of us will need the hand of friendship to help us get through things in life.
 
Then the first role of government then should be to help get the poor educated and resituated so that they don't have to be poor anymore.


Aha. So now even death is not too severe a penalty for anyone who has a run of bad luck in any country you would run.


NO! I am NOT keen on anyone or anything! But neither am I particularly AGAINST anyone either blindly. I am just not suffering the kind of predetermined hatred you've displayed for a group of people just because they needed a helping hand.

At some point in all our lives, sooner or later, most all of us will need the hand of friendship to help us get through things in life.
So why are you advocating for the taxpayer exacerbating an already critical health-care crisis among the poor whom you seem to be defending?
 
So why are you advocating for the taxpayer exacerbating an already critical health-care crisis among the poor whom you seem to be defending?

I am advocating for nothing, nor defending anything, except for just plain common sense and reason in keeping with the intentions of the Founders of this country.

What I found instead were several people here who are willing to use the exact same excuses and reasons as the Left uses all the time to do so many bad things, but to justify using it against their own set of pet peeves instead, and they just can't see it.

It is not easy to live by a standard or code, and follow wherever it leads you to decisions even when they lead you to a decision you personally would rather not see or like.
 
I am advocating for nothing, nor defending anything, except for just plain common sense and reason in keeping with the intentions of the Founders of this country.

What I found instead were several people here who are willing to use the exact same excuses and reasons as the Left uses all the time to do so many bad things, but to justify using it against their own set of pet peeves instead, and they just can't see it.

It is not easy to live by a standard or code, and follow wherever it leads you to decisions even when they lead you to a decision you personally would rather not see or like.
You're stretching convolution to its very limits.
 
The sad part is when they are not allowed to get these things they will trade their card in for the cash which is a super abuse. You see it all the time at the markets around here.
.

Many times this happened to me -- people would offer to pay for my food with their EBT if I'd give them the cash. Insane.


.
 
Michelle Obama advocated healthier meals for children and Conservatives crucified her

How dare you tell me how to feed my children!
 
Michelle Obama advocated healthier meals for children and Conservatives crucified her

How dare you tell me how to feed my children!
The taxpayers get to do that. Everybody got free stuff without restriction with liberals in charge. With responsible people in charge, no one should.

And please, no bleeding heart shit.
 
Problem is that those healthy options are available in Supermarkets at reasonable prices
Supermarkets abandoned the inner city decades ago.
All that are available are Bodegas, corner groceries that sell mostly snacks and fast food.
.

I agree that the healthy foods must be made available.


.
 
Of course they are. This whole thread began with many people admitting that given the chance, they are all for banning others from buying snacks, chocolate, or anything sweet or sweetened, fattening, or just not a health food. That would lead to no pizza, no hamburgers, hotdogs, peanut butter or any such thing. Why? Just because they are down on their luck. Not that it would do anything for their health nor save the public coffers even a dime.

Just out of poor spite because they hate politicians and because some people abuse and cheat the system.
Completely untrue. No one is banned from buying anything they want. Government benefits cannot be used to pay for foods that don't meet nutritional guidelines.
 
How are these two statements logically connected?

It takes a village to raise a child! Did you forget that?
It is true
We should care about all children, not just our own
 
Then the first role of government then should be to help get the poor educated and resituated so that they don't have to be poor anymore.
You can't do that. Have you ever heard of Malthusian economics?
 
Borne of another thread, I am looking for a consensus on the matter. It's a simple straight-up yes or no.
Who gets to decide what is and is not junk food? Corrupt unelected bureaucrats. Deep state bitches.
 
Back
Top Bottom