Why SNAP allows soft drinks.

The words of a fascist. We already run your life so you won't mind if we run it even more?

I cannot wait until I see you complain some bureaucrat is overstepping their bounds making decisions impacting your life in some un-american way which you do not agree.
I manage to dodge those regulations, mainly by behaving myself.
 
If they don't have sugar, they have aspartame. That stuff is worse than sugar. You're literally drinking a chemical to artificially make a drink taste sweet.

Aspartame and other phenylketonurics are all molecules based on an amine of sugar. The same thing that makes sugar taste sweet makes them as well. Nothing wrong with phenylalanine.
 
Those able to walk, walk. There's a lot of standing around in gym classes.
.

I walked a mile to school in ninth grade. Didn't kill me.

When we came home from school, we didn't eat until dinner. I almost lost it when my nephew DEMANDED an after school snack, as if he'd die of hunger in the three hours before dinner. WTF?


.
 
THERE'S your problem! Not drinking cola.

I think we need to ban all smartphones. Basic cellphones or nothing. Woodznutz will be the first to give his up.
Nice try. I don't own a smartphone and only turn on my cell phone occasionally. I also don't have a notebook, just an old desktop computer running Windows 7. And it's only my second computer.
 
Last edited:
.

I walked a mile to school in ninth grade. Didn't kill me.

When we came home from school, we didn't eat until dinner. I almost lost it when my nephew DEMANDED an after school snack, as if he'd die of hunger in the three hours before dinner. WTF?


.
Same here. Not quite a mile, and no parents drove their kids to and from school, not even from kindergarten. But, we didn't have far-flung consolidated schools in those days.
 
Aspartame and other phenylketonurics are all molecules based on an amine of sugar. The same thing that makes sugar taste sweet makes them as well. Nothing wrong with phenylalanine.

Diet drinks that contain aspartame have been linked to weight gain, belly fat which is the worst type of fat, and type 2 diabetes. 67% increase in risk, actually.

 
Diet drinks that contain aspartame have been linked to weight gain, belly fat which is the worst type of fat, and type 2 diabetes. 67% increase in risk, actually.

So what you are saying is that sugar is better for you and not as bad as people think and these bans on sweetened drinks are just so much misplaced bravado by dumping a problem onto poor people's backs too poor to fight it, but like everything else, if forced to buy their own cola, WILL DO SO WHILE:
  • Not saving Uncle Sam one nickel.
  • While not getting one ounce healthier.
  • Will get around the cola restriction just like every other bullshit regulation, in a hundred different ways that will just end up raising unhealthy behavior and probably crime, so accomplishing nothing.
 
So what you are saying is that sugar is better for you and not as bad as people think and these bans on sweetened drinks are just so much misplaced bravado by dumping a problem onto poor people's backs too poor to fight it, but like everything else, if forced to buy their own cola, WILL DO SO WHILE:
  • Not saving Uncle Sam one nickel.
  • While not getting one ounce healthier.
  • Will get around the cola restriction just like every other bullshit regulation, in a hundred different ways that will just end up raising unhealthy behavior and probably crime, so accomplishing nothing.

Natural sugar is better for you than drinking artificial sweeteners, yes. Soda is not good for anyone. But contrary to your belief and the beliefs of many others, diet sodas are no better. They're just bad for different reasons. Gatorade/powerade are good for rehydration if you're working out or playing sports. Plain jane water is best if you're just thirsty.
 
toobfreak, question for you: How much do you get in SNAP benefits monthly, and for you and how many family members?
 
toobfreak, question for you: How much do you get in SNAP benefits monthly, and for you and how many family members?

None, but I once knew a guy who had an aortic defect that forced him onto public assistance, and all he did with his time was to constantly jump through hurdles trying to stay on the program despite the fact that he was disabled and would die with the condition (and he did).

Instead, try getting your head out of your ass and realize that it isn't that I'm against people eating and living well, I'm just against the government opening the door on starting to discriminate against a class of people due to their ease of accessibility when I know it can only spread out to more areas of society and people once that door is open as time goes on, like everything else the government does.

If you want people to eat and live better, there are more effective ways of approaching it without resorting to fascism and discrimination.
 
None, but I once knew a guy who had an aortic defect that forced him onto public assistance, and all he did with his time was to constantly jump through hurdles trying to stay on the program despite the fact that he was disabled and would die with the condition (and he did).
That was "your friend," and not you?

I hope that your friend did not spend his SNAP on colas and candy. It seems a bad diet for someone in that condition.

Since he was unable to take care of himself, I don't see why your friend should resent some guardrails against his making yourself himself sicker and even more dependent.
Instead, try getting your head out of your ass and realize that it isn't that I'm against people eating and living well, I'm just against the government opening the door on starting to discriminate against a class of people due to their ease of accessibility when I know it can only spread out to more areas of society and people once that door is open as time goes on, like everything else the government does.
Never a good argument: "You cannot ban so-and-so, or next they ban this-and-that!"
If you want people to eat and live better, there are more effective ways of approaching it without resorting to fascism and discrimination.
Is it fascism or discrimination that people cannot buy cigarettes and beer with SNAP benefits? I can buy them with my paycheck money, so I guess that is both, huh?

Is it fascism or discrimination that people in Texas cannot buy candy and cokes with SNAP benefits? When do you predict that I will lose the right to buy those things with money I earned?
 
Last edited:
But it's ok to force others to pay for the soda pop and junk food?
Should we restrict people from buying other foods we don't like? Should blacks be restricted from buying watermelons, fried chicken, and grape soda? Do we want to ban all Kosher foods? Chinese food? Mexican food?

How far do you want to take this?
 
That was "your friend," and not you?
No, he passed away in 2010.

I hope that your friend did not spend his SNAP on colas and candy. It seems a bad diet for someone in that condidtion.
No, he was actually a trained gourmet chef in his younger days.

Since he was unable to take care of himself,
He could not work. I never said he couldn't take care of himself.

Never a good argument: "You cannot ban so-and-so, or next they ban this-and-that!"
But so very true of government programs.

Is it fascism or discrimination that people cannot buy cigarettes and beer with SNAP benefits?
Perhaps, but they are not food, though I suppose there are some people who have tried to live on beer.

Is it fascism or discrimination that people in Texas cannot buy candy and cokes with SNAP benefits?
I suppose it could be. I think the case could be made that it is discrimination, because banning such stuff accomplishes nothing:
  1. It won't save the state any money. Might actually cost it more.
  2. It won't make anyone healthier. Maybe less so.
Most things the government does with good intentions usually ends up having the opposite to the stated intent.
 
SNAP is focused on healthful food, but 20 percent of it is spent on soda and snack foods. This is also mirrored by those not on food assistance programs.

Healthy eating (eating that supports health) is not complicated, but since the "experts" can't agree there is mass confusion and the resultant poor health. For example, the experts believe that it's normal for your poop to stink. It's not normal and indicates poor digestion. Your poop should be virtually odor free.

Man, I would hate to see your browser history that allowed you to dream that up!
 
If taxpayers are financing people's grocery bills on the theory that they and their children will be unhealthy and malnourished if we do not, then of course we have a right - and a duty - to make sure that our money is not spent on unhealthy junk.

If I could only ban one thing, it would be sugar-free soft drinks. It would be far more healthy for welfare kids to drink tap water, flouridated or not, than to be given "free" Diet Coke and the like.

Spend SNAP money on juice, if anything. It's almost as high in sugar as cola, but at least there are some vitamins, and it is not addictive as are the sugar substitutes, and caffeine in diet soft drinks.
That's the dumbest thing you have ever posted. Congratulations!
 
15th post
Soft drinks contain calories, which USDA considers food. Also those who run the program likely recall quenching thirst with soda after exercise. I remember once downing three bottles of soda after a tennis match on a hot day. The problem is that today's youth sit on a couch in an air-conditioned house playing video games or surfing their smartphone and getting fatter by the minute.

ITs ok. You just killed SNAP. **** the Poorz!
 
They are free to eat all that stuff, on their own dime.

I have a cheap Black and Decker coffer maker. Makes great coffee. Starbucks has great hot chocolate, coffee not so much.

Rich or poor most Americans have pretty much the same diet. But the 'rich' pay for their own food and healthcare.

Not true. Health nuts not only live longer but better.
Health is 90% genetic and 10% environmental.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom