I have no "holy war" against junk food or the people who eat them. I don't care what other people eat, as long as I can eat healthier. But since taxpayers are paying for SNAP, we don't feel we should be paying for junk food when healthier food is available.
No one says you can't eat junk, we just don't want to pay for it.
Agreed, if someone wants/needs sodas, energy drinks, etc, they need to pay themselves. Traditionally, until the current gimme, gimme years, these types of food choices like sodas, and energy drinks weren't EVER covered. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for these perks for others because many of us live frugally all the f'ing time and the thought of someone reaching into our pocket to pay for their fudge rounds just isn't proper. Work is good, and earning money is good for the soul, welfare was meant to be a hand up, not a permanent entitlement.
Junk food is fine if someone wants to buy it with their own EARNED money, SNAP is food stamps, and food stamps should be for qualified food items. Until now, all these gimme programs were something people would feel ashamed to be on, Nowadays, people seem proud to be on Medicaid, food stamps, energy assistance, free or assisted housing, WIC, when self-sufficiency should be the goal. Time limits need to be put on welfare programs, and government employment agencies should find welfare recipients jobs. Instead, we have government employment agency workers who sit around with their thumbs up their arses. They used to find jobs for people, they need to get back to doing just that.
Good point. While the rest of us struggle to put real food on our tables, paying attention to the nutrition labels and avoiding processed foods, sugar, sodium, and chemicals, why should we be paying for someone else's bad eating habits? Despite having a limited income, I don't mind helping and contributing to others who are even less fortunate than me, but I don't really care to contribute to someone's sugar addiction, heroin or meth addiction, and a 'need' for a luxury car or vacation.
All those things listed are in the same category, as far as I'm concerned.
Well said. Also IMO soda and candy are not foods. They have zero nutritional value so can not be considered a diet stable. Also since EBT benefits is a limited amount I don’t see how there is enough for both groceries AND treats especially in today’s inflation. Most taxpayers certainly can’t afford it. Families with kids especially will benefit from this whether they like it or not. So many Americans are addicted to sugar - I’m not surprised to see the uproar. It’s like addicts being told they are cut off from their favorite drug.
I don't want to subsidize diabetes. A lot of these poor people buy soda because it's cheaper than healthy alternatives. Then, they end up sick and dying because of the liquid sugar they didn't know was going to kill them. Remember, most people are uneducated when it comes to the cause of diabetes, and being raised on TV, seeing commercial after commercial glorifying the garbage didn't help.
This is where big Pharma comes in to "save the day" with $400 insulin shots. I fully believe they are behind the push to have sodas readily available, and it should be investigated how closely they are tied to say Coca Cola.
I am all for people drinking whatever they want, and they should have the right to do so. However, I am not for taxpayers paying for the consequences of their bad decisions. Bad decisions that are promoted by the government with their free liquid sugar.
As for churches, I 100% agree with you. Religion and spirituality should be a personal thing. So many churches, more than you'd want to believe, are tax shelters for the rich. Something has to give. They should cut the strings and become independent of the government.
I have no "holy war" against junk food or the people who eat them. I don't care what other people eat, as long as I can eat healthier. But since taxpayers are paying for SNAP, we don't feel we should be paying for junk food when healthier food is available.
No one says you can't eat junk, we just don't want to pay for it.
Agreed, if someone wants/needs sodas, energy drinks, etc, they need to pay themselves. Traditionally, until the current gimme, gimme years, these types of food choices like sodas, and energy drinks weren't EVER covered. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for these perks for others because many of us live frugally all the f'ing time and the thought of someone reaching into our pocket to pay for their fudge rounds just isn't proper. Work is good, and earning money is good for the soul, welfare was meant to be a hand up, not a permanent entitlement. Junk food is fine if someone wants to buy it with their own EARNED money, SNAP is food stamps, and food stamps should be for qualified food items. Until now, all these gimme programs were something people would feel ashamed to be on, Nowadays, people seem proud to be on Medicaid, food stamps, energy assistance, free or assisted housing, WIC, when self-sufficiency should be the goal. Time limits need to be put on welfare programs, and government employment agencies should find welfare recipients jobs. Instead, we have government employment agency workers who sit around with their thumbs up their arses. They used to find jobs for people, they need to get back to doing just that.
Good point. While the rest of us struggle to put real food on our tables, paying attention to the nutrition labels and avoiding processed foods, sugar, sodium, and chemicals, why should we be paying for someone else's bad eating habits? Despite having a limited income, I don't mind helping and contributing to others who are even less fortunate than me, but I don't really care to contribute to someone's sugar addiction, heroin or meth addiction, and a 'need' for a luxury car or vacation.
All those things listed are in the same category, as far as I'm concerned.
Well said. Also IMO soda and candy are not foods. They have zero nutritional value so can not be considered a diet stable. Also since EBT benefits is a limited amount I don’t see how there is enough for both groceries AND treats especially in today’s inflation. Most taxpayers certainly can’t afford it. Families with kids especially will benefit from this whether they like it or not. So many Americans are addicted to sugar - I’m not surprised to see the uproar. It’s like addicts being told they are cut off from their favorite drug.
I don't want to subsidize diabetes. A lot of these poor people buy soda because it's cheaper than healthy alternatives. Then, they end up sick and dying because of the liquid sugar they didn't know was going to kill them. Remember, most people are uneducated when it comes to the cause of diabetes, and being raised on TV, seeing commercial after commercial glorifying the garbage didn't help.
This is where big Pharma comes in to "save the day" with $400 insulin shots. I fully believe they are behind the push to have sodas readily available, and it should be investigated how closely they are tied to say Coca Cola.
I am all for people drinking whatever they want, and they should have the right to do so. However, I am not for taxpayers paying for the consequences of their bad decisions. Bad decisions that are promoted by the government with their free liquid sugar.
As for churches, I 100% agree with you. Religion and spirituality should be a personal thing. So many churches, more than you'd want to believe, are tax shelters for the rich. Something has to give. They should cut the strings and become independent of the government.