If you’re 5’3 and you’re 300 pounds, taxes ought not to pay for your bag of fudge rounds
(media.greatawakening.win)
💪 MAHA! 🌱
Comments (35)
sorted by:
Again, why is it starting half a year from now?
Gotta’ give the huge corporations time to sell off their inventory.
Why wait?
Whether one is three hundo or not is not the issue. The issue is that if one is on the public dole, they should not be entitled to junk food on the taxpayer's dime.
That would rule out maybe 80% of an average grocery store. This is low hanging fruit that will make you feel good that a fat kid doesn't have a cold soda this summer while putting your head in the sand over the billions to Ukraine and the billions to our Greatest Ally.
Frankly, get rid of all of it. What good does the right to buy high -fructose corn syrup sodas do any child: Get some club soda, combine it with juice, and you have a lower calorie, higher nutritional beverage that still tastes great. (and likely would be on the benefits card.)
Same applies to much of our foreign aid: What good has the money done that has gone to the Ukraine? Mad Man Zelinskyy has destroyed 'his people' using them for cannon fodder, and Our Greatest Ally's vaccine makers forced that Damn Vaxx on their own citizens, and some of the military likely stood down on Oct. 7. So the people are suffering, and we paid for it!
The money that went to Ukraine made a lot of very rich politicians very much richer. All for the low low price of killing a bunch of useless foreigners and subverting US strategic interests.
But who honestly cares about all that when your favorite senator gets to buy a fifth house in France for his grandkid
Here am I! And I'm not the only one!
Welcome To Gracearchy!: From Bill Portman and Jim Babka
https://zeroaggressionproject.org/gracearchy/class-in-applied-grace-gracearchy-113/
Doesn't make me feel good, and I don't really give a shit if Fat Freddie gets an ice cold pop or not. If that is what he requires, then either he or his parents can get off their asses and earn the cash to quench his thirst. If the money that I work for is going to augment someones existence, then all they are entitled to basic food. Doritos are not a fundamental right.
Yeah not everybody has a choice tho, and not everyone is 300 lbs
Regardless of proportionality , it would not be healthy for someone my height (or a little taller) to be at three hundred pounds. Also, If you weigh that much, it makes it hard to move, and motion also is key.....
Shoot , If you are female, 5'3" and 145 we shouldn't be paying for your fudge rounds: Go get a job or become a charity case. This is not the Federal government's place. State government, maybe. Charities, family and friends, absolutely!
Charity is not the role of government period. State or federal. That's why charities and churches are tax exempt.
Besides waste the biggest problem with the government is they can't discriminate at all. (Not talking about by race) A church or private charity can cut off people trying to abuse their kindness and get what they don't actually need. The government just runs charity like an entitlement program. No efficiency, no common sense, and no desire to reduce spending.
I don't know if any charities that are handing out the t-bone steaks and cases of soda when they could get a lot more bang for the buck with things like rice and beans.
Fair enough!
The number of people on here begging to have the government make their decisions for them is astonishing.
Charity is not the role of government.
The amount of people in here that don't realize that is more astonishing.
I'll remind you that taxpayers are paying for these entitlement programs and candy and soda are luxury items that people shouldn't be entitled to, especially when it's coming out the pockets of other hard working Americans.
I don't want the government giving these people a single penny and I want that money left in the pockets of taxpayers.
Private charity and churches used to fill this gap before the government stepped in. They did it better and they weren't handing out filet mignon, crab legs, and two liters of mountain dew. They were handing out bags of dried beans, rice, flour, and Staples that could sustain people for pennies a meal. They were able to discriminate against anyone that was able-bodied that just didn't want to work.... Unlike the government.
NGL its pretty funny watching people complain, not about the fact that the government steals their money, but about how they spend it, lol.
Cutting taxes and cutting spending go hand in hand.
You don't seem to even remotely considering the ramifications of cutting off these entitlement programs besides in government spending however.
Welfare and entitlement programs absolutely destroyed the black family incentivizing single motherhood which in turn destroys communities increases crime rates.
Zoom out.
Oh yeah, black mothers are single because muh fudge rounds. 🙄
Straw-man fallacy. Do better.
The noble welfare state. That glorious cathedral of compassion erected in the 1960s with all the good intentions of a lobotomy. It was supposed to lift up the poor, give dignity to the downtrodden, and bless America’s huddled masses with government cheese and moral superiority. Instead, it turned the black family into a statistical crime scene.
Before the Great Society programs rolled in like a federally-funded wrecking ball, nearly 80% of black children were born into two-parent households. Today? Flip that number. As of recent data, over 70% of black children are born to single mothers. And this isn’t some right-wing fever dream. It’s census data. The kind that makes sociology professors sweat during tenure review.
And what followed the rise in single motherhood? Well, let’s just say it wasn’t a utopia. Youth crime, incarceration, and poverty exploded in lockstep with the decline of the two-parent household. Children raised without fathers — across all races — are statistically more likely to drop out of school, commit violent crimes, go to prison, and live in poverty. You don’t need a Bible verse for that. Just open a Department of Justice report.
Welfare didn’t create poverty, but it sure learned how to subsidize it. It paid women to raise children without fathers and punished them if they got married. That’s not social safety. That’s behavioral engineering by bureaucrats who thought family structure was just a “cultural construct.”
In short: we took some of the previously most resilient people group in American history — who held together through slavery and Jim Crow and we're voting primarily Republican after they got the right to do so — and Democrats offered them a trade: financial scraps in exchange for family collapse. And we called it “progress.”
To better solve a problem so you need to understand how they arose in the first place. Obviously something you don't practice. If you decide to respond try to have an IQ higher than the calorie count of a small bite of a fudge round.
JUST LIKE HotWheels!!!! “Let’s do THIS obviously helpful thing!” “Next year.” It’s an election season down here. AT LEAST they’ve taken down the “John Cornyn voted with Trump 90% of the time” ads on social media…..The comments on those were rich. People waking up is a beautiful thing.
The thing about it is, have you tried any fruit from a local grocery store? It's horrid; all of it.
Well sugar candy and soda-pop should be super-expensive. This, when one takes into account the damage sugar does. No-one thinks in risk/benefit terms - even in the case where there is a clear calculation that can be made. In the past, No-one thought to do a sugar-tax, because big business, and why though? People think it is 'taxing essential food' - for some - they argue.
But you see, sugar, to be exact, refined sugar ( so not taxing bananas or ground figs, or anything is not really food. To put it in historial context: manufactured cakes of sugar from Jamaica, at the time, was always a luxury good, when it first was sold to Tudor Englsh shoppers. One did not HAVE to buy it to survive. One could eat a rabbit and some sow's thistle. Maybe a scrumpied apple, provided the land-owner did not mind...
But it was never politically correct to do a 'sugar-tax' [ insert popular unrest ]
Now, sugar is everywhere. The problem for Health Regulators is that the amount of sugar that people are eating is ENTIRELY TOO MUCH. It is in everything. Baked Beans, even, not just the obvious boiled sweet and fudge situation. If all food was taxed, on an exponential scale according to how much sugar was in it percentage-wise, one could kinda vote with one's wallet, and make better choices. Tiny itsy bitsy pieces of fudge, for special price boys. The point is somethin low-sugar, would be cheaper, while something 80% sugar would be a luxury.
To truly tax on a user-pays basis, one must take into account the damage: Dia-besity and related heart-disease not only is the #1 killer and insurance claims, but also causes a wider societal damage: that is an expense to others, including emotional damage (no seriously - really fat people are unusually cantankerous due to brain-fog, pain and immobility). Add to that: instituional costs, such as 500lb capable body-hoists, above especially robust high-tech beds, and super-duper large bathrooms and doors.
That sort of damage cannot be cured in a hurry, either, so prevention rather than remedial works - which is the stage we are in now.
Of course, those people must agree to fast, for example. Or have their mouths be watched like hawks by prison-like staff.
We don’t need to take sugar away from people who consume it responsibly just stop subsidizing it with EBT and the urban populace will stop gorging themselves on it
Reminder of the outrageous median sizes of people in the US:
Men:
Height in inches: 68.9
Weight in pounds: 199.0
Waist circumference in inches: 40.6
BMI: 29.5 (just shy of Obese Class I line)
Women:
Height in inches: 63.5
Weight in pounds: 171.8
Waist circumference in inches: 38.5
BMI: 30 (right on Obese Class I line)
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
The paper attached to the page has more detailed tables available. But it's very upsetting, explains the popularity of Ozempic, and the impossibility of dating as a male when literally half of the women are obese, let alone the overweight ones.
so what about potato chips, cheetos, other high calorie/low nutritional value items? i can imagine FritoLay/Pepsico have a huge stake in this market alone!
And now I’m checking my stocks…..Coke announced switch to cane sugar. Will they slide under this sugary soda exclusion now? The things I never IMAGINED needing to think about……crazy times.
I think airlines should charge passengers based on weight! The cost per mile to fly a jet is largely a function of how much weight is on the jet, so it would make economic sense, although if only one airline did it, then only reasonably weighted people would fly there, so they might lose money :)