Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by RayGator, Jun 9, 2018.
Weren’t righties making fun of NYC taxes to reduce soda consumption? Not so funny anymore, eh?
I just wish common sense eating wasn't a party issue...
It’s really about what to do when people en mass make bad decisions. 36-40% of America is making bad nutritional decisions. Michelle Obama wanted to make it a priority but even that was politically interpreted on this board.
I guess, but with a comment like "If it gets harder for someone to misuse a card then I'm all for it" you seem to be going with the assumption that the card is being misused, when it's not being misused under current rules. You could have said "If it gets harder for people to buy junk food then I'm all for it", but to imply there is some misuse going on here that has to be stopped adds an element that's just not there.
As the for the rest of it, we'll just have to disagree. I don't think banning soda alone for poor people is going to solve any obesity problem. You are just punishing poor people for doing the same thing everyone else does. As I ready point out, other drink alternatives, other than water, are just as bad or worse, even though they are considered "healthy". So unless your going to ban everything that's equivalent to soda in calories, which would include milk and juices, I don't see the point.
Punishing poor people? Do you not think they should be held to any standard of accountability when spending other people's money?
At all? Why do you disregard what I said about treating diabetics on government assistance in government housing and then transporting them to hospitals paid through indigent funds and Medicaid? You really think no harm no foul?
They already are.
Would you prefer also holding public employees more accountable for their healthcare costs for eating similarly?
I don't doubt that happens, with people on EBT and people who are not. But that doesn't necessarily establish that EBT is causing that guy's problem. Maybe at one time he was a working productive member of society, who ate and drank himself into health problems that made him unable to work, and ended up on EBT in government housing. And I'm just going to guess that for every diabetic hording soda in an government housing project, there are 100s of other non-diabetic people who enjoy soda in the same moderation as the rest of America. At least, that's what the stats seem to show. Why punish them?
Absolutely. Although there is a difference in working for benefits and just qualifying for them
These debates are fun and interesting until they go in circles. We will continue to disagree as long as you think people spending their own money they earned is the same thing as spending assistance money. Its pointless really. And while some people have fallen on hard times and truly use assistance as a means to a more productive life, there is a HUGE culture of chronic system users. Police, fire, medics and hospital workers see it up front. Too many othere have a romanticized view of all homeless.
There has been a few employees go out on disability for blood pressure issues. In my opinion they should have to stay as in patient for a period of time in order to monitor their alcohol, food, nicotine and wtvr other consumption if they want to claim the job is the source of their health issues. I have no issuw with personal accountability
OK ... we can just chalk it up as pointless, I'm fine with that. I'm just saying I'm opposed to putting restrictions on EBT that would make it so poor people can't make shopping choices that are pretty much identical to the rest of America when it comes to what they eat and drink. If it was shown that the majority of poor people were splurging on junk food, then maybe, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I bet the vast majority use their cards responsibly and a little junk food may be a small bit of enjoyment in a miserable situation.
America does have a obesity problem, but I don't think telling EBT users they can't have the same basic choices as the rest of us is really going to solve anything.
Receiving money from the public coffers but basically saying I don't have to care for my health/what I eat because I am working doesn't hold up so sturdy. I guess what I'd say is maybe we all should worry less about morally judging the less fortunate among us because they receive some public assistance if we are not prepared to be judged ourselves.
FWIW, I don't mean this directed at you, personally....and I am on the public payroll in my state.
1st off there is a difference in working for a living and being paid by public coffers. There is a trade. Work for pay. Actually, my dept lowers the premium of the city's health insurance because our overall health is far and away better than the rest of the city. We are not allowed to get our own insurance plan because it would raise the premium for the rest of the city. We tried. Again. Getting something for nothing on the other hand is not the same thing. Whys shouldn't there be any stipulations? Why have any stipulations at all? I just cant see the logic in not expecting responsible use of funds that are given with nothing in return.
2ndly.....there IS a baseball game on right now...
Why shouldn't we expect that publicly funded workers not drink soda or eat potato chips? Or how about one's family, who get the benefits of public dollars but doing nothing for it?
In any case, there are stipulations, but perhaps we should be grateful we have jobs that afford us to put food on the table without being so preoccupied with moral judgments about what the poor eat?
Again, not directed at you personally.
Just a thought, the recipients of EBT put their consumption money (little as it may be) back into the economy so it supports businesses and jobs. It's not a total loss, and people don't have to starve.
I disagree that the goal should be for poor people to mimic the diets of wealthier people. The wealthier people are paying for the poor people's food, and therefore should expect that poor people should eat healthy and affordable food. Because the wealthy people are also, to some extent, paying for the medical care of poor people. Clinics don't pay for themselves. There's no sense in buying people food that will give them diabetes and heart disease (which ironically used to be known as "rich man's diseases").
Poor people should eat food that gives them the necessary nutrition and energy to get through the day, without luxury items. Snacks and candy are totally unnecessary. "Meat and protein" is somewhat vague--I can accept chicken, pork and affordable kinds of fish (tilapia, catfish, canned tuna, etc.), but I don't think I should pay for someone else's steak, shrimp and lobster when I rarely splurge on these items myself. Soda and sugar-filled cereals? I don't think so. Water and low-sugar cereals will work fine. Packaged meals are generally too expensive. With most everyone owning a refrigerator, poor people should be encouraged to buy staples in bulk. Buy a whole or half chicken instead of just chicken legs or chicken breasts. If they don't like chicken, pork or fish, they can try liver or vegan. I ate liver as a child, and it didn't seem to ruin me. And I had plenty of meatloaf that was more bread than meat. Why are today's poor people so much better (they seem to be "too good" for many foods) than I was growing up?
The tragedy is that if the U.S. spent half as much feeding the poor, they would not only be more motivated to find work (to buy the "forbidden foods"), but they would be far healthier and live longer and more productive lives.
Are we not allowed to be concerned about the $20+ trillion debt the U.S. is carrying? And the medical bills associated with the diabetes and heart disease we are paying extra for? Not to mention all the fraud that occurs within the system, allowing the poor to convert "food money" into cash and pay for alcohol, drugs, and gambling?
Interesting that liberals do not want limits placed on EBT purchases of "sugary" drinks and other bad foods ….. while leftie mayors are trying to ban the sale of "big gulps" and other bad foods in their cities.
Interesting pubs don’t like taxes to reduce soda spending by people in general but support it for poor people. I mentioned up thread.
Why don’t you buy lobster and steak for every meal? Probably because it doesn’t go far for the money. Why would you think those at the bottom would think any different? Better use of your focus would be on wasted spending on military and corporate tax cuts.