I don’t agree with the admin on very much and with Kennedy on even less, but the taxpayers paying for items that have zero nutritional value and cause a host of health problems is something that should have been addressed decades ago.
This seems like one we can all agree on, but ima jump in here real quick and be the first to scream that "they hate poor kids and don't want them to get any candy!" There. NOW this thread feels TooHot-ish.
You all can agree on the nanny state and treating people on assistance like children rather than adults, leave me out of it. Typical of the American mindset of "public money means I can tell you what to do and how to live."
I would say that this is more of a conservative/MAGA mindset rather than an American mindset. If a Democrat president had done this then a lot of the cons here would be crying bloody murder - if they can take away your sugar, they can take away your bibles and guns! Just look at their reaction to Michelle Obama’s school food program.
Legislation that would have made junk food ineligible under the Food Stamp/SNAP program has been introduced in Congress for the last 40 years. It's always been killed by lobbying from the food industry. Maybe that will finally change but I still wouldn't bet on it.
"You can either die or the state/religious charity will parent you, at least you have a choice" - that's more or less the American outlook on poverty
You don't think there should be some sense of obligation by a charity that the money donated should go for what it is supposed to?
Seems a bit paternalistic no? Its one thing when you provide meals at a kitchen, but if you are just giving people monetary assistance, you gotta treat them like adults who dont need to be told what to do. Like, if you are giving a bum $20 so he can get food, do you follow him to the store, make sure he gets a healthy meal? If he spends half on liquor, that's his choice. You arent going to cure poverty by making sure people dont eat junk food on the public dime, that's just making public assistance another form of degradation or punishment. Treats are for people who arent poor, I guess.
"Junk food" seems pretty subjective when it comes to the kind of food you can buy in an American grocery store too.
I don't feel it is paternal. The government tells us our kids need car seats. They require and enforce it... Because we know some people will let their kids be harmed if not pushed to do the right thing. So if food health is truly a concern than the government having rules on how public money is spent checks out to me.
I would add that WIC (the food program for Women, Infants and Children) although it's a much smaller program has very strict requirements regarding which foods are eligible for purchase with WIC vouchers.
Requiring car seats is universal though. Rich or poor, you have to have them, you have to put them in a 20 year old junker or brand new Mercedes you paid cash for. Saying its ok to sell junk food at the grocery store, but only 'worthy' people can buy it is a different thing. It would be more 'fair' to regulate grocery stores so they didnt sell garbage to anyone if the concerns were actually about health or disciplining people into making "good" choices. This is basically just designed to be degrading for people on SNAP.
Prepackage healthy food. Use the produce that is thrown out for looks alone (a lot of wasted produce out there just because of its looks/Google AI has it at 20-40% of produce is thrown away for imperfections and looks). Let the grocers/retailers battle it out for the contracts. Shoot let Kroger deliver it. No need to send a basic debit card out.
If they acted like adults and did what’s best for their children’s health there wouldn’t be rules like these.
Ah see, they are on public assistance so they must be brainless morons who need the government to tell them what to do and how to raise their kid. The person not on SNAP feeding their kid McDonalds is a good parent though.
Didn’t say that and you know it. Snap is to feed those in need of food assistance not junk food. I work at a food bank and have been involved with benefit specific assistance for a long time. Unfortunately there have to be rules or there are abuses and many are at the detriment of the kids. No one is stopping anyone from buying candy or sodas. Just not with government assistance dollars.
"IF they acted like adults and did ..." wasnt saying that lol? Sounds pretty condescending to me about a whole class of people. You are basically saying they are children who need to be parented by the gov aren't you?
