No Food Stamps For Soda

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Once you get the food, I can't control what you do with it....but we don't let people on food stamps, say, buy cigarettes, so soda is in the same vein as far as I'm concerned.

How about Butter? Crisco?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

How about Butter? Crisco?

You are comparing soda to butter?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

You are comparing soda to butter?

How about soda to crisco?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

How about soda to crisco?

I stand by my original post. You can agree to disagree...But realize they already disallow purchases of certain items from food stamps so simply bringing up this or that is besides the point. The food stamp law is clear that not everything is considered food.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

I stand by my original post. You can agree to disagree...But realize they already disallow purchases of certain items from food stamps so simply bringing up this or that is besides the point. The food stamp law is clear that not everything is considered food.

I think its a great topic Randall and I really don't have a position one way or the other although I think that government is opening up pandora's box when it goes this deeply into regulating what food stamps can buy. The items that are currently prohibited are clearly defined and really no logical debate can be made. But this soda thing? Where do you draw the line? Are sodas bad but fried chicken is okay?? What comes next?

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I think its a great topic Randall and I really don't have a position one way or the other although I think that government is opening up pandora's box when it goes this deeply into regulating what food stamps can buy. The items that are currently prohibited are clearly defined and really no logical debate can be made. But this soda thing? Where do you draw the line? Are sodas bad but fried chicken is okay?? What comes next?

Well they are regulating just about every profession known to man. But when the deadbeats and retards fall under regulation all of the weak-kneed liberals strongly object to it.

They should let all of the weak people starve to death. 41 million Americans on food stamps and the majority of them don't give a f.uck what's going on in this country. All they care about is getting that check at the first of the month and their god-damned food stamps. And they are out-breeding the middle-class and rich at an alarming rate. It's not sustainable.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Well they are regulating just about every profession known to man. But when the deadbeats and retards fall under regulation all of the weak-kneed liberals strongly object to it.

They should let all of the weak people starve to death. 41 million Americans on food stamps and the majority of them don't give a f.uck what's going on in this country. All they care about is getting that check at the first of the month and their god-damned food stamps. And they are out-breeding the middle-class and rich at an alarming rate. It's not sustainable.

While I don't hate them, or want any human being to starve, I do think we should pay poor people to not have children. Right now, we pay them after they have children. Pretty stupid. I guess the problem would be people remaining poor so they could get paid to not have kids. That's still a much easier problem to manage than the one we have. See, I believe in Gov't actually trying to make a better society for all. Seems like most Liberals just want to give out money, and not make sure it's well managed (to obtain important favorable results.) I want to spend money in a way that results in us having to spend less money in the future. Don't get me wrong, nobody should be kept from having kids, but there should be incentives encouraging poor people to refrain from having kids they'll struggle to provide for. Lets say a poor woman has a kid (even though she would have been paid not do.) You know what happens next? She needs help. Where should that come from? Her sister's check (for not having babies while poor.) Watch this video. Keep track of the guy's constant message: 2 for 1..2 for 1..incentivize..incentivize....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtYdDK1uTDI

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

You are comparing soda to butter?

......i would say its more about "big brother" .....

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by alysheba4

......i would say its more about "big brother" .....

Not really actually. This is government cheese we are talking about. If you don't want a handout you can drink 10 liters of soda a day.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

You are comparing soda to butter?

You compared soda to cigarettes

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You compared soda to cigarettes

Yes.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Yes.

how are they comparable?

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

how are they comparable?

I realize you are obese Chuck, but you have to have some idea of nutritional values. Soda is sugar/corn syrup/poison. It is a ticket to the fast lane of obesity.

"Drinking one soda or sugary drink a day can pack on 15 pounds a year. A 20 ounce drink can contain up to 16 packs of sugar. And while food stamps can’t be used to purchase cigarettes, beer, liquor, pet food, vitamins, household goods or prepared foods like deli sandwiches, you can use them to buy as many sugar-packed beverages you want.
That could soon change in the Big Apple.
The mayor, who’s already banned smoking in restaurants, bars and many public places, banned trans-fats in restaurants and requires the posting of calorie counts on menus, is now asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which sets the rules for the Food Stamp program, to forbid New Yorkers from using those stamps on any beverage containing more than ten calories per 8 ounces (except for milk products and fruit juice without added sugar).
Bloomberg says “This initiative will give New York families more money to spend on food and drinks that provide real nourishment.” He requested a two-year ban to study its effect and weigh whether a permanent ban is in order.
City statistics show nearly 40 percent of public school children in Kindergarten through 8th grade are overweight or obese and obesity rates are higher in poor neighborhoods. So is the consumption of sugary beverages. With 1.7 million city residents on food stamps, the impact could be dramatic.
The beverage industry is, as you might expect, opposed to the Mayor’s proposal. The U.S.D.A. says it “appreciates the State’s interest” and “will review and consider the State’s proposal.”


Read more: http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2...#ixzz11zRCWjqf

[Bigsmc]

Diet Soda > Smokes