You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-14 points

Why is it in our interest to pay for food that causes obesity and health issues?

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

If the concern was really about health, they’d be regulating maximum sugar % in all sodas and candies, not banning them to the poor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

And if the concern was about people’s health, Trump wouldn’t have put RFK Jr into that job.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

If you want to buy sugar on your own dime, you can hurt your own health. But why should the government pay for it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You do realize that banning candy and soda is not going to ban sugar. Sugar is a staple product and will always be available on food stamps. Soda is just a processed item, same as candy. In exactly the same way as Dinty Moore canned stew and Campbell’s soups. Should those be banned too? How about bread? It’s a carb and it’s processed. Let’s make the poor people make their own bread cause fuck them for being poor.

Where should the line be drawn?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

It is their own dime. The government is everybody, and it’s here to serve. Somehow they got in your head that they aren’t entitled to that, but they are.

Edit: had/head

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Why should the government regulate how people eat based on their income?

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

I want you to consider what you would do if you had $300 per month to buy food. How often would you use any of that money to buy soda and candy? Would you do it on a regular? Or would you do it just for special occasions to lift your spirits when things were bad?

This isn’t about health this is about punishing the poor for being poor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I would buy it literally never, because I already never buy it, because I know it makes me fat and depressed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I would spend very little of it on candy and soda, but not every person makes the same choices

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That doesn’t give anyone the right to choose for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

I was very poor for two or three years in my early 20s. I was maniacally disciplined in only buying healthy, affordable food, no alcohol, no junk food, no sweets. Brown rice, beans, fish off the boat (a fishing fleet operated from our city’s harbor), tofu, miso, green veg. So I stayed healthy. If I had received any assistance, interference in my choices wouldn’t have helped. But the purpose of the interference isn’t to help, it’s to disempower, infantilize and humiliate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So you agree that there is some amount of acceptable spending on sweets.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Then start with ag subsidies. But that’s if you’re serious about fixing the problem and don’t just want to punish poor people for being poor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Fuck ag subsidies and fuck tariffs

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

What if it’s not happening that much and this is just a shoe horn to get legislation to destroy benefits? What if most states already remove some purchases from the EBT/food stamp total?

It’s like drug testing for welfare. It’s sounds like a good idea until you realize it costs millions, produces almost no results and the government performing said drug tests can’t be bothered to not do it in s corrupt way?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Unlike means testing, it will cost nothing. You just update the list of what is covered. Then it’s forever banned from food stamps

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

as someone else pointed out a specific example that comes up regularly (this is apparently already how it works): 1 particular brand of peanut butter was available, but their lite version wasn’t… with a cart full of groceries, figuring out exactly what gets paid for with what or what needs to be put back isn’t a fast process… this takes not only the persons time, but the cashiers time and everyone behind them in the queue

these are things we call negative externalities: costs forced to other places in the system without being accounted for in price

there are many, many, MANY more costs associated with any government program and intervention but this specific example would cost the country as a whole far more than the occasional unhealthy snack

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Because giving more people reasons to enjoy life benefits us all. Also, fuck rich people. We should all be clamoring to take as much from them as possible to improve the lives of those who have less.

You can drink soda and eat candy without becoming obese or having health issues as a result.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Why do you consider what someone else eats to be a matter of “your interest”, at all?

Do you think your boss…who pays your salary…should be allowed to dictate what you spend it on? Is it in “their interest” to make sure you’re spending their money on “the right things”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Do you think your boss…who pays your salary…should be allowed to dictate what you spend it on?

Historically, that was a thing until very recently. Henry Ford used to send inspectors into people’s homes to snoop on them, not only food and alcohol, but what language they spoke in the home. Thank the unions for that bullshit having been stopped.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

If I’m paying for it, it’s my interest. If it’s your personal decision, then do what you want

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

If that’s your stance you might wanna leave the low hanging fruit where it is and pick something that actually matters. Just my two cents. Like defense spending.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 322K

    Comments