Final argument. if you all think healthy food is expensive (it's not) I am for raising food stamps allowance to allow poor people to eat healthy, we would make it back in Medical expenses.
Didn't see you make an argument about food stamps. You made an argument about healthy food being cheap. Which is just false.
It's way more expensive than junk foods. But that's a good argument to bring up. Not that Republicans would ever support such "kommunist" idea.
Yes, I live in America, and I go to the supermarket every Sunday to get food for that week, which is usually roughly enough food for me to carry by myself, but somehow you have convinced yourself that people are hopping on the bus with four times that.
What I'm disputing here is this bizarre notion that people can shop once per month, which you are already backing down on, because now it's become that people buy spices and soda and snacks once a month, which are the very things you guys are whining that people are using their assistance card for.
- - - Updated - - -
Here's a crazy idea: How about you just drop this authoritarian notion that you get to micromanage everyone's life?
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
http://news.nationalpost.com/health/..._lsa=30a7-df17
"Eating a healthy diet vs. an unhealthy one costs about $1.50 more a day, which might not sound like much, but works out to more than $2,000 more per year on the average family of four’s grocery bill, new research from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) suggests in a study published Thursday."
"stop puting you idiotic liberal words into my mouth"
-ynnady
How is government policing what you eat in any way "small government"? Or is the whole getting your panties in a bunch about having government out of your lives only applicable when it suits you personally?
That being said one of the biggest reasons lower income families even go to fast food places is due to the cheap prices of the meals there. That food is in no way healthy for you, but being able to eat healthy on a budget is absolutely not possible equally across the US.
Those in this thread who are justifying this idiotic policy are those who are either privileged to begin with, have never actually lived in a destitute area that has a lack of low-priced healthy food markets available, or are pulling anecdotal evidence out their ass in an attempt to justify this.
Why not just be honest? This has in actuality nothing to do with eating or not eating healthy and everything to do with "my taxes are paying for your meal".
"It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all outta ass."
I'm a British gay Muslim Pakistani American citizen, ask me how that works! (terribly)
You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Especially since you live in an area that already has readily available places to shop. Not everyone is like you. Again, the closest place to me that has produce and healthy food is over 15 miles away WITH NO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. No one is going to walk 30 miles to get fresh healthy food. They will just walk to the local grocery store that has double to triple the price of Walmart because they have no other option. So yes, IT IS more expensive to eat healthy. Your anecdotal evidence means fuck all in this argument.
Wow this made stop and think for a minute and then I remembered the whole hi jab/burqa thing being a symbol of hate thing and how you got mad that their was more to the civil war then just slavery. I just wanna say holding on to anger like that isn't a healthy thing and you shouldn't be so spiteful when people provide clear and detailed information that challenges your beliefs. It's healthy to be open minded.
Juice isn't healthy. People that are both short on money and fat shouldn't be buying juice or soda.
- - - Updated - - -
This is flatly false for the majority of things that could reasonably be called "healthy" and "junk". Eating potato chips isn't a cheap way to get full.
- - - Updated - - -
This isn't the government policing what people eats - it's the government declaring what it will pay for. If people wish to eat things that aren't covered under the program, they're free to use discretionary funds to do so. There is no intrinsic right to have other people buy anything you please.
I'm not sure where I stepped up so I could back down on people shopping once per month. What I'm trying to convey is that yes, people do huge shops while relying on public transportation. You can spot these people in the store because they have collapseable carts that look like this.
If you've ever been a consistent bus rider, you see people all the time using these to carry their groceries. Likewise, you can go to any supermarket on a bus route and see people waiting on the benchs, going on, or getting off the bus with these carts. Just so we are clear, no, I don't think junk food should be supported by food stamps. People shouldn't be buying soda, energy drinks, candy, ice cream, potato chips, beer, wine, cigarettes, shrimp, lobster, T-bone steaks, or other luxury food or misc items.
- - - Updated - - -
Well that's not true. Our inner city youth have excellent proficency in the metric system and they don't even use that in school. I use the metric system all the time in manufacturing but I don't think I've ever used the metric system in regards to weight outside of buying weed lol. I cannot envision what 400 grams of chicken looks like.
Do you know the % of poor people who actually do this? I'm willing to bet it's infinitely small compared to the overwhelming amount of people who use their EBTs to actually buy food. Florida attempted to take food stamps from drug abusers and it blew up in their faces because the vast majority of people on food stamps aren't on drugs.
Also the discussion was about food deserts, not drug use among the poor.
It also must be said that the contempt for the poor in America is disgusting.
Sort of. Mostly, they just couldn't do it because the courts ruled it unconstitutional, so they just wound up doing a written portion on applications that amounted to this:
Unsurprisingly, most people were not so drug-addled that they checked the wrong box and the finding was that people would say they're not on drugs.