20% of food stamps spent on soda & junk food.

[Alydael]

Auto insurance companies give you deductions if you have a good driving record, I think health insurance companies should offer deductions for those who engage in healthy lifestyle behaviors and those with conditions that can be almost wholly dependent on poor lifestyle choices (such as obesity and type II diabetes) should pay more for health care.

I am fine with that. I just don't feel we should give that power to the politicians. Didn't we already send a loud and clear message that we don't want their laws on our bodies with the abortion movement? Our bodies, our choice.

I like your plan though. Reward healthy living and good choices through discounts. We actually might make some progress that way, since most people think with their wallets. I might even qualify for that discount.

[Deleted]

When my money is essentially paying for them to live, I want them to have to put themselves in the best position possible to get out of that situation and support themselves.

So because you pay taxes and those taxes go to other people in some way, you think you're entitled to control their lives? I thought people like you were AGAINST big government control. Maybe you should worry more, a lot more, about what Wallstreet is doing with your money? Cus they waste it in the millions, get away with it and YOU get to suffer for their mistakes.

But nah, fucking food stamps is more important. Fuck me.

[PC2]

since my money pays for you to drive on public roads, can i dictate what car you drive?

Since the state dictates vehicle affairs like smog and lead levels it wouldn't be inconsistent to have food stamp limitations. Food stamps are a privilege, not an unconditional right.

[Alydael]

We heavily tax drinking and smoking. I don't really see how HFCS isn't more in line with that than something we should subsidize.

Maybe drinking and smoking aren't the best example. I just don't like these companies (or politicians) deciding what is good and bad for you. That should be your choice, always.

For example: Maybe that candy bar is contributing to your risk of diabetes but it helps you relieve stress and focus or something. So maybe in the end, just for you- it isn't as bad as it might be for someone else. Everyone has a different body chemistry, dna, etc. Things affect different people differently.

It is not so simple as: that is good or that is bad, it is not black and white like that. That is an extreme oversimplification.

Just to prove it: we all know that smoker that smoked three packs a day and drank but lived to be 103. She lived two blocks down from the guy that lived and ate healthy, always went to the doctor and had barely any vices, but he died of a super massive heart attack at 23. Go figure.

[starlord]

Since the state dictates vehicle affairs like smog and lead levels it wouldn't be inconsistent to have food stamp limitations.

ah, but we are only limiting things for poor people, not everyone.

its perfectly ok for me to drive a smog exuding, lead dripping monstrosity, but ~you~ peasant, must shell out for a nissan leaf and toyota prius.

[TITAN308]

ah, but we are only limiting things for poor people, not everyone.

its perfectly ok for me to drive a smog exuding, lead dripping monstrosity, but ~you~ peasant, must shell out for a nissan leaf and toyota prius.

This argument only works if we use a level playing field.

If the government paid for my car, then no it would not be unreasonable for them to set limitations on that vehicle.

You are trying to draw parallels to two different things.

Again I'd like to point out that it is quite apparent that most people have no idea what really being poor is. If you showed people in a third world country that our "poor" can buy cases of soda to survive or because "we should afford them a luxury" I'm sure they would be completely understanding.

No one has suggested anything in this thread that even comes close to harmful or inhumane. The fact people treat it as so shows they are completely ignorant of the global standard of being "poor". I mean look at some of the hyperbolic emotional reactions;

"You want people to live in a dirt hut"

"You think poor people are evil"

"You want people to be treated like they live in a third world country" (I mean this is the most laughable)

Some of you have basically no earthly idea what being poor really is.

[belfpala]

Unitaskers are a scam. Like with simple machines, there are really only a few necessary, fundamental cooking implements. A pan, a bowl to mix, a cutting board, a knife, a fork, a spoon, a spatula, and a whisk. Everything else is gravy. Don't get me wrong though, gravy is wonderful and makes things much easier.

Ok, Elton. I know very well; however, if someone doesn't have the basics, acquiring them costs money. And knowledge of how to use them. And a proper kitchen; the kitchen in my college apartment had one burner that could achieve a workable temp, and an oven that couldn't even cook a frozen pizza properly, and about 2'x2' of workspace. That apartment was all I could afford.

Anyway, my point was there are more hurdles to healthy eating that simply buying healthy food: knowledge, how-to, and able-to.

[TITAN308]

Social studies (and even biological ones for that matter) show that satisfaction and feelings of 'inequality' are completely irrelevant from a 'global' standard. It's all relative. Explains why there is a huge growing sense of dissatisfaction even in western society, even as it's overall the least poor it might've ever been and living standards are better than ever. (See all the protest voting)

To be blunt? Because people are spoiled brats to an extent. That is my theory at least.

Again, no one in this thread has even come close to suggesting anything that would cause harm or be inhumane.

[Killadrix]

No you're terrible for wanting them to live a miserable life and you're terrible for wanting them to live their life how you, personally, dictate it. This is what makes you a terrible human. I'm glad you at least admit it and are upfront about that though.

I would love for you to take a quick moment to explain exactly how wanting them to choose healthy options makes them live a "terrible life?"

Oh, and nice personal attacks. They definitely make your argument stronger.

[Nadiru]

Anyway, my point was there are more hurdles to healthy eating that simply buying healthy food: knowledge, how-to, and able-to.

In the age of the interweb, knowledge is a gimme. How-to is akin to experience, and sure: every cook fucks up a meal or six at the beginning. Able-to is an interesting point, but people rarely have broken facilities, and even when those facilities are broken, they're even more rarely all broken. To defend your point you've veered hardcore into edge cases.

[TITAN308]

I would love for you to take a quick moment to explain exactly how wanting them to choose healthy options makes them live a "terrible life?"

Oh, and nice personal attacks. They definitely make your argument stronger.

I'd like him to define "miserable life"?

This is nothing more than an emotional plea to the argument.

[Deleted]

because black youths who are primary consumers of food stamps are uneducated about what is healthy.


this is really an ejewcation issue.

[Alydael]

Only a small part of it, like $7-15 per day. It's supposed to cover for your food/day. It usually is added on top of normal wages as it offer tax reduction benefits for employers.

Ah, makes sense. I wish they did that here. We do get some benefits, like money for transportation but not for food.

[starlord]

This argument only works if we use a level playing field.

"all men are created equal".

If the government paid for my car, then no it would not be unreasonable for them to set limitations on that vehicle.

You are trying to draw parallels to two different things.

the government pays for you to drive on roads. and in fact they do limit your car. but not on a per-income basis. it is applied equally across the board.

Again I'd like to point out that it is quite apparent that most people have no idea what really being poor is. If you showed people in a third world country that our "poor" can buy cases of soda to survive or because "we should afford them a luxury" I'm sure they would be completely understanding.

No one has suggested anything in this thread that even comes close to harmful or inhumane. The fact people treat it as so shows they are completely ignorant of the global standard of being "poor". I mean look at some of the hyperbolic emotional reactions;

"You want people to live in a dirt hut"

"You think poor people are evil"

"You want people to be treated like they live in a third world country" (I mean this is the most laughable)

Some of you have basically no earthly idea what being poor really is.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...0453c2c7b9.jpg

those people are eating rice, which has almost no nutritional value. it is mostly comprised of.. wait for it.. sugar.
is that therefore a luxury that should be denied to them? are some sources of sugar more acceptable than others? why?

and if in america people are "not really poor", what are they? are we setting our living standard as a nation by the bar of 3rd world countries?

[Shadowferal]

Some of you have basically no earthly idea what being poor really is.

Not a relevant argument in US society.

[Mormolyce]

"Junk food" is cheaper. Mystery solved.

[retrograde]

Junk food and soda are typically cheaper by comparison to other options and come pre prepared.

[Killadrix]

"Junk food" is cheaper. Mystery solved.

So you know of a peer reviewed study that proves that food stamps recipients are making "junk food" purchases solely based on the criteria of price?

Link?

[Mormolyce]

So you know of a peer reviewed study that proves that food stamps recipients are making "junk food" purchases solely based on the criteria of price?

Link?

You require proof of that?

[starlord]

So you know of a peer reviewed study that proves that food stamps recipients are making "junk food" purchases solely based on the criteria of price?

Link?

earlier in the thread i linked a study that said americans buy about the same amount of soda across all income levels