It’s not me. I don’t agree with either of those positions.
Systematically again and again. At this point, it just make bo sense to pretend anything else.
The very same people throw massive fit at any measure that could make their targets life's better.
Should we take away Gatorade too?
This is the first I've heard anyone say this. Got any sources to share?
> Should we take away Gatorade too?
First of all, it's not taking away, rather it's not providing. And yes, probably. Gatorade has almost as much added sugar as coke.
The guiding principle is "don't provide things that are 1) going to promote illness, and 2) cause you to have to now provide more things to deal with the problems you've caused.
As someone who buys soda maybe once a year or two and candy only to give out on Halloween, I don't understand how this is a point of contention. No one should be buying this stuff with enough regularity for it to affect their budget. Why would we subsidize it? That is encouraging people to buy it. We shouldn't subsidize it for the same reasons we shouldn't subsidize cigarettes and alcohol.
Or more to the point, SNAP is for food. Candy and soda are not food. Unless you're Michael Phelps and need 10,000 calories per day, they have no place in anyone's diet.
Or a farmer.
If the policy got folks out of poverty I’m all for it, otherwise it’s just people’s / government’s desire to tell others what to do for the sake of doing that.
Someone mentioned to me "he's just gonna spend it on booze" (there wasn't really any evidence for that but they assumed). A friend of mine made an insightful comment "Considering his life so far, maybe he actually could use a beer more than us." (We were going to a local bar)
Someone wants some skittles or something, fine by me. The idea that we should tell someone they can't have a treat because they're poor, I agree that seems cruel.
Folks who really want to get those folks help / get them out of the system, they're not sweating skittles.
My wife works in the school system and one of the poorer kids told her that sometimes their aunt and uncle come over and take their food. THAT is a problem, not skittles.
Who dares to have a critical view into a proper history book?
Everybody better read "Fahrenheit 451" too, as long as the Bro-lords don't go after it (again).
> On the way to an Inklings meeting, he gave some money to a street beggar, and I made the usual objection: "Won't he just spend it on drink?"
> Lewis answered, "Yes, but if I kept it, so would I."
https://web.archive.org/web/20210717220213/https://www.ncron...
Is there anywhere else in the world that has a similar program to SNAP that micro-manages what kind of things people can buy? Everywhere else I'm familiar with just gives people in need cash that they can spend however they want. The closest thing I can think of is food banks (which also seems much more rare elsewhere, only recently popping up in the UK after their austerity programs)
A big difference is intention, in the US the focus is "anti-sin" and avoiding joy for undesirables. Many protein bars or "natural" juices are just morally aesthetic candy and soda. The labeling in Chile is data driven* (i.e, It's pretty much an efficient way to read the nutrition info, it killed vitamin water) so the objective is closer to public health.
I would also think that straight cash is preferable, the limitations are fine for complementary benefits of college students, not for actual families. Diapers and lentils are a better use of government money. Anyways if people want to buy drugs, converting food items to cash is simple.
- https://www.theexamination.org/articles/a-decade-after-its-p...
Folks will give one reason for it, but I think it's just finger wagging / getting in other people's business in the end.