Posted on 10/07/2010 5:41:38 AM PDT by Doogle
They are talking about any drink with sugar. That would include ice tea and some fruit juices.
Sugary Drinks???..
Drink the damn tap water if you are thirsty.
How many of us budget conscious folks eliminated soda along with other sugary drinks when our hours were cut or or paychecks were reduced by 20%+???
I’m betting most of us have.
I took a MAJOR pay cut last year an now it’s tap water or brew some Folgers. That’s it!!!
I , for one, grow weary budgeting my paycheck while politicians argue over the rights of people on charity on what they can or cannot buy with FREE money!!!!
They are one fricken food stamps ...they should be damn greatful to get free food paid for by taxpayers.
ThAT is not up to the government to determine.
THAT is a personal choice on what is cut when times are tough.
It’s all about CONTROL.
When they first came out the grocery stores had signs at the cash registers with pictures of things you couldn’t buy, soda pop being one of them. Hell, now I go to the meat market and watch the diversity crowd tell the butcher how thick to cut their steaks.
Cut em off.
They don't need steak, lobster tails. cakes, cookies, pies, soft drinks, snack chips, etc. etc. etc.
Let them learn how to live like people that work for a living and pay for their own food.
Seen the WIC cards in Texas used at gas stations for overly priced peanuts and gatoraide. 2X the price at the grocery stores.
Awful stuff. There has to be some sort of competition for price with this stuff.
Well whaddaya know . . . libs cracking down on food stamp recipients to keep them from buying Co-Colas. Welfare vs. the “nanny state.” Some conservatives will be praising and condemning this at the same time!
food is way down on the list right now, mortgages are now the "in thing"
Then, the extension of what you’re proposing, that the government has no say in what they should buy, and that the individual should be making those choices,
and they are still making choices for “luxury” or “extra” foods beside the basics,
means that they have TOO MUCH “MONEY” at their discretion.
Cut the amount they have to work with until they’re buying rice and beans and milk.
But you can still sell them and buy drugs. Coke but not Coke. Go figure.
I don't believe the role of government is to DICTATE what you buy, whether is be hellcare or food. There is no way in hell that a person on food stamps is buying “luxury items” or “extra” stuff.
“means that they have TOO MUCH “MONEY” at their discretion.
Cut the amount they have to work with until they’re buying rice and beans and milk.
“
So instead YOU want to DICTATE what others buy?
How are you so much better than the GOVENRMENT dictating what is good for them and what they should buy? You're doing the same thing.
If the money runs out and they squander what LITTLE they get in food stamps, they'll wise up. I could care less if they drink water or sugary drinks. That is a personal choice and I do NOT believe it is up to the GOVERNMENT or YOU to determine what someone else consumes. I VALUE FREEDOM and that includes what you, I or someone on food stamps consumes.
I don't believe for one nano second that Michele Obama is up at nights worrying about obesity. It's ALL ABOUT CONTROL and TAKING AWAY FREEDOM. Don't you understand that YET? What does it take? Liberals use the SAME TACTIC each time. It's for the good of the kiddies ... that was also applied to abortion. Now it's food. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
The problem with government issued food supplement, is that the recipients are given carte blanche with no guidlines for making the most of those dollars. EBT does not guarantee nutrition...it just guarantees access—to all kinds of wasteful junk. Supplements should cover only basic food group items (bread, meat, dairy, produce, flour and cereals) with no junked-out convenience crap—no snacks, no soda, no cash.
It should be a temporary program, not a multi-generational way of life. People should be uncomfortable in their poverty so they work to get OUT of it.
Provide limited but basic nutrition;
and it needs to come from the federal government, not some fascist mayor.
It’s your tax dollars-—you like buying pork rinds, grape soda, snack cakes and over salted boxed entrees to give as gifts?
Remember, they will most likely be the first in line for government healthcare—not you.
I agree with you. They should be buying food with FOOD stamps. What the heck, I didn’t know they could buy soda with them anyway. They should be feeding their family.
You wasted a huge rant agreeing with my post.
Let them choose what they buy with our money, but...
If the foodstamp recipients are choosing to buy foods other than basics, they are receiving too much.
I’m not trying to dictate what anyone buys,
but obviously, if they are buying shrimp, steak, pre-prepared foods, pie, and icecream,
they have “extra”.
Respectfully, just how much freedom comes with food stamps, section8 and government controlled healthcare?
What the government giveth, it can take away.
What you call freedom makes the people that have to pay for that freedom slaves.
“What an absurd idea! Just how does one intend to enforce it?”
There are already several restrictions on what can be bought with food stamps, etc. (No soap, etc, I believe). They’re enforced by the cashier at the register.
Nowadays, with the use of a swipe card instead of coupons, and every product having a bar code, I would think it would be easier and more fool proof yet.
Are you kidding me? When you earn the money, yep, I agree with you. 100 percent.
When you accept tax payer funded "benefits" or relief, you lose your freedom. That's the big picture. The more uncomfortable and the less palatable looking to the government becomes the less people will turn to it.
A “rant”? LOL. It's just conservative common sense and I do NOT agree with you.
“Let them choose what they buy with our money, but...”
The “but” is where we disagree.
“If the food stamp reciprients are choosing to buy foods other than basics, they are receiving too much.”
Not necessarily. If they want to use that money on something other than YOU approve of it does not compute that they are “getting too much”. You simply do NOT approve of how they are spending it.
“I’m not trying to dictate what anyone buys,”
You certainly ARE! From your reply, when a recprient goes beyond what YOU believe they should be buying on food stamps, than they are “receiving too much”. So you DO want to DICTATE what they can buy because you do NOT like what they are buying.
“but obviously, if they are buying shrimp, steak, pre-prepared foods, pie, and ice cream,
they have “extra”.”
Again, YOU are determining what the “extra” is. I don NOT agree with this. I do NOT want to DICTATE that buying “shrimp, steak, pre-prepared foods, pie, and ice cream, are “extra”. YOU want to DICTATE that buying these foods are “extra”.
BTW, it is highly unlikely that on FOOD STAMPS you are buying upend food. There simply isn't enough money for that. Food stamp people are not living on lobster tails, fillet mignon or expensive cheese cakes. What they typically do is buy JUNK FOOD that is cheap. Again THAT is up to them.
I buy junk food too and I'm not on food stamps. SOme days I feel like eating a Tastycake. So I buy it. If someone else wants to buy a Tastycake, it is NOT up to me to tell them "this is not a "basic", so you can NOT buy that." You'll become obese,now excuse me, while I consume, MY TASTYCAKE because I am not of food stamps.
So we DO NOT agree.
Again, I value freedom and do NOT want to DICTATE what others buy while on food stamps in hard times. If ice cream makes em feel good - great. I want people to have individual choices and not be dictated to by the government or you on what they are allowed to eat. Government does NOT know what is best and all this administration wants to do and fellow Demoncrats is to restrict freedom and control whoever they can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.