i'm all for more options, and i'm a bit of a fitness nut myself. i'm just not for being pissed off that lower socioeconomic consumers
No foods containing sugar..
This is such a funny issue because so many so called "Conservatives" and "Libertarians" who claim to believe in the inherent virtue of personal liberty would like to restrict it for those who require food stamps.
They are getting a service at the behest of the government. The government can restrict what they provide them or eliminate it if they so desire.
Of course, this neatly overlooks the fact that obesity is caused more by poor quality food than by overeating, and the cheap foods you'd be forcing fat poor people to buy would only make them fatter.
The way some are talking, I wonder. Just seeking clarification.Is there anyone actually wanting to ban soups as a legitimate item?
Hm...using the power of the government to limit personal liberty. Interesting position for a "Libertarian".
Please take a Nutrition class. Carbohydrates are a required macronutrient to maintain health. This is probably why laymen should not dictate dietary policies.
Apples and oranges contain sugar and fructose for crying out loud.
If government had the capability of being efficient, then I'd be all for it. But over and over it has shown to be the least efficient at anything. I mean, how much did the Obamacare website cost? 200 Million? 300 Million? More? You think any other company would pay that .... for a site? In the private sector, you'd have mass firing over that crap. For the government, it's just another day. Actually, you got the guys responsible for accountability for this stuff living it up in Las Vegas.
Again, it's about getting the most bang for your buck. It's one thing to rail against the private sector and talk about how it doesn't work, but look at the government's efforts. 47 million people are on food stamps. Half of this country doesn't pay any taxes, where as those who are successful, who are contributing to growing on the economy are being taxed.
The road runs both ways Helix. People who live off the government aren't exactly starving in the street either. Most people that are on these assistance programs, live like royalty to what people in poverty live in other countries. We as a government need to focus on not providing a happy life for those less fortunate, but providing emergency assistance. This way it doesn't encourage them to say on it. Look at programs like Medicaid, that has become so laughably broke that doctors are denying them coverage. Ultimately, there are just some things this country can't afford while attempting to remain competitive with the world markets. Lest we end up in the situation of Europe where they are suffering from a debt crisis because they tried to do to much. We're already racking up a trillion a year in debt, how much more do you want to add?
My mind wraps around the health aspect just fine. I just see it as being unnecessarily controlling and petty.The idea I proposed here would exclude any prepared/processed food, i.e. anything with multiple ingredients listed on the label, so that means Campbell's soup too. Sorry. The idea is not about picking and choosing what I subjectively consider "healthy." The idea is that the most efficient way of mitigating hunger is to provide the building blocks of a good diet to the people and allowing them to decide how they want to eat using those ingredients.
And when you wrap your mind around that, you realize that it's not a severe restriction. It actually sets people free to create anything they want from their ingredients on hand. From the things that would be redeemable with SNAP cards, one could make thousands and thousands of different food items and dishes.
Obesity is a huge issue in this country. What's worse if you see that in those areas that are the poorest, are also the fattest? How does that even work anyways? I mean I thought poverty was about scratching for change for money to survive... instead everyone's having a big mac and laughing all the way.
What are you talking about? It's a service by the state. They don't need to provide anything if they so desire. That isn't limiting personal liberty, just not granting them a service. Great understanding of liberty you have there for a libertarian.
The government is not giving them a "service" it is assistance. It is right there in the name, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)" Assistance is giving them money which they can exchange for food. What you folks are arguing is that you want to dictate how they can use that assistance because they require the help. So yes, that is a restriction of personal liberty.
The assistance is the service. How is that even hard to grasp? Restricting a service that is being provided is not restricting liberty. Hell, if you want to call it "assistance" restricting it is still not restricting liberty.
I don't call it "assistance" that is the literal name of it! And how is it a service? It is a benefit. You either qualify for it or you do not. But I like this idea. We can restrict any personal liberty we want by first arguing that we are providing a "service". The government should be able to house soldiers in your home because it provides the "service" of military protection. Police should be able to search you on a whim because they provide the "service" of protecting the community. The government should be able to censor what is posted on the web because they provide many of the essential "services" that allow the web to run. Good precedent.
One of the basic tenets of libertarianism is that government be as unobtrusive in people's lives as possible. Providing a service or assistance shouldn't change that. Unless, of course, libertarians are in reality no better then anyone else, and cherry pick what they want to adhere to and what they don't.
Oh for godsakes, you just jumped from restricting a service called assistance to violating the property rights and bodies of people. What the hell, dude.
Government assistance IS a service and it matters not if people must qualify for it. That is like saying that when you buy something at the store it's not a service because you had to have enough money.
Okay, let's call it a "service". Why does the government need to dictate what people eat as a
term of this "service"? Where do you draw the line once you start regulating people's personal lives when they require a service as essential as getting food?
Benevolent dictatorship. How noble.Because the people that provide a service get to make the terms of how it will be provided. If you don't want the government dictating your life then perhaps you shouldn't give them the power to do so. :shrug:
Benevolent dictatorship. How noble.
Because the people that provide a service get to make the terms of how it will be provided.
Eat what we want you to eat or starve. That sounds noble.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?