One conservative position I agree with

[Anonymous]

Soda is out but oreos are fine? Where is the line?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon some of you will say beer, cigarettes, and marijuana are “little luxuries” and necessities for stress, and for mental health. After all, these poor people are working 20 hours a day I need to unwind at the end of a long, hard workday.

Right?

I’m sorry I’m concerned about subsidizing food that is detrimental to health. How cruel.

Nah, you want to save a few bucks by punishing people who area already at the poverty line. You don't care about their health. If you did, you'd support changes to school lunches, fixing our food chain sources, and providing universal health care.

Punishing them by giving them money for food? I am not advocating for removing funds from their benefits (that’s punishing), but rather restricting what can be purchased with those funds. If they want to buy junk food with their own funds, they are free to do so! In fact, the government benefits frees up some of their own personal funds that so they can splurge when they want to.

I posted up thread, sodas are a waste of money. I don’t buy them for my own family and I’m not in favor of subsidizing it for other families.

[Anonymous]

Food stamps should buy fresh fruit, veg, meat, eggs, whole grains, beans, and milk. That’s it. No juice. No cookies. No chips. No one should be eating junk, including poor people.

Have you seen the teeth of poor children? Many are rotten by age 4. It’s a disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Oh the hypocrisy of a formerly obese person criticizing poor people for eating junk food. Poor people can’t buy their way to thinness with Ozempic like she did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon some of you will say beer, cigarettes, and marijuana are “little luxuries” and necessities for stress, and for mental health. After all, these poor people are working 20 hours a day I need to unwind at the end of a long, hard workday.

Right?

I’m sorry I’m concerned about subsidizing food that is detrimental to health. How cruel.

Nah, you want to save a few bucks by punishing people who area already at the poverty line. You don't care about their health. If you did, you'd support changes to school lunches, fixing our food chain sources, and providing universal health care.

Punishing them by giving them money for food? I am not advocating for removing funds from their benefits (that’s punishing), but rather restricting what can be purchased with those funds. If they want to buy junk food with their own funds, they are free to do so! In fact, the government benefits frees up some of their own personal funds that so they can splurge when they want to.

I posted up thread, sodas are a waste of money. I don’t buy them for my own family and I’m not in favor of subsidizing it for other families.

You’re micromanaging their family decisions as to what they eat. You have zero business doing so. But you republicans like to micromanage everything: books, uteruses, who people marry, other people’s pronouns. So I’m not surprised.

Maybe if you minded your own F’ing business for once, instead of concerning yourself with other peoples decisions that do not affect you directly you’d be a lot happier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Food stamps should buy fresh fruit, veg, meat, eggs, whole grains, beans, and milk. That’s it. No juice. No cookies. No chips. No one should be eating junk, including poor people.

Have you seen the teeth of poor children? Many are rotten by age 4. It’s a disgrace.

Because processed foods are cheaper. Again- have you been grocery shopping ever?

And I’m sick of you virtue signalers. You don’t care about the poors health. Your politics proves that time and again.

[Anonymous]

The only "processed" foods that are often cheaper than fresh are frozen vegetables.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-governor-calls-on-incoming-trump-officials-to-ban-junk-food-in-food-stamps-make-america-healthy-again

We shouldn’t be buying Coca Cola for welfare recipients.

Cut the ag subsidies. Then there won’t be excess corn grown that the federal government has to supply a market for.

But this is not a conservative idea.

I think cutting ag subsidies has broad support...except for the politicians who need to bring home a "win" in their rural districts to get re-elected.

But when China owns all the farmland in the US maybe it won't be such a win anymore?

Saudi Arabia owns American farms too. The documentary on land grabs showed Saudi Arabia bought land in Arizona because they have no water restrictions. They are sucking the local American farmers’ wells dry using all the water to grow food for their cattle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Food stamps should buy fresh fruit, veg, meat, eggs, whole grains, beans, and milk. That’s it. No juice. No cookies. No chips. No one should be eating junk, including poor people.

Have you seen the teeth of poor children? Many are rotten by age 4. It’s a disgrace.

Policing groceries is way down the list of priorities. It’d be nice if everyone ate appropriately but it’s not happening

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty soon some of you will say beer, cigarettes, and marijuana are “little luxuries” and necessities for stress, and for mental health. After all, these poor people are working 20 hours a day I need to unwind at the end of a long, hard workday.

Right?

I’m sorry I’m concerned about subsidizing food that is detrimental to health. How cruel.

Nah, you want to save a few bucks by punishing people who area already at the poverty line. You don't care about their health. If you did, you'd support changes to school lunches, fixing our food chain sources, and providing universal health care.

Punishing them by giving them money for food? I am not advocating for removing funds from their benefits (that’s punishing), but rather restricting what can be purchased with those funds. If they want to buy junk food with their own funds, they are free to do so! In fact, the government benefits frees up some of their own personal funds that so they can splurge when they want to.

I posted up thread, sodas are a waste of money. I don’t buy them for my own family and I’m not in favor of subsidizing it for other families.

You’re micromanaging their family decisions as to what they eat. You have zero business doing so. But you republicans like to micromanage everything: books, uteruses, who people marry, other people’s pronouns. So I’m not surprised.

Maybe if you minded your own F’ing business for once, instead of concerning yourself with other peoples decisions that do not affect you directly you’d be a lot happier.

Yeah, no.

https://metro.co.uk/2024/12/13/scientists-reveal-lose-12-minutes-life-every-time-drink-a-coke-22180851/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wanted to give a little perspective here.

Growing up, my best friend was pretty poor and her family had assistance. Yes, they bought tons of processed and frozen food. That’s because her single mother was going to school and working, both 30 minutes from their house. My friend was 12 and had to prepare most food for her and her little brother because mom was gone all the time, trying really hard to build a better life for them. She didn’t have time to teach her to cook full meals independently. She didn’t have time to grocery shop for fresh produce every few days. So she had to load up the freezer with meal options and also provided some after school snacks, such as chips or ice cream. They were hungry after school and needed a snack. A bag of chips would last several days and was relatively cheap.

As far as Coke products, I don’t feel strongly one way or the other. But I do think they should have access to caffeinated on-the-go beverages. I would imagine my friend’s mom had to rely heavily on caffeine during those long days of work, school, driving, and raising kids.

As far as the 7-11 vs grocery store. Consider why they might choose 7-11. They are called convenience stores for a reason. These folks typically have small children in tow. It was likely much easier to manage this in a 7-11. Mom might have even felt safe leaving them in the car while running into 7-11. If she was on foot, whether her children are with her or left at home, I can see where it would make a huge difference to pop into a convenience store rather than crossing the street and making your way through a large store and possibly wait in a long line.

Let’s just give each other a little grace in this world, can we?

Some of us don’t need your “little perspective” because we actually grew up poor. Both parents working low paid exhausting shift work. And I never once saw the inside of a 7/11 and never once drank soda at home. Generic brand everything, and meals cooked every night. No convenience meals, and nothing expensive. Only the cheapest cuts of meat at the store. We stayed relatively healthy, not fat, because we didn’t eat or drink junk.

[Anonymous]

Part of the problem is that we gave up a huge part of our farms to things like miles and miles of industrial crops, stupid suburban cookie-cutter subdivisions and other idiocy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-governor-calls-on-incoming-trump-officials-to-ban-junk-food-in-food-stamps-make-america-healthy-again

We shouldn’t be buying Coca Cola for welfare recipients.

These poor people have very little so why deny them Coca-Cola? How the hell can this affect you?

Ugh. How many fking times do we have to explain to you that their healthcare costs us money. If they drink cola and get obese. You and I pay for it. Not that complex.

We all pay for all sorts of things I'd rather not.
And if the poor families want a little "luxury" by having a soda, let them. You've clearly never been poor (I have).

Post your diet and lifestyle now so we can see what you're doing wrong? You cost people money too, after all.

It has nothing to do with “letting” poor people have a soda. The question is whether taxpayers should be buying them soda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Food stamps should buy fresh fruit, veg, meat, eggs, whole grains, beans, and milk. That’s it. No juice. No cookies. No chips. No one should be eating junk, including poor people.

Have you seen the teeth of poor children? Many are rotten by age 4. It’s a disgrace.

Because processed foods are cheaper. Again- have you been grocery shopping ever?

And I’m sick of you virtue signalers. You don’t care about the poors health. Your politics proves that time and again.

Oh yeah, processed food is SO CHEAP...

$3.50 for a bag of 8 oz Lay's vs $2.50 for a 5-lb bag of potatoes at Walmart.

You can eat cheap and healthy if you want to. I would know, I used to be poor.

[Anonymous]

You sound very cruel OP. Find a hobby or better yet...volunteer at a food shelter.