Take Your Health Seriously

[thspfc]

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

I eat all sorts of fast food and have three energy drinks a day.  I run half marathons every week and spend five days at the gym every week.  My health is just fine despite my lack of a hyper clean diet.  I know lots of people who struggle with weight who consume what might be construed as a more "ideal"  diet.  Just because someone eats fast food or has caffeinated drinks isn't causality on it's own for poor health, many more factors go into it.  Being a dictator towards lower income demographics over what food they can buy solves nothing

There have been countless studies done on the extremely harmful effects of fast food and energy drinks on health . . .

Yes, there are many more factors that go into it, but fixing eating habits is always a good place to start when getting healthier . . .

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

[Max Rockatansky]

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

I eat all sorts of fast food and have three energy drinks a day.  I run half marathons every week and spend five days at the gym every week.  My health is just fine despite my lack of a hyper clean diet.  I know lots of people who struggle with weight who consume what might be construed as a more "ideal"  diet.  Just because someone eats fast food or has caffeinated drinks isn't causality on it's own for poor health, many more factors go into it.  Being a dictator towards lower income demographics over what food they can buy solves nothing

There have been countless studies done on the extremely harmful effects of fast food and energy drinks on health . . .

Yes, there are many more factors that go into it, but fixing eating habits is always a good place to start when getting healthier . . .

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

This is clearly more about you wanting to enforce your will upon people than it is about you giving a damn about the health of anyone.

I'm going to leave it at that, if I say what I really want to it would probably get me some Mod points.  I'm a pretty middle of the road guy but it's hard for me to sit here and read nonsense like this. 

[thspfc]

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

I eat all sorts of fast food and have three energy drinks a day.  I run half marathons every week and spend five days at the gym every week.  My health is just fine despite my lack of a hyper clean diet.  I know lots of people who struggle with weight who consume what might be construed as a more "ideal"  diet.  Just because someone eats fast food or has caffeinated drinks isn't causality on it's own for poor health, many more factors go into it.  Being a dictator towards lower income demographics over what food they can buy solves nothing

There have been countless studies done on the extremely harmful effects of fast food and energy drinks on health . . .

Yes, there are many more factors that go into it, but fixing eating habits is always a good place to start when getting healthier . . .

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

This is clearly more about you wanting to enforce your will upon people than it is about you giving a damn about the health of anyone.

I'm going to leave it at that, if I say what I really want to it would probably get me some Mod points.  I'm a pretty middle of the road guy but it's hard for me to sit here and read nonsense like this.

I would be happy to change my opinion if you actually had reasons. Looks like all you've got is a bunch of personal anecdotes and calling me a dictator.

[Max Rockatansky]

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

I eat all sorts of fast food and have three energy drinks a day.  I run half marathons every week and spend five days at the gym every week.  My health is just fine despite my lack of a hyper clean diet.  I know lots of people who struggle with weight who consume what might be construed as a more "ideal"  diet.  Just because someone eats fast food or has caffeinated drinks isn't causality on it's own for poor health, many more factors go into it.  Being a dictator towards lower income demographics over what food they can buy solves nothing

There have been countless studies done on the extremely harmful effects of fast food and energy drinks on health . . .

Yes, there are many more factors that go into it, but fixing eating habits is always a good place to start when getting healthier . . .

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

This is clearly more about you wanting to enforce your will upon people than it is about you giving a damn about the health of anyone.

I'm going to leave it at that, if I say what I really want to it would probably get me some Mod points.  I'm a pretty middle of the road guy but it's hard for me to sit here and read nonsense like this.

I would be happy to change my opinion if you actually had reasons. Looks like all you've got is a bunch of personal anecdotes and calling me a dictator.

I don't feel the need to find reason with people who promote authoritarian measures over what people eat in a specific demographic.  I'm under no delusional that people like you are interested in changing their opinions or are capable.

[Scott5114]

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

Enforcing restrictions on what people can and can't do costs more money than is actually spent. Every restriction you add spends more of your (not actually your) money.

[thspfc]

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

I eat all sorts of fast food and have three energy drinks a day.  I run half marathons every week and spend five days at the gym every week.  My health is just fine despite my lack of a hyper clean diet.  I know lots of people who struggle with weight who consume what might be construed as a more "ideal"  diet.  Just because someone eats fast food or has caffeinated drinks isn't causality on it's own for poor health, many more factors go into it.  Being a dictator towards lower income demographics over what food they can buy solves nothing

There have been countless studies done on the extremely harmful effects of fast food and energy drinks on health . . .

Yes, there are many more factors that go into it, but fixing eating habits is always a good place to start when getting healthier . . .

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

This is clearly more about you wanting to enforce your will upon people than it is about you giving a damn about the health of anyone.

I'm going to leave it at that, if I say what I really want to it would probably get me some Mod points.  I'm a pretty middle of the road guy but it's hard for me to sit here and read nonsense like this.

I would be happy to change my opinion if you actually had reasons. Looks like all you've got is a bunch of personal anecdotes and calling me a dictator.

I don't feel the need to find reason with people who promote authoritarian measures over what people eat in a specific demographic.  I'm under no delusional that people like you are interested in changing their opinions or are capable.

The more you insult me the worse this gets for you . . .

You might not believe me, but a lot of my political views have changed completely in the last few years . . . I don't strictly align with a party, I'm left-wing on some issues and right-wing on others. That should be a sign of someone who is willing to look at things from an unbiased perspective.

[thspfc]

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

Enforcing restrictions on what people can and can't do costs more money than is actually spent. Every restriction you add spends more of your (not actually your) money.

How so in this case? Seriously, I'm asking. Don't be like Max and just assume that I'm not going to change my opinion.

[Rothman]

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

So, mandate the COVID vaccine.

?

I'm open to discussing if this is an equivalency, I'd just like an explanation first.

You care about publicly funded public health by restricting people who receive public funds from eating what they want.

COVID vaccines were also funded with public dollars.  Therefore, just like you want to force the poor to be healthy so taxes are not wasted, forcing people to get vaccinated so our taxes would not go to waste and improve public health would be consistent.

[thspfc]

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

So, mandate the COVID vaccine.

?

I'm open to discussing if this is an equivalency, I'd just like an explanation first.

You care about publicly funded public health by restricting people who receive public funds from eating what they want.

COVID vaccines were also funded with public dollars.  Therefore, just like you want to force the poor to be healthy so taxes are not wasted, forcing people to get vaccinated so our taxes would not go to waste and improve public health would be consistent.

I'm not paying to government so that people can remain unvaccinated though. In the case of food stamps, I'm paying the government so that a lot of people can buy Mtn Dew.

I know that not all people using food stamps are buying unhealthy things.

[Max Rockatansky]

^^^

You are aware once your tax money is collected, it is not really "yours"  anymore? 

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

I eat all sorts of fast food and have three energy drinks a day.  I run half marathons every week and spend five days at the gym every week.  My health is just fine despite my lack of a hyper clean diet.  I know lots of people who struggle with weight who consume what might be construed as a more "ideal"  diet.  Just because someone eats fast food or has caffeinated drinks isn't causality on it's own for poor health, many more factors go into it.  Being a dictator towards lower income demographics over what food they can buy solves nothing

There have been countless studies done on the extremely harmful effects of fast food and energy drinks on health . . .

Yes, there are many more factors that go into it, but fixing eating habits is always a good place to start when getting healthier . . .

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

This is clearly more about you wanting to enforce your will upon people than it is about you giving a damn about the health of anyone.

I'm going to leave it at that, if I say what I really want to it would probably get me some Mod points.  I'm a pretty middle of the road guy but it's hard for me to sit here and read nonsense like this.

I would be happy to change my opinion if you actually had reasons. Looks like all you've got is a bunch of personal anecdotes and calling me a dictator.

I don't feel the need to find reason with people who promote authoritarian measures over what people eat in a specific demographic.  I'm under no delusional that people like you are interested in changing their opinions or are capable.

The more you insult me the worse this gets for you . . .

You might not believe me, but a lot of my political views have changed completely in the last few years . . . I don't strictly align with a party, I'm left-wing on some issues and right-wing on others. That should be a sign of someone who is willing to look at things from an unbiased perspective.

The worse it gets for me?  Do you actually think that I'll lose sleep over what you think?  I guess at the end of the day I'm glad certain things just aren't up to you.

I'm certain of very few things in life and I try my best not to carry an "absolutist"  mindset.  Two things I'm sure about are statements that include "those people"  and wanting to do things like restrict what "certain"  people eat always come from a place of malice. 

[abefroman329]

I would be all for food stamps if there were stringent restrictions on the food that can be bought with them

OK, well, since we're all about facts and logic and reason in this thread, here are the current restrictions on how food stamps can be used in Illinois.  Are these stringent enough, and if not, what additional restrictions would you suggest we place on them?

SNAP benefits can be used to buy:

any food or food product for human consumption,
seeds and plants for use in home gardens to produce food.
SNAP benefits cannot be used to buy:

Hot foods ready to eat,
Food intended to be heated in the store,
Lunch counter items or foods to be eaten in the store,
Vitamins or medicines,
Pet foods,
Any nonfood items (except seeds and plants),
Alcoholic beverages,
Tobacco
Menstrual products and diapers. The USDA does not currently have a waiver for states to allow customers to purchase menstrual products or diapers with SNAP/WIC benefits.

[thspfc]

^^^

You are aware once your tax money is collected, it is not really "yours"  anymore? 

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

I eat all sorts of fast food and have three energy drinks a day.  I run half marathons every week and spend five days at the gym every week.  My health is just fine despite my lack of a hyper clean diet.  I know lots of people who struggle with weight who consume what might be construed as a more "ideal"  diet.  Just because someone eats fast food or has caffeinated drinks isn't causality on it's own for poor health, many more factors go into it.  Being a dictator towards lower income demographics over what food they can buy solves nothing

There have been countless studies done on the extremely harmful effects of fast food and energy drinks on health . . .

Yes, there are many more factors that go into it, but fixing eating habits is always a good place to start when getting healthier . . .

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

This is clearly more about you wanting to enforce your will upon people than it is about you giving a damn about the health of anyone.

I'm going to leave it at that, if I say what I really want to it would probably get me some Mod points.  I'm a pretty middle of the road guy but it's hard for me to sit here and read nonsense like this.

I would be happy to change my opinion if you actually had reasons. Looks like all you've got is a bunch of personal anecdotes and calling me a dictator.

I don't feel the need to find reason with people who promote authoritarian measures over what people eat in a specific demographic.  I'm under no delusional that people like you are interested in changing their opinions or are capable.

The more you insult me the worse this gets for you . . .

You might not believe me, but a lot of my political views have changed completely in the last few years . . . I don't strictly align with a party, I'm left-wing on some issues and right-wing on others. That should be a sign of someone who is willing to look at things from an unbiased perspective.

The worse it gets for me?  Do you actually think that I'll lose sleep over what you think?  I guess at the end of the day I'm glad certain things just aren't up to you.

I'm certain of very few things in life and I try my best not to carry an "absolutist"  mindset.  Two things I'm sure about are statements that include "those people"  and wanting to do things like restrict what "certain"  people eat always come from a place of malice.

Okay, the use of "my" was inaccurate. Can I rephrase that as "I don't want the government's money going towards that"?

I know you're not losing sleep, nobody is.

How exactly do I want to restrict what certain people *can* eat?

[thspfc]

I would be all for food stamps if there were stringent restrictions on the food that can be bought with them

OK, well, since we're all about facts and logic and reason in this thread, here are the current restrictions on how food stamps can be used in Illinois.  Are these stringent enough, and if not, what additional restrictions would you suggest we place on them?

SNAP benefits can be used to buy:

any food or food product for human consumption,
seeds and plants for use in home gardens to produce food.
SNAP benefits cannot be used to buy:

Hot foods ready to eat,
Food intended to be heated in the store,
Lunch counter items or foods to be eaten in the store,
Vitamins or medicines,
Pet foods,
Any nonfood items (except seeds and plants),
Alcoholic beverages,
Tobacco
Menstrual products and diapers. The USDA does not currently have a waiver for states to allow customers to purchase menstrual products or diapers with SNAP/WIC benefits.

Adding on to that list, I'd just ban food stamps from soda, energy drinks, and candy/other high sugar foods.

[Scott5114]

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

Enforcing restrictions on what people can and can't do costs more money than is actually spent. Every restriction you add spends more of your (not actually your) money.

How so in this case? Seriously, I'm asking. Don't be like Max and just assume that I'm not going to change my opinion.

For each restriction you add, some bureaucrat has to go down the list of UPC codes and decide which items are acceptable and which are not. (This is not as cut and dried as it may appear at first blush: consider a granola bar. That's healthy, right? What if chocolate chips are added? Is it still healthy enough? What about if you chocolate-coat it? Where is the line drawn officially?) That person is paid out of taxpayer funds.

If the manufacturer of a product, a retailer, or a private citizen decides to take issue with the bureaucrat's decision, they may file a formal complaint with the agency. That complaint then has to be settled by people paid out of taxpayer funds. The issue may even go to court, and the lawyers defending the decision are paid out of taxpayer funds. (Do you really think that if they banned using EBT on Mountain Dew that PepsiCo wouldn't sue to reverse that decision, and that they wouldn't bring the finest lawyers money can buy?)

Depending on the exact sort of regulation this is, the law may even require a public comment period required every time the list of banned products is changed. Each time one of those happens, a bureaucrat is required to read all of the comments, summarize them, and take them into account as part of the rule-making process. This eats up a tremendous amount of time–the public comment on the latest MUTCD closed last May and they still haven't managed to make it through all of the comments yet. All of these bureaucrats' time is paid for out of taxpayer funds.

Make the restrictions go away and the reasoning for all of those bureaucrats evaporates.

Oh, you say. Well, we can save that money by trusting the retailers to enforce the law. Except now every store has to hire an EBT compliance officer to determine what is and isn't allowable. Oh buddy! Now the retailers are going to raise their prices and you'll still get socked with the cost of paying that compliance person, and the cost is going to be much higher, because instead of a centralized staff of government bureaucrats in the capital calling the shots, every store has their own compliance person they have to pay. And you still have to pay that centralized staff of government bureaucrats, because when the stores' compliance people aren't sure whether something is allowable or not, there has to be someone to answer whether the store is going to get in trouble or not.

And under either scenario...what if a store owner realizes that they can make a decent chunk of change selling Mountain Dew and accepting EBT for it on the sly? Maybe they sell a case of bottled water for the same price as a 12-pack of Mountain Dew and they "accidentally" scan the wrong barcode sometimes. Well, now you need an enforcement staff to investigate and prosecute these. And...all of those people are on the government payroll too.

Or you can just say "Hey, it'd be cheaper to just let the government spend $4 on buying some guy a pack of Mountain Dew."

[abefroman329]

In the case of food stamps, I'm paying the government so that a lot of people can buy Mtn Dew.

[citation needed]

I know that not all people using food stamps are buying unhealthy things.

To heavily paraphrase a recent meme, the people you and HighwayMan [allegedly] see buying unhealthy food with food stamps won't see you sneering at them, but the boarders who have either relied on government assistance in the past, or do so now, will.  And speaking as someone who collected unemployment insurance from 2020 to 2021, and enrolled my son in the state Medicare program, as well as someone who knows that warning points are temporary, I issue the heartiest of "go fuck yourselves, you callous elitists" to both you and HighwayMan.

[hotdogPi]

I know that not all people using food stamps are buying unhealthy things.

To heavily paraphrase a recent meme, the people you and HighwayMan [allegedly] see buying unhealthy food with food stamps won't see you sneering at them, but the boarders who have either relied on government assistance in the past, or do so now, will.  And speaking as someone who collected unemployment insurance from 2020 to 2021, and enrolled my son in the state Medicare program, as well as someone who knows that warning points are temporary, I issue the heartiest of "go fuck yourselves, you callous elitists" to both you and HighwayMan.

I had to check back in the thread to see what TheHighwayMan394 had to say (I would be very surprised if he agreed with thspfc). Turns out it wasn't him at all...

[thspfc]

I've said twice, people can buy whatever they want with THEIR money. All I want is more restrictions on what they can buy with YOUR money and MY money.

Enforcing restrictions on what people can and can't do costs more money than is actually spent. Every restriction you add spends more of your (not actually your) money.

How so in this case? Seriously, I'm asking. Don't be like Max and just assume that I'm not going to change my opinion.

For each restriction you add, some bureaucrat has to go down the list of UPC codes and decide which items are acceptable and which are not. (This is not as cut and dried as it may appear at first blush: consider a granola bar. That's healthy, right? What if chocolate chips are added? Is it still healthy enough? What about if you chocolate-coat it? Where is the line drawn officially?) That person is paid out of taxpayer funds.

If the manufacturer of a product, a retailer, or a private citizen decides to take issue with the bureaucrat's decision, they may file a formal complaint with the agency. That complaint then has to be settled by people paid out of taxpayer funds. The issue may even go to court, and the lawyers defending the decision are paid out of taxpayer funds. (Do you really think that if they banned using EBT on Mountain Dew that PepsiCo wouldn't sue to reverse that decision, and that they wouldn't bring the finest lawyers money can buy?)

Depending on the exact sort of regulation this is, the law may even require a public comment period required every time the list of banned products is changed. Each time one of those happens, a bureaucrat is required to read all of the comments, summarize them, and take them into account as part of the rule-making process. This eats up a tremendous amount of time–the public comment on the latest MUTCD closed last May and they still haven't managed to make it through all of the comments yet. All of these bureaucrats' time is paid for out of taxpayer funds.

Make the restrictions go away and the reasoning for all of those bureaucrats evaporates.

Oh, you say. Well, we can save that money by trusting the retailers to enforce the law. Except now every store has to hire an EBT compliance officer to determine what is and isn't allowable. Oh buddy! Now the retailers are going to raise their prices and you'll still get socked with the cost of paying that compliance person, and the cost is going to be much higher, because instead of a centralized staff of government bureaucrats in the capital calling the shots, every store has their own compliance person they have to pay. And you still have to pay that centralized staff of government bureaucrats, because when the stores' compliance people aren't sure whether something is allowable or not, there has to be someone to answer whether the store is going to get in trouble or not.

And under either scenario...what if a store owner realizes that they can make a decent chunk of change selling Mountain Dew and accepting EBT for it on the sly? Maybe they sell a case of bottled water for the same price as a 12-pack of Mountain Dew and they "accidentally" scan the wrong barcode sometimes. Well, now you need an enforcement staff to investigate and prosecute these. And...all of those people are on the government payroll too.

Or you can just say "Hey, it'd be cheaper to just let the government spend $4 on buying some guy a pack of Mountain Dew."

The line-drawing would be the most difficult part, but as I said, it's not much different than how some food items have sales tax and others do not.

I feel it would save government money in the long run (as all of those guys spending $4 on Mtn Dew adds up). You may be right, maybe not.

[thspfc]

In the case of food stamps, I'm paying the government so that a lot of people can buy Mtn Dew.

[citation needed]

I know that not all people using food stamps are buying unhealthy things.

To heavily paraphrase a recent meme, the people you and HighwayMan [allegedly] see buying unhealthy food with food stamps won't see you sneering at them, but the boarders who have either relied on government assistance in the past, or do so now, will.  And speaking as someone who collected unemployment insurance from 2020 to 2021, and enrolled my son in the state Medicare program, as well as someone who knows that warning points are temporary, I issue the heartiest of "go fuck yourselves, you callous elitists" to both you and HighwayMan.

Why the personal attacks though?

I'm not one for "moral high ground" , but even I think this is a little extreme . . .

[Scott5114]

The line-drawing would be the most difficult part, but as I said, it's not much different than how some food items have sales tax and others do not.

I feel it would save government money in the long run (as all of those guys spending $4 on Mtn Dew adds up). You may be right, maybe not.

Right, but, like...the line drawing is why it gets so expensive. Because no matter where you draw the line, you are going to draw it on the wrong side of some marginal cases. And if those marginal cases lawyer up...

Even if you set some bright-line rule like "no more than X grams of sugar per serving"...well, now all you've done is incentivized them to make a serving ⅛ of a bar. And you have to have a public comment period where some people are going to say 40 grams is too high and they'd rather it be 35, some people will say it should be 20, others are mad that you're making the determination on sugar when sodium is far worse, etc. etc. And you have to pay to decide what the final rule will be. And settle the inevitable lawsuits afterward.

This is before you even get to the part where the sugar industry starts throwing its money around and making campaign contributions...

[thspfc]

The line-drawing would be the most difficult part, but as I said, it's not much different than how some food items have sales tax and others do not.

I feel it would save government money in the long run (as all of those guys spending $4 on Mtn Dew adds up). You may be right, maybe not.

Right, but, like...the line drawing is why it gets so expensive. Because no matter where you draw the line, you are going to draw it on the wrong side of some marginal cases. And if those marginal cases lawyer up...

Even if you set some bright-line rule like "no more than X grams of sugar per serving"...well, now all you've done is incentivized them to make a serving ⅛ of a bar. And you have to have a public comment period where some people are going to say 40 grams is too high and they'd rather it be 35, some people will say it should be 20, others are mad that you're making the determination on sugar when sodium is far worse, etc. etc. And you have to pay to decide what the final rule will be. And settle the inevitable lawsuits afterward.

This is before you even get to the part where the sugar industry starts throwing its money around and making campaign contributions...

You're right, it would be a chore. I still think it could save money in the long run, but it would be very messy, it might not be worth it.

So while I still think it's kinda "low"  of people to buy energy drinks and soda with food stamps, imposing additional restrictions is not as feasible as I thought.

[abefroman329]

In the case of food stamps, I'm paying the government so that a lot of people can buy Mtn Dew.

[citation needed]

I know that not all people using food stamps are buying unhealthy things.

To heavily paraphrase a recent meme, the people you and HighwayMan [allegedly] see buying unhealthy food with food stamps won't see you sneering at them, but the boarders who have either relied on government assistance in the past, or do so now, will.  And speaking as someone who collected unemployment insurance from 2020 to 2021, and enrolled my son in the state Medicare program, as well as someone who knows that warning points are temporary, I issue the heartiest of "go fuck yourselves, you callous elitists" to both you and HighwayMan.

Why the personal attacks though?

I'm not one for "moral high ground" , but even I think this is a little extreme . . .

Because you're making personal attacks on me by stating that you should have been able to follow me around stores and approve or deny purchases I made using the unemployment insurance I was collecting.

[thspfc]

In the case of food stamps, I'm paying the government so that a lot of people can buy Mtn Dew.

[citation needed]

I know that not all people using food stamps are buying unhealthy things.

To heavily paraphrase a recent meme, the people you and HighwayMan [allegedly] see buying unhealthy food with food stamps won't see you sneering at them, but the boarders who have either relied on government assistance in the past, or do so now, will.  And speaking as someone who collected unemployment insurance from 2020 to 2021, and enrolled my son in the state Medicare program, as well as someone who knows that warning points are temporary, I issue the heartiest of "go fuck yourselves, you callous elitists" to both you and HighwayMan.

Why the personal attacks though?

I'm not one for "moral high ground" , but even I think this is a little extreme . . .

Because you're making personal attacks on me by stating that you should have been able to follow me around stores and approve or deny purchases I made using the unemployment insurance I was collecting.

By that logic, it's a personal attack to deny someone trying to buy a lottery ticket with a credit card.

[abefroman329]

That is the worst false equivalence I've ever read, and I've read a lot of false equivalences.

[thspfc]

That is the worst false equivalence I've ever read, and I've read a lot of false equivalences.

How so?

[Rothman]

Okay so if I have it right the lesson out this thread is that EBT users should be banned from buying Mountain Dew and energy drinks?

No, it's "the poor are subhuman."

And undeserving of Mountain Dew or Red Bull.

Hopefully nobody mistakes my sarcasm.  I'm just taken aback by some these assertions being made about EBT users.  There even a "these people"  in this thread, can't say I'm surprised by who wrote it. 

How the fuck is this about health and diet monitoring now?

Because restricting people from buying garbage with money they were given for free would improve their health.

So, mandate the COVID vaccine.

?

I'm open to discussing if this is an equivalency, I'd just like an explanation first.

You care about publicly funded public health by restricting people who receive public funds from eating what they want.

COVID vaccines were also funded with public dollars.  Therefore, just like you want to force the poor to be healthy so taxes are not wasted, forcing people to get vaccinated so our taxes would not go to waste and improve public health would be consistent.

I'm not paying to government so that people can remain unvaccinated though. In the case of food stamps, I'm paying the government so that a lot of people can buy Mtn Dew.

I know that not all people using food stamps are buying unhealthy things.

You paid the government to get the vaccine developed.  Every person that does not get the vaccine that could represents a waste of that investment, just like you think people purchasing junk food with EBT are wasting your money.  Therefore, if you are going to restrict diets out of the idea of wasting government funds, then we also need a vaccine mandate to ensure our funding of the vaccine also does not go to waste.

It is inconsistent to force people to do what you want in the case of food stamps while shying away from vaccine mandates when both actions improve public health.  Either you are for heavy-handed government in enforcing public health, or you're not. 

Or, you're just wanting to be a jerk towards poor people.