It's a slippery slope to begin choosing which products are go and no go.
Sugary slope.
It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green.
Sugary slope.
It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green.
It is absolutely true that food deserts exist in the US and they tend to occur most often in the poorest areas. But eliminating soda, candy, and such from the food stamp program is one good way to give them a lift nutritionally. Which in some cases can translate into a lift out of poverty.
When your welfare programs perpetuate and reward patterns that keep people in poverty it's fine to blame the program. Asking tax payers to pay for other people's bad habits is bad. The purpose of these programs should be to help them make forward progress. It should not be to subsidize a continued fall into deeper poverty.
- This is asking what the government should buy on behalf of poor people, not saying "go" or "no go" on a product or a proposal to ban anything.
> It starts with banning colas and ends with a gov requirement to eat soylent green.
Ha, my rather unique cousin was over my shoulder reading this and she just had to chime in on your comment. Here's what she said:
"I can silly slippery slope too, watch me. Government already is deeply involved in intimate and potentially life-threatening medical decisions, so honestly we are closer to any requirement to eat Soylent Green than you think."
I can't wait until I get my own house and some peace and quiet finally.