I think that if you are signing up for a program that is to give good nutritional foods to individuals who cannot afford them, there should be very strong restrictions on what you can and cannot buy. Taking away non essential sugary foods should be a non issue. Teaching individuals about the money saving possibilities of cooking at home is also a good idea.

Sounds like Republican State Sen. Ronda Storms has been influenced by Michelle Obama.

#2 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2012-02-07 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

That is one of the reasons why people find it so odd that the democrats are fighting this initiative.

No soda too? I'm all for it.

No soda too? I'm all for it.

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist
Yeah no to tobacco, no to trans fat, no to sugar, no to soda, no to what TFNDihilist likes. Uh Oh now it went to far. Too Late!

Yeah no to tobacco, no to trans fat, no to sugar, no to soda, no to what TFNDihilist likes. Uh Oh now it went to far. Too Late!

#5 | Posted by patron at 2012-02-07 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well... ain't that a strawman. It is supposed to be NUTRITIONAL assistance. Not snack assistance... not cigarette assistance... not movie theater assistance... NUTRITIONAL assistance.

Good.

Now the "small government" types want more government intrusion. Typical.

"critics say the government shouldn't dictate what people eat.

"What I choose to ingest ....that's at my discretion. I don't need government telling me what I can and cannot purchase,"

Who said this? I bet some conservative about our Democrat feds infringing on our rights.....Wrong. It was Gwyndolen Clarke-Reed, a Pompano Beach Democrat who is worried about rights of.....welfare recipients.

Sadly LMFAO!

"Who said this? I bet some conservative about our Democrat feds infringing on our rights."

No, it was some Democrat talking about how Republicans are infringing on rights. But because Rs suggested it, and it's aimed at controlling welfare recipients, you're all for this governmental power grab, right?

But because Rs suggested it, and it's aimed at controlling welfare recipients, you're all for this governmental power grab, right?

Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-07 11:48 AM | Reply

You are correct, the only viable solution is ending Medicaid. Period.

Totally agree.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-07 11:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

So people whom are GIVEN money to get proper nutrition should be allowed to WASTE that money on things that lack proper nutrition?

Interesting take.

Sorry danforth but I gotta go with the R's on this one. If someone else is buying your food you don't get to tell them what to buy you.

If my MIL tells me to pick up a bag of organic apples for the kids when I go to the grocery store I wouldn't even dream of telling her, "no you give me the 2.99 and I'm going to buy a box of little debbies with it".

"So people whom are GIVEN money to get proper nutrition should be allowed to WASTE that money on things that lack proper nutrition?"

What a riot. If Michelle Obama had suggested this, you'd be screaming to hell and back.

"Sorry danforth but I gotta go with the R's on this one. "

No need to apologize; I don't disagree. I'm just getting a huge kick with all these small government rightwingers who would be pitching a huge bitch if this idea came from someone with a (D) after their name.

"If my MIL tells me to pick up a bag of organic apples for the kids..."

Organic apples and organic oranges.

Naw don't waste your money on organic oranges the skin is non-permeable so the part you eat doesn't pick up the pesticides.

:)

You do have a point but I think anything that cuts social welfare down will always be applauded by republicans no matter who suggests it.

"I think anything that cuts social welfare down"

Do you mean 'cuts the money spent', or "cuts" at the recipients?

I mean both. Hurting the poor is a republican past time.

What a riot. If Michelle Obama had suggested this, you'd be screaming to hell and back.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2012-02-07 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

If Michelle Obama had suggested limiting citizens who are buying food with their own money it would be a big problem.

If Michelle Obama suggest this, limiting what people on Nutritional assistance can buy with other peoples money, I would not have a problem.

I think the bigger question that should be asked is: Why hasn't Michelle Obama suggested something like this in regard to the nutritional assistance program referred to as "food stamps"?

#6 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
I don't care if it is public assistance money or my own money. The problem is letting the government slowly intrude into what you can ingest. When it comes time to limiting what you like it will be to late the cats already out of the bag.

Patron no there is a difference. Limiting what you do with your money is wrong but limiting what other people do with your money is ok.

Assuming you could afford it if you gave a guy on the street 100 bucks how would you feel if he went out and scored enough crack to keep him high for 3 days with it vs. how you would feel if he got a shower fed his family and started looking for work. Food stamps is your money if you don't want to limit what people do with it then fine go give a guy a 100 bucks and walk away without worrying, but most people do want limits on what others can do with their money.

So people whom are GIVEN money to get proper nutrition should be allowed to WASTE that money on things that lack proper nutrition?

----

Sometimes chocolate makes the soul happy.

#22 | Posted by TaoWarrior
True, but they don't stop. Look at the bans and limitations already out there, all in the name of your protection

Sure, first it's a ban on Hershey bars. Next it'll be that they are only allowed to buy generic brands. Then there will be lists. Eventually, it will be rice, beans, and government cheese. Regardless of how you feel about people on welfare, this is a bullshit bill aimed at control the government should not have, pure and simple.

Patron,

I do not argue that we do not have a nanny state. In fact I am the first to jump on the band wagon. However if you don't want government control of your life don't take government money. If you have a job your employer has a ridiculous level of control over your life. Maybe not down to what you can buy but some companies have health policies in place and other forms of control. If you are taking government money then the same level of control is understood. The fact that it is government money just means you will have even a higher level of control dictated by people you don't even know. If you want to get away from that get a job or take hand outs from churches they usually don't have restrictions when they give you money. Well other than they want you to pray with them before you walk out with the check.

Miss,

Seriously OMG not making them buy generic!!! The horror. Please don't tell my kids that, they don't much have a problem with generic and probably would think high end brands taste funny.

#25 | Posted by missesmerelda at 2012-02-07 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe if these people want to avoid government control, they should not go under the auspice of government controlled nutritional assistance programs...