MREs?!! Why MREs include candy, sweet drink mixes, and other small treats that are too good for those ne’er do wells on welfare.
More seriously, this is something some extreme martinets among the war veterans I knew who became career officers/NCOs would say about the C-Rations/MREs. That they shouldn’t have any of those luxuries.
Thankfully, they tend to be in an extreme tiny minority and tend to be regarded by most veterans in my old childhood neighborhood with as much respect as the protagonist and his fellow gymnasium classmates/soldiers accorded Corporal Himmelstoss and his former jingoistic teacher Kantorek* in the book “All Quiet On The Western Front”.
Especially after circumstances of the war ended up turning the tables so Kantorek ended up being ordered around by his former students when he's drafted to serve as a "territorial" soldier.
Don’t really have issues with those restrictions for the following reasons:
They're not considered food by most standard definitions.
Neither are officially funded by taxpayers to be issued to to US soldiers as part of their daily mess hall meals/MREs*.
Both are substances with more strict legal restrictions on their sale, possession, and use than sodas, candies, and other foods/small treats.
Though this used to be the case several decades or more ago. Even then, alcohol was officially banned from US warships after 1913 by the presiding Naval Secretary even though some COs unofficially violated that longstanding policy and unless I'm mistaken, the US military hasn't issued cigarettes in ration packs since the Vietnam War.
This is a solution in search of a problem. Where is the empirical (not anecdotal welfare queen nonsense) evidence that bakery purchases are a problem among SNAP recipients?
I mean, are those of you who are up in arms about perceived SNAP excesses even reading the links I’m posting? Do you want a literal nanny state?
“We do have restrictions, so this is just a discussion as to where the lines should be drawn.”
Right. My concern is whether our nutrition policies are promoting nutrition as well as they could be. I’m against any spending that makes public health problems worse (like abstinence-only sex “education”).
“This is a solution in search of a problem.”
We’ve got really bad food-related public health problems in this country. I don’t have to search for that problem at all. Policy tweaks of various kinds can make an impact.
If it were up to me, I’d double SNAP benefits, but define what’s “food” more narrowly than we do now. I don’t believe in the lobster-and-steak myths, but they are definitely food. So are most bakery items. Pepsi and Skittles, not so much.
Show me the SNAP-related “food-related public health problems,” please. It should be easy since you don’t have to search “at all.” The ones in the OP’s link are pretty clearly bogus.
Free Enterprise is “supply side” – I’d say history has shown it works pretty well. It sure is popular.
Increasing economic liberty – and decreasing taxes is one way of doing that – not only is in line with our founding principles and ideals, but provides greater incentives for job creation because it lowers barriers to entry and encourages would-be entrepreneurs to get into the game.
Most people go into business to make money. It’s called the Profit Motive. One thing that limits profit is cost. Taxes are a major cost. Thus, by lowering taxes, you make going into business more enticing for the would-be entrepreneur.
There’s a market for just about anything a smart risk-taker wants to sell (that is legal…), our unemployment rate being as (fairly) steadily low as it is. In other words, there’s plenty of demand; lack of demand is not the problem generally. What is lacking is a pro-business environment inspiring entrepreneurs and investors to take the risks necessary to go into business or expand.
Increasing economic liberty for entrepreneurs means job growth, increased competition, increased product value for consumers, and additional investment opportunitiesfor the rest of us. Increased economic liberty for consumers means more money in our pockets to spend or invest as we see fit.
A motivated and able labor force is also necessary, lest empty seats (jobs) go unfilled. That’s another area to work on. (it never ends. hehe)
Unless people on SNAP are healthier than other Americans, then people on SNAP have a huge food-related public health problem, because we all do. It’s a national and global crisis.
A side note… I am all for classifying sodas as “non-food.” For instance, in WA, food sold in stores is not subject to sales tax… Booze and sodas are not “food” and are taxed - have been taxed for as long as I can remember, and the rate here is quite steep (close to 10% because we do not have a state income tax). I have not seen anyone complaining about sodas classified as “non-food.” Cookies and bakery goods at least have some nutritional value… Sodas are sugar water contaminated with what chemists would classify as “minor impurities.”
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
It continues to amaze me that some users feel that these boards are a debate society when that is not the intent. Regardless, this thread has run its course. Closing.
