Fat accompli: Congress's weight issue - POLITICO
Hypocritical people getting government money are spending it on what they have banned SNAP recipients from purchasing. I will be pointing this out every chance I get from here on out. They are hypocrites. I was told that those who voted for restrictions had sodas sitting on their desks. The battle cry is "No government money for junk food" and that should apply to everyone that collects a government check, especially those making our laws that prohibit those on SNAP from using SNAP dollars for "Junk food".
By the way, there is no legal definition for "junk food" and so they can restrict whatever they want to. They have these restrictions applying to healthy items like protein powders, protein shakes, and protein bars based on FLAVORS. Flavors have nothing to do with whether an item is healthy or not. And diet soda never made anyone fat. In fact soda has therapeutic uses.
These are items that doctors have the elderly eat/drink to prevent the loss of muscle mass as they age. No longer covered by SNAP, these items will now have to be purchased with cash - leaving fewer dollars to purchase other necessary household necessities like cleaning supplies, toothpaste, and tooth brushes, vitamins and minerals for those who suffer from IBS-D - who cannot get their nutrients from foods because they pass through too fast. These items are expensive.
Check out the weight on police officers, city council persons, county supervisors, those working in the Health and Human services dept., those working in Housing, etc. Check out to see what people who aren't on food stamps who work for the government look like and demand to see what's in their pantry. They don't eat any differently than those on SNAP. Who do you think holds tail-gaiting parties? Who has game day celebrations and what are they serving? What are they serving at holiday parties, company New Years Parties and company picnics? You can bet it's junk food, soda, beer, snacks, candy. We are all human. The difference between what the rich and poor eat? 2%. And I would point out that those who are better off consume more hard liquor. I've never seen a liquor cabinet in a poor person's house.
For more info on the fat problems of the ruling hypocritical class see: https://www.politico.com/story/2009/07/fat-accompli-congresss-weight-issue-025600
Nevermind that the USDA didn't have the power to alter the SNAP program - only the way that it's administered. They also had no comment period required by law, and they had no power to overrule Congress which has rejected restrictions before. Iowa based their restrictions on taxable items - but protein bars and shakes aren't taxable. Our Constitution doesn't say that when we sign up for SNAP we lose our right to choose what's best for our own health and well being. We all have different health needs and nutrition requirements. They took none of this into account. And our Constitutional rights were violated. The governors that signed onto these restrictions did so in order to get money from the Federal government, not because it was proven effective - in fact it's a 2 year trial program - and now Iowa has made it a permanent law, something they can't do. This is wrong. Every freedom loving American who believes in individual liberty should be very upset about this. We are losing our rights.
Gun owners losing rights because of criminals
Pain patients, sinus patients, and IBS-D patients having restrictions placed on them due to addicts
SNAP recipients losing rights because of what the obese do. It's wrong.
Comments
Post a Comment