Didn't the government used to do this way back in the olden day? Like, government cheese & butter?
It wouldn't surprise me, it makes much more sense since I assume these programs were initially introduced with the good intention of temporarily supporting people fallen on hard times, rather than setting them up for life to never need to work again.
Blue states won't just to spite Trump.
People on the government dole are still allowed to spend their own money on "cheat foods".
People needing government help are allowed to spend their own money on "cheat foods".
"Every other wealth range" that doesn't receive taxpayer money is ALREADY not spending taxpayer money on "cheat foods".
Funny story that I think I told in the niggers eating cornstarch thread; back when I was in school, I worked in the kitchen at a Wegmans. The nature of the job meant hopping around to help fill in as needed at other prepared foods stations. Unlike the kitchen which only had the restaurant, the pizza, sandwich, and coffee stations had registers where generally the customer would pay, though they could bring their purchase to a normal register. I remember being told very early on that under no circumstances could EBT be used to purchase anything from the restaurant, pizza, or specifically hot subs. We were told never to decline the purchase but make up some bullshit and call over a manager or the head chef to deal with the situation. In hindsight, this policy was there to prevent chimpouts but I was too young and naïve to put two and two together despite every instance of this happening that I can remember involving a black person.
Because in a free society you are allowed to do what you want with your property and spend money you make in whatever legal way you see fit. However government handouts coming without conditions is not a tenant of a free society because you are not required to take these handouts. This being the case people want handouts (paid for with their taxes, that are extracted at gunpoint) to have conditions they agree with. Most of these conditions are good intentioned as well like wanting recipients to be healthy or to eventually no longer need handouts. That you need this explained means you are either retarded or jewish.
Is there a difference between these two groups? Maybe what you used to divide them up in the first place?
Because "paycheck-to-paycheck people" are spending their own money. Whether they should be is irrelevant because it is their money that they earned. It might be a bad idea to spend your limited funds on soda, but it is still their money. If they want to be retarded with it they can.
They can have cheat foods by either making their own cookies, cakes, ice cream (there are no churn versions), and even candy. They taste better and are healthier since less processing, plus the scarcity would help break the hold sugar has on the poor.
A lot of farmers markets also take Snap/EBT and they even double the points so people could actual get nice mushrooms, veggies and fresh cuts of meat from ranches for pretty cheap. I never seen anyone actual use it.
MUH DIABEETUS.
People can buy what they want, with their own money.
The Gatorade competitor Body Armor (would recommend) has a few variants that are "no sugar added" and they are chronically short of stock for it. I feel like "no sugar/hfcs added" would be a a simple and effective standard for not putting too much carbs into something, even if it's localized entirely into hydration/electrolyte drinks.
