FAHA: Force America to Be Healthy Again
Do you support mandates from the Feds?
Post
Reply
See new posts
Conversation
Robert F. Kennedy Jr - Commentary News
I'm doubling down tonight! No chocolate and sugary snacks with SNAP! SNAP should fund nutrition, not junk! MAHA!
I encourage people in my life to make better choices for what goes in, and goes on, their bodies, but I can’t be the nutrition police to everyone in my own sphere: How can Bobs be the Food Cop to everyone on food assistance?
I believe with all my heart, tummy, and brain, that Americans would be healthier if they laid off junk food and ultra-processed food-shaped-crap. Education, not government mandates, is key. It’s wrong to demonize people trying to feed their families when massive “food” conglomerates are intentionally making their “food” addictive and grocery bills have been skyrocketing.
Are we against big government telling us what to do with our bodies, our well-being, our health? Even if this would lead to some positive outcomes, the government mandate from Bobs would NOT stop people from obtaining unhealthy junk food. As my grandchildren often ask me, “if it’s so bad for us, why are they allowed to sell it?” Go after the pushers, not the users.
Bobs and his organization has spent the last five-years advocating for autonomy, now that he has some power, he is turning into a neo-fascist.
Enough blah, blah, blah from, me. What do you think?
Spring Paid Subscriber Plea
ONE OF THE PAID SUBSCRIBER BONUSES IS CINDY’S MYTH AMERICA: THE 20 GREATEST MYTHS OF THE ROBBER CLASS AND THE CASE FOR REVOLUTION
I suspect that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) exists in large part as an "assistance program" for the junk food suppliers, giving them a captured market upon which to dump their unhealthy wares.
Is it a "mandate"?
I'd say that if we are giving our money to help others, it isn't unreasonable to have some determination on where it goes.
This is the description I found for SNAP:
"Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[1] formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, is a federal government program that provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income persons to help them maintain adequate nutrition and health".
Assuming that's accurate, I'd focus on the "nutrition and health" part. If the money is being used on junk that will inevitably lead to more public money having to be provided for the consequences, then I don't have a problem with it.
A case could be made that if left unchecked, are we not the metaphoric enablers of addicts? I wouldn't want to see my tax money given to an alcoholic to buy booze. So, is it really wrong to not want tax dollars to feed junk food addictions?