Posted on 08/04/2017 10:05:45 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
“Yer just a regular ole government supremacist aren’t ya?”
Congress under Article I, Section 8 has the power to regulate commerce, tax and set rules for the government, including what it will pay for.
Industrially-prepared food is a major part of US commerce.
The government tried this already.
Food stamps were basically an alternative or parallel currency. The items that could be purchased were strictly regulated. Rice, beans, flour salt, pasta, cheese, etc.
What happened, the sharpies would purchase food stamps for pennies on the dollar. I don’t know what the exchange rate was, probably 25c on the dollar? So food stamp recipients would sell them for cash, to buy booze and cigarettes, drugs, whatever. The staples themselves were also sold and traded for cash, at a steep discount. Even today it’s not uncommon for “clients” to purchase a case of water, empty the bottles in the store parking lot, and return the empties for a “refund”.
By the 1990s food stamps gave way to magnetic stripe stored value cards. The rationale was, offered by our betters, that “food stamps” were demeaning and the rest of it. By the 2000s virtually all restricfions on their use and what could be purchased were lifted, afaik. I imagine fast food outlets will accept “EBT”.
Point being, it is extremely difficult to prevent abuse of these “benefit” programs.
The original poster misses the issue. Those on these “benefit” programs so not care what items cost, and they aren’t paying the tax either. All these schemes do is make food even MORE expensive than it already is. The huge expenditures in the SNAP and WIC programs probably add 15% or more to the cost of the things we buy.
Think medical costs before and after Medicaire, or College tuition prior to government subsidized loans. These programs are inherently inflationary and make everything unaffordable.
A total reform of the “benefits” system is long overdue. Millions of people dependent on the good graces of the government is complete insanity and will end badly. It hasn’t started well.
You misspelled "HFLC".
You advocate govt intrusion in every aspect of our lives right down to what salad dressing we use under the commerce clause. I vociferously disagree.
‘
“LFHC”
Low fat high carbohydrate is the worst of all possible diets.
Sorry - dyslexic today. I meant lchf diet
Yes apparently have dyslexia today
LFHC is what the feds have been pushing for several decades and it is becoming obvious that it is the root-cause of the obesity epidemic...
Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist who insisted that there is no dog?
How about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who lay awake at night wondering if there was a dog?
Do what everyone else does - blame spellcheck!
If I was going to reform the SNAP program, I would print the EBT cards with photos of the person using the program.
That should stop the illegal trade in EBTs. The second reform would be to make SNAP more like WIC. WIC has very specific limitations on what the program will pay for.
It is designed specifically for the nutrition of pregnant women, their infants and young children. Engineer SNAP to support the nutritional requirements of adult men and women by age grouping. The program would pay only for specific types of foods and amounts of, fresh produce, grains, beans, selected uncooked meats, poultry, fish and dairy products, etc. No box mac & cheese, hamburger helper, potato chips, rib eye steaks or swordfish.
“The original poster misses the issue.”
It is hard to miss the “issue” when it is large and waddles past.
Lower-income people have gotten larger as SNAP restrictions were relaxed.
It is logical to expect the reverse to occur if SNAP restrictions were reimposed.
>...power to regulate commerce...
There’s a BIT more (important verbiage) in there too: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and *among the several States*, and with the Indian Tribes.
>Industrially-prepared food is a major part of US commerce.
And, yet, not a peep about the anti-5th/13th ‘govt welfare’? Strange.
A CLAUSE does *not* negate the totality of the Constitution.
“You advocate govt intrusion in every aspect of our lives right down to what salad dressing we use under the commerce clause. I vociferously disagree.”
I want to reduce “insurance” premiums.
Do you?
The sale of $100 billion dollars of unhealthy food has a $200 billion+ negative impact on health care costs.
Bad food has costs far above its purchase price.
“There’s a BIT more (important verbiage) in there too”
The verbiage is vague.
The Supreme Court allows the broadest possible scope.
Indeed - high carb diet is terrible unless you are doing Michael Phelps level workouts every day.
lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.