On 1/16/2017 at 8:40 AM, rotuts said:its a shame that a SugarTax , of some amount , is not universal.
Never happen. For my comment upthread re: soft drink lobby, just read "sugar lobby."
On 1/16/2017 at 7:05 PM, chromedome said:No, but staying functional without it is sometimes challenging. Especially if you're working multiple jobs, as many SNAP recipients are. Essentially, income supports subsidize employers who don't pay a living wage. Of course, that's a whole other discussion.
I don't care for soft drinks myself, basically all I drink is water, tea and one cherished cup of strong coffee a day. Still, there's something to be said for that one little "luxury" that makes the rest bearable. A can of Coke wouldn't be that for me, but I always had butter for table use when my kids were growing up, even during times when I fed the family for a month on what most people considered a week's budget. It was worth it to me.
Much to be said for that.
On 1/17/2017 at 0:21 AM, JoNorvelleWalker said:Having relied on food stamps and charity to keep from starvation gives me standing to express an opinion. If the goal is to keep poor people alive give them soylent green. If the goal is to offer a degree of human dignity let them buy coke.
Note, soup kitchen food is generally pretty tasty. Blessed are those that make it happen.
Much to be said for THAT, too!
ETA (because I just read the last page of the thread): I agree with several comments upthread that childhood hunger IS often the result of parental thoughtlessness or indifference. No matter. It's not the kid's fault. We should feed EVERY kid, not punish them for having a sorry set of parents ("Sorry" in this case being used in the colloquial sense of "not worth a damn and should never have reproduced.)
It's not the child's fault he was born. If he's not capable of providing his own food, society ought to feed him, just because it's the humane thing to do.
