politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Deciding what food people get to eat with their food assistance money is disturbingly authoritarian.
Deciding what food people get to buy would be a bad solution to that problem anyways
Working to have healthy options be more affordable and available seems like it'd help and it doesn't seem disturbingly authoritarian
Can you imagine living in a world where American farm subsidies went to make fresh fruit and produce affordable to all income levels, but the fuel lobby had to pay top dollar if they want to distill corn into ethanol so they can dope our gasoline?
Food assistance is already regulated. No hot food, no pet food, no vitamins, no beer or wine, etc
So now add 'no sugar' to that? Look, I don't like that there's an obesity epidemic, but that's basically telling poor people they can't enjoy food they like. I don't think that is the right way to help people.
I'm not saying we should or that it is.
I was just pointing out that food assistance is already regulated based on there being some things people may enjoy or want that the government has determined they can not use that assistance to purchase.
Largely, it would seem, based on the fact that those things bad for them (alcohol), that it's not an efficient use of funds (hot food; any food intended to be eaten on premises), or it's not actually caloric in any way (vitamins).