安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
68 
举报此帖
People buying soda with food stamps. I WAKE.
"my tax dollars shouldnt be used to buy junk food."
Lol im more concerned with tax dollars being used in the tune of trillions a year for the spying apparatus and death machines. But poor people buying soda is what most people care about, are you ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ serious right now?
What the ♥♥♥♥ is this timeline.
It really isn't. Europeans live longer and have less crime in general. They also live happier lives and have less pollution giving them super cancer.
The US food industry and government is a completely different story, and finally being looked at in a different perspective with this administration for the first time in decades.
Let's see how it goes instead of the normal "doom and gloom" scenarios... It will change for the better. Better for the people and not the corrupt industry that has politicians in their pocket creating laws to promote their nonsense.
Moreover, the pre-processed snack food is also rather expensive for how inefficient of a source of nutrition it is. and the unhealthy eating most snack food constitutes creates a liability on taxpayer funded healthcare, which increases the amount of taxation on others. This adds further to the tax burden in a totally avoidable way. If people want to end up killing themselves via heart disease, they can do so on their own dime, especially since the reason we give them free food is to try and prevent them from dying in the first place.
It also has to be noted that snacks constitutes a rather large variety of food. Fruit, nuts and even unbuttered popcorn (which is high in fiber, yet low in calories) can all be healthy snack foods, but Potato-chips, Cheetos and Doritos are basically slow acting poison. You might as well ask why food stamps can't be used to buy cigarettes.
That's to say nothing of the fact that somebody could hypothetically make their own snack foods from scratch using raw ingredients anyway. A potato chip only requires potatoes, salt and cooking oil to make[www.allrecipes.com], and nobody is going to stop you from buying any of those.
First of all, people complained about the bank bailouts pretty much non-stop, and corn subsidies have been at least a somewhat controversial subject for as long as I can remember, particularly since most of the corn isn't even sold as corn but rather corn syrup, so this isn't exactly the double standard you make it out to be.
Moreover, part of what is up with the timeline is that the U.S.A. was originally a collection loosely affiliated colonies that did not want to cede too much of their territorial authority.
As such, the constitution is written in such a way that the federal government was meant to be a government of few, express and limited powers, none of which explicitly authorize food stamps. We just ended up in a situation where it usurped power from the states through extortion of the courts. Regarding the military stuff, have you read the Article Ⅰ Section 8 grants of power? The bulk of them are explicitly war related. Raising armies and navies, declaring war, calling upon the militia, granting letters of marque, et cetera, et cetera, Any constitutional authorization for food stamps has to be contrived from vaguer terms.
In the U.S.A's. system of federalism, the federal government is mostly meant to preside over foreign affairs, and the individual states are supposed to handle the bulk of domestic policy, because they have what is called plenary power. The states are thus are free to start their own self-funded food stamp program anytime they want, without federal oversight over the menu. States are similarly restrained by their own constitutions mind you, but even so, it is likely easier for a state to change its own constitution than for the nation, if need be. With fewer federal programs, the federal tax burden could be lessened so that the states could increase their own, and have things work out more or less the same.
If F.D.R. didn't threaten to pack the court to extort the Supreme Court into allowing his New Deal Legislation to stand, then these social welfare programs likely would not exist in the first place. The judicial precedents would be all different, and likely favoring the narrowly read Madisonian view of the enumeration of powers. As things stand, the courts decided to side with a broader Hamiltonian reading that make relatively little sense in the broader context of the document. A truly constitutional U.S.A. would likely be unrecognizable to most people born past the early 20th century
Regardless, it is only natural that if the federal government is meant to handle the military, and precious little else, that the funding goes mostly to the military, and precious little else.