Look, I understand the concept of food stamps. It's to ensure that poor people don't starve to death. It's a social safety net that ought to be provided to help the less fortunate in society. I get it!
But if that's going to be the case, then food stamps should at least be restricted to basic necessities: milk, bread, eggs, etc. They should not be used, or rather abused, to buy luxury items like crab legs or sushi, which even well-off citizens can barely afford. I think that's a reasonable request.
This is why politicians like S.C. Gov Nikki Haley have pushed for legislation that would limit food stamps to healthy items rather than junk food. Not only would it save taxpayer money, but it would also combat obesity, which is rampant among the impoverished. Sounds like reasonable legislation, right?
Not unless you're the libtarded hivemind of r/politics, where logic and reason take a backseat to sensationalism and hyperbole--because obviously reality has a libtarded bias!
Here is just a taste of the "intellectual" gems within the comment section of this thread:
• But if Michelle Obama had suggested this the republicans would call her a commie food fascist.The false equivalency here simply burns! There's a major difference between Michelle Obama or Michael Bloomberg limiting what food citizens can purchase with their own money, and Nikki Haley limiting what welfare recipients can buy with other people's money. Major effing obvious difference!
• 'Big liberal nanny-state government'
• I love how the teabaggers can't even finish SAYING "big government is bad" before they come up with a list of things they want to have the government enforce. It's funny how when Michelle Obama suggests people might want to consider eating healthier it's ULTRA-SOCIALISM, but when a Republican is actually dictating the menu it's just smart governance. Is there any topic, no matter how minor, that these idiots won't trip all over themselves to be hypocrites about?
• Is this idea from the same people who hate Government Overreach and the Nanny State?
• Will this make republicans heads explode? They don't want government controlling what people eat, but they don't want people on welfare to waste tax funds.
But oh wait, the comment section goes full libtard here (and you never go full libtard!):
• While some Republicans would likely criticize this move if Michelle Obama proposed it simply because they hate everything the Obamas do, I think many conservatives would support this bill as they wouldn't want government spending being used to make people unhealthy and cost them more money in the long run due to healthcare costs.Because obviously junk food is an inalienable right and the social contract dictates that we provide it for our fellow man!
• Just like Republicans supported NYC's ban on large soda cups.
Oh, wait... Fox News called that fascist-socialist-jack-boot-nanny-state-bald-eagle-killing-freedom-death.
• Please. They'd be much more likely to support it just because it gives them yet another chance to treat poor people like crap. I can hear them now -- "If you want a potato chip, get a job! No Snickers bar on MY dime!"
You want to live on a diet of Mountain Dew and Cheetos? Fine! That's your lifestyle choice. As such, you should pay for it with your own money, not mine. What you do with your money is you business, and what you do with my money is my business.
I swear, these libtards sound like the lowlife friend you invite to lunch and offer to pay for his meal, only for him to buy the most expensive item on the menu and leave you with a check that forces you to wash dishes in order to pay it.
And the saddest part is that these comments only reveal that we as a country will never have real entitlement reform, and considering how both Medicare and Social Security are equal to defense spending--and when combined, actually dwarf it--this is especially disheartening. The gross sense of entitlement of this generation is turning the next one into debt slaves.