Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel that setting up the infrastructure to specifically exclude certain “luxury” foods would not only be a giant waste of money, but weirdly cruel and punitive. It certainly wouldn't be "cruel and punitive." After all, as the saying goes, beggars can't be choosers. It would be valuable insofar as it would undercut one of the most biting criticisms of the program. > Just give people the resources to buy what they…
People on social programs should not be treated as “beggars.” They should be allowed to live their lives with dignity. (Even if it means getting a bit of ice cream every once in a while, the horror!)
As you’re someone from the Bay Area, you genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about, especially in regards to Appalachia. You make a large enough salary to survive, possibly even thrive in an area on the complete opposite side of the USA. The people here are lucky for $40,000 annual salaries. $80,000 and you’re sitting pretty. My father’s never made more than $35,000. I‘ve lived here my whole life and seen the damage welfare does to a community. People have kids just to maximize welfare, they waste their money on the vices they explore now that they don’t need to work, the community is lost.
So sure, allowing “treats” isn’t a big deal on paper, but when 65 million, or 1/5th of Americans, are on welfare with 42 million of them getting food stamps, AND you consider the predatory behavior of food companies alongside the general distain the government holds for the health of its people, and you end up with a system that promotes short term pleasure and “feel-goods” rather than actually attempting to improve yourself to where you can contribute like an actual human being.