Lawmakers Find $21 a Week Doesn't Buy a Lot of Groceries

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

im back from the weekend, what the heck happened to the original topic? lol

in re: to your list above, kevin, none of that food is necessarily "healthy" (please, any health care professionals correct me if im wrong). i see a loooot of sodium and carb laced food! which goes back to the original problem of yeah, you can eat for $21, but not well/healthy.

So you're saying that we don't only owe lazy people free food in exchange for sitting on their asses.. but we also owe them healthy, expensive, luxurious food? Nice.

Healthy food is a luxury, not a right. Poor people don't get to have luxuries -- and yes, in this case, they'll lead shorter lives (which is probably better for society anyhow... shaving an extra 10-20 years off of their lives will save us all bundles of cash). I don't think that's intentional -- but it's certainly a fringe benefit.

You might raise the issue of children.. well, I do think we ought to be doing more in our schools to ensure that at least there, they get healthy food.

The trouble is that schools often have to choose between feeding their students a healthy diet and feeding their students enough calories to keep them from becoming malnourished. Further, even if the parents did have the $, they'd probably spend it on junk anyhow. Junk is easier to prepare and generally, when kids are faced with the choice between a taco town taco and an apple, the kids are going for choice "A."