The resistance is to the idea of "BAN SODA!"
And as I stated in my very first post in this thread I don't agree with the BAN SODA idea either. I do agree with the idea of identifying "staple food goods" and only allowing food stamp dollars to purchase those things. Which is entirely different.
As though it's some sort of luxury expense that is a waste of your tax money.
It is. But it's not alone in being so. As I said earlier, here in California, you pay sales tax on a bottle of soda (in addition to CRV). You do *not* pay sales tax when buying a pound of ground beef, or package of chicken *******, or bag of rice. It's quite possible to identify different types of foods and use those differentiations when determining use of something like food stamps. That is what I believe we should do.
I wonder how much support you'd get if you went around screaming "BAN APPLE JUICE!" or "BAN MILK!"
Probably not much. Although the costs of those things versus other alternatives should provide incentives to be more frugal with spending dollars (if those dollars are scarce). However, most people wont be, largely because they believe (correctly so far) that their government will provide them whatever number of dollars they "need" to buy stuff, so why not buy the most expensive stuff possible?
I agree that much of this debate is purely about rhetoric that misses the real issue at hand. But that does not mean that we should abandon the basic concept that needs and wants are different things, and if we're paying to address needs, we should do whatever we can to ensure that we're providing just for those needs.
Edited, Jan 3rd 2013 4:42pm by gbaji