Obamafeed - 'Affordable Food Act'

reply to post by Ahabstar


Those people can move or they can thank all of us if the legal challenges overturn the whole bill. However, if our states expand Medicaid like they wanted, everyone here will wind up homeless when the Feds stop paying for the expansion after a few short years and the state tries to figure out how to fit the cost into its budget. In our state, that's going to be about 40% of the current state budget. Um, yeah, how do we pay for that if we accept the expansion ... oh, yeah, more taxes we can't afford.

So, if you're a tax payer, you pay more federal taxes, more state taxes AND your sky high Obamacare premiums ... and if you can't, you just go homeless like all those poor people who can't go on the expansion we aren't taking because our state legislatures are smart enough to realize it will hurt more to take it than it will to refuse it?

Starving people will revolt, that's really what it's all going to come down to. Maybe it's time for "American Corporations" to pick up their share of the load... most of them don't pay taxes (the big ones) and most of them don't pay their employees (below executives) well enough to survive... then they make out big-time by being the largest beneficiaries of social welfare programs. Why on earth would they pay better wages if the American taxpayer is on the hook to pick up their slack?

"Sorry we don't have a job for you, because people in China, Africa and India work for slave wages"
"Sorry we can't pay you more, Obamacare dontcha know and our Corporate tax rate is too high (teehee that we don't pay)"
"Sorry you can't start a business without capital"
"Sorry you can't get a loan because you don't own a home"
"Sorry you can't grow your own food, you might get sick (we'd rather you starve or beg)"
"Sorry you can't have food stamps because you make more than 100 dollars a week and well... the military and foreign aid and well because it's more important that I make 170+/year to work a couple days every other week in which time I manage to make your life more and more miserable"
"Remember to vote for me"

reply to post by Kali74


Well that all depends on which corporation you're talking about. Some of them do get away with that, but it all depends on if you're one of the "good" industries. If you're on of the "bad" industries, then you take it up the shorts with increased regs and other tax hits. Of course, it's a never-ending war between who's a "good" and "bad" industry which is why if you study the lobbying industry, they like to spread their money out between the parties. After all, you never know when one side is going to be out of favor and if you don't have an "in" with the new boss in town ... well, you're going to have a dickens of a time doing business until the next cycle or you're looking at having to spend a LOT of money trying to buy your way into the new guy's pocket.

It's a sick system and the pols all get rich out of it.

reply to post by irishchic

....perhaps they need to focus on a similar lifestyle instead of insisting the rest of us eat like goats (aka anything edible)....

Don't insult goats! They are actually picky eaters.

Goats DO NOT eat tin cans or garbage. It is thought this rumor came about as goats may have been frequently seen eating labels off of cans to get at the tasty glue. They are actually very picky eaters. Goats can survive on land that would starve cattle and sheep, due to their selective browsing habits and the wide range of plants they will eat. swampyacresfarm.com...

reply to post by FlyersFan


This is a HOAX. It uses the same language as the Affordable Care Act attempting to draw an analogy between healthcare and food redistribution. Its premises is flawed though and logically could not work as it is saying. The complexities and the ridiculousness of tracking every food item and categorizing it according to the value of it is insane.

reply to post by Metaphysique


Well, I'll see your quote and correction, and raise you one.

It actually seems we're both wrong. Hoover didn't say it either. The Republican Party tag lined it as a slogan in the 1928 presidential election ..but 'ol Herbert doesn't appear to have actually spoken the words. (Much less FDR..my bad there)

We’ve worn this out. Bottom line: “A chicken in every pot” was a Republican promise of better days ahead in 1928, but was not from a Hoover speech. It purportedly added, “And a car in every backyard, to boot.”

According to the Internet reference, my Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations and The Dictionary of Clichés by James Rogers say it is “reported” that Henri IV (King of France from 1589 to 1610) said, “I want there to be no peasant in my realm so poor that he will not have a chicken in his pot every Sunday.”

And there you have it.

Source

...and who says we never learn new things at ATS, eh?

I think this is likely a hoax. Nevertheless, I will throw in my 2 cents worth.

I do not believe that the rich should subsidize food for the poor. Instead, junk food (including fast food) should be taxed at a higher rate and that tax revenue should go to subsidize the cost of healthy foods. It would make people reconsider before buying more ice cream, cookies, surgery sodas, etc... It is those junk food enthusiasts who cost the rest of us so much in health care expenses...with their diabetes, cardiovascular disease, morbid obesity, etc...It only makes sense that the junk food addicts foot the bill for the burden they place on society....meanwhile, this will bring down the cost of healthy food; thus allowing for more of the poor (the same ones who buy the junk food) to afford healthy options.

Kali74
Maybe it's time for "American Corporations" to pick up their share of the load...

Maybe it's time for certain Americans to stop making babies that they can't afford.
Maybe it's time for certain Americans to stop being dead beat dads.
Maybe it's time for certain Americans to pick up their share of the load and make better choices.
Maybe it's time for certain Americans to stop abusing the system.

When people need legitimate help, working Americans voluntarily help those in need.
But the fact is that massive numbers of people sucking off the system think they are
entitled to take what they haven't earned and they think they can make bad choices
and that Americans will just continue to throw money at them.

It isn't the responsibility of business to give money away.
It's not their purpose.
The whole reason a company is in business is to make a profit.
And there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good thing to be successful.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Wait, what????? The Govt may be working on a law that tells the people what they must do and not do, otherwise be fined....er taxed....uh fined.....


Nah, can't be.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well it is coming, here in neck of the woods the government is cutting the welfare food program, overall billions of dollars nation while.

Obama no soo loving of the poor and welfare mothers after all.

I was fascinated by the TV interviews in my neck of the wood, of healthy big women with 5 and more children wearing long fake nails, hair extensions and gold looking jewelry including many rings complaining about how the cuts will leave them and their children without food.

The problem with many American poor people is that they are a generation of born into welfare system, they think welfare is their right, when welfare is a service at the expenses of the working productive class in the nation, like all the services provided by the government.

In other lame words, somebody have to work their butt off and pay taxes in other for them to get "their free stuff'

reply to post by LeatherNLace


Instead of just taxing an raising the cost of junk food, how about lowering the cost of foods that are actually GOOD for you???

reply to post by marg6043


A long time ago I figured out I was working to support an entire family I didn't even KNOW.

So who gets the "Thanks" and the Vote? the @#$%&* politician who STOLE my money!

This is straight out of the Fabian Socialists play book. George Bernard Shaw, co-founder of the Fabian Society stated:
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

Paul should read Shaws plans for him after his usefulness is over.

“We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living...A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics
Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.

“The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way.
Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.
www.scribd.com...–-Fabian-Socialist-and-Hitlerian-Advocate-of-Mass-Murder

Eugenics was part of the Fabian philosophy from the get go.
Guardian UK Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left's closet

How eugenics poisoned the welfare state A century ago many leading leftists subscribed to the vile pseudo-science of eugenics, writes Dennis Sewell, and the influence of that thinking can still be seen today

Huxley and Eugenics

reply to post by HomerinNC

Or, how about the Govt let people make their own choices and stop trying to social engineer us?

I like that option better. It doesn't involve taking from someone to give to another.

reply to post by macman


I agree 100% Mac, but id like to see fresh food prices lower myself, I'd rather eat healthy, but its hard on a fixed budget...

reply to post by FlyersFan


It sounds like WIC to me. I see signs at my grocery store that say, "WIC Approved" -- meaning people on WIC can buy that item with their WIC benefits.

Who knows, maybe this is legit and we'll start seeing real government cheese?

reply to post by marg6043


Yeah, I was talking with my folks and they mentioned having seen an interview like that, too. The gal being interviewed was complaining that her SNAP was being reduced from $1,100 to about $1007 or so per month for she and her child and she just didn't know what to do about it ...

I was like cry me a river. We feed a family of three on $400/month, and our taxes are paying for the two of them to have more.

No only that people think they earn their welfare but the sad reality is that the government is planning right now to add more millions to that same welfare that they are cutting with the immigration bill.

Does anybody remember that commercial in the late 70s and 80s that used to go by "were one eats 2 eats, where 2 eats 3 eats and so on and on until the plentiful plate of the first two turns into nothing but crumbs by the time it reached the end of the commercial

It seemed a commercial for birth control but I am sure that it was also for the welfare system also.

Just remember to thank big brother for raising chocolate rations to 20 grammes a week.

What a great way to control the farmers that get subsidies. GMC's will be readily available soon. Monsanto anyone? Let there be a bio,chem or nuke attack against the food supply and see how fast it is enacted...or economic collapse as is still occurring even after multiple bail outs.

How can anyone NOT think this could happen with the current state of affairs. It is the next logical step. SNAP has doubled in 10 years. It is about control. Who knows, maybe in the PPACA there is something about what you can and cannot eat to qualify. Oh wait, there is....

link

Screening and counseling for obesity has to be covered with no patient cost-sharing (co-payments, co-insurance or deductibles) by most insurers under the preventive services benefit of the Affordable Care Act, says Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the national trade association representing the health insurance industry. Medicare is already covering this service.

It's a part of the law that many plans have put into action already and more will continue to add by January of 2014. Under a provision of the law, some grandfathered plans don't have to cover obesity screening and treatment if they haven't changed their overall coverage since 2010 when the law was passed.

So, for the plans that have to cover obesity, if a health care provider screens a patient's BMI (body mass index, a number that takes into account height and weight) and determines that the patient is obese, then the provider may offer initial weight-loss guidance and refer the patient to a professional service.

I was arguing with a well-meaning, but completely down the bend progressive friend of mine over Obamacare. His position was that the government absolutely had the right to step in force everyone to buy insurance because the government spends so much money in the health care market already so that they have a large financial interest and it would constitute interstate commerce because of it and thus was constitutional. He was using arguments made by leading progressive lawyers to back him up on this.

I pointed out that if the government used that rational and won, what sectors of the economy doesn't the government has a large financial stake in? Thanks to large entitlement programs, the government is deeply involved in housing, food, etc., so by the logic of his argument, their is no sector of the economy the government would be unable to force us to participate in and control.

It took him a while, and he was at least graceful enough to claim that he didn't like it, but that yes, total government control of the economy and forcing us all to participate in it would be entirely constitutional.

That's why I laugh at this thread, but part of me takes it seriously, too. The legal arguments are out there.