What's interesting is that it's different parts of the electorate that get upset. When Republicans wanted to make junk food/soda ineligible for food stamps, Dems got upset. And when Dems wanted to tax large sodas, Republicans/libertarians got upset.

I think the former makes much more sense than the latter, since it is literally being funded by the govt. That's a reasonable first step, or possibly only step, especially considering that most people on food stamps are also on govt-funded/subsidized healthcare (meaning taxpayers will end up footing the bill when they require expensive treatments resulting in part from an unhealthy diet).

▲

llm_nerd 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This is a pretty insincere take.

▲

apparent 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Feel free to elaborate on my alleged insincerity. Was I insincere in noticing that there are partisan patterns at play, or insincere when pointing out that the govt should have more control over govt-run/taxpayer funded programs, as opposed to transactions between private parties?

I am sincerely curious to know your opinion.

▲

llm_nerd 4 hours ago | parent [-]

A "sin tax" on unhealthy products impacts everyone equally. The Republican plan has absolutely nothing to do with health (and they've thankfully barely even tried to pretend it is, instead just going with a "well why should they get treats?" punitive angle), and everything to do with punching down. It's amazing that there are tens of millions of terrible people in the US who will vote for staggering levels of corruption, self-dealing, stupidity, and incompetence so long as those people will punch down on the right people.

As LBJ correctly observed - "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." It's amazing how punching down can get votes.

EDIT: insincere guy, who seriously tried to pretend that it's "partisan" to find a difference between those initiatives -- one predicated on health concerns, the other on punching down -- is now crying for moderation assistance because I quoted a US president, in a situation that is perfectly applicable to exactly this policy that they are laughably trying to equivocate.

Howler troll behaviour.

	▲	apparent 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Replying to your edit: Amazing that you again allege insincerity, with zero evidence. You then go on to make false claims about what I said and avoid the obvious point that my problem is not with the historical figure that you quoted, but the fact that you injected race into a conversation that was about food. As for whether you violate the HN guidelines, the number of your recent comments that are greyed out tends to indicate that I'm not the only one who thinks you're out of step here.
	▲	weberer 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You obviously do not know what the word "sincere" means. Please look it up before posting further.
	▲	apparent 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		How does any of this make my comment insincere? Even if I agreed with it, I wouldn't understand how it proves your original accusation. I also don't love your injection of flame-bait racial comments, which probably violate HN guidelines.