Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: SNAP Recipients Fight Back In Junk Food Crackdown [View all]Cirsium
(4,067 posts)125. That isn't what being a Democrat is for
Being a Democrat is not for scolding and lecturing those who are less fortunate. It is not for punching down.
For out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital all undreamed of by the fathers the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service.
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.
It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.
The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age other peoples money these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.
Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.
Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.
An old English judge1 once said: Necessitous men are not free men. Liberty requires opportunity to make a living a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other peoples property, other peoples money, other peoples labor other peoples lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
FDR
Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa., June 27, 1936
There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things.
It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.
The hours men and women worked, the wages they received, the conditions of their labor these had passed beyond the control of the people, and were imposed by this new industrial dictatorship. The savings of the average family, the capital of the small business man, the investments set aside for old age other peoples money these were tools which the new economic royalty used to dig itself in.
Those who tilled the soil no longer reaped the rewards which were their right. The small measure of their gains was decreed by men in distant cities.
Throughout the Nation, opportunity was limited by monopoly. Individual initiative was crushed in the cogs of a great machine. The field open for free business was more and more restricted. Private enterprise, indeed, became too private. It became privileged enterprise, not free enterprise.
An old English judge1 once said: Necessitous men are not free men. Liberty requires opportunity to make a living a living decent according to the standard of the time, a living which gives man not only enough to live by, but something to live for.
For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other peoples property, other peoples money, other peoples labor other peoples lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness.
FDR
Acceptance Speech for the Renomination for the Presidency, Philadelphia, Pa., June 27, 1936
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
178 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Just give them the fucking money. They spend more money "discussing" it than it costs.
twodogsbarking
Mar 12
#2
It is, and always has been, about control, shaming, and, to a great degree, misogyny,
niyad
Mar 12
#11
My sympathies would revolve around a better understanding of "access food", "manage health conditions" and......
FadedMullet
Mar 12
#3
These rules would prevent a family from using SNAP to buy a birthday cake for their kids.
SunSeeker
Mar 12
#9
Did my post just get called ridiculous by someone claiming that "food is free"?
Oliver Bolliver Butt
Mar 13
#96
I'm not against junk food restrictions but I support an increase in the amount provided as eating healthy isn't cheap.
cstanleytech
Mar 12
#8
Many poor people lack kitchens in which to whip up those great recipes from scratch with all their helpful vitamins.
CTyankee
Mar 13
#54
This doesn't stop them from buying TV dinners and macaroni and cheese and other easy quick Foods
EX500rider
Mar 13
#64
As taxpayers we pick up a lot of people who have unhealthy life styles for a lot of different reasons.
CTyankee
Mar 20
#165
But we don't have to underwrite or contribute to those unhealthy life styles IMO
EX500rider
Mar 20
#166
I may not like everything that a recipient of taxpayers' money chooses to eat. Offering healthy alternatives is an
CTyankee
Mar 21
#172
Yes which is why produce is a good area to provide more money to spend on as you don't need to cook salads.
cstanleytech
Mar 13
#68
A great point. The issue is how we get such foods to those who need, but can't afford to buy, those food items.
CTyankee
Mar 13
#73
That's a very sensible suggestion. Basicallly, a CARE box (I think we used to send those boxes to victims of disasters).
CTyankee
Mar 21
#173
Unless it involves blocks of the same cheese they gave out 40+ years ago as that is the opposite of care.
cstanleytech
Mar 21
#178
"The five plaintiffs--who live in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia..."
BaronChocula
Mar 12
#10
Starting April 1, Texas also will ban SNAP purchases of many drinks that use artificial sweeteners.
Celerity
Mar 13
#55
That's an entirely different issue though but it's one that does need to be addressed urgently IMO.
cstanleytech
Mar 13
#69
I understand your point. I was thinking that the "Other sons-a-####"" would stop trashing the poor..
chouchou
Mar 13
#50
Unfortunately, your words are true. I keep hoping that mostly people are kind, fair and just.
chouchou
Mar 13
#58
Where does it say "fresh food"? It says no "candy and sugary drinks" That would leave tons of options..
EX500rider
Mar 13
#51
90 billion dollars the defense department wasted on lobster, crab and steak 🥩
questionseverything
Mar 13
#82
Sure there was some furniture, ice cream machines, musical instruments and
questionseverything
Mar 13
#92
I think a snickers or a Reeces has more protein than chips or pastries
questionseverything
Mar 13
#95
Most folks on snap have to supplement it with food pantry items or cash
questionseverything
Mar 13
#93
This is nothing more than the continaution of Ronald Reagan and the "welfare queen driving Cadillacs"
radicalleft
Mar 13
#91
Obviously you don't need to use the gas station/ convenience store grocery
questionseverything
Mar 15
#128
Nothing is the way it was 20-30 years ago so spare me the " walked uphill in the snow " stories
questionseverything
Mar 15
#130
Wouldn't hurt for American families to learn some new habits in what they cook and do a palate adjustment?
Aussie105
Mar 18
#148
A family member temporarily lost medical assistance because they missed including documentation for payments totaling
Alice B.
Mar 20
#164