President-elect Trump's appointments part II

[Huckleberry]

Good.

Americans on food stamps could be banned from buying ‘bad food and sugary drinks,’ Trump USDA chief says

“When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are we OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious?”…

nypost.com

I can support this to a point. We need to recognize that food deserts exist for many people, so choices for some might be limited. Also, it should be noted that everyone doesn't have the time, skills, and/or equipment to prepare some foods. Food stamp recipients usually have to choose the less expensive options, and these are often processed items.

I'd like to see the list of "bad foods" that is eventually developed. A ban on drinks containing sugar (not 100% fruit juices, though from a sugar/calorie perspective, those aren't all that great either) and prepared deserts sounds reasonable. Frozen pizza and other easy to prepare items are a different story.

 

[UAH]

This. When I was at the Capstone I worked at a grocery store for spending money. The store I worked at was down on the south end of Greensboro Ave in a somewhat impoverished area, at least at that time in the late 70's.

I estimate that the number of food stamp customers was probably 50% or more of the total customers. I distinctly remember the carts full of 2-liter soft drinks, cookies, candy, etc. Some of our best cuts of meat were sold to food stamp recipients, while the others that had to pay cash bought flour in twenty pound bags, bought hamburger meat, etc.

I believe that those on public assistance need good nutrition and should not be shamed over taking assistance but there needs to be some guidance or something to spend the money more wisely, or better, more nutritious food.

We have shopped at Walmart for a few items and are now seriously looking at stopping as their quality has quite obviously declined. Each time we are there it is easy to spot the foodstamp recipients with their carts stacked to the top including cuts of meat we would never consider buying.

We are remodeling an investment property to place on the market a women stops by with three children in her car. I have a $2,500 housing allowance and am looking for a place to rent.

It is obvious that all of this needs careful review. Do I expect this administration to accomplish much in this area without at least equal or greater handouts to the wealthy? NO!!!

 

[Crimson1967]

I can support this to a point. We need to recognize that food deserts exist for many people, so choices for some might be limited. Also, it should be noted that everyone doesn't have the time, skills, and/or equipment to prepare some foods. Food stamp recipients usually have to choose the less expensive options, and these are often processed items.

I'd like to see the list of "bad foods" that is eventually developed. A ban on drinks containing sugar (not 100% fruit juices, though from a sugar/calorie perspective, those aren't all that great either) and prepared deserts sounds reasonable. Frozen pizza and other easy to prepare items are a different story.

I agree we don’t need to go overboard with this. Eliminating soda, cookies, etc is fine. Frozen pizza probably isn’t super-nutritious but I have no problem with it being food stamp eligible.

 

[Jon]

Good.

Americans on food stamps could be banned from buying ‘bad food and sugary drinks,’ Trump USDA chief says

“When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are we OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious?”…

nypost.com

I see none of y'all watched the video I posted yesterday that fully explains that all of these programs, like WIC while helping people are actually fully farm subsidies. The reason they can buy sugary things is because the corn lobby, the reason they get more milk than they can consume is the dairy lobby etc. Look at what these programs allow and then do the math, all y'all been complaining about "special interests lobbying" for decades, what do you think they were lobbying for?

This admin is perfectly happy to cut the poor off but they are also starving family farms to give large agribusiness, hedge funds and developers the opportunity to swoop in and buy them out. Just watch this is a perfect storm for it. But cheer along and be ready to PPV Farm Aid 2026, not that it will matter

 

[UAH]

Good.

Americans on food stamps could be banned from buying ‘bad food and sugary drinks,’ Trump USDA chief says

“When a taxpayer is putting money into SNAP, are we OK with us using their tax dollars to feed really bad food and sugary drinks to children who perhaps need something more nutritious?”…

nypost.com

Easy to say much more difficult to implement. Create a permanent bureauracy to identify foods that are subject to the ban. Require grocers to program into their systems the codes of disallowed foods. Then the manufacturers change brands or ingredients to avoid the ban and it starts all over. Grocers love food stamps it is just cash to them! Easier to reduce food stamp allowances and recipients than micro manage it I think. Then there are the same farmers already impacted by USAID in red states!

 

[crimsonaudio]

Easy to say much more difficult to implement. Create a permanent bureauracy to identify foods that are subject to the ban. Require grocers to program into their systems the codes of disallowed foods. Then the manufacturers change brands or ingredients to avoid the ban and it starts all over. Grocers love food stamps it is just cash to them! Easier to reduce food stamp allowances and recipients than micro manage it I think. Then there are the same farmers already impacted by USAID in red states!

The WIC system works well, and it's even more restricted.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I see none of y'all watched the video I posted yesterday that fully explains that all of these programs, like WIC while helping people are actually fully farm subsidies. The reason they can buy sugary things is because the corn lobby, the reason they get more milk than they can consume is the dairy lobby etc. Look at what these programs allow and then do the math, all y'all been complaining about "special interests lobbying" for decades, what do you think they were lobbying for?

I'm 100% for eliminating virtually all government subsidies. I'm also on record saying lobbying should be illegal.

We'll never clean up the government as long as for-profit (above all else) groups/companies can buy votes.

 

[dtgreg]

I can support this to a point. We need to recognize that food deserts exist for many people, so choices for some might be limited. Also, it should be noted that everyone doesn't have the time, skills, and/or equipment to prepare some foods. Food stamp recipients usually have to choose the less expensive options, and these are often processed items.

I'd like to see the list of "bad foods" that is eventually developed. A ban on drinks containing sugar (not 100% fruit juices, though from a sugar/calorie perspective, those aren't all that great either) and prepared deserts sounds reasonable. Frozen pizza and other easy to prepare items are a different story.

If they have the guts to ban High Fructose Corn Syrup and put a tax on sugar, I'll be impressed.

 

[Jon]

I'm 100% for eliminating virtually all government subsidies. I'm also on record saying lobbying should be illegal.

We'll never clean up the government as long as for-profit (above all else) groups/companies can buy votes.

but you know it is incredibly naive to think we can just turn the spigot off and damn the consequences, as we are doing, right? This isn't me saying Monsanto or any of the other agri-giants should continue to get billions to grow/not grow whatever, this is about Ma and Pa Kent who've leveraged the farm to buy the next John Deer because they know that the corn subsidy has their back enough to scrape by and make the payments. We are yanking that rug and it is going to be a s-show

 

[dtgreg]

If they have the guts to ban High Fructose Corn Syrup and put a tax on sugar, I'll be impressed.

Narrator: "They did not".

 

[arthurdawg]

Has there been back-pedaling? I read where he said on Fox that he wouldn't take away anyone's vaccines, but it seemed he would continue to push his views through misinformation and fear-mongering.

From the February 11th Washington Post (I'm running out of gift articles for the month):

In at least 34 appearances, Kennedy called for placebo-controlled studies for vaccines that have already been approved for use, The Post found in a review of more than 400 of Kennedy’s podcast appearances, interviews and public speeches since 2020. In his push for vaccine safety, Kennedy has repeatedly falsely linked vaccines to deaths without evidence, saying “that’s the danger of not having placebo-controlled trials.”


“What [Kennedy] does is he repeats this and it sounds important, it sounds like why would we not develop the safety data?” Hughes said. “And lawmakers sometimes buy into that and say ‘Well, why shouldn’t we have the safety data?’ But the fact is we already have the safety data. And we have these robust systems for continuously monitoring vaccines.”

Truncated the article, but yes, we have reams of good data on vaccine safety and efficacy.

The idea promulgated by Vinay Prasad and others that we we need placebo controlled studies is ludicrous.

Ugh.

Show me some data that actually show all of the detrimental effects claimed by the anti-vaccine movement and I'll certainly be willing to talk, but it does not exist.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Show me some data that actually show all of the detrimental effects claimed by the anti-vaccine movement and I'll certainly be willing to talk, but it does not exist.

Unfortunately, the Clueless Posse has internet sign-ons and passwords and like to pull the old "but I'm just asking questions" fallacy, when they don't even stick around for the answer. I swear, I don't know what happened to my prom date from a century gone by, but posting the "50 years ago only 1 in X had autism and now it's one in 36," but not having the courage to COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY, "vaccines cause autism" is the kind of......you know, with the new rules I can't even say it without finding trouble.

Two responses to any poor anti-vaxxers who come by Tidefans:

1) Yes, we have more positive autism now because we are TESTING more now - I'd think a Trump defender who lived through Covid and said those very words would understand the concept of "you get more positives because you're testing for it more."

2) If vaccines caused autism then nobody who was NOT vaxed would have autism. But (buckle up), the NIH (whom you folks cite when it's convenient - without reading it) points out the RATE OF AUTISM is NO DIFFERENT in the vaxxed and unvaxxed.....which makes no sense if vaccines cause it.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Unfortunately, the Clueless Posse has internet sign-ons and passwords and like to pull the old "but I'm just asking questions" fallacy, when they don't even stick around for the answer. I swear, I don't know what happened to my prom date from a century gone by, but posting the "50 years ago only 1 in X had autism and now it's one in 36," but not having the courage to COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY, "vaccines cause autism" is the kind of......you know, with the new rules I can't even say it without finding trouble.

Two responses to any poor anti-vaxxers who come by Tidefans:

1) Yes, we have more positive autism now because we are TESTING more now - I'd think a Trump defender who lived through Covid and said those very words would understand the concept of "you get more positives because you're testing for it more."

2) If vaccines caused autism then nobody who was NOT vaxed would have autism. But (buckle up), the NIH (whom you folks cite when it's convenient - without reading it) points out the RATE OF AUTISM is NO DIFFERENT in the vaxxed and unvaxxed.....which makes no sense if vaccines cause it.

Thank you.

I believe any increase in autistic spectrum issues stem from food-borne crap that's GRAS by the FDA.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Unfortunately, the Clueless Posse has internet sign-ons and passwords and like to pull the old "but I'm just asking questions" fallacy, when they don't even stick around for the answer. I swear, I don't know what happened to my prom date from a century gone by, but posting the "50 years ago only 1 in X had autism and now it's one in 36," but not having the courage to COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY, "vaccines cause autism" is the kind of......you know, with the new rules I can't even say it without finding trouble.

Two responses to any poor anti-vaxxers who come by Tidefans:

1) Yes, we have more positive autism now because we are TESTING more now - I'd think a Trump defender who lived through Covid and said those very words would understand the concept of "you get more positives because you're testing for it more."

2) If vaccines caused autism then nobody who was NOT vaxed would have autism. But (buckle up), the NIH (whom you folks cite when it's convenient - without reading it) points out the RATE OF AUTISM is NO DIFFERENT in the vaxxed and unvaxxed.....which makes no sense if vaccines cause it.

According to the antivax people, vaccines cause autism, cancer, heart disease, Thursday, auburn being good at basketball, homelessness, unemployment, ED, divorce, and uga fans.

 

[Huckleberry]

Thank you.

I believe any increase in autistic spectrum issues stem from food-borne crap that's GRAS by the FDA.

Are you referring to PPA found in many processed foods? Since there seems to be evidence of a link, more research certainly needs to be done in that area. Of course, with medical research on the chopping block these days, the likelihood of it occurring might be in doubt.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Are you referring to PPA found in many processed foods? Since there seems to be evidence of a link, more research certainly needs to be done in that area. Of course, with medical research on the chopping block these days, the likelihood of it occurring might be in doubt.

I'm referring to tons of chemicals, artificial flavorings, colorings, etc that the FDA rates GRAS yet are banned by virtually every other developed nation: artificial food colorings (Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 3 (until 2027), Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6), BVO, rBGH, rBST, Potassium bromate, Potassium Iodate, BHA, BHT, ADA, BPA, Glyphosate, etc., etc...

 

[Huckleberry]

I'm referring to tons of chemicals, artificial flavorings, colorings, etc that the FDA rates GRAS yet are banned by virtually every other developed nation: artificial food colorings (Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 3 (until 2027), Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6), BVO, rBGH, rBST, Potassium bromate, Potassium Iodate, BHA, BHT, ADA, BPA, Glyphosate, etc., etc...

I'm not aware of any studies linking anything other than PPA to autism, though I can understand a general dislike of current US policy regarding GRAS.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I'm not aware of any studies linking anything other than PPA to autism, though I can understand a general dislike of current US policy regarding GRAS.

I think there's a good chance the combinations of these chemicals have caused a lot of issues we're unaware of.

 

[Huckleberry]

I think there's a good chance the combinations of these chemicals have caused a lot of issues we're unaware of.

Maybe so, but I'd need to see scientific evidence before agreeing to any causation.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Maybe so, but I'd need to see scientific evidence before agreeing to any causation.

Easier to simply eliminate the unnatural garbage from our food supply and reap the benefits, imo.

Whether or not they are directly connected to autism isn't really my point - the point is the FDA has allowed garbage in our food for ages, and only people who are aware and financially able have been able to avoid them.

But it's interesting to me that as our processed food intake has risen dramatically so has the instances of diagnoses on the spectrum.