I'm just trying to understand why you are painting the suburbs as the ideal. Suburbanites have very unhealthy lifestyles for the most part.
I thought bashing cities was a MAGA thing.
i lived in one small city where there were zero groceries in the city limits.
i lived in one major city where the local groceries had tiny postage stamps for produce areas. like maybe 2-3 of those box-carts on wheels. no diet drinks. no low sodium choices. nothing you'd see in a suburban natural foods section. plenty of faux fruit drink. plenty of chips. this is the grocery store to choose from -- not their own choices.
you are pretending they are given choices for food they are not.
you are trying to politicize stuff where there are far worse problems with food than what people can afford on SNAP.
What you're talking about is the difference between rich and poor areas, not the difference urban and rural/suburban. I'm not sure why you're trying to frame it as the latter.
This is not SNAP related and I am of the belief that there should be a major overall of the program and not allow the purchases of soda and candy, or limit that in the very least.
Again, unrelated, but how does the MAHA movement and RFK Jr reconcile their beliefs with Trump's loosening of environmental laws, some of which are intended to protect the air that we breathe and the water that we drink. I would like to hear RFK opine on that. It seems that those measures run counter to the MAHA edict.
they don't reconcile the environment with public health because this isn't about public health, it's a cruel welfare constraint posing as caring about them.
they don't really give 2 sh*ts about public health based on covid, where every time business or church hits public health they want health to give way.
this is a marketing campaign against welfare pretending they give a crap.
it's kind of like at least some of the people campaigning against some books in libraries really just want the libraries shut down as socialism, and they just decided that book banning and such were a way to undermine public confidence in an otherwise well loved institution.
i lived in one small city where there were zero groceries in the city limits.
i lived in one major city where the local groceries had tiny postage stamps for produce areas. like maybe 2-3 of those box-carts on wheels. no diet drinks. no low sodium choices. nothing you'd see in a suburban natural foods section. plenty of faux fruit drink. plenty of chips. this is the grocery store to choose from -- not their own choices.
you are pretending they are given choices for food they are not.
you are trying to politicize stuff where there are far worse problems with food than what people can afford on SNAP.
What you're talking about is the difference between rich and poor areas, not the difference urban and rural/suburban. I'm not sure why you're trying to frame it as the latter.
this is some stupid semantics argument. "but it's really rich vs. poor." ok, scrub, do you plan on providing adequate grocery stores to the poor, where this is more than just a fake, superficial welfare constraint, as opposed to actually feeding them better?
and, dunce, you are more likely to find "poor" people in cities and the sticks. your semantics bore me. you're pretending to some sort of genericized "all things are equal" world where we would have to search the whole country for poor people to feed.
it's fake, if you started with the suburbs in your pseudo-scientific pose you'd waste a lot of time searching for food deserts. any idiot knows start with the cities and rural areas.
i repeat, you are wanting to make policies like everyone lives in well-groceried suburbs with suburban salaries.
What you're talking about is the difference between rich and poor areas, not the difference urban and rural/suburban. I'm not sure why you're trying to frame it as the latter.
this is some stupid semantics argument. "but it's really rich vs. poor." ok, scrub, do you plan on providing adequate grocery stores to the poor, where this is more than just a fake, superficial welfare constraint, as opposed to actually feeding them better?
and, dunce, you are more likely to find "poor" people in cities and the sticks. your semantics bore me. you're pretending to some sort of genericized "all things are equal" world where we would have to search the whole country for poor people to feed.
it's fake, if you started with the suburbs in your pseudo-scientific pose you'd waste a lot of time searching for food deserts. any idiot knows start with the cities and rural areas.
i repeat, you are wanting to make policies like everyone lives in well-groceried suburbs with suburban salaries.
How is "people who want coke can buy it themselves" a policy that implies that "everyone lives in well-groceried suburbs with suburban salaries?"
quit pretending you care about the children. you ended subsidies for free school breakfasts. DOGE also ended funding for head start, which does pre-K preschool in poorer areas.
all this is, is a disguised bit of welfare cruelty.
I’m not even sure why this is controversial. It’s a nutrition assistance program.
Because everything in America coming from any level of politics/governance has to be controversial so some group can claim prejudice, racism, discrimination, hate etc against them that they try and leverage into some form of compensation/reparation.
The reality is you are 100% correct and this should have been thought out and in place decades ago.
There already is. SNAP is already abused every day.
It’s true. I purchase about $800 of SNAP for $300 each month from a neighbor.
So what you are saying is that the SNAP will lose “market” value since it won’t be good to buy anything. it seems that you will now be able to pay $280 for the $800 of SNAP
this is some stupid semantics argument. "but it's really rich vs. poor." ok, scrub, do you plan on providing adequate grocery stores to the poor, where this is more than just a fake, superficial welfare constraint, as opposed to actually feeding them better?
and, dunce, you are more likely to find "poor" people in cities and the sticks. your semantics bore me. you're pretending to some sort of genericized "all things are equal" world where we would have to search the whole country for poor people to feed.
it's fake, if you started with the suburbs in your pseudo-scientific pose you'd waste a lot of time searching for food deserts. any idiot knows start with the cities and rural areas.
i repeat, you are wanting to make policies like everyone lives in well-groceried suburbs with suburban salaries.
How is "people who want coke can buy it themselves" a policy that implies that "everyone lives in well-groceried suburbs with suburban salaries?"
i repeat myself, suburban groceries are different than inner city ones.
since you're struggling with this, imagine a grocery store that's more like a glorified drug store. a bunch of snacks and drinks. not a lot of produce, meat, and what you want them buying.
you want to place the choice on them. walk in that grocery store and come out with the good stuff.
my wife bought a house in a mediocre area on the edge of a bad one. i moved in with her. if i go to nearby stores in the worse part, i can't get whole lists of the healthy food i try to eat.
at that point it occurs to sensible people, hmmm, this is more complicated than they are selling......
but you were busy pretending not to understand me.
40% of snap goes to children. It is weird that people think children should starve in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
Uh I dunno, instead of starving could they just not eat healthier food?
The impacts of poor diet on the health and development of children in particular is well known. Obesity, diabetes, neurological and behavioral impact, oral hygiene - where do you want to start.
Is it so bad to learn to eat an apple than a KitKat? The f--- is wrong with you people?
I’m not even sure why this is controversial. It’s a nutrition assistance program.
Because everything in America coming from any level of politics/governance has to be controversial so some group can claim prejudice, racism, discrimination, hate etc against them that they try and leverage into some form of compensation/reparation.
The reality is you are 100% correct and this should have been thought out and in place decades ago.
are you really this dense? why does a suburban school have a 1200 SAT and a city or rural one have a 900? and then the private school is 1400. we can pretend that is "talent." but a kid moving from one "talent" to the other magically gets smarter overnight.
so, do you plan on providing equivalent grocery stores to poor people as wealthy, or do you just want to chat about race while denying you're doing it? i mean, i knew plenty of suburban kids who used the n___ word in school who would now deny they are racists.
40% of snap goes to children. It is weird that people think children should starve in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
Uh I dunno, instead of starving could they just not eat healthier food?
The impacts of poor diet on the health and development of children in particular is well known. Obesity, diabetes, neurological and behavioral impact, oral hygiene - where do you want to start.
Is it so bad to learn to eat an apple than a KitKat? The f--- is wrong with you people?
what you're struggling with is the inner city grocery i went to had limited produce bins but they make sure they have the candy bars.
How is "people who want coke can buy it themselves" a policy that implies that "everyone lives in well-groceried suburbs with suburban salaries?"
i repeat myself, suburban groceries are different than inner city ones.
since you're struggling with this, imagine a grocery store that's more like a glorified drug store. a bunch of snacks and drinks. not a lot of produce, meat, and what you want them buying.
you want to place the choice on them. walk in that grocery store and come out with the good stuff.
my wife bought a house in a mediocre area on the edge of a bad one. i moved in with her. if i go to nearby stores in the worse part, i can't get whole lists of the healthy food i try to eat.
at that point it occurs to sensible people, hmmm, this is more complicated than they are selling......
but you were busy pretending not to understand me.
Again, this is an issue of rich and poor places, not a matter of suburban vs urban. My neighborhood is urban and has plenty of access to healthy, fresh food.
How can you claim to be trying to do anything meaningful about an issue when you clearly have so little understanding of it?
Uh I dunno, instead of starving could they just not eat healthier food?
The impacts of poor diet on the health and development of children in particular is well known. Obesity, diabetes, neurological and behavioral impact, oral hygiene - where do you want to start.
Is it so bad to learn to eat an apple than a KitKat? The f--- is wrong with you people?
what you're struggling with is the inner city grocery i went to had limited produce bins but they make sure they have the candy bars.
The poor places don't want healthy food. Rice and beans is "boring" but cheap and healthy. Add some chicken and other vegetables and it's a good meal.
to underline the hypocrisy here, aren't you the same folks who just voted to end the covid era subsidies schools were using to give free breakfasts to children before school?
The covid closures are long over. No reason we should still have covid subsidies. Do we still have polio subsidies? Also, aren't those the same subsidies that were used to defraud taxpayers out of at least 9b in one city to fund terrorism ?
buy something with SNAP and trade that “something” for candy, soda…
There is already a barter economy around SNAP tbh, people literally trade their food stamp allowances for drugs (a minority of total recipients obviously, but it still happens).
i repeat myself, suburban groceries are different than inner city ones.
since you're struggling with this, imagine a grocery store that's more like a glorified drug store. a bunch of snacks and drinks. not a lot of produce, meat, and what you want them buying.
you want to place the choice on them. walk in that grocery store and come out with the good stuff.
my wife bought a house in a mediocre area on the edge of a bad one. i moved in with her. if i go to nearby stores in the worse part, i can't get whole lists of the healthy food i try to eat.
at that point it occurs to sensible people, hmmm, this is more complicated than they are selling......
but you were busy pretending not to understand me.
Again, this is an issue of rich and poor places, not a matter of suburban vs urban. My neighborhood is urban and has plenty of access to healthy, fresh food.
How can you claim to be trying to do anything meaningful about an issue when you clearly have so little understanding of it?
We’re dealing with semantics here. I believe that “suburban” grocery stores is being used more by the OP to denote grocery stores that are in areas that are wealthier while he’s using “inner city” to denote grocery stores in less wealthy areas.
I live in Lincoln Park within the city of Chicago. It’s a middle class to upper middle class neighborhood. If I shop here or in nearby Lakeview there are plenty of stores with good produce and groceries. If I venture over to West Garfield Park, also in the city of Chicago, my choices will be more limited.
It’s true. I purchase about $800 of SNAP for $300 each month from a neighbor.
So what you are saying is that the SNAP will lose “market” value since it won’t be good to buy anything. it seems that you will now be able to pay $280 for the $800 of SNAP
“SnapSeconder” is probably exaggerating. That said, there should be tighter controls. I believe that SNAP benefits should only be able to be used by those they were issued to.
We’re dealing with semantics here. I believe that “suburban” grocery stores is being used more by the OP to denote grocery stores that are in areas that are wealthier while he’s using “inner city” to denote grocery stores in less wealthy areas.
Using "suburban" to mean "wealthy" with the implication that "urban" = "poor" is stereotyping and needlessly insulting to the millions of middle class Americans who choose an urban lifestyle. It also just propagates this MAGA narrative that American cities are hellholes and a suburban lifestyle is what everyone is supposed to aspire to.
We’re dealing with semantics here. I believe that “suburban” grocery stores is being used more by the OP to denote grocery stores that are in areas that are wealthier while he’s using “inner city” to denote grocery stores in less wealthy areas.
Using "suburban" to mean "wealthy" with the implication that "urban" = "poor" is stereotyping and needlessly insulting to the millions of middle class Americans who choose an urban lifestyle. It also just propagates this MAGA narrative that American cities are hellholes and a suburban lifestyle is what everyone is supposed to aspire to.
I can’t say that I disagree with you but am not sure that was the OP’s intent.