More states to follow! It was beyond time for this to happen. Another thing happening that was long overdue is Handout takers will need to work/volunteer 20 hours a week to get their Little stipend. Good! You want to take taxpayer money then you will work/volunteer and you will eat healthy. America! Get a job or two, Handouts aren't meant to be given forever. Bootstraps!
How/why would someone be against this? Please explain.
Why would someone be in favor of a nanny state where to government decides what is best for people? It is amazing how much some people are against personal freedom these days.
How/why would someone be against this? Please explain.
Why would someone be in favor of a nanny state where to government decides what is best for people? It is amazing how much some people are against personal freedom these days.
So if I were to be handed $200 that I could use to buy healthy food, you would consider me to be less free than I was prior to receiving the subsidy?
Very much opposed. If people are gifted money they should be free to buy what they want. Not goverment mandated.
Of course snap should not exist in the first place
Please tell us you're joking!!!
SNAP isn't a "gift" you idiot, it's a supplemental food nutrition program that is supposed to assist those who are in need, and is funded through the government. The assistance is meant to be for individuals and families so they can purchase NUTRITIOUS food and beverages, not fast food, candy, soda, alcohol or tobacco products which in turn cause severe health issues which ultimately fall back on the tax payers...LIKE YOU! DUMB-A$$! But then again, you probably don't pay taxes and is just a free-loading loser.
"If people are gifted money (FOR FOOD!) they should be free to buy what they want. Not government mandated.
Sounds like a typical left-wing loser. Why work? Just wait for my SNAP payment to buy a cold 40oz of Ole' English, a bag of BBQ pork rinds, and a pack of Marlboros.
i invite you all to go to an inner city, where there may be no grocery store at all -- my experience one small city -- or the grocery store has a postage stamp produce section, a lot of junk, and few of the "diet" or "low sodium" versions of things you find in the suburbs.
it's like you assume everyone has endless, fully stocked suburban groceries, kroger's, whole foods, etc. my area has a generic crappy store and a walmart. you have to drive out to get decent stores.
and riffing on "drive," have you considered some poor people don't have those "car" thingies to do that? you're stuck with what's within a walk or a bus ride.
When people say "healthy" they don't mean organic stuff from Whole Foods, they mean "not soda and candy and chips" ... walmart chicken, beef, frozen vegetables, shoot, throw in some frozen pizza. That is all covered under SNAP. You can find plenty of stuff to eat on SNAP that isn't soda, chips and candy.
40% of snap goes to children. It is weird that people think children should starve in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.
So to you, eating healthy is the same as starving? Nobody is saying the recipients cant eat, just that benefits wont allow them to spend out money on unhealthy sh!t that will eventually kill them. They can have all the fruits, veggies, grains, protein, etc they want. Nobody is starving. But if it helps your agenda to compare using some of their own money on coke and doritos to starving, then have at it.
What are you talking about the first three posters said snap shouldn’t exist. Sure they are nobodies but not nobody.
Why would someone be in favor of a nanny state where to government decides what is best for people? It is amazing how much some people are against personal freedom these days.
This makes no sense.
We are already talking about a program that taxes the population and redistributes funds to disadvantaged people. Like it or hate it, it's already paternalistic.
You can tinker with the specifics, but this will still be a massive government intervention to support what government decides is best for people.
It makes zero logical sense to then scream "nanny state!" when some rules are put in the program.
If you take SNAP benefits, you’ve already agreed to a system where the government decides who gets money and what counts as eligible food — complaining about ‘nanny state’ rules within that system is like yelling about seatbelts after getting in the car.
How/why would someone be against this? Please explain.
Why would someone be in favor of a nanny state where to government decides what is best for people? It is amazing how much some people are against personal freedom these days.
Some people absolutely love being told what to do, it's so bizarre. I'll never understand republicans
Why would someone be in favor of a nanny state where to government decides what is best for people? It is amazing how much some people are against personal freedom these days.
This makes no sense.
We are already talking about a program that taxes the population and redistributes funds to disadvantaged people. Like it or hate it, it's already paternalistic.
You can tinker with the specifics, but this will still be a massive government intervention to support what government decides is best for people.
It makes zero logical sense to then scream "nanny state!" when some rules are put in the program.
If you take SNAP benefits, you’ve already agreed to a system where the government decides who gets money and what counts as eligible food — complaining about ‘nanny state’ rules within that system is like yelling about seatbelts after getting in the car.
They know this, they just have TDS. You can buy all the soda and candy you want with your own money, unless you are in Berkeley, CA.
We are already talking about a program that taxes the population and redistributes funds to disadvantaged people. Like it or hate it, it's already paternalistic.
You can tinker with the specifics, but this will still be a massive government intervention to support what government decides is best for people.
It makes zero logical sense to then scream "nanny state!" when some rules are put in the program.
If you take SNAP benefits, you’ve already agreed to a system where the government decides who gets money and what counts as eligible food — complaining about ‘nanny state’ rules within that system is like yelling about seatbelts after getting in the car.
They know this, they just have TDS. You can buy all the soda and candy you want with your own money, unless you are in Berkeley, CA.
Why do you want to be told what you're allowed to eat?
All these regulations for the poor and struggling but nothing or rollbacks for corporations. I have to remember corporations are people and most of the time more important in this new world order. We must all ignore the fact that corporate welfare and stealing dwarf the snap program cost.
No, what's' bizarre that you think the government should pay for your Skittles and Mountain Dew.
Be an adult, pay for your own sh!t.
So republicans want to be told that they're not allowed to get Skittles and Mountain Dew with their welfare credits? Why don't they just take some personal responsibility and just not buy them? I honestly don't get why rightwingers get so excited about someone else making decisions for them.
No, what's' bizarre that you think the government should pay for your Skittles and Mountain Dew.
Be an adult, pay for your own sh!t.
So republicans want to be told that they're not allowed to get Skittles and Mountain Dew with their welfare credits? Why don't they just take some personal responsibility and just not buy them? I honestly don't get why rightwingers get so excited about someone else making decisions for them.
Imagine thinking you’re supporting poor people by infantilizing them to the point where you don’t think they should be capable of acquiring skittles without government help. You’re basically calling them subhuman by implying that they have no agency beyond what they are handed by the government.