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.
I don't receive food stamps. I am happy I will no longer have to pay for YOUR junk food, though, yes.
If we place restrictions on how SNAP benefits are spent by individuals, do we extend that to benefits given to corporate bodies?
We bailed out banks and financial institutions during the 2008 housing crisis and we basically witnessed them enrich themselves on our taxpayer dollars.
So if we want the poor Arkansas family to be held accountable, we should hold others as well
Why do you want to be told what you're allowed to eat?
Do you pay for the food yourself, or do handouts pay for your food?
When you don't pay for it yourself, you forfeit choice.
You're assuming people on SNAP don't pay any taxes. An erroneous blanket assumption.
By your logic you would be against choice schools which is generally supported by modern conservatives. You don't pay for school so you should have no choice in where your children go.
buy something with SNAP and trade that “something” for candy, soda…
Of course there will be a black market.
Maybe RFK really wants to help people's health with this move.
But to me it smacks of more let's pick on the poor BS which is business as usual in America but has intensified under the current regime.
So you're saying not only to we have to give people free stuff we have to make sure their self esteem is preserved when their big gulp and super-sized snicker bar purchase is declined?
buy something with SNAP and trade that “something” for candy, soda…
There already is. SNAP is already abused every day.
About 15 years ago, I went to the store with a chick that was on SNAP. We bought some random microwavable food, cheetos, energy drinks, candy, etc. She had a cash portion and a food portion to her benefits. The food benefits paid for 50% of our junk food and the cash portion paid for the other 50%
I grew up with SNAP benefits and now I've repaid them several times over in taxes. At the end of the day, I don't really care what people buy with the portion of my taxes that goes to SNAP; it's such a small amount that it might as well be a rounding error. I would prefer if people bought healthier food, whether with SNAP benefits or not, because a healthier population consumes less healthcare. And to be clear, we already have socialized medicine, it's just done in the most inefficient way imaginable (hospitals are required to treat sick people regardless of their ability to pay, they eat the costs of that care which they're not able to recoup, and charge more to everyone else to compensate). Maybe if we worked to make healthier food more readily available and affordable, there would be less incentive to use benefits on higher bang-for-the-buck (calorically speaking) foods. Anyways, pardon my rant and my gross oversimplification of our healthcare woes.
Maybe RFK really wants to help people's health with this move.
But to me it smacks of more let's pick on the poor BS which is business as usual in America but has intensified under the current regime.
So you're saying not only to we have to give people free stuff we have to make sure their self esteem is preserved when their big gulp and super-sized snicker bar purchase is declined?
No I a saying we are giving Israel billions of $$ every year while a huge % of Americans live in poverty and are having benefits taken away
I grew up with SNAP benefits and now I've repaid them several times over in taxes... I would prefer if people bought healthier food, whether with SNAP benefits or not, because a healthier population consumes less healthcare…
Isn’t “a healthier population consumes less healthcare…” one of the greatest myths? Should people simply stop saying that? Being healthy is more fun, but let’s not confuse things.
Longer lives mean more years of healthcare use: Healthier people live longer, and healthcare costs rise sharply with age (especially after 65–70, due to chronic conditions, frailty, and end-of-life care). Studies show that lifetime healthcare expenditures for healthy individuals who reach old age are similar to (or sometimes higher than) those for less healthy people who die earlier. The “compression of morbidity” (staying healthy until near the end) doesn’t fully offset extended lifespans
…so let’s look at this from a purely economical point of views. Statistically speaking, eating less sugar should improve health and longevity. This should result in SNAP recipients to be recipients for longer ($$$). Also, this increased longevity should result in higher overall health cost over the lifespan of the individuals ($$$). So overall, this new policy should increase overall costs to the US taxpayers.
BTW: To be clear, my personal belief is that I really want people to eat less sugar. Don’t get confused with the facts stated above.
The average American pays roughly $36 a year towards SNAP benefits. That's .10 cents a day.
Meanwhile, the average American pays around $6000 a year in corporate subsidies...tax breaks for big businesses.
The older I get, the more I see that charity goes to the wrong people!
That being said, SNAP restriction are a day late and a dollar short. These restrictions should have started back in the 1970s! Now multiple generations have ultra-processed food addiction. And the food corporations target the poor, btw.
Purpose of Review Detail recent advancements in the science on ultra-processed food (UPF) addiction, focusing on estimated prevalence rates and emerging health disparities; progress towards identifying biological underpinning...
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.
I will say that it could be more nuanced than this. Food deserts may not be something most people on this site have ever lived in, but if the only thing nearby is a gas station or you don’t have a car to get somewhere etc and you can get the most amount of calories through these ultra processed things then it’s going to he more appealing of an option. Things are hard and it’s not always ‘laziness’ that is the only reason for poor ppl in American making bad health choices
Getting a salad or a rotisserie chicken all the time is not an option for most . I’m not saying they should buy candy and soda and I haven’t looked at the entire list, so I don’t know everything about this. But it’s just a blatant lie to say “they can have all the fruits veggies grains proteins they want
“SNAP-eligible households are disproportionately likely to live in food deserts, areas with limited healthy food access, with studies finding high percentages (e.g., nearly 93% of SNAP-eligible urban households) in areas with poor grocery delivery, and SNAP recipients often travel farther for food due to limited local options, highlighting that while SNAP helps, food deserts remain a major challenge.”
me personally I think it’s a good change but they need to pledge some more support towards helping with food deserts and food education at the same time
